The Whitehouse is the one finally admitting it was a cash for prisoner deal.
Ransom
- Thread starter stollcpa
- Start date
It's a part of the Algiers Accords,which in 1981 set up a Tribunal at The Hague to deal with arbitration between the US and Iran.My guess is that the main impetus came from the US,since there were far more claims of US citizens/interests (monetary value) vs Iran than vice versa...
http://www.iusct.net/
Clarification:
The Algiers Accords were not ratified with the consent of 2/3 of the Senate, and therefore doesn't* qualify as a "treaty," per se. However, they were implemented with executive orders under the authority of various statutes passed by Congress, and the Constitutionality of these actions was upheld by SCOTUS in Dames & Moore v. Regan.
* Specifically, it doesn't qualify as an Article II Treaty under U.S. law, but there are other forms of international agreements that are considered valid by the courts. All of these agreements are considered valid "treaties," without distinction between them, under international law. However, all of these types of agreements are considered valid U.S. law unless congress later repeals, repudiates, or otherwise restricts them.
The Algiers Accords were not ratified with the consent of 2/3 of the Senate, and therefore doesn't* qualify as a "treaty," per se. However, they were implemented with executive orders under the authority of various statutes passed by Congress, and the Constitutionality of these actions was upheld by SCOTUS in Dames & Moore v. Regan.
* Specifically, it doesn't qualify as an Article II Treaty under U.S. law, but there are other forms of international agreements that are considered valid by the courts. All of these agreements are considered valid "treaties," without distinction between them, under international law. However, all of these types of agreements are considered valid U.S. law unless congress later repeals, repudiates, or otherwise restricts them.
I watch Fox News
And I know you don't know what you are talking about.
The tribunals were resolving many different kinds of claims. Claims between citizens of each country. Claims between citizens of one country and the other government. And finally claims between the governments. The Iranian payments to US citizens likely represents our citizen investments in Iran which the Mulluhs seized after the revolution. That has zero to do with this payment.
All we know about the $400m and additional "interest" is what the administration said, and Ben Rhodes, Obama's foreign policy PR guy, already admitted that the administration worked the press on the Iranian nuke deal which was easy to do because the press doesn't know anything. Nobody knows if we were about to lose the case. But it is apparent that Obama caved as part of the quod pro quo for the hostage release.
Don't confuse him with facts while he's typing from the Clinton talking points. He's bought the Clinton lies hook, line and sinker and is now covering for them.
The administration admits it was a cash for prisoners swap and yet the usuals still try to argue the vocabulary hocus pocus. An example of blinkered partisanship over reality.
We are not paying until the prisoners are obviously released. Does that sum it up? I may be missing the point if not. RANSOM
It's only ransom if we didn't owe them the money independently. That's part of the general understanding of ransom, which is really a type of extortion. What we did was leverage. It would be more accurate to say we were extorting them, that the people were, strangely, ransom for the money.
You want to criticize our use of the money as leverage to make sure they didn't back out on the prisoner release? Have at it. But if you can't criticize it honestly, you have to ask yourself, is it perhaps because your criticism is unjustified?
It can't be ransom if you have to give them the money anyways. Ransom involves extortion. You can't extort something you're already going to get. Read a f***ing dictionary sometime.
Sunuvabich, you beat me to it
You know, it's starting to sound like if anyone paid a ransom it was Iran. We were holding their money and extorted hostages from them.
That's what I'm saying. Which might be worth criticizing, but when they can't even get the criticism right, it's pretty obvious it's "attack first, think later (if at all)."
If it was Iran's why did President Clinton reallocate it to Americans with judgements against Iran in 2000.
That sentence doesn't make sense, but it sounds like you're talking about the distribution of funds to private Americans by Iran pursuant to rulings against Iran by the tribunal. There were a lot of different claims on both sides.
Well I'd say it was a lot more complex,and that the $400 million was one aspect of negotiations which according to the NYT had been ongoing for 14 mos.We actually were holding more Iranians,and these 2 articles sure make it seem like the NYT knows FAR more about the situation than you do
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/19/world/middleeast/iran-us-sanctions.html?_r=0
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/19/us/politics/us-iranian-swaps-pit-compassion-against-costs.html
"The tribunals were resolving many different kinds of claims. Claims between citizens of each country. Claims between citizens of one country and the other government. And finally claims between the governments. The Iranian payments to US citizens likely represents our citizen investments in Iran which the Mulluhs seized after the revolution. That has zero to do with this payment."
You posted this part right after saying I didn't know what I was talking about.I'm confused about what you were saying,since nothing you posted conflicts in the slightest with what I posted.
I know what the purpose of the Tribunal was,and that the disputed $400 million over the arms deal was the main contention Iran brought to the table.It undoubtedly predated any claims by US interests over investments seized by the mullahs,since the arms deal dated all the way back to the Shah in the 70s...
I said that I felt the US/Reagan Admin was the main impetus for setting up the Tribunal,
due to the large amount of monetary claims by various US citizens.I posted in another thread (on another day) a link talking about how all of the US claims that had gone to arbitration have been settled and the Iranians have paid out billions to US citizens.By comparison, people complaining about returning $400 million of Iran's money to Iran strikes me as petty.
It was probably the same article that discussed that an anti-US decision seemed imminent and that the US felt it could save a large amount of interest (and show some goodwill) by paying it before they were forced to...
Edit
Turns out it was earlier in this same thread...
Litigation over these claims has continued intermittently for 35 years, with some being settled and others going to the tribunal for judgment. All private U.S. claims before the tribunal have been resolved, with Iran paying more than $2.5 billion to American people and businesses. Some claims remain unresolved.
Last edited:
In 2000 didn't President Clinton decide the $400 million being disputed was going to be used to pay Americans with legal judgements against Iran?
So, Iran was "already going to get" the $400 million regardless of whether the hostages were released?
Who cares about the other claim decisions?
That means exactly squat in deciding this case. All we really know is that the Obsma administration admits to being less than candid about the whole Iranian deal. Ben Rhodes said the administration knew the press woul run with their spin. We don't know if we were about to lose the case or not. But we do know that Obama said a few weeks ago that the payment and hostage release on the same day was a coincidence. That was also a lie. There is no reason to believe anything they say.
Opponents of the Iran deal have had their heads up their asses from the get go -- making incendiary fact-free claims, pounding the table, and otherwise being dumbasses. Nothing has changed. They are still reducing a complicated situation to stupid bumper sticker nonsense.
(As everyone knows, any real ransom payment to Iran includes a cake and a Bible.)
(As everyone knows, any real ransom payment to Iran includes a cake and a Bible.)
First the Administration lied to us thinking we were stupid denying the payment had anything to do with the release. Secondly only an idiot would not accept the fact that if you travel overseas you are less safe because the US just might be considered as a Nation that pays a ransom if you are detained. To those of you that think this President is flawless and never ever admit his mistakes I feel sorry for you.
Why feel sorry for an angry old white democrat man that makes it a habit to call people names he disagrees with? My experience is these type of people are a POS.
You're describing the procedure of how the ransom was paid - as in every ransom deal ever seen, leverage is necessary to finish the ransom deal. Your post has no bearing on whether or not it was ransom, just on how it was paid and the people delivered.
Incorrect.
Reporter: “In basic English, you’re saying you wouldn’t give them $400 million in cash until the prisoners were released, correct?”
State Department spokesman John Kirby: "That’s correct.”
Do governments usually pay debts to other countries by flying in piles of cash in easy-to-carry bags in the middle of night? Probably not. Ransom....end of story.
Last edited:
Whether you guys call this ransom or not Iran and and everyone else taking hostages look at it like ransom.
If we ignored The Hague's ruling all these years why did this administration all of a sudden decide to pay it? Just asking.
Seems to me the angry old guy shouting names at others should answer this form. I feel really good about myself.
The transaction is much more like a prisoner swap, but that doesn't work as well for a Drudge headline as "ransom".
Exactly! The release of the hostages were conditional on the money. The Iranians made sure the world saw this as ransom.
I'm glad they are home, but release of the hostages should have been a condition of future negotiations of the Iran nukes negotiations. Do you think Iran would have put their $150 billion and opening of oil contracts at risk over a few hostages? Iran wanted the sanctions lifted. The way the deal works, they can now resume their nuclear program at will.
Last edited:
Similar threads
