Obama paid $400 million ransom to Iran

RaceBannon said:

OZONE said:

HoustonHusky said:

TheGlove said:

Diplomacy, foreign relations. I'm sure Trumpf would have cut a much better deal using hid flawless business acumen.

What, again, does Trump have to do with the current President paying a bribe to a state sponsor of terrorism to release US hostages (and hiding this from the American people)?

I like to live in a country that has been sponsoring terror since at least 1910, and then act like an ignorant hypocrite about states that sponsor terror, while also belonging to a party whose biggest hero in the last 50 years did the exact same thing.

I like it when crazy @OZONE drops the mask

For better or worse, I had very honest history teachers in high school (Inglemoor). They pissed off a lot of right wing parents, but it was a great high school education.

Iranian press reports have quoted senior Iranian defense officials describing the cash as a ransom payment. The Iranian foreign ministry didn’t respond to a request for comment.

The $400 million was paid in foreign currency because any transaction with Iran in U.S. dollars is illegal under U.S. law. Sanctions also complicate Tehran’s access to global banks.

http://www.wsj.com/articles/u-s-sent-cash-to-iran-as-americans-were-freed-1470181874

HoustonHusky said:

BearsWiin said:

HoustonHusky said:

OZONE said:

Read up on Iran Contra. Reagan gave them arms. Which was a bribe. To get hostages from Lebanon.

He admitted it. After he tried to keep it a secret but was caught.

The October surprise was an entirely different incident.

No, that administration didn't. They sold them arms. Still bad (and a whole separate foreign policy discussion...just ask Hillary and her involvement with folks like Pinchuk and Ericcson AB and now Lefarge who was working with ISIS), but that is still a BIG, BIG difference from sending pallets of unmarked currency over for hostages.

Not only bad, but illegal. When Carter tried to deal spare parts for Embassy hostages in 1980, it was legal. By the time Reagan's people did it, Congress had passed legislation making it illegal.

I see nothing illegal in the WSJ report

What law again was passed by Congress authorizing tax dollars being cashed out and sent to Iran in exchange for hostages? For all the Liberals worried about what Trump would do to harm the Constitution and separation of Powers they somehow get amnesia over what is actually happening.

I thought this wasn't about Trumpf?

Oh, and your reading skills suck.

BearsWiin said:

HoustonHusky said:

BearsWiin said:

HoustonHusky said:

OZONE said:

Read up on Iran Contra. Reagan gave them arms. Which was a bribe. To get hostages from Lebanon.

He admitted it. After he tried to keep it a secret but was caught.

The October surprise was an entirely different incident.

No, that administration didn't. They sold them arms. Still bad (and a whole separate foreign policy discussion...just ask Hillary and her involvement with folks like Pinchuk and Ericcson AB and now Lefarge who was working with ISIS), but that is still a BIG, BIG difference from sending pallets of unmarked currency over for hostages.

Not only bad, but illegal. When Carter tried to deal spare parts for Embassy hostages in 1980, it was legal. By the time Reagan's people did it, Congress had passed legislation making it illegal.

I see nothing illegal in the WSJ report

What law again was passed by Congress authorizing tax dollars being cashed out and sent to Iran in exchange for hostages? For all the Liberals worried about what Trump would do to harm the Constitution and separation of Powers they somehow get amnesia over what is actually happening.

If you actually read the WSJ article, you might have understood that we*'d frozen assets in 1979 and had taken the Shah's money without actually fulfilling the terms of the arms sale because it would have meant giving those arms to the Revolutionary Government. We* expected to lose the arbitration in The Hague, so we made a deal. Not our* money to begin with.

Look, if you don't like how he conducts foreign policy, don't vote for him the next time around.

But, but, but HOSTAGES!!!!!11!!!!ONE!!!

@HoustonHuskyFS has been outed as a complete retard in this thread. Is it Friday yet?

2001400ex said:

RaceBannon said:

News will be out that Hillary was running guns out of Benghazi which is why Stevens was still there

Gun running was the cool thing to do when Bush was president. Now you hate gun running.

Odd the whole Benghazi mess was about gun running and ISIS. Odd you didn't object.

2001400ex said:

Sledog said:

2001400ex said:

RaceBannon said:

News will be out that Hillary was running guns out of Benghazi which is why Stevens was still there

Gun running was the cool thing to do when Bush was president. Now you hate gun running.

Odd the whole Benghazi mess was about gun running and ISIS. Odd you didn't object.

Odd I didn't throw a fit when Bush did it either.

Which Al Queda people were we giving guns to? Seems we were just using the guns to kill them under Bush and Obama gives them guns to kill us.

HoustonHusky said:

BearsWiin said:

HoustonHusky said:

BearsWiin said:

HoustonHusky said:

OZONE said:

Read up on Iran Contra. Reagan gave them arms. Which was a bribe. To get hostages from Lebanon.

He admitted it. After he tried to keep it a secret but was caught.

The October surprise was an entirely different incident.

No, that administration didn't. They sold them arms. Still bad (and a whole separate foreign policy discussion...just ask Hillary and her involvement with folks like Pinchuk and Ericcson AB and now Lefarge who was working with ISIS), but that is still a BIG, BIG difference from sending pallets of unmarked currency over for hostages.

Not only bad, but illegal. When Carter tried to deal spare parts for Embassy hostages in 1980, it was legal. By the time Reagan's people did it, Congress had passed legislation making it illegal.

I see nothing illegal in the WSJ report

What law again was passed by Congress authorizing tax dollars being cashed out and sent to Iran in exchange for hostages? For all the Liberals worried about what Trump would do to harm the Constitution and separation of Powers they somehow get amnesia over what is actually happening.

If you actually read the WSJ article, you might have understood that we*'d frozen assets in 1979 and had taken the Shah's money without actually fulfilling the terms of the arms sale because it would have meant giving those arms to the Revolutionary Government. We* expected to lose the arbitration in The Hague, so we made a deal. Not our* money to begin with.

Look, if you don't like how he conducts foreign policy, don't vote for him the next time around.

I did, and your comments are not applicable to anything really. Did the cash come from the frozen assets (which were still frozen before the deal was agreed upon, and should still be frozen)?

In case you are curious the answer is no...

I was curious, so I checked:



Secretary Kerry: January 2016 » Hague Claims Tribunal Settlement
Hague Claims Tribunal Settlement

Press Statement
John Kerry
Secretary of State
Washington, DC
January 17, 2016

Share

The United States and Iran today have settled a long outstanding claim at the Iran-U.S. Claims Tribunal in the Hague.

This specific claim was in the amount of a $400 million Trust Fund used by Iran to purchase military equipment from the United States prior to the break in diplomatic ties. In 1981, with the reaching of the Algiers Accords and the creation of the Iran-U.S. Claims Tribunal, Iran filed a claim for these funds, tying them up in litigation at the Tribunal.

This is the latest of a series of important settlements reached over the past 35 years at the Hague Tribunal. In constructive bilateral discussions, we arrived at a fair settlement to this claim, which due to litigation risk, remains in the best interests of the United States.

Iran will receive the balance of $400 million in the Trust Fund, as well as a roughly $1.3 billion compromise on the interest. Iran’s recovery was fixed at a reasonable rate of interest and therefore Iran is unable to pursue a bigger Tribunal award against us, preventing U.S. taxpayers from being obligated to a larger amount of money.

All of the approximately 4,700 private U.S. claims filed against the Government of Iran at the Tribunal were resolved during the first 20 years of the Tribunal, resulting in payments of more than $2.5 billion in awards to U.S. nationals and companies through that process.

There are still outstanding Tribunal claims, mostly by Iran against the U.S. We will continue efforts to address these claims appropriately.

TierbsHsotBoobs said:

BearsWiin said:

TierbsHsotBoobs said:

BearsWiin said:

HoustonHusky said:

BearsWiin said:

HoustonHusky said:

BearsWiin said:

HoustonHusky said:

OZONE said:

Read up on Iran Contra. Reagan gave them arms. Which was a bribe. To get hostages from Lebanon.

He admitted it. After he tried to keep it a secret but was caught.

The October surprise was an entirely different incident.

No, that administration didn't. They sold them arms. Still bad (and a whole separate foreign policy discussion...just ask Hillary and her involvement with folks like Pinchuk and Ericcson AB and now Lefarge who was working with ISIS), but that is still a BIG, BIG difference from sending pallets of unmarked currency over for hostages.

Not only bad, but illegal. When Carter tried to deal spare parts for Embassy hostages in 1980, it was legal. By the time Reagan's people did it, Congress had passed legislation making it illegal.

I see nothing illegal in the WSJ report

What law again was passed by Congress authorizing tax dollars being cashed out and sent to Iran in exchange for hostages? For all the Liberals worried about what Trump would do to harm the Constitution and separation of Powers they somehow get amnesia over what is actually happening.

If you actually read the WSJ article, you might have understood that we*'d frozen assets in 1979 and had taken the Shah's money without actually fulfilling the terms of the arms sale because it would have meant giving those arms to the Revolutionary Government. We* expected to lose the arbitration in The Hague, so we made a deal. Not our* money to begin with.

Look, if you don't like how he conducts foreign policy, don't vote for him the next time around.

I did, and your comments are not applicable to anything really. Did the cash come from the frozen assets (which were still frozen before the deal was agreed upon, and should still be frozen)?

In case you are curious the answer is no...

I was curious, so I checked:



Secretary Kerry: January 2016 » Hague Claims Tribunal Settlement
Hague Claims Tribunal Settlement

Press Statement
John Kerry
Secretary of State
Washington, DC
January 17, 2016

Share

The United States and Iran today have settled a long outstanding claim at the Iran-U.S. Claims Tribunal in the Hague.

This specific claim was in the amount of a $400 million Trust Fund used by Iran to purchase military equipment from the United States prior to the break in diplomatic ties. In 1981, with the reaching of the Algiers Accords and the creation of the Iran-U.S. Claims Tribunal, Iran filed a claim for these funds, tying them up in litigation at the Tribunal.

This is the latest of a series of important settlements reached over the past 35 years at the Hague Tribunal. In constructive bilateral discussions, we arrived at a fair settlement to this claim, which due to litigation risk, remains in the best interests of the United States.

Iran will receive the balance of $400 million in the Trust Fund, as well as a roughly $1.3 billion compromise on the interest. Iran’s recovery was fixed at a reasonable rate of interest and therefore Iran is unable to pursue a bigger Tribunal award against us, preventing U.S. taxpayers from being obligated to a larger amount of money.

All of the approximately 4,700 private U.S. claims filed against the Government of Iran at the Tribunal were resolved during the first 20 years of the Tribunal, resulting in payments of more than $2.5 billion in awards to U.S. nationals and companies through that process.

There are still outstanding Tribunal claims, mostly by Iran against the U.S. We will continue efforts to address these claims appropriately.

A Lannister always pays his debts.

The Obama administration should have been transparent about this

The press release shown above is dated January 17. The Obama Administration was transparent. What are they supposed to do, interrupt your Dr. Phil for an Important Diplomatic Announcement? Blame the Fair and Balanced media for not picking up on it at the time.

Also, it's pretty clear that separate teams of negotiators dealt with this issue and the prisoner swap.

Disagree.

"State Department spokesman Mark Toner said Wednesday that three separate teams of negotiators were assembled to conduct talks with Iran on the nuclear deal, the prisoner swap and the financial settlement. That move to silo the teams allowed the administration to argue that the deals were not linked and that the $1.7 billion saved taxpayers’ money because the United States most likely would have paid more if the matter had gone to arbitration."

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/was-the-400-million-in-cash-paid-after-the-iran-prisoner-deal-really-ransom/2016/08/03/569f855e-59a8-11e6-9aee-8075993d73a2_story.html

TierbsHsotBoobs said:

BearsWiin said:

TierbsHsotBoobs said:

BearsWiin said:

TierbsHsotBoobs said:

BearsWiin said:

HoustonHusky said:

BearsWiin said:

HoustonHusky said:

BearsWiin said:

HoustonHusky said:

OZONE said:

Read up on Iran Contra. Reagan gave them arms. Which was a bribe. To get hostages from Lebanon.

He admitted it. After he tried to keep it a secret but was caught.

The October surprise was an entirely different incident.

No, that administration didn't. They sold them arms. Still bad (and a whole separate foreign policy discussion...just ask Hillary and her involvement with folks like Pinchuk and Ericcson AB and now Lefarge who was working with ISIS), but that is still a BIG, BIG difference from sending pallets of unmarked currency over for hostages.

Not only bad, but illegal. When Carter tried to deal spare parts for Embassy hostages in 1980, it was legal. By the time Reagan's people did it, Congress had passed legislation making it illegal.

I see nothing illegal in the WSJ report

What law again was passed by Congress authorizing tax dollars being cashed out and sent to Iran in exchange for hostages? For all the Liberals worried about what Trump would do to harm the Constitution and separation of Powers they somehow get amnesia over what is actually happening.

If you actually read the WSJ article, you might have understood that we*'d frozen assets in 1979 and had taken the Shah's money without actually fulfilling the terms of the arms sale because it would have meant giving those arms to the Revolutionary Government. We* expected to lose the arbitration in The Hague, so we made a deal. Not our* money to begin with.

Look, if you don't like how he conducts foreign policy, don't vote for him the next time around.

I did, and your comments are not applicable to anything really. Did the cash come from the frozen assets (which were still frozen before the deal was agreed upon, and should still be frozen)?

In case you are curious the answer is no...

I was curious, so I checked:



Secretary Kerry: January 2016 » Hague Claims Tribunal Settlement
Hague Claims Tribunal Settlement

Press Statement
John Kerry
Secretary of State
Washington, DC
January 17, 2016

Share

The United States and Iran today have settled a long outstanding claim at the Iran-U.S. Claims Tribunal in the Hague.

This specific claim was in the amount of a $400 million Trust Fund used by Iran to purchase military equipment from the United States prior to the break in diplomatic ties. In 1981, with the reaching of the Algiers Accords and the creation of the Iran-U.S. Claims Tribunal, Iran filed a claim for these funds, tying them up in litigation at the Tribunal.

This is the latest of a series of important settlements reached over the past 35 years at the Hague Tribunal. In constructive bilateral discussions, we arrived at a fair settlement to this claim, which due to litigation risk, remains in the best interests of the United States.

Iran will receive the balance of $400 million in the Trust Fund, as well as a roughly $1.3 billion compromise on the interest. Iran’s recovery was fixed at a reasonable rate of interest and therefore Iran is unable to pursue a bigger Tribunal award against us, preventing U.S. taxpayers from being obligated to a larger amount of money.

All of the approximately 4,700 private U.S. claims filed against the Government of Iran at the Tribunal were resolved during the first 20 years of the Tribunal, resulting in payments of more than $2.5 billion in awards to U.S. nationals and companies through that process.

There are still outstanding Tribunal claims, mostly by Iran against the U.S. We will continue efforts to address these claims appropriately.

A Lannister always pays his debts.

The Obama administration should have been transparent about this

The press release shown above is dated January 17. The Obama Administration was transparent. What are they supposed to do, interrupt your Dr. Phil for an Important Diplomatic Announcement? Blame the Fair and Balanced media for not picking up on it at the time.

Also, it's pretty clear that separate teams of negotiators dealt with this issue and the prisoner swap.

Disagree.

"State Department spokesman Mark Toner said Wednesday that three separate teams of negotiators were assembled to conduct talks with Iran on the nuclear deal, the prisoner swap and the financial settlement. That move to silo the teams allowed the administration to argue that the deals were not linked and that the $1.7 billion saved taxpayers’ money because the United States most likely would have paid more if the matter had gone to arbitration."

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/was-the-400-million-in-cash-paid-after-the-iran-prisoner-deal-really-ransom/2016/08/03/569f855e-59a8-11e6-9aee-8075993d73a2_story.html

Oh. Who was supervising those three teams?