Should the Dems bypass the State Department and talk to Iran?

[krispos42]

Bush won't talk to Iran, and therefore no department under his jurisdiction will either.

The stakes are super-high here. Iran is a sovereign nation. The only way to stop a sovereign nation from doing what it wants is through diplomacy, assassination and/or blackmail, supporting rebel, opposition, or insurgent factions, economic sanctions, or overt or covert military action on a large or small scale.

I doubt out ability to successfully to anything on the list that would be effective except for diplomacy. But the people doing the diplomacy have to believe in it from the top to the bottom. We could send over diplomats that meet the criteria, but nobody believes that the upper echelons of the Bush Administration would want it or support it. We could pull out overt or covert military action easily, but that would be like dumping gasoline on a road flare.

What if leading Democrats simply starting holding talks with the Iranian UN ambassador or began holding informal meetings with Ahmadinejad in DC? Maybe a weeks worth of discussions.

Pelosi, Reid, either or both of the Clintons, Feingold, Feinstein, Dodd, Keith Ellison (our shiny new token Muslim), Obama, Boxer, Kerry, Murtha, Kucinich, Biden, or other prominent Democrats could have a news conference every night for a week detailing the discussions between the Democratic lawmakers and the Iranian representatives.

I think there is a good chance that the Iranian government would be so happy to see Bush being deflated even more, as well as finally being able to talk to somebody that is not a Christian Rapture Apocalypse religious not, that progress might actually be made.

I would appreciate a discussion on this, and if we DUers can hammer out details, maybe our lawmakers or other news outlets will pick up on the idea.

[Ninja Jordan]

1. Not really Congress's role, Constitutionally.

[ellisonz]

4. Seconded.

Just 2 more years barring impeachment. Besides, my educated impression is that Iran isn't as close as they're trying to get us believe.

:nuke:

[krispos42]

6. If it was hammering out a treaty, then you're right

But just talking? Getting viewpoints, discussing grievences, that kind of stuff? Seems to me that that would be okay. It would be a sort of public-relations campaign to counter the constant right-wing bluster and deliberate BushCo inertia.

[Ninja Jordan]

8. It would backfire in my opinion

It isn't uncommon for members of Congress to 'go on tours' internationally; in fact, many are doing so currently, i.e., Bill Nelson in Syria etc. Congress cannot make policy in this regard, however. THe body is a purse controlling-institution for the most part.

[sofa king]

32. I'm not so sure of that.

Tucked away in the early history of the United States, the Senate asserted and practiced--and presumably still can practice--some sort of executive authority relating to confirmations of nominees and consenting to treaties. Responsibility for that business was considered to be shared with the President and the proceedings themselves were held in secret. The journal in which the proceedings were recorded was also kept secret until the 1820s.

http://memory.loc.gov/ammem/amlaw/lwej.html

I wonder if the Senate could create an executive body designed to explore relations with Iran, in preparation for a future treaty (which would have to be advanced by the President at some point in order for it to be formally approved)?

The Senate has this to say:

"Another vexing issue that has surfaced many times is whether senators should be involved in the actual negotiation of treaties. During the War of 1812, Delaware Senator James Bayard was a member of the delegation to negotiate the Treaty of Ghent. His presence raised the question of whether having senators on the negotiating team would make the Senate more favorably inclined to approve the treaty, or whether it would violate the separation of powers. That debate has gone on for many generations without being resolved."

http://www.senate.gov/artandhistory/history/common/briefing/Treaties.htm

Obviously, it's an open question at best, but in this era when our current President can veto a bill by passing it into law with a bullshit "signing statement" at the beginning that has less legal weight than an Attorney General's opinion, the answer might be, "well, why the hell not?"

[babylonsister]

2. Yes, diplomacy is crucial but this admin seems unwilling:

Senator Kerry urges dialogue with Iran, Syria
Thu Dec 14, 2006 12:26pm ET28

CAIRO (Reuters) - U.S. Senator John Kerry, the Democratic candidate for the presidency in 2004, said on Thursday the U.S. administration should talk to Syria and Iran.

Kerry also told reporters in Cairo he believed U.S. policy in the Middle East was in trouble, partly because the United States had failed to listen to people in the region.

He cited Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak's advice in 2002 that a U.S. invasion of Iraq would lead to disaster. "Frankly, more people should have listened to him," he said after talks with Egyptian Prime Minister Ahmed Nazif.

"It's very important for countries to talk to each other, even when you disagree. We have serious differences with Syria right now, we have serious differencess with Iran, but you can't begin to resolve those differences if you're not willing to try to understand.. I think it's important to begin a discussion," said Kerry, a Massachusetts senator.
more...
http://today.reuters.com/news/articlenews.aspx?type=politicsNews&storyID=2006-12-14T172450Z_01_L14254138_RTRUKOC_0_US-EGYPT-KERRY.xml&WTmodLoc=PolNewsHome_C1_%5BFeed%5D-9

[jody]

3. That would be controversial because our constitution says, "He shall have Power, by and with the

Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur".

I believe constitutional scholars would say only a president has constitutional authority to negotiate with foreign governments.

[phusion]

5. No one seems to be criticizing Gov. Bill Richardson

for talking directly with the Sudanese government.

I personally think the OP is on to something and that it would be a great example of diplomacy.

[krispos42]

7. And states are explicitely prohibited from entering foreign treaties

Article 1, Section 10, United States Constitution:

No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation; grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal; coin Money; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts; pass any Bill of Attainder, ex post facto Law, or Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts, or grant any Title of Nobility.

No State shall, without the Consent of the Congress, lay any Imposts or Duties on Imports or Exports, except what may be absolutely necessary for executing its inspection Laws: and the net Produce of all Duties and Imposts, laid by any State on Imports or Exports, shall be for the Use of the Treasury of the United States; and all such Laws shall be subject to the Revision and Controul of the Congress.

No State shall, without the Consent of Congress, lay any duty of Tonnage, keep Troops, or Ships of War in time of Peace, enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State, or with a foreign Power, or engage in War, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article_One_of_the_United_States_Constitution#Section_10:_Limits_on_the_states

[jody]

11. RE: talking -- "when all is said and done, more is said than done." Congress

has no authority to negotiate foreign policy. :shrug:

Can you imagine for a worst-case moment a foreign head of state confronted with 100 senators and 435 congresspersons, each proposing a slightly different foreign policy deal.

On this issue, I side with the authors of our Constitution who gave the president and only the president the authority to negotiate with foreign governments but congress has the final say on whether a particular deal becomes the law of the land.

[krispos42]

19. Ah, but the Senate, in order to give 'advice and consent'...

may have to do a little research on their own!

Besides the pResident is overstepping his Constitutional boundries all over the place

[jody]

20. The senate has a small field on which to play and essentially they must take it leave it. n/t

[pnorman]

9. The Logan Act would be a deterrant to really meaningful discussions.

>
>
Text of the law

§ 953. Private correspondence with foreign governments.

Any citizen of the United States, wherever he may be, who, without authority of the United States, directly or indirectly commences or carries on any correspondence or intercourse with any foreign government or any officer or agent thereof, with intent to influence the measures or conduct of any foreign government or of any officer or agent thereof, in relation to any disputes or controversies with the United States, or to defeat the measures of the United States, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both.

This section shall not abridge the right of a citizen to apply himself, or his agent, to any foreign government, or the agents thereof, for redress of any injury which he may have sustained from such government or any of its agents or subjects.

18 U.S.C. § 953 (2004).
>
>

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logan_Act

pnorman

[krispos42]

10. Hmmm... couldn't Congress give themselves the authority?

Or doesn't congress have the inheirent authority? Perhaps as a fact-finding mission? Or giving 'testimony' in Congress?

[Ninja Jordan]

15. Perhaps by passing legislation overriding the Logan Act (which the President has to sign)

Unless Congress had such an overwhelming majority that they could override a veto.

[jody]

17. 34 senators or 146 congresspersons could sustain a veto. n/t

[pnorman]

25. I would hope that something could be (carefully) worked out in that manner.

That Logan Act was one of President Adams's more hysterical moments. It was at the same time and "state of mind" that produced the Alien & Sedition Acts. This was what Thomas Jefferson (VP in the Adams administration) had in mind when he wrote: "A little patience, and we shall see the reign of witches pass over, their spells dissolve, and the people, recovering their true sight, restore their government to it's true principles. It is true that in the mean time we are suffering deeply in spirit, and incurring the horrors of a war & long oppressions of enormous public debt."

I mentioned that Logan Act, mainly to point out what sort of accusations would be hurled at them. They, no doubt, would be quite familiar with the laws, and would act appropriately.

I believe that, by now, the main points in that October Surprise, are pretty well established. THAT would not only be a blatant violation of the Logan Act, but would border on TREASON! But they seem to have gotten away with it! Now fancy that!

pnorman

[Peace Patriot]

12. YE-E-E-E-SSS! In fact, Congress should move its sessions TO Iran, and

do their speeches and pass their bills there at ground zero. I recommended this to the Pope (I actually wrote him a letter) just before "Shock and Awe." (I suggested he go with several world religious leaders, and stop the bombs.) Sound crazy? Why not? Why doesn't somebody stop this cold? And who else but the members of that derelict institution, Congress, that got us into this shit, and that is permitting the Bush Junta to shred our Constitution? Would he nuke them? Would Israel? Maybe they would. But if they are patriots--I mean, really, really patriots--that is what they would do. Say, "NO!" in a really big and dramatic way.

And they might want to talk to the Iranians while they're there.

Jesus, have we not had enough of this insanity? Israel's going to nuke 'em, with US fleet backing. That's what it looks like. We are going to nuclear war--with madmen at the helm. And, if you've read Carl Sagan's "The Cold and the Dark," you know that this could be the final blow to earth's atmosphere. We could all be dead, along with all life on earth, in 2 or 3 years, when the food runs out.

[jody]

13. If Israel nukes Iran, IMO the Middle East problem won't be resolved for centuries. n/t

[krispos42]

14. Millenia

It will take that long for the radioactivity to fade.

[jody]

16. You're probably closer to the truth than I. n/t

[fuzzyball]

22. Are'nt Hiroshima & Nagasaki already populated in less than 60 years?

I am not sure if people are now living there.

[krispos42]

27. Yeah, they are. I know somebody who went there for business.

We did not use 'dirty' nuclear weapons there, and the detonations were above ground. That all helps reduce the creation of radioactive isotopes and limits the throwing of contamination all over the place.

If the Israelis or Bush start doing surface strikes with nukes, tons of radioactive debris will be thrown high into the atmosphere to be spread by jet streams across the world. And the much closer proximity of the detonation to the ground will form a lot more radioactive isotopes.

And if they were dirty weapons, weapons deliberately designed to produce long-lasting radioactive isotopes, we are talking half-lifes measured in five digits.

[fuzzyball]

33. The Israeli nuke attack will NOT be above ground

The article says they will first drop bunker buster
bombs to create deep holes followed by tactical nukes which
have 1/10 the radio-active yield of bombs used in Japan.

[krispos42]

36. Unless it's dropped in a mine shaft, it is effectively above ground

In fact, a shallow ground burst may be worse, as you'll get even more radioactive debris throw in the air.

The sudden blast of nuclear particles is what creates all of those wonderful radioactive isotopes of ordinary, everyday compounds like steel and aluminum and nickle and colbalt and sodium and potassium and silicon and most of the other metals.

And tons and tons of dirt and rock in extremely close proximity to a storm of radioactive particles, and you get a lot of suddely radioactive particles.

Shallow explosions make craters. Craters act like parabolic reflectors, directing the blast of dirt and debris largely upward for several miles, right up there into the stratosphere and the jet stream.

Little Boy and Fat Man were both airbursts at about a thousand feet in the air. The airbust did not make much of a crater at all, but it allowed more widespread damage to the 'soft' target that is a city. Because the nuclear pulse was hundreds of yards from the ground and comparatively little debris was ejected into the atmosphere, there was not much fallout in the atmosphere or on the ground. The atmosphere absorbs neutrons rather quickly in addition to simply reducing the concentration of the neutron pulse by distance, so not very much of the nearby matter was turned radioactive.

Finally, whatever radioactive debris were launched into the atmosphere had seven thousand miles of empty ocean to fall on before it began making landfall. These attacks will put the plume of radioactive debris over Pakistan and India, totalling well over a billion people.

You are travelling down the same path as the Bush Administration. Using nukes is not automatically abhorrent. It's starting to be discussed as "well, a little nuking isn't too bad...". Just like the 'interrogations' in Gitmo. "Well, it's only a little water..."

[fuzzyball]

37. All correct except for 1 thing...I AM worried about Iran nukes not Israeli

nukes. One is a mullahcracy another is a democracy.
Similarly I am not concerned about Indian nukes because
India is the world's largest democracy and stable for 60+ years.
But I am worried about Pakistani nukes since the dictatorship
in Pakistan is one bullet away from mullahcracy.

[krispos42]

18. Too much doom and gloom

It would be an exchange of a relative handful of nuclear weapons. Terrible and devestating, but not Earth-destroying. Iran could not use any because they don't have any, and Israel can't have more than a dozen or so.

[ellisonz]

23. Actually...

"According to the Natural Resources Defense Council and the Federation of American Scientists, Israel possesses around 75-200 weapons.<18>"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_with_nuclear_weapons#Other_known_nuclear_powers

[krispos42]

26. Wow...

Some of that has to include things like nuclear artillery shells or something. That's nearly as many as the UK has!

Where the hell did they get all of the fissionable materiel from?

[ellisonz]

29. Well...

This is pure speculation and I don't have a link, but the Mossad likely acquired fissionable material in various countries in Africa, likely w/South African cooperation.

They also have had French built reactors:



"Israel produces uranium domestically as a by-product of phosphate mining near the Dead Sea but this amounts to only 10 tons a year, and is grossly insufficient for its needs. Israel has addressed this shortfall by reprocessing the low burnup spent fuel to recover uranium (which most nations do not do). It is also known to have purchased at least 200 tons of natural uranium on the world market under an alias. A major source though was some 600 tons of uranium provided by South Africa in a quid pro quo for Israel's assistance on its weapons program. Combined with uranium recycling, and the possible use of enrichment to stretch the uranium supply, these quantities may be sufficient to account for Dimona's fuel supply to the present date (1997)."

http://nuclearweaponarchive.org/Israel/index.html

edit: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negev_Nuclear_Research_Center

[krispos42]

30. "under an alias"?

How the hell did they pull that off?

"Hi, I'm John, uh, Smith, and I'd like to buy some uranium. Got any Acme brand? I've gotten pretty good results with Acme's 'PowerSplit' line. No, not there, in the blue box next to the licorice bites."

:banghead:

[ellisonz]

31. The Mossad is very good at what they do.

Even more worrisome is the "loose nukes" in Russia and the former USSR. The most likely :nuke: of the future. Israel-Iran is just fearmongering.

[Name removed]

21. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[beaconess]

24. You may think this sounds like a good idea because you're thinking of Members

you like doing the talking.

But such a precedent would not be limited to the Senators and House Members we agree with. Do you really want the likes of Joe Lieberman, Trent Lott, Sam Brownback, Dan Burton, and Charlie Norwood running around trying to negotiate with foreign governments?

The Founding Fathers had it right - and we don't upend all of our processes just because we don't like the guy with the power. That's the beauty of our system - Bush won't be president forever. And we certainly don't want to set a precedent for future presidents to be undercut and undermined by renegade legislators.

[krispos42]

28. Even a bipartisan interview would be Dem led

But sho ways it has to be bipartisan?

We're trying to keep Iran from being worried enough to develop nukes, and we're trying to get them on our side to make a stable Iraq. These are big stakes, and something needs to be done before a lot of people die.

[fuzzyball]

38. First rational post from you...keep them coming

[Auntie Bush]

34. I gotta go...so a quick and simple answer is TALK.! If congress or someone talks

and starts making progress...the administration will either be forced to talk or start bombing immediately....just like they did in Iraq. As soon as they found out Saddam was willing to take...he was taken out then executed before he could rat on the bush* administration.

[sampsonblk]

35. No. There is a reason why this is never done

It doesn't work. If we want this sort of thing to become the norm, then go right ahead. But I tell ya, its a bad bad bad idea to start down this road.

I have a better idea: oppose f*cked up nominees when they come up for a vote.

[Bryan]

39. I agree with this

The Congressional Dems won't have the power to cut deals or make treaties, a fact which Iran will no doubt be aware of.

Knowing that, Iran could take any number of tacks that might not help the situation: they could reject the Dems out of hand and get credit at home for keeping to a hard line, they could play the Dems off against the State Department and the White House (which would mostly just piss Team Bush off and might cause them to dig in their heels and maybe even escalate hostilities to counter), they could welcome the Dems with one hand and trumpet the apparent split in American opinion with the other (do we really want other countries to see the Dems in Congress as a sort of separate power bloc that's trying to punch above its weight?).

I don't see anything wrong with Congressional Dems meeting with foreign leaders and maybe making a nice photo-op out of it (Sen. Kerry does this with considerable deftness), but trying to engage Iran on a level other than that might leave us open to a Pandora's box of unpleasant possibilities.

[Normvan]

40. We have used former presidents in the past...

Why not send jimmy and bill ?

[Hippo_Tron]

41. We might as well impeach and remove Bush and Cheney in that case

You only do this if you want to undermine the administration and in that case you might as well remove them.

[paulk]

42. no Democrat in their right mind will want to be seen talking

to a whackjob like Ahmadinejad. That would be political suicide.

If they could find someone else to talk to - someone who leads a moderate Iranian faction, it might not hurt - but, it would be little more than a photo op. I don't see it happening, myself.

Foreign policy is the bailiwick of the executive branch.