By interfering in American negotiations with Iran, did 47 senators commit treason?
Recently, a Republican senator (Tom Cotton) wrote a letter that had the goal of sabatoging negotiations in Iran, headed by the Obama administration. 46 other Republican senators signed the letter, giving ti their full support.
Some argue that this takes the struggle between Democrats and Republicans too far, as it should remain an internal struggle. Others go further, claiming that by interfearing with foreign affairs in this way, these 47 senators have committed treason. What do you think?
Yes
Side Score: 5
|
 |
No
Side Score: 9
|
|
|
|
|
No arguments found. Add one!
|
2
points
I do not think that what they have done was treason, but I think it was a callous, hyper partisan, down right idiotic attempt to take internal politics to the global stage in a blatant attempt to sabotage diplomacy. Heck, Democrats who didn't seem overly thrilled about our military campaign in Iraq were accused of treason in the public sphere (Not officially), and they didn't even take their issue to the international stage! What these Republicans did is, in my opinion, unacceptable, and it should be decried by anyone who believes in living in a country that can maintain legitimate diplomacy with foreign states, devoid of internal partisan politics derailing it. Oh, and side note: Tehran is not stupid. They recognize that we have differing Administrations once ever 4 or 8 years, and that parties change power. They know the repercussions. For these Republicans to claim that they were essentially just "informing" them of this, they are just coming up with the most flimsy of excuses to attempt to justify their petulant behavior. Side: No
I feel that the 47 senators have the prudence to recognise the extreme danger of agreeing to any form of Iranian nuclear capability. Other states in the region will, understandably, perceive this development as a potential threat and begin their own nuclear development programme, thus perpetuating the proliferation of nuclear power along it's inevitable progression to nuclear weapons and nuclear waste. Then there is the Israeli reaction to take into account. Israel is not going to sit idly by and watch a country which has sworn to annihilate it's existence develop such a weapon of mass destruction. President Obama's policy of political expediency on this issue is going to lead to a significantly more serious scenario in the not to distant future. Side: No
No. It was Obama who took the lead in screwing up, by negotiating a very important agreement, completely without the involvement of Congress. Why? Because Obama is willing to do anything to get a deal with Iran. He has written letters to the leaders of Iran in the past, using backdoor diplomacy to cajole Iran with his imagined powers of persuasion. His offer has already convinced our allies in the region that Obama has relented on his threat to prevent them from getting the bomb. Obama's inept handling of this issue has already started a nuclear arms race in the region. The senators are letting Iran and our allies know that Obama's deal will not stick. IMO this will not end well. Side: No
2
points
"No. It was Obama who took the lead in screwing up, by negotiating a very important agreement, completely without the involvement of Congress. Why? " Diplomacy has occurred without Congressional participation countless times in U.S. history. "The senators are letting Iran and our allies know that Obama's deal will not stick. IMO this will not end well." As if Tehran didn't already know that. It's a pathetic excuse for them to undermine diplomacy in a way that is going to SEVERELY damage future diplomacy, and lead to a precedent of minority parties actively sabotaging foreign relations with future administrations. Side: Yes
I have explained the situation as being one in which our president is not negotiating in the best interests of either our nation or our allies. This being said, there is unprecedented need to reassure our allies and our enemies that we will not honor an agreement entered into solely by our chief executive and without the vote of Congress. This is a selfish attempt to get another feather for his cap and nothing more. This, from the same president who again last week turned his back to Israel's leader on the same issue. Side: No
|
