PILOT SPIN
Spin Zone => Spin Zone => Topic started by: Lucifer on August 02, 2016, 06:30:53 PM
-
http://www.wsj.com/articles/u-s-sent-cash-to-iran-as-americans-were-freed-1470181874
Aug. 2, 2016 7:51 p.m. ET
WASHINGTON—The Obama administration secretly organized an airlift of $400 million worth of cash to Iran that coincided with the January release of four Americans detained in Tehran, according to U.S. and European officials and congressional staff briefed on the operation afterward.
Wooden pallets stacked with euros, Swiss francs and other currencies were flown into Iran on an unmarked cargo plane, according to these officials. The U.S. procured the money from the central banks of the Netherlands and Switzerland, they said.
The money represented the first installment of a $1.7 billion settlement the Obama administration reached with Iran to resolve a decades-old dispute over a failed arms deal signed just before the 1979 fall of Iran’s last monarch, Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi.
-
This shit really is just unbelievable.
-
Unreal.
Funny, the hotel where the "deal" was made was my home away from home when I was frequently going to Geneva on business. Nice digs.
-
What's the big deal?? He can always print more money. It's pretty cheap to make.
-
Thinking about this overnight, I have this to say. Our government, secretly, gave $400 million dollars to a state sponsor of terror and that money ls likely to be used to fund ISIS groups we are fighting against. How does that make any sense?
-
Thinking about this overnight, I have this to say. Our government, secretly, gave $400 million dollars to a state sponsor of terror and that money ls likely to be used to fund ISIS groups we are fighting against. How does that make any sense?
The Obama Administration is importing Syrian, and other potential terrorists, and also allowing them to come through the southern border. They are purposely putting us at more risk to terrorism. I don't know why, but they are.
-
Thinking about this overnight, I have this to say. Our government, secretly, gave $400 million dollars to a state sponsor of terror and that money ls likely to be used to fund ISIS groups we are fighting against. How does that make any sense?
It doesn't.
Just another example of the worst presidential administration in modern history. And Hillary Clinton campaigns as a continuation of the failed policies of Obama.
And the MSM ignores such stories as these in their attempt, once again, to sway the outcome of an election.
-
The Obama Administration is importing Syrian, and other potential terrorists, and also allowing them to come through the southern border. They are purposely putting us at more risk to terrorism. I don't know why, but they are.
Destabilization. By creating as much chaos as possible and creating crisis it opens the doors for "sweeping change" done under the guise of "never let a crisis go to waste".
Go read "Rules for Radicals" by Alinsky and also read up on Cloward and Piven and what's going on starts to become very clear.
-
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/08/03/lawmakers-ransom-to-iran-put-americans-at-risk.html
Republican lawmakers are fuming over a bombshell report overnight that the U.S. government airlifted the equivalent of $400 million to Iran this past January – as four detained Americans were released by Tehran – and say the transaction has put more Americans at risk of being taken hostage.
The cash transfer, as reported by The Wall Street Journal, was the first installment paid in a $1.7 billion settlement the Obama administration reached with Iran to resolve a failed 1979 arms deal dating from just before the Iranian Revolution.
The cash flown to Iran consisted of euros, Swiss francs, and other currencies because U.S. law forbids transacting American dollars with Iran. While the Obama administration denied the cash transfer was done to secure the release of the four Americans, GOP lawmakers said it was tantamount to “ransom.”
"Paying ransom to kidnappers puts Americans even more at risk," Sen. Mark Kirk, R-Ill., said in a statement. "While Americans were relieved by Iran’s overdue release of illegally imprisoned American hostages, the White House’s policy of appeasement has led Iran to illegally seize more American hostages."
The four released Americans are Washington Post reporter Jason Rezaian; Amir Hekmati, a former U.S. Marine; Christian pastor Saeed Abedini; and Nosratollah Khosravi-Roodsari, whose case had not been publicized before the release.
State Department spokesman John Kirby said their release was on an entirely separate track from the settlement payment and, in an interview Wednesday with Fox News, said any suggestion it was tied to ransom is “utterly false.”
“We just don’t pay ransom. … This was not ransom,” he said.
Kirby further said there was “no secret” about the payment.
“It was their money,” Kirby told Fox News, noting the funds had been frozen and it “made no sense for us to continue to drag out their claim.” He argued the “compromise” struck with Iran worked to the “taxpayers’ benefit” because potentially billions more could have been on the line.
In a written statement, Kirby said the negotiations over the Americans and over the settlement were even conducted "by different teams on each side." He said: "The funds that were transferred to Iran were related solely to the settlement of a long-standing claim at the U.S.-Iran Claims Tribunal at The Hague."
However, the Journal says U.S. officials acknowledge that Iranian negotiators on the prisoner exchange said they wanted the cash to show they had gained something tangible.
The Journal also reported that President Obama did not disclose the $400 million cash payment when he announced Jan. 17 that the arms deal dispute had been resolved. The administration has not disclosed how the $1.7 billion was paid, except to say it was not paid in dollars.
“The logistics of this payment -- literally delivering a plane full of cash to evade U.S. law -- shows yet again the extraordinary lengths the Obama administration will go to accommodate Iran, all while hiding the facts from Congress and the American people,” House Foreign Affairs Committee Chairman Ed Royce, R-Calif., said in a statement. “Hundreds of millions in the pockets of a terrorist regime means a more dangerous region, period. And paying ransom only puts more American lives in jeopardy.”
Since the cash was airlifted, Iran's Revolutionary Guard has arrested two more Iranian-Americans. Tehran also has detained dual-nationals from France, Canada and the U.K. in recent months.
-
The latest revelation is we used foreign currencies because it was illegal (that means against the law) to give them U.S. dollars. We have completely lost control of our government.
Let's make sure that Hillary gets elected because we know she would never do anything like this. ::)
-
Destabilization. By creating as much chaos as possible and creating crisis it opens the doors for "sweeping change" done under the guise of "never let a crisis go to waste".
Go read "Rules for Radicals" by Alinsky and also read up on Cloward and Piven and what's going on starts to become very clear.
I am familiar with both. I was being facetious. Yes, more control through more perceived need for it. More law enforcement, more rights infringement, more regulations, and perhaps martial law eventually taking away more rights of the law abiding.
-
How does that make any sense?
Jizya.
The president, having spent his formative years in an Islamic school, admires and believes in the superiority of Islamic countries. The United States is inferior to them, so it is only right and natural that we pay them tribute and ransom for prisoners.
What is the question? As soon as you understand how they view us, the explanation makes perfect sense. The legal explanation might be hazy, but I dont think that is what you were asking.
-
In doing some further research, it appears this was well known back in January. I still believe that this was, in essence, a ransom paid for the release of prisoners. The administration can claim it was not because it is money that was owed to Iran under a judgement via international court.
My guess is the conversation was something along the lines of, "If you will let our folks go we can make that $400M payment happen."
https://www.lawfareblog.com/us-settlement-iran-claims-tribunal-claim-was-prudent-possible-linkage-release-americans-regrettable
https://www.iusct.net/Pages/Public/A-About.aspx
http://www.state.gov/secretary/remarks/2016/01/251338.htm
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-iran-nuclear-settlement-idUSKCN0UV0PM
-
If it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck...
in the meantime, trying crossing the US border with $10,000 in cash and see how innocent-until-proven-guilty works...
-
In doing some further research, it appears this was well known back in January. I still believe that this was, in essence, a ransom paid for the release of prisoners. The administration can claim it was not because it is money that was owed to Iran under a judgement via international court.
My guess is the conversation was something along the lines of, "If you will let our folks go we can make that $400M payment happen."
https://www.lawfareblog.com/us-settlement-iran-claims-tribunal-claim-was-prudent-possible-linkage-release-americans-regrettable
https://www.iusct.net/Pages/Public/A-About.aspx
http://www.state.gov/secretary/remarks/2016/01/251338.htm
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-iran-nuclear-settlement-idUSKCN0UV0PM
It's money laundering, plain and simple, and someone should be going to prison.
-
If it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck...
in the meantime, trying crossing the US border with $10,000 in cash and see how innocent-until-proven-guilty works...
Not for me, but for thee. Also try crossing with $9,999.99 and you'll be charged with "structuring."
-
Part of assets frozen in 1977, I believe. Couldn't give them dollars because of our current sanctions. So they gave them other currencies, as per the deal. I'd rather reimburse a non-nuclear country than the alternative.
-
Part of assets frozen in 1977, I believe. Couldn't give them dollars because of our current sanctions. So they gave them other currencies, as per the deal. I'd rather reimburse a non-nuclear country than the alternative.
No, Iran paid us for military equipment that was never delivered due to a change in leadership. We claimed we didn't have to because of the regime change, but the international court decided against us.
-
No, Iran paid us for military equipment that was never delivered due to a change in leadership. We claimed we didn't have to because of the regime change, but the international court decided against us.
An international court decided against the USA and in favor of the trash from Iran?
I'm shocked.
-
http://www.wsj.com/articles/u-s-sent-cash-to-iran-as-americans-were-freed-1470181874 (http://www.wsj.com/articles/u-s-sent-cash-to-iran-as-americans-were-freed-1470181874)
You realize that quoting large sections of text from publications, without offering any comment, is a violation of copyright.
Fair use permits copying material for the purpose of comment or criticism. You simply copying content without adding anything is a clear violation of Title 17, USC.
-
you are going to be pretty busy if you point out every violation of copyright law on the interweb or even just on Pilot Spin
-
you are going to be pretty busy if you point out every violation of copyright law on the interweb or even just on Pilot Spin
Most stuff on here is completely reasonable "fair use" comment/criticism.
Lucifer hates adding content himself, however. He just block-copies and adds nothing. That's a violation of copyright pretty clearly.
-
My guess is the conversation was something along the lines of, "If you will let our folks go we can make that $400M payment happen."
OR - the conversation went along the lines of "If you don't release our folks, that payment will never happen".
In either case, it does appear the payment was part of the international court settlement. Timing does look suspicious, but gives the conspiracy theorists much fodder.
-
An international court decided against the USA and in favor of the trash from Iran?
I'm shocked.
The shah of Iran at the time paid $400M for some military equipment and was subsequently deposed. The new govt. said that they wanted the goods and we said no, hence the judgement against us.
-
Latest appears to be one of the hostages saying they were delayed leaving for several hours and were told it was because they were waiting on a plane to land.
-
The shah of Iran at the time paid $400M for some military equipment and was subsequently deposed. The new govt. said that they wanted the goods and we said no, hence the judgement against us.
Since when is the Unites States subject to the jurisdiction of an Internatiinal Court? I thought we rejected that treaty in the 1990s.
-
It is precisely this kind of tortured, carefully structured, focus-tested and parsed 'logic' that suggests we should simply never allow lawyers to enter politics.
These bastiges have totally abandoned the rule of law, and the best interests of the United States, and the safety of our people.
Truly and utterly pathetic.
'Gimp
-
This act of treason has essentially price-fixed the cost of an American, at $100M each - don't you feel safer already?
'Gimp
-
Since when is the Unites States subject to the jurisdiction of an Internatiinal Court? I thought we rejected that treaty in the 1990s.
I do not know Stan, other than we know that Obama sees us as a part of the global community and believes we should be controlled by said community. Don't forget, he wants to be part of the U.N. Gun Control edict.
-
I do not know Stan, other than we know that Obama sees us as a part of the global community and believes we should be controlled by said community. Don't forget, he wants to be part of the U.N. Gun Control edict.
That's the point, isn't it? If we aren't a country subject to the rule of law, OUR LAWS, and instead are subject to the feeeeelings of the current Despot sitting atop the executive branch (whoever and whenever that may be) then we are no longer a country.
-
That's the point, isn't it? If we aren't a country subject to the rule of law, OUR LAWS, and instead are subject to the feeeeelings of the current Despot sitting atop the executive branch (whoever and whenever that may be) then we are no longer a country.
Should Hillary get elected we will be exactly that. She will be able to appoint judges to the Supreme Court and the stage will be set for her to do anything she wants with no one to stop here.
You might remember how Reid used the nuclear option to stack the D.C. District court. If she does something deemed illegal, congress or anyone could file a suit. Once it gets to the D.C. court they will rubber stamp for her and the next stop is the Supremes and guess what they're gonna do.
We are no longer a country. Not only was this payment ransom, bu they had to launder the money to make it happen to get around or legal system. Not sure how the got around the sanctions.
-
Since when is the Unites States subject to the jurisdiction of an Internatiinal Court? I thought we rejected that treaty in the 1990s.
I believe the claims tribunal was set up jointly by the US and Iran to settle a number of disputes.
http://www.iusct.net
-
I believe the claims tribunal was set up jointly by the US and Iran to settle a number of disputes.
http://www.iusct.net
Thank you, Jimmy Fucking Carter. On the last day of his presidency. 😡😡😡😡😡😡😡