Discussion: Pompeo Terminates 1955 Treaty With Iran In Light Of UN Court Ruling

Setting up the false flagā€¦

2 Likes

I wonder if this dough boy provincial American knows that the world is watching. Keep it up America. Your enemies are lovin it.

4 Likes

Full text of the treaty here.

Butā€¦ the devil is in the detailsā€¦ Article XXIII paragraph 3 says:

  1. Either High Contracting Party may, by giving one yearā€™s
    written notice to the other High Contracting Party, terminate
    the present Treaty at the end of the initial ten-year period or at
    any time thereafter.

So, we can walk away from the treaty but it remains in force for another year.

14 Likes

8 Likes

Is there anything this administration doesnā€™t want to smash into pieces? !?!

Also, metaphorically speaking, it seems like his minions run around pouring gasoline on everything while Dump plays with matches.

8 Likes

Does anyone in this country, while traveling abroad, admit to others theyā€™re a U.S. citizen? I have to believe waiters, hotel staff and tour guides think ā€œDamn, thereā€™s a lot more Canadians visiting us than in years pastā€.

12 Likes

Um, minor question, but can he just do this? No Congressional authorization? Or is this the equivalent of Martial SOS Law?

3 Likes

2 Likes
2 Likes

Secretary of State Mike Pompeo has announced that the U.S. is canceling a 1955 treaty with Iran establishing economic relations and consular rights between the two nations.

Great move. Guaranteed to solve the problem.

9 Likes

All because of K?

Two things:

Yes, in general the executive branch has the power to abrogate treaties, but sometimes it depends on the nature and text of the treaty.

But with this administration, and this Congress, your question is immaterial: they do what they want to, and they donā€™t do what they donā€™t want to, regardless of Constitutional, statutory, or treaty obligations.

6 Likes

They donā€™t hate us. They do feel a bit sorry for us.

Great find, thanks. Iā€™d also like to highlight that what Pompeo (and presumably also Bolton) is objecting to is the UN ruling ā€œordering the United States to lift sanctions on Iran that affect imports of humanitarian goodsā€ (emphasis added by me).

Who blockades humanitarian supplies? What a stupid hill to die on.

8 Likes

I have been telling you for 2 years now that Trump will attack Iran in late Oct. 2018.

They will use some new version of the ā€œGulf of Tonkin Incidentā€ (which, btw, never happened according to the commander of the US destroyer in question) to justify a full-scale air-assault upon Iran (and knowing Trumpā€™s love of big-ness, possibly a Nuclear assault) probably with the ā€œassistanceā€ of Israel and/or Saudi Arabia.

The inevitable massive terrorist response around the world (and on US soil) against US forces/citizens will be his excuse to ā€œdeclare Martial Lawā€ and suspend the 2018 Mid-Term elections.

Putin will LOVE IT as it will close the Straits of Hormuz and drive international Oil Prices up 500% overnight, resulting in massive profits for the Russian Petro-State, while driving a huge wedge between the US and NATO (who rely on Iranian Oil much more than we do.) It will also generate massive profits for the (nominally) US Oil companies and force Congress to remove all regulations upon Oil drilling in the US, because ā€œPATRIOTISMā€.

The fact that it will lead to a massive, worldwide economic crash is just a FEATURE for the short-sellers and big banks who will just wait for the Trump administration to create another, and even MORE CRONY version of TARP to bail them out.

The MSM will be all for it, salivating at the ratings bonanza that 24x7 WAR COVERAGE gives them.

In the end, somehow, it will all be the DEMOCRATā€™S FAULT and this will be used to create McCarthy-style investigations into the Republicanā€™s political foes.

If a foreigner meets an American thereā€™s no way to know initially if theyā€™re sane, or a Trump supporter. So why in the hell, being in the dark about a very critical aspect of the strangerā€™s background, would a sentient person even run the risk of making an Americanā€™s acquaintance? I know I will come right out and ask of a person their attitude toward Trump. If they like or support him ostracism and shunning kick in immediately. And I donā€™t care who they are, what they do, and what relationship they have to me. My youngest sister no longer exists. Erased from my life.

Everyone needs to take a similar attitude. Actions should have consequences.

3 Likes

How aboot those Maple Leafs, Eh? Care for a Moulsonā€™s?

5 Likes

From: Whiteman, Marjorie. Digest of International Law, 1970

The Constitution is silent on procedures for modifying or terminating treaties, and agreement has not been reached between the branches on a single proper mode. [ā€¦]

Twice in recent years the method of terminating a treaty has raised serious controversy within the United States. In 1978, President Carter terminated the defense treaty with the Republic of China [Taiwan] without the concurrence of either the Senate or Congress when he established diplomatic relations with the Peopleā€™s Republic of China.
In 1977, the new Panama Canal Treaty terminated the 1903, 1936, and 1955 treaties with Panama. Although a new treaty was approved by the Senate, some contended that the termination of the earlier treaties required an act of Congress, thus including approval by the House of Representatives as well as the Senate.

I am guessing that since Carter was the president during the events mentioned in these citations that the Republicans probably had strong ā€˜Moralā€™ and legal objections to this type of unitary presidential action. It will be interesting to see how elastic they are now.

4 Likes

I donā€™t know if I can pretend to like the terrible beer, but perhaps my love of ketchup-flavored potato chips would be enough to convince?

(also I love saying ā€œabootā€)

1 Like