DT admin asks to reimburse....

[kadee79]

STUPID!

The Department of Defense asked Congress to reimburse members of the Taliban earlier this year for expenses incurred while attending a number of negotiations, according to House Appropriations Subcommittee on Defense Chair, Pete Visclosky.



The money would be used to cover transportation, lodging, food and miscellaneous supplies, Kevin Spicer, spokesman for Indiana Democrat Visclosky, told CQ Roll Call. 


But, said Spicer, this request to pay the Taliban with U.S. money “would implicate provisions of law concerning material support to terrorists, the Taliban’s ongoing offensive operations against U.S. service members, and their continuing lack of acknowledgement of the government of Afghanistan or the rights of women in Afghan society.”



Instead, the subcommittee approved a $690.2 billion defense spending bill for fiscal year 2020 that explicitly prohibits the government from reimbursing the Taliban for attending any meeting "that does not include the participation of members of the government of Afghanistan or that restricts the participation of women."

www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/trump-administration-asks-congress-to-reimburse-taliban/ar-AABsXkH?li=BBnbfcL

[Deleted]

May 17, 2019 9:11:14 GMT -5 kadee79 said:

STUPID!

The Department of Defense asked Congress to reimburse members of the Taliban earlier this year for expenses incurred while attending a number of negotiations, according to House Appropriations Subcommittee on Defense Chair, Pete Visclosky.



The money would be used to cover transportation, lodging, food and miscellaneous supplies, Kevin Spicer, spokesman for Indiana Democrat Visclosky, told CQ Roll Call. 


But, said Spicer, this request to pay the Taliban with U.S. money “would implicate provisions of law concerning material support to terrorists, the Taliban’s ongoing offensive operations against U.S. service members, and their continuing lack of acknowledgement of the government of Afghanistan or the rights of women in Afghan society.”



Instead, the subcommittee approved a $690.2 billion defense spending bill for fiscal year 2020 that explicitly prohibits the government from reimbursing the Taliban for attending any meeting "that does not include the participation of members of the government of Afghanistan or that restricts the participation of women."

www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/trump-administration-asks-congress-to-reimburse-taliban/ar-AABsXkH?li=BBnbfcL

Just stack it on a pallet, and use the same plane that they used for the Iran cash delivery.

It's what we're doing these days !

[kadee79]

And that was a stupid response too! 

[Deleted]

Just trying to fit in. 

[NastyWoman]

May 17, 2019 14:01:38 GMT -5 @x said:

Just trying to fit in. 

With whom?

[swamp]

May 17, 2019 12:53:39 GMT -5 @x said:

May 17, 2019 9:11:14 GMT -5 kadee79 said:

STUPID!


www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/trump-administration-asks-congress-to-reimburse-taliban/ar-AABsXkH?li=BBnbfcL

Just stack it on a pallet, and use the same plane that they used for the Iran cash delivery.

It's what we're doing these days !

You mean the money we seized from Iran and were required to return to them?   you mean that money? 

Please explain how your comment is relevant. 

[weltschmerz]

May 17, 2019 12:53:39 GMT -5 @x said:

May 17, 2019 9:11:14 GMT -5 kadee79 said:

STUPID!


www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/trump-administration-asks-congress-to-reimburse-taliban/ar-AABsXkH?li=BBnbfcL

Just stack it on a pallet, and use the same plane that they used for the Iran cash delivery.

It's what we're doing these days !

Another Trumper with a tenuous grasp on reality. 
It was Iran's money!! How many times does this have to be explained?

[dondub]

I wonder if there is any awareness of the pallets of cash sent to Iraq that was OUR money and how much disappeared? I’m on my phone or I would find a link. I remember reading a story about soldiers using a bundle as a football.

[dondub]

Just easily found stories about that. As much as $9 billion missing. And that’s OUT money whereas Iran was just getting theirs back.

[Deleted]

May 17, 2019 15:00:20 GMT -5 NastyWoman said:

May 17, 2019 14:01:38 GMT -5 @x said:

Just trying to fit in. 

With whom?

I see your quoting me also.  

I'm fitting in.

[Deleted]

May 17, 2019 15:06:16 GMT -5 swamp said:

May 17, 2019 12:53:39 GMT -5 @x said:

Just stack it on a pallet, and use the same plane that they used for the Iran cash delivery.

It's what we're doing these days !

You mean the money we seized from Iran and were required to return to them?   you mean that money? 

Please explain how your comment is relevant. 

I was talking about using the same plane.

What more is there to explain.


I do have to ask, who can require the U.S. to deliver money to Iran ?  

The answer might be above your paygrade.  

[swamp]

The international court at The Hague.  You’re welcome. 

[Deleted]

May 18, 2019 16:16:13 GMT -5 swamp said:

The international court at The Hague.  You’re welcome. 

And how do they enforce that requirement ?

Being the fact that they are requiring us to do this.

[swamp]

May 21, 2019 8:36:37 GMT -5 @x said:

May 18, 2019 16:16:13 GMT -5 swamp said:

The international court at The Hague.  You’re welcome. 

And how do they enforce that requirement ?

Being the fact that they are requiring us to do this.

sanctions.  

Our reputation.    I don't want to be that country that goes back on our word, do you?    How do we maintain our standing as "the leader of the free world" if we don't follow international law?   We expect other countries to do so.   

[Deleted]

May 21, 2019 8:46:27 GMT -5 swamp said:

May 21, 2019 8:36:37 GMT -5 @x said:

And how do they enforce that requirement ?

Being the fact that they are requiring us to do this.

sanctions.  

Our reputation.    I don't want to be that country that goes back on our word, do you?    How do we maintain our standing as "the leader of the free world" if we don't follow international law?   We expect other countries to do so.   

So their requirement is not only unenforceable, but you're changing to the stance that we're just keeping our word.

For our reputation.

That seems very different than being 'required'.

[swamp]

May 21, 2019 8:51:37 GMT -5 @x said:

May 21, 2019 8:46:27 GMT -5 swamp said:

sanctions.  

Our reputation.    I don't want to be that country that goes back on our word, do you?    How do we maintain our standing as "the leader of the free world" if we don't follow international law?   We expect other countries to do so.   

So their requirement is not only unenforceable, but you're changing to the stance that we're just keeping our word.

For our reputation.

That seems very different than being 'required'.

International law is pretty much unenforceable and dependent on voluntary cooperation.  

I'm sure the UN could send troops, but that seems like overkill, no? 

Do you really want to go down that road of the US disobeying a Court order?   I don't.   If you do, don't bitch when other nations give a big "fuck you" to international law too. 

[Deleted]

May 21, 2019 8:54:32 GMT -5 swamp said:

May 21, 2019 8:51:37 GMT -5 @x said:

So their requirement is not only unenforceable, but you're changing to the stance that we're just keeping our word.

For our reputation.

That seems very different than being 'required'.

International law is pretty much unenforceable and dependent on voluntary cooperation.  

I'm sure the UN could send troops, but that seems like overkill, no? 

Do you really want to go down that road of the US disobeying a Court order?   I don't.   If you do, don't bitch when other nations give a big "fuck you" to international law too. 

I never complain about other nations not following international law.

I'm not a globalist.


In regards to that pallet delivered to Iran.

If it was against international law, why wasn't it returned immediately after we seized the assets ?

As in required ?


It was only done when politically expedient, by one of our administrations.

[thyme4change]

May 21, 2019 8:59:50 GMT -5 @x said:

May 21, 2019 8:54:32 GMT -5 swamp said:

International law is pretty much unenforceable and dependent on voluntary cooperation.  

I'm sure the UN could send troops, but that seems like overkill, no? 

Do you really want to go down that road of the US disobeying a Court order?   I don't.   If you do, don't bitch when other nations give a big "fuck you" to international law too. 

I never complain about other nations not following international law.

I'm not a globalist.


In regards to that pallet delivered to Iran.

If it was against international law, why wasn't it returned immediately after we seized the assets ?

As in required ?


It was only done when politically expedient, by one of our administrations.

Because we were going through the appeals process. We stretched it out as long as possible, hoping the country would cease to exist, but we exhausted every legal reason we had to not give them their money back.

[kadee79]

Ya know, this thread isn't about Iran...it's about the DT admin wanting to pay the Taliban to show up for meetings.  


Little x...if you want to discuss Iran further, start your own thread.

[Deleted]

May 21, 2019 19:48:30 GMT -5 thyme4change said:

May 21, 2019 8:59:50 GMT -5 @x said:

I never complain about other nations not following international law.

I'm not a globalist.


In regards to that pallet delivered to Iran.

If it was against international law, why wasn't it returned immediately after we seized the assets ?

As in required ?


It was only done when politically expedient, by one of our administrations.

Because we were going through the appeals process. We stretched it out as long as possible, hoping the country would cease to exist, but we exhausted every legal reason we had to not give them their money back.

Which kind of flies in the face of cooperating with international law.

I just see nations toeing the line on international law when it mostly benefits themselves.

Just look at Irans asymmetrical war machine, using placed terror cells all over the world, but mostly in the middle east.

Hardly keeping with the idea of international law.

[thyme4change]

I don't know international law well enough to have an intelligent conversation about it. However, using the courts process following the rules doesn't break international law, just as using the courts process here doesn't break the law in the USA.