FOX News just had a Republican Senator say that the reason Iran wanted the ransom in cash was that it makes it easy to hand over the cash to support Hezbalah and their terrorism against Israel
Israel & the Region
Republicans blast $400m Iran ‘ransom,’ say it encourages kidnappings
White House denies funds paid to Islamic Republic were to secure release of detained US citizens; say it was interest for 30-year-old failed arms deal By Rebecca Shimoni Stoil August 3, 2016, 10:49 pm 1
The US is forbidden from engaging in dollar transactions with Iran, and so the funds were reportedly transferred into foreign currency, packed in crates, and transferred to Iran via Europe.
Prominent Republicans in the House and Senate alike argued Wednesday that the transfer of funds would undermine US security, particularly by encouraging Iran to detain more Americans, in the hopes of securing additional cash.
http://www.breakingisraelnews.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/08/dollars-iran.jpg
“It is nothing but a series of bribes and secret agreements that will do nothing to prevent Iran from reaching nuclear capability, yet will provide funding for their sponsorship of terrorism and encourage them to detain more of our citizens. This ‘deal’ should be ripped to shreds immediately before more damage is done.”
http://www.timesofisrael.com/republicans-blast-400m-iran-ransom-say-it-encourages-kidnappings/
“No, human lives. I do not know how to price them, but Iranians did have a case that a proper compensation and apologies were in order.”
HORSECLINTON.
From Hulka today, Re Fmr. CIA Agent: Obama Displayed ‘High Level’ of Deception On $400 Million Iranian Payment:
I’ve been associated with “gunrunning” for decades and I can say clearly and without contradiction, the administration is, if not lying, criminally deceiving the American people. . .and Congress, since Congress approves all sales and assistance activities.
Our Security Assistance (Foreign Military Sales) regulations protect the US and the Terms and Conditions of the contract (Letter of Offer and Acceptance - LOA). We inked the weapons deal with the Shah and the “revolution” invalidated the LOA, and in accordance with Terms and Contions of the LOA, we do NOT owe then the bucks, we do not owe them the items they bought, and AND some international court somewhere can’t rule against our contract.
Please read carefully:
Most info comes from here: http://www.samm.dsca.mil/figure/figure-c5f4.
Regarding the issue of Obama saying we are paying back funds we owe, there are well defined FMS terms and conditions for the sale and delivery of military equipment.
In the contract (LOA), standard terms and conditions make clear—if the the customer country acts against US interests, thereby violating terms and conditions of the LOA, the US to legally empowered suspend delivery of the item(s) AND the US keeps the money.
For example, look at Pakistan F-16s. Pakistan paid for F-16s but violated the terms and conditions of the LOA by pursuing a nuclear program, therefore the F-16’s were not delivered and the US kept the funds.
Iran violated the contract by deposing the Shah and the items were legally not delivered and the US legally kept the money.
This is standard practice in FMS.
Why doesn’t someone tell the media this: Iran violated the LOA and the US acted legally in accordance with the Terms and Conditions.
Chapter 5: “C5.4.7. Additional LOA Information.
C5.4.7.1. Standard Terms and Conditions and LOA Information. Standard Terms and Conditions (Figure C5.F4.) are an official part of each LOA, whether or not they are attached to a particular copy.
The Standard Terms and Conditions that are in effect at the time the LOA is prepared and signed are the conditions that apply throughout the life of the FMS case.
Terms and Conditions - United States Government (USG) Obligations
1.5. Under unusual and compelling circumstances, when the national interest of the U.S. requires, the USG RESERVES THE RIGHT TO CANCEL OR SUSPEND ALL OR PART OF THIS LOA at any time prior to the delivery of defense articles or performance of defense services. The USG shall be responsible for termination costs of its suppliers resulting from cancellation or suspension under this section [the USG gets funds from the customer for these cocts].
http://www.samm.dsca.mil/figure/figure-c5f4 [Termination costs are significant and we are not being told of the termination costs.
People should be asking where that $400M number came from—and hoe much was termination costs?
4.2. The USG will refund any payments received for this LOA which prove to be in excess of the FINAL TOTAL COST delivery and performance and which are not required to cover arrearages on other LOAs of the Purchaser [this means the US may refund funds in excess of the total cost of the LOA and may keep funds because the customer country violated the contract and the USG keeps termination liability funds]
4.4.5. If Terms of Sale specify payment by “Dependable Undertaking,” to pay to the USG such amounts at such times as may be specified by the USG (including initial deposit) in order to meet payments required by contracts under which items are being procured, and any damages and costs that may accrue from termination of contracts by the USG because of Purchaser’s cancellation of this LOA. [This includes violating the LOA, and such violations invalidate the contract]
Reference legal action (below): The $400M funds were part of a FMS sale, that we know and they admit. In the LOA, LEGAL DISPUTES ARE NOT ADJUDICATED BY ANY THIRD PARTY. Period.
“7. Dispute Resolution
7.1. This LOA is subject to U.S. law and regulation, including U.S. procurement law.
7.2. The USG and the Purchaser agree to resolve any disagreement regarding this LOA by consultations between the USG and the Purchaser and NOT REFERE ANY SUCH DISAGREEMENT TO ANY INTERNATIONAL TRIBUNAL OR THIRD PARTY FOR SETTLEMENT.
So much for obummers claim we are going to lose the case in some court, somewhere.
As you can see from the above, contrary to Obama saying so—there is no legitimate legal threat from some third-party or international court, and the US acted legally to keep the funds because they violated the Terms and Condtiions of the LOA.
There is much information missing regarding the $400M. . .if the republicans could find someone that can bring up the above details in a simple way, perhaps Obama (Hillary) can be forced to admit it was ransom—like it clearly was.
I can hope.
