Explanation of Rand Paul's Vote For Iran Sanctions

[centure7]

Before I contact the Paul campaign, I'm going to make sure I understand the bill. Here is the first part:

National Defense Authorization Act

So there is the title. So, the bill is called the "National Defense Authorization Act". Lets start there. Whoever titled the bill is a pompous ass because the bill implies defense is something that has to be authorized. Wrong. Defense requires no authorization by congress and therefore the bill is a con job before it even begins... just by the title. You and I are already getting screwed after the first four words. But lets go on any way.

SA 1414. Mr. LEVIN (for Mr. Menendez (for himself and Mr. Kirk)) proposed an amendment to the bill S. 1867, to authorize appropriations for fiscal year 2012 for military activities of the Department of Defense, for military construction, and for defense activities of the Department of Energy, to prescribe military personnel strengths for such fiscal year, and for other purposes; as follows:

This is a brief summary of the amendment. Its saying that the amendment in question is about spending money on military actions, and such actions are to be delegated to the Department of Defense as the department to get the funding to ensure the execution of the military actions. BUT, it also includes the phrase "and for other purposes" to completely destroy any solid meaning one might have derived from the text. So it doesn't really mean anything because the snake oil salesmen aka senators need an opening to inject any venom they wish into any legislation of their choice. Moving on:

IMPOSITION OF SANCTIONS WITH RESPECT TO THE FINANCIAL SECTOR OF IRAN

So there is the descriptive title. The implication there is that if you are someone dealing with the Iran banking industry, you better do what the military men say in the text or you will be assaulted by them and killed on the slightest whim.

(1) On November 21, 2011, the Secretary of the Treasury issued a finding under section 5318A of title 31, United States Code, that identified Iran as a jurisdiction of primary money laundering concern.

So here its telling us about how the Treasury Department is pissing away Americans wealth by figuring out who is doing paperwork they don't approve of on the other side of the planet. Its saying Iran bankers are involved in doing all kind of unapproved paperwork. So what? So, lets go on and find out what...

(2) In that finding, the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network of the Department of the Treasury wrote, ``The Central Bank of Iran, which regulates Iranian banks, has assisted designated Iranian banks by transferring billions of dollars to these banks in 2011. In mid-2011, the CBI transferred several billion dollars to designated banks, including Saderat, Mellat, EDBI and Melli, through a variety of payment schemes. In making these transfers, the CBI attempted to evade sanctions by minimizing the direct involvement of large international banks with both CBI and designated Iranian banks.''.

CBI stands for the Central Bank of Iran. The text is saying how Iran has ignored US laws in its dealing with several international banks.

(3) On November 22, 2011, the Under Secretary of the Treasury for Terrorism and Financial Intelligence, David Cohen, wrote, ``Treasury is calling out the entire Iranian banking sector, including the Central Bank of Iran, as posing terrorist financing, proliferation financing, and money laundering risks for the global financial system.''.

This is saying how the United States Treasury department is involving itself into terrorism investigations. It offers no explanation of why a bunch of accountants are doing work that has nothing whatsoever to do with accounting. It says its investigations reveal that groups are posing terrorist financing, which means they are pretending to finance terrorists or that they have a bad attitude where they just might offer terrorists some financing. It then says Iran is doing "proliferation financing". There really isn't such a word or phrase since nobody is using that to mean anything, but technically the UN made up the term in their following 2008 report:
http://www.fatf-gafi.org/dataoecd/14/21/41146580.pdf

It isn't really clear "proliferation" has to be WMDs. Look at the following report that calls any and all medium or long range missiles "proliferation":
http://www.securitymanagement.com/ar...eration-004702

So, the US Treasury department is saying they pissed away US tax dollars figuring out that bankers in Iran were giving out loans for missiles or WMDs of some sort. Seems like a questionable claim since that work would clearly have nothing to do with US Treasury accounting.

They go on saying that the US Treasury department pissed away yet more of our money figuring out that there are "money laundering risks for the global financial system" centered on Iran. So, we've gone from actual money laundering now to simply the risk of money laundering. A few sentences back the laundering was stated as a fact, and now its stated as a mere "risk". Which is it? Furthermore, what exactly is the risk to the global financial system? Is that a code phrase meaning there risk is that the CIB will compete with the Federal Reserve, so we need US senators to do that private corporation a favor and blow up its competition using the US DOD arsenal?

Thats all the time I have for today. My question for Rand Paul so far is: Why is the US Treasury tracking the transactions of foreign banks? Is that what the US treasury is supposed to be doing? Spying on foreign banks? That is off the wall nuts. I don't know whats dumber. Using the US Treasury department money to go halfway across the world watching banking cubicle workers press buttons in Iran, or the concept that we are supposed to engage in military action against Iran over paperwork the US Treasury finds offensive.

[centure7]

(b) Designation of Financial Sector of Iran as of Primary Money Laundering Concern.--The financial sector of Iran, including the Central Bank of Iran, is designated as of primary money laundering concern for purposes of section 5318A of title 31, United States Code, because of the threat to government and financial institutions resulting from the illicit activities of the Government of Iran, including its pursuit of nuclear weapons, support for international terrorism, and efforts to deceive responsible financial institutions and evade sanctions.

Iran is doing unapproved paperwork in violation of US law. Furthermore, Iran actively avoids subjecting itself to US law. Furthermore, Iran is pursuing nuclear weapons. Iran supports international terrorism. Furthermore, Iran tried to deceive "responsible" financial institutions.

(c) Freezing of Assets of Iranian Financial Institutions.--The President shall, pursuant to the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (50 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), block and prohibit all transactions in all property and interests in property of an Iranian financial institution if such property and interests in property are in the United States, come within the United States, or are or come within the possession or control of a United States person.

Obama must use emergency powers to "freeze" money owned by Iran's finance businesses. Obama must block transactions involving Iranian financial businesses within the USA, or if the transaction takes place within the USA claimed land, or is controlled by a person in the USA.

(d) Imposition of Sanctions With Respect to the Central Bank of Iran and Other Iranian Financial Institutions.--

Now I'll tell you how we'll destroy people who don't follow our inane ramblings. And this has to do with Iran's financial businesses... I'm telling you this because you already knew and repetition is good for boring people out of politics.

(1) IN GENERAL.--Except as specifically provided in this subsection, beginning on the date that is 60 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, the President--

Guys, lets wait 60 days before working on this. This is a super emergency like I said two sentences ago said, so lets shovel in doughnuts and watch porn in our cubicles for a while to get motivated.

(A) shall prohibit the opening or maintaining in the United States of a correspondent account or a payable-through account by a foreign financial institution that the President determines has knowingly conducted or facilitated any significant financial transaction with the Central Bank of Iran or another Iranian financial institution designated by the Secretary of the Treasury for the imposition of sanctions pursuant to the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (50 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.); and

We've got to stop people from setting up financial accounts in the USA to anybody who has ever done business with Iran's government bank or any other business the Secretary of the Treasury decides is the bad guy. And by the way, this is an Emergency(tm) which is why we're gunna sit around for 60 days shoveling jelly doughnuts. That motivation will power our strong lungs to yell at US military pawns to go die overseas for Obamas Emergency(tm).

(B) may impose sanctions pursuant to the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (50 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.) with respect to the Central Bank of Iran.

This is a huge Emergency(tm) and Obama will have to exercise his powerful yelling lungs via teleprompter to ask his noble pawns to die overseas due to unapproved paperwork, which is an Emergency(tm) requiring 60 days of preparation by practicing shooting spitwads at office cubicles. And this needs to be said three times or it doesn't count which is why I just said "Emergency(tm) three times in my sacred law, as per magic words undelum abrah cadabera on high proximity infinty, etc etc. Now that I've mentioned Emergency three times let us begin the 60 day spitwad competition.

(2) EXCEPTION FOR SALES OF FOOD, MEDICINE, AND MEDICAL DEVICES.--The President may not impose sanctions under paragraph (1) with respect to any person for conducting or facilitating a transaction for the sale of food, medicine, or medical devices to Iran.

All good laws have loopholes, so lets say there is a loophole. Food, medicine, and medical devices hereby loopholed. Hopefully Monsanto will be happy guys because if I don't get another big check from them my GF will dump me.

(3) APPLICABILITY OF SANCTIONS WITH RESPECT TO FOREIGN CENTRAL BANKS.--Except as provided in paragraph (4), sanctions imposed under paragraph (1)(A) shall apply with respect to a foreign financial institution owned or controlled by the government of a foreign country including a central bank of a foreign country, only insofar as it engages in transaction for the sale or purchase of petroleum or petroleum products to or from Iran conducted or facilitated on or after that date that is 180 days after the date of the enactment of this Act.

Foreigners don't have to follow US law yet, but they do after 180 days start following the magical words contained within this sacred text scripted on high by $300 per hour dude yours truly. All foreigners must follow US laws regarding Iran oil transactions because Obama is the God King of all foreigners. This is an Emergency(tm) so its only fitting foreigners get fair running 180 day head start. Just like releasing a quail then giving it 180 minutes before giving it the shoot down, except with human cubicle workers.

(4) APPLICABILITY OF SANCTIONS WITH RESPECT TO PETROLEUM TRANSACTIONS.--

(A) REPORT REQUIRED.--Not later than 60 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, and every 60 days thereafter, the Administrator of the Energy Information Administration, in consultation with the Secretary of the Treasury, shall submit to Congress a report on the availability and price of petroleum and petroleum products produced in countries other than Iran in the 60-day period preceding the submission of the report.

Guys, we've got an Emergency(tm). So lets wait 60 days, then have three random overpaid managers schmooze it out and pump out paperwork with numbers on it. It could say stuff about Iran's oil pricing and availability so we could figure out how badly our "sanctions" failed... not that we really care because we're totally unaccountable.

(B) DETERMINATION REQUIRED.--Not later than 90 days after the date of the enactment of the Act, and every 180 days thereafter, the President shall make a determination, based on the reports required by subparagraph (A), of whether the price and supply of petroleum and petroleum products produced in countries other than Iran is sufficient to permit purchasers of petroleum and petroleum products from Iran to reduce significantly in volume their purchases from Iran.

You know what guys, I will just admit here and now this legislation won't do jack shit, but hopefully you won't read this far since this is buried in the middle. But lets feel it out and see maybe if in the future, these magical words on paper will pull some punches. Lets keep tabs on Irans neighbors and feel out their oil numbers every so often to see what kind of crazy crap we can get away with. Also, its fun because we'd get to travel around pissing away other people's money overseas... we can get US factory workers laid off and give them a job watching large metal pipes in Pakistan because that is mega security stuff there.

[anaconda]

I want an answer for this:
http://www.opencongress.org/vote/2011/s/216

This vote has languished in my mind for some time now. US sanctions on Japan were an act of war that provoked Japan to attack, dragging us into WWII. And now sanctions on Iran threaten to drag us all into WWIII. Why would Paul want to be responsible for that?

I have decided to demand an answer from the Paul campaign on this issue. I created a website in Rand Paul's favor, and have shifted my position to neutral over that vote. Should Paul continue a track of voting for unprovoked aggression that could easily result in millions of deaths, I may have to actively campaign against him in retaliation during 2016.

If he just wanted to save face from a no vote that would have no support, he could have simply abstained. If he wanted to pander, then he was lying when he said he wouldn't count on being re-elected for a second term. If you have no intention of being re-elected you don't pander, period.

There is also the possibility the Rand Paul's thinking is not as advanced as his fathers. Its actually the most likely explanation. But, if that is the case, he needs to learn more about the non-aggression principle and is not ready to be president. I suspect Rand Paul does not understand that sanctions are an immoral and counterproductive act of aggression.

I agree with you for the most part. I actually started a thread to get forum members to simply contact Rand's office on a particular day but the thread was a huge failure:

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...b-Wed.-2-15-12


Hundreds of views and only five commitments for a simple phone call or email. I was surprised. I guess very few people here actually give a darn about this issue. Kind of surreal. Anyhow, I called Rand's D.C. office on Feb. 15th and the lady I spoke with, "Aubrey," promised me an email response with some specificity. I'll keep you posted. I suspect Rand is playing politics to make a big liberty impact a bit later, and my inclination is to trust him. But I obviously felt sufficiently worried to not only contact his office but to start an activist thread about it.

I don't know if it is worth mentioning, but Rand did eventually vote against the NDAA that this amendment was attached to.

[anaconda]

There has been aggression on both sides, and we are hardly unprovoked.

I agree with much of what you have said. I am not clear, however, how we have been "provoked." Seems like the U.S. is the world's poster boy for provocation.

[anaconda]

Although I disagree, I am not beyond the thought that Rand considered it the best avenue to avoid a hot war that would not only devastate Iran, but half the planet (including the US) given the probable involvement of Russia and China. I align more with Ron on the issue, but I can see how a reasonable person could possibly conclude that such sanctions could actually help avoid a hot-war. I'm still of the belief that even this action was intended by Rand to prevent a shooting war that appeared/appears inevitable excepting that something changes dramatically and soon.

Good point. I would have appreciated him making a public statement saying this, however...rather than leaving his potential 2016 donors and supporters guessing..

[heavenlyboy34]

Because why would someone filibuster something that they are voting Yes on? Also, you need 40 allies to conduct a filibuster. Cloture can be invoked in the Senate with 60 votes.

And filibusters should be done the old-fashioned way-speaking forever and ever...maybe even reading out of the phone book. /end ramble

[anaconda]

Sure it would have been nice to have that "1" vote in a 99-1 instead of the 100-0 but it would have been purely symbolic.

I like symbolic. Especially the 99-1 type. Opportunity missed for Rand?

[anaconda]

People here also don't get that placing sanctions on an aggressive nation who is in the process of slaughtering civilians as an effort to do as much damage to their cause as possible without declaring outright war, and to stop contributing TO that slaughter by giving them the fuel for their war machines ISN'T an act of war.

I do not trust our government. Their sanctions seem to always be a precursor to creating enough eventual friction to somehow justify an all out war. This is probably one reason that Ron Paul calls sanctions an "act of war" and says they lead to actual combat. Not to mention the danger to their people from further impoverishing them. How many people died in Iraq due to sanctions? You cannot tell me they are not an act of war. We are not the policeman of the world. The Iranian peoples' friction with their government is their own business. Furthermore, Iran has done nothing wrong. Your reasoning reminds me of the previous administration's talking points leading up to their attack on Iraq (and prefaced with sanctions). The elites are determined to bring Iran into the fold one way or another to turn them against Russia. This is about oil and military hegemony with China and Russia. It has zero to do with Iran getting a nuke. Our congress is bought and paid for by the banks and are doing their bidding. I have never been more ashamed as an American with this continued deceit and corruption by our government. And even the grand war crime of invading Iraq has not made the American people any wiser. The future is indeed bleak.

[anaconda]

What's your source? It certainly wasn't contained in the same vote.

This was posted in the OP:

http://www.opencongress.org/vote/2011/s/216

The vote to add this amendment to the NDAA was, of course, a different vote than on the NDAA as a whole (which Rand voted against).

[ryanmkeisling]

Sanctions are an act of war and lead to combat. We are not the policeman of the world. The Iranian peoples' friction with their government is their own business. Furthermore, Iran has done nothing wrong. This is surreal. Your reasoning reminds me of the previous administration's talking points leading up to their attack on Iraq. Which were prefaced with sanctions, by the way. The elites are determined to bring Iran into the fold one way or another to turn them against Russia. This is about oil and military hegemony with China and Russia. It has zero to do with Iran getting a nuke. Our congress is bought and paid for by the banks and are doing their bidding. I have never been more ashamed as an American with this continued deceit and corruption by our government. And even the grand war crime of invading Iraq has not made the American people any wiser. the future is indeed bleak.

This. The poster you are replying to is obviously still a neoconservative and doesn't truly believe in freedom. Where is the proof for anything in his post? Where is the proof that Iran is an "aggressive" nation, where is the proof that Iran is slaughtering its own citizens, oh that's right, it must be in the same place as the weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, a neoconservative wet dream.

If you trust the MSM to deliver your world news, don't be surprised when it turns out to be complete and total fabricated bullshit. Even if those things were true it is not a reason to impede another nations sovereignty or international rights. We should make friends with Iran, they have oil, we should stay out of their business and trade with them. Not pretend that we know what is absolutely right for the rest of the world.

With a disturbing frequency these days, the latent neoconservatives crawl out of the woodwork. This poster is clearly not even listening to Dr. Paul.