Re: Tall white mansions and little shacks.
 

Why does that seem weird? It's a very good, very concise statement of the basic legal principle under our system. We have gotten lazy and taken to using "jurisdicition" to mean the sovereign or some subset thereof. But, if fact, jurisdiction depends on the type of conduct, even that type of conduct is "all activity defined as criminal activity by the City of Baltimore, within the City of Baltimore, except as other wise provided."

Re: Tall white mansions and little shacks.
 

I don't think Adder or anyone else is really talking about an "all-cops, cops-only" prosecutor. He's talking about the type of crime -- violence by a cop while on duty and under the cover of his authority. If an off-duty cop is arrested for robbery or domestic abuse, that's different.

Re: Tall white mansions and little shacks.
 

Because when I was in the government, we never talked about the kinds of stuff we did as falling within our "jurisdiction." Just making a point about usage.

Dear Ayatollah
 

Dear Ayatollahs Khamenei and Cotton,

It is good to see the two of you becoming pen pals. I think dialogue can be an important way to Peace. I know, however, that there can be some problems with understanding multi-cultural exchanges, so I thought it might be helpful to explain a few things.

First, many of these exchanges have taken place in English, and I know there are a number of American-educated PhDs advising Iran so it has a good sense of what is going on, but it appears that many Republicans in the Senate have trouble understanding precisely what these negotiations are over.

For example, the Republicans talk about the Iranian "nuclear weapons program", even though Iran has repeatedly indicated that they do not have an actual weapons program but instead have a nuclear power program. Moreover, their nuclear facilities are the second-most inspected in the world (behind Japan), and the inspectors have consistently acknowledged that we have no evidence of a nuclear weapons program. Instead, we are negotiating over whether they have "capacity", in the form of refined, weapons grade material and delivery mechanisms. This is why knowledgeable people, and even people like Netanyahu, talk about what the time to a weapon would be once inspections cease. No knowledgeable person is disputing the ability of an agreement with Iran to ensure they do not have nuclear weapons while the agreement is in place - the dispute is over how much time there might be to a weapon once the agreement terminates.

Of course, an offer from the US Senate to terminate any agreement two years after we enter it must be very encouraging to Iran in this context. The Senate is suggesting Iran might be able to get what it wants today, and then have the Senate or the next President free them from the obligations they agree to in exchange.

The Republicans also seem to believe the topics under discussion are under their jurisdiction. They may not have realized that these are the "5+1" talks, not bilateral negotiations (I know, bilateral is a big long English word - it means talks between just us and Iran). Iran doesn't really need the US to end its sanctions, which have been passed into law, as long as they get the UN off their back. Once China, Russia, India and the EU are all buying their oil, and once they get back their SWIFT codes so they can move money around internationally, they'll be happy. I don't know whether the problem is that Tom Cotton can't read the papers here, or doesn't open emails from the state department unless they come from Hillary's personal account, or whether he just doesn't want to acknowledge that the UN is what Iran cares about instead of the machinations of a bunch of sons of the Confederacy, but I think it's important that someone translate into whatever language the Tea Party has adopted that his new pen pal really doesn't care much about what he says unless it gives his friend leverage over the people Iran really cares about, which are John Kerry and his band.

I hope this letter enriches everyone's understanding of the 5+1 negotiations and promotes mutual understanding and clarity as nuclear negotiations progress and the Iranians take a little time out to rub Senate-produced bullshit in America's face.

[Add signature lines for GGG and all of his socks - anyone else want to sign on?]

Re: Dear Ayatollah
 

This is your bestest work.

TM

Re: Dear Ayatollah
 

Thanks. New and improved version on FB.

Unfortunately, I'm talking about stuff of interest to Foreign Policy and ConLaw Geeks. The Senate letter looks like it was written by a political consultant who didn't give a shit about foreign policy or conlaw, just scoring points (and I can't figure out whether this is more about scoring points for Netanyahu in the Israeli election or for Red State senators among Tea Partiers). Most people couldn't care less about reason in this context.

BUT, any Republican presidential candidate who signed that letter handed Hillary a huge weapon in Presidential debates. That is when this should come back to bit them. Even though they'll just say "Iran. Islamist. Bad. Evil." over and over again, I think she can make them look pretty un-Presidential when the time comes.

Re: Dear Ayatollah
 

I appreciate the technical stuff.

From my perspective, this goes way beyond criticism or political theater. It's an absolutely amazing example of Republicans actively undermining a sitting President. I am continually floored by how little respect they have for the office when they don't like who occupies it. It is the exact opposite of patriotism and someone should be calling them out on it again and again.

I know these assholes are small minded, but one would think that no party would want to set this type of precedent.

TM

Re: Dear Ayatollah
 

If the parties were flipped, how many times per hour would you be hearing the word "treason" on Fox News?

Re: Dear Ayatollah
 

Zero. I live in a Fox News-free zone. But I hear you.

TM

Re: Dear Ayatollah
 

Well, so do I, but I'd probably hear about it from John Stewart or John Oliver or some such.

Re: Dear Ayatollah
 

It is amazing to me that they aren't getting criticized by many Republicans. (For an exception, see here). But we ought to see members of the Republican Foreign Policy Establishment, people like Huntsman, Kissinger, and Bush I, ripping these guys 47 new assholes.

I was impressed by the pure snark level of the statement from Zarif, one of the key Iranian players. I think he understands America.

Re: Dear Ayatollah
 

I've been actively seeking out commentary by conservatives on the Cotton Club's Dear Ayatollah letter. Most are just trying to hide under a rock, but here is a noble but ultimately pretty funny example of just how tortuously an academic boot-licker has to work to come up with an article supporting the letter.

"But when the point of a letter is to lecture people about our law, getting the law wrong is, shall we say, unbecoming." No shit.

Re: Dear Ayatollah
 

They are so eager to have a different President that they would rather be led by an Israeli. It was a little bizarre.

Re: Dear Ayatollah
 

I read the crap my cousins post on Facebook. They call the President "Kenya" and discuss his plans to weaken the country.

Re: Tall white mansions and little shacks.
 

Really? In tax it is used commonly. Sort of like a synonym to "wheelhouse."

Also, the IRS organizes itself by divisions and has a break along functional lines that is referred informally to as a jurisdiction, such "Gordon was the IRS's Assistant Commissioner for dealing with Stupid question. Your issue is in his wheelhouse.