Quote:
Originally Posted by Chalupagrande
Secret or not, it was done in a manner that is by the governments own definitions, illegal. The laws governing that definition, do not allow for exclusions of ANY U.S. Citizen regardless of their position...
The fact is, if I had done this as a private citizen, I would be in jail.
|
Hey Chalupa,
You pose excellent questions. Here's what a former AG has to say about the furtive midnight airlift of stacked pallets of unmarked banknotes to the terrorist mullahs in Tehran, courtesy of Odumbo and Kerry....
Hmmm.... could this be another one of those wonderfully enlightening Odumbo "teachable moments"??? Today's lesson is entitled "How to skirt the law and promote international terrorism and not be prosecuted for it."
The $400 Million: Legal but Not Right
Obama’s money drop to Iran raises questions: Why cash, and why in an unmarked plane? The explanation isn’t pretty.
By Michael B. Mukasey
Aug. 4, 2016 7:23 p.m. ET
If you want a piece of evidence that not everything that is lawful is also right, look no further than the Obama administration’s January shipment of $400 million in euros and Swiss francs to Iran—in cash in an unmarked cargo plane.
Some have suggested that sending the money to Iran might have run afoul of the Constitution. Spending by the executive, after all, must be authorized in an appropriation by Congress. However, the funds in question apparently came from a deposit in the 1970s on the purchase of weapons by the government of the Shah—a deposit that was the subject of a lawsuit by Iran against the U.S. No taxpayer funds were involved, and thus there was no offense to Congress’s spending authority.
To be sure, there were at the time, and still are, sanctions in place that bar anyone from engaging in dollar transactions with the regime in Tehran. Thus if the U.S. had simply made a conventional bank transfer to Iran in dollars, the regime would have been unable to readily use the funds, because banks and others would be barred from participating in those transactions. Hence the need for a transfer in other currencies—to avoid the potential for a sanctions violation.
But why cash, and why in an unmarked cargo plane? How come the U.S. did not simply transfer the $400 million we are told actually belonged to Iran to a foreign entity, to be converted into foreign funds for conventional banking transmission to Tehran? That would have permitted the U.S. to keep track of how Iran spent the money, at least to some extent. Here, recall the assurances given by CIA Director John Brennan that the sanctions relief Iran has received thus far has been used for infrastructure projects and shoring up the Iranian currency, to help undo some of the damage that sanctions inflicted on the country’s economy. Again, why cash?
The apparent explanation isn’t pretty. There is principally one entity within the Iranian government that has need of untraceable funds. That entity is
the Quds Force—the branch of Iran’s Revolutionary Guards Corps focused particularly on furthering the regime’s goals world-wide by supporting and conducting terrorism. This is the entity, for example, that was tied to the foiled plot to assassinate the Saudi ambassador in Washington, D.C., in 2011, as well as to the successful plot to blow up a Jewish community center in Buenos Aires in 1994.
Notably, there is a federal statute that bars the transfer of “monetary instruments”—cash or its equivalent in bearer instruments—with the intent to promote “specified unlawful activity.” That term is defined to include a crime of violence or use of an explosive against a foreign country, a category that would include terrorism.
Proving intent is always difficult, but federal law recognizes that conscious avoidance of knowledge can be enough. So, for example, the person who transfers a firearm to a known bank robber need not be told directly that the weapon will be used in a bank robbery in order to be held responsible when it is—particularly if he took steps to conceal the transfer.
As it happens, though, there is more than one reason why no one in the administration will be prosecuted for consciously avoiding knowledge of how this cash likely will be used, and thereby violating the anti-money-laundering statute—even with proof that the cash was transported in an unmarked plane. For one thing,
the law applies only to transfers to or from the territory of the U.S. This transfer occurred entirely abroad.
In addition, there is a legal doctrine that bars the application of criminal statutes to government activity in furtherance of legitimate government business, unless those statutes are clearly meant to apply to such activity. So, for example, the driver of a firetruck cannot be held liable for speeding on his way to a fire.
The cash transfer here was said to have been arranged in furtherance of conducting the foreign relations of the U.S. The conduct of foreign relations is entirely an executive function. Those involved in this transfer would have the benefit of that doctrine.
Still, if this transfer had been made by a private person or entity—say, in payment of a debt to Iran—and the “monetary instruments” passed through the U.S., is there much doubt that a reasonable prosecutor would at least consider bringing the case?
So we have here the spectacle of the state engaging in conduct that would expose a private citizen to the risk of jail. Considering that the government exists both to serve and to teach us, perhaps it would not be asking too much to demand an explanation: Precisely what legitimate interest of the U.S. was furthered by loading $400 million in cash in an unmarked cargo plane and delivering it to a state sponsor of terrorism?
Mr. Mukasey served as U.S. attorney general (2007-09) and as a U.S. district judge for the Southern District of New York (1988-2006).
http://www.wsj.com/articles/the-400-...ght-1470353025
