• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Republican proposes bill to jail family for crimes w/ respect to Iran Sanctions

Status
Not open for further replies.
techs

techs

Lifer
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/05/22/tom-cotton-corruption-of-blood_n_3322251.html

Tom Cotton 'Corruption Of Blood' Bill Would Convict Family Members Of Iran Sanctions Violators

Rep. Tom Cotton (R-Ark.) on Wednesday introduced legislation that would "automatically" punish family members of people who violate U.S. sanctions against Iran, levying sentences of up to 20 years in prison.

The provision was introduced as an amendment to the Nuclear Iran Prevention Act of 2013, which lays out strong penalties for people who violate human rights, engage in censorship, or commit other abuses associated with the Iranian government.

Cotton also seeks to punish any family member of those people, "to include a spouse and any relative to the third degree," including, "parents, children, aunts, uncles, nephews nieces, grandparents, great grandparents, grandkids, great grandkids," Cotton said.

"There would be no investigation," Cotton said during Wednesday's markup hearing before the House Foreign Affairs Committee. "If the prime malefactor of the family is identified as on the list for sanctions, then everyone within their family would automatically come within the sanctions regime as well. It'd be very hard to demonstrate and investigate to conclusive proof."

EDIT:
http://www.treasury.gov/resource-center/sanctions/Programs/Documents/iran.txt

Criminal penalties for violations of the Iranian Transactions Regulations may
result in a fine up to $1,000,000, and natural persons may be imprisoned for up to 20 years. Civil penalties, which are not to exceed the greater of $250,000 or an amount that is twice the amount of the transaction that is the basis of the violation with respect to which the penalty is imposed may also be imposed administratively
 
Last edited by a moderator:
The nice thing is that it won't go anywhere. It's good to know who is doing what, but this is going in the legal dumpster. I'm sure his law professors will remember him as "that guy".
 
Last edited:
I don't know how what countries the U.S. govt is going to go to war against. I used to think for sure that it would be iran, but now i'm not sure.

In any event, I don't want to see a bunch of people killed or hyperinflation from wreckless fiscal policy.
 
I'm confident that this bill will go nowhere but seriously that guy needs to be thrown out for even proposing something so outlandish! I'm curious if this is just a cynical ploy to throw red meat to his constituents but then it begs the question "Who the hell thinks like that and are they that great in number"?
 
Emos said:
I'm confident that this bill will go nowhere but seriously that guy needs to be thrown out for even proposing something so outlandish! I'm curious if this is just a cynical ploy to throw red meat to his constituents but then it begs the question "Who the hell thinks like that and are they that great in number"?
Click to expand...

i agree.
 
techs said:
Todays "this is going nowhere" is tomorrows party platform of the Republican Party.
Click to expand...

Collectivist punishment is commonly desired as the dehumanization of a group, as the hate for it, increases. It's not enough to kill one.

The extreme version of this comes under the worst regimes, like the Nazis or WWII Japanese, who could do mass killings for one person's crime.

Channeling hate, becoming the attractive party for voters who feel that way, even if absolutely nothing comes out of it, is still a political victory for them.

Ask Hubert Humphrey, who saw the liberal era in the US come to an end with the election of Richard Nixon, not for his good looks.

It all comes down to the numbers - how many voters want that? Thing is if Republicans don't use that hate, what are they going to run on?

That isn't actually a rhetorical question - they are working on new marketing, and they'd love to find a way to convince voters that their economic interests lie with Republicans.

But that's a harder sell after 2008 and policies shifting wealth to the top.

The moral question about more collective punishment is not net - the bible has a lesson, do not punish the son for the sins of the father.

The thing is, why would that be mentioned, if there weren't people who wanted to do just that?

And of course in North Korea today, we have not only families put in prison camps for one person's wrong - but three generations of the family.
 
Last edited:
I watched the video provided at that link, and I'm willing to believe at this point that the article is taking something out of context. He seemed to be focused on asset transfers and such to relatives of those committing the crime. I know the Republicans are prone to stupid these days, but this seems like a stretch.
 
Mxylplyx said:
I watched the video provided at that link, and I'm willing to believe at this point that the article is taking something out of context. He seemed to be focused on asset transfers and such to relatives of those committing the crime. I know the Republicans are prone to stupid these days, but this seems like a stretch.
Click to expand...

To be fair, there are issues that represent a lot of Republicans, and issues that are the fringe people. Both are useful info, but they shouldn't be confused.
 
techs said:
I figured the eloquence of the idea deserved to stand on its own.


But seriously, "WTF"?

Oh, and the guy is a lawyer. I guess he was absent the day the talked about the "Constitution"
Click to expand...

Emos said:
I'm confident that this bill will go nowhere but seriously that guy needs to be thrown out for even proposing something so outlandish! I'm curious if this is just a cynical ploy to throw red meat to his constituents but then it begs the question "Who the hell thinks like that and are they that great in number"?
Click to expand...

So people are getting thrown out of office for proposing things that are unconstitutional?(potentially)? sounds like we'd lose a lot of congressmembers then regarding the 1st, 2nd, 4th, and even 8th amendment violations that have been proposed.

Hah, maybe it's because more members here are libs/dems i hear about this outlandish behavior by the (r) team . . . is it just being reported more or are they really starting to blossom in their new platform?
 
Lithium381 said:
So people are getting thrown out of office for proposing things that are unconstitutional?(potentially)? sounds like we'd lose a lot of congressmembers then regarding the 1st, 2nd, 4th, and even 8th amendment violations that have been proposed.

Hah, maybe it's because more members here are libs/dems i hear about this outlandish behavior by the (r) team . . . is it just being reported more or are they really starting to blossom in their new platform?
Click to expand...

There are degrees, not every unconstitutional suggestion is the same amount of bad.

Not sure what you're asking about platform.
 
My POV as a poster only.

The bill is to punish people for actions done by family members w/ respect to Iranian sanctions.

Techs wants to make this into a partisan that any family member can be jailed when a crime has been committed.
This is false according to the bill intent.

Otherwise the way Techs wants to have his partisan cake, anyone the is convicted of a DUI could cause a wife, child, parent, grandparent, sibling, etc to go to jail also.

Also, what Techs wants to "claim" according to the original title and his disclaimers happens to be illegal under the existing constitution.

He referenced the bill which has specific limits.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
EagleKeeper said:
My POV as a poster only.

The bill is to punish people for actions done by family members w/ respect to Iranian sanctions.

Techs wants to make this into a partisan that any family member can be jailed when a crime has been committed.
This is false according to the bill intent.

Otherwise the way Techs wants to have his partisan cake, anyone the is convicted of a DUI could cause a wife, child, parent, grandparent, sibling, etc to go to jail also.

Also, what Techs wants to "claim" according to the original title and his disclaimers happens to be illegal under the existing constitution.

He referenced the bill which has specific limits.
Click to expand...

You completely fail to understand that the principle of jailing people for crimes they did not commit, but because they are merely relatives of people who committed crimes is the purpose of this thread.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Status
Not open for further replies.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top