however Congress did know that we had agreed to pay the money before the money was sent.
Congress knew that the administration intended to settle the claim. They weren't told any details, including how much, so they didn't have any chance to say, "Are you kidding?"
the money was agreed upon by us and Iran because the USA thought they were about to lose the case in the Hague.
I like you, Semp. You and I have different political opinions, but you are thoughtful in your responses, and you read articles in detail and understand them. I think that you are an intelligent guy. (And I love flying with you in scenarios.
)
In this case, the above is indeed what the administration said. But most people do not have any experience in court cases or settlements, and the above won't strike them as ridiculous. But for people who have some court and settlement experience, that explanation is a "dog ate my homework" level of justification because of the following.
There wasn't indication from the Hague that it was finalizing things in January, 2017 after spending 37 years on it so far. Whenever the Hague would have gotten around to finishing -- who knows when that would have been -- the finding could have been zero (or maybe less than zero, with Iran owing damages). Or it could have been some amount minus all the awarded damages with priority (meaning all the money would go to US victims, not to Iran). A likely maximum would be full amount plus interest. It seems highly unlikely that the court would go to full amount plus interest plus damages, as that is generally reserved for glaring cases of wrongdoing, whereas in this case, the money was frozen because Iran attacked the embassy, kidnapped people, and then hold them hostage, and the money was being held pending what the court ruled. I.e., the freeze had reasonable justification with precedent, and the US was complying with the international legal process for resolution -- making damages highly unlikely. Because there was glaring wrongdoing on Iran's part, it might even be that damages would have been against Iran. Also, awarding substantial damages would be a message to all terrorist regimes that there can be financial benefit to their activities. It would be so outrageous a finding that I would expect the US to appeal (if that were possible) and, if not possible or possible but not reversed, (rightly) refuse to comply at that point.
Folks who have court and settlement experience would find it laughable to volunteer a settlement at the conceivable maximum of what the court would rule, before the court case was even at its end.
Also, Semp, lets say the following happened to you. You had a father, brother, or son murdered by Iran-backed terrorists. There was a court case over it, and the court awarded you and your family $2 million to be paid by Iran. The court knew that Iran would not comply, but there was a fortunate external situation -- a bunch of Iranian money was being held in the US. So, the court (or US government) mandated that the held money could not be repaid to Iran until after Iran paid you the damages owed. However, after many years of you waiting while the money sat there, along came a US administration that paid all the money back to Iran without you getting anything. It is now highly likely that you and your family will never get any money from Iran for its involvement in the murder or your father, brother, or son.
Would you be OK with that? I'm not OK with that.
btw why isn't a big deal that Bush released 200 million to Iran years before?
Are we done with the current topic (Obama administration paying Iran $1.7 billion) and transitioning to talking about whatever it was Bush did, which is a different topic? It's OK with me if we are done with this topic. Please let me know.
like I say it was in the newspapers when the settlement was announced and the payments were sent after.
Kid: "Mom, I'm going to buy some candy."
Mom: no response, perhaps expecting to see what it is before reaching the checkout line.
Kid: "Oh, by the way, I already bought the candy. I bought $10,000 worth. You are OK with that, right? You didn't object when I said I was going to get some."
