All Things Trump: Is it over yet?

[Sean Hayden]

He retired and died in his sleep in his 80s.

[Tero]

https://karireport.blogspot.com/2019/06 ... untry.html

[Tero]

Back to reality:

[pErvinalia]

"The" what? Enquiring minds want to know!

[Tero]

"The Service, however, did not specify what the misinformation was or what exactly caused the website crash. "
https://amp.usatoday.com/amp/2812768001

[pErvinalia]

I didn't really want to know..

[JimC]

I think that the killing of Solemani would not be considered illegal under current US law. International law is another matter, though a case could be made that Solemani was engaged in/responsible for armed conflict with the United States, and therefore a legitimate target even though Iran and the US were not at war at the time of the killing. Not to say that the United States is known for strict adherence to international law.

Whether the killing was in accordance with any particular version of morality, whether it was the right thing to do, either tactically or strategically, whether it was ordered by a dangerous nincompoop whose action will result in more deaths (of unforeseeable numbers), these are separate questions.

That would only be the case if a court accepted arguments from defence and/or intelligence agencies that he was actively planning the killing of US citizens, and his death was necessary to prevent this. Certainly that is what Trump is alleging, but it will be highly unlikely to be acceptable to international legal opinion, particularly since the evidence from intelligence sources confirming this would never be released. It will be a case of "you'll have to take our word for that", which will not really cut the mustard...

Having said that, most sources seem to agree that Solemani was an active player in the dark side of Iranian actions, and need not be mourned. However, the consequences may be highly problematic for middle-Eastern stability...

[Svartalf]

international law, my foot.

the US would never subject itself to an international court, or accept its decisions made after an in absentia trial, and no countries will take sanctions against them over this, except those, maybe, that are already on a reciprocal shit list.

[Tero]

4B795587-5817-4DDA-A93F-4A170F821E5C.jpeg (124.31 KiB) Viewed 1656 times

[L'Emmerdeur]

I think that the killing of Solemani would not be considered illegal under current US law. International law is another matter, though a case could be made that Solemani was engaged in/responsible for armed conflict with the United States, and therefore a legitimate target even though Iran and the US were not at war at the time of the killing. Not to say that the United States is known for strict adherence to international law.

Whether the killing was in accordance with any particular version of morality, whether it was the right thing to do, either tactically or strategically, whether it was ordered by a dangerous nincompoop whose action will result in more deaths (of unforeseeable numbers), these are separate questions.

That would only be the case if a court accepted arguments from defence and/or intelligence agencies that he was actively planning the killing of US citizens, and his death was necessary to prevent this. Certainly that is what Trump is alleging, but it will be highly unlikely to be acceptable to international legal opinion, particularly since the evidence from intelligence sources confirming this would never be released. It will be a case of "you'll have to take our word for that", which will not really cut the mustard...

Having said that, most sources seem to agree that Solemani was an active player in the dark side of Iranian actions, and need not be mourned. However, the consequences may be highly problematic for middle-Eastern stability...

I think that in what passes for Trump's mind Middle-Eastern stability isn't a consideration. The recent escalation in activity by Iran and the concomitant destabilisation of the Middle East which serves as part of the fig-leaf for the killing can be traced directly back to Trump withdrawing from the nuclear agreement, and subsequently increasing sanctions on Iran. Years ago, Trump threw a big greasy spanner into whatever semblance of stability existed in the Middle East.

The killing looks like it's merely a continuation of the ignorant, gormless, impulsive cowboy behaviour that has passed for US foreign policy ever since Trump took the reins. I think it will inevitably result in not only a decrease in stability, but an increase in violence and death, including the deaths of Americans. By all accounts, Solemani was a highly competent commander/operative, but there is no question that there are others who will step into his shoes, and they are well motivated to carry on his work.

As you say, we have been told the evidence that Solemani was engaged in coordinating and instigating terrorism is very strong, and if we accept that then there is little doubt that he's been responsible for the deaths of many people, including Americans. Given that, Solemani could legitimately be described as a combatant. Yes, it's almost certain that the evidence would never make it to any sort of trial, but any such trial is merely hypothetical. In the present context, discussion of legalities is purely hypothetical.

That said, if Solemani was a combatant, then he was a legitimate target of military force. Trump claims that Solemani was actively involved in facilitating an imminent attack on US interests. That would include US personnel. Whether that is true or not we'll likely never know. However, given Solemani's track record and the recent escalation of action by Iran it's not an outlandish claim that can be dismissed just because Trump is an infamous liar. Under international law, states are allowed to act in self defence.

The Charter of the United Nations recognizes the inherent right of self defense and does not preclude unilateral action against an immediate threat. In general terms, the United States recognizes three forms of self defense:

• Against an actual use of force, or hostile act;
• Pre-emptive self defense against an imminent use of force; and
• Self defense against a continuing threat.

A national decision to employ military force in self defense against a legitimate terrorist threat would not be unlike the employment of force in response to a threat by conventional forces; only the nature of the threat has changed, rather than the international legal right of self defense. The terrorist organizations envisaged as appropriate to necessitate or warrant an armed response by U.S. military forces are well-financed, highly organized paramilitary structures engaged in the illegal use of force.

[source]

Whether justifiable by international law or not, I think the killing of Solemani is likely to redound to the detriment of US self defence, rather than enhancing it. So in my opinion Trump's rationale (even if creditable) is a failure.

[Tyrannical]

Silly pic that made a point about oil and Trump and Putin and Iran

Funny thing in all seriousness, the US has become for the first time in years a net exporter of petroleum products. That's not counting neighbor Canada and Mexico's capacity. Middle East oil goes to China anyways

[Seabass]

Personally I'm glad the fucker is dead, one less fanatic jihadi asshole is always a good thing. Whether offing him at this juncture was a good geopolitical move or not remains to be seen, but I certainly won't be crying crocodile tears over their "beloved military leader". Fuck them, if I'd been in charge they'd have been smoking rubble back in '79. Probably a good thing I was never in charge of anything more dangerous than a boat, eh? It does put the Dems in the unenviable position of having to support an Islamic terrorist leader, which I find quite delicious.

Well, fortunately, anyone with at least two brain cells to rub together can tell the difference between supporting a terrorist and denouncing a reckless military action. Unfortunately, that means that about 40% of the US populace won't see a difference.

One thing you gotta give The Donald, he's certainly made politics interesting again.

Yes, having a semiliterate, semi-retarded moron in charge of the most powerful military on earth definitely makes things "interesting". In the same way that waking up to find genital warts all over your dick makes for an "interesting" morning.

[JimC]

...In the same way that waking up to find genital warts all over your dick makes for an "interesting" morning...

I hope that's not from personal experience!

[laklak]

He's a very stable semi-literate, semi-retarded moron, though. Just ask him, he'll tell you.

[Tero]

No plan? Yes there is! See..