It really is still amazing that the killing of an Iranian terrorist, a high ranking member of the Iran government and military, who is responsible for hundreds of American deaths, is being trashed by the American news media and Democrats. The same folks weren’t concerned when Obama was whacking big time terrorists
President Trump seems hell bent on starting another endless war in the Middle East.
He does not have the authority to do so.
I plan to fight him tooth and nail on this and intend to support the efforts of Senators Kaine, Sanders, and others.
Congress must assert its authority.
— Chuck Schumer (@SenSchumer) January 6, 2020
But, um
Killing of Abu Yahya al-Libi is a huge blow to al Qaeda & evidence that President Obama’s bold & decisive drone strike policy is working
— Chuck Schumer (@SenSchumer) June 5, 2012
See, it was cool when Obama did it. But, Orange Man Bad, so, they’ll defend Iran. And virtually no one was whining about the legality
Growing doubts on legality of US strike that killed Iranian general
In the hours and days after Qasem Soleimani was killed in a US drone strike, his demise was described in various terms: President Donald Trump said he had been “terminated”; other US officials talked about a “targeted killing” and “lethal action.”
But both the Iranian President and Iraq’s Prime Minister said Soleimani’s death was an “assassination” — essentially a politically motivated murder.
See, CNN’s Tim Lister and Eve Bower prefer to listen to Iran. And then make a huge mistake regarding the legality
US officials have rejected the characterization of his killing as an assassination. That’s hardly a surprise because assassinations have been illegal under US federal law since 1981. But people have still been assassinated, and the government has not always been considered in violation of the law. This is, in part, because US law does not define “assassinations” with precision, and there are other laws that administrations have used to justify their actions.
What they want people to do is not click that link for “1981”. Go ahead and click it…..that’s right, it is not a law, it is an executive order. Any president can change, modify, cancel, or ignore an EO, because they are the president, and an EO is not law. Kinda like a CEO creating a dress code policy, then coming to work in sweat pants himself/herself while you wear dress pants. There is no U.S. law against assassination, nor one with guidance.
The crux of the Trump administration’s argument is that the threat posed by Soleimani’s plans was “imminent” and that the US response was “defensive.” A key requirement in order for a strike to be lawful under Article II of the US Constitution is that a threat must be imminent.
Yeah, they have no link for that, because it doesn’t appear in Article II anywhere. So, CNN is really just making things up because Orange Man Bad.
But targeted killings are permitted under international law in only very narrow circumstances, and some legal experts are skeptical that the White House’s justification for the strike — offered without evidence at the time of writing — meets those standards.
There were a few that were concerned with Obama’s “targeted killings”, including Bin Laden, calling them illegal, but, the U.S. media and Democrats, and Republicans, cheered Obama taking out terrorists. Do we really care what international law says? This is the same international law that is ignoring what Iran and Suleimani were doing.
You know, if Trump killed Hitler the Democrats and their pet media would find ways to slam Trump.
