Our new and improved Iraq discussion thread!

[Stephanie B]

Progressives and leftists who happen to hate Trump aren't NeverTrumpers. They just hate Trump.

Sorry, but I don't *hate* Trump. I have no regard for him, I think he's a low-wattage narcissist who may be exhibiting symptoms of a decline in his mental facilities. But I don't *hate* him.

It's like saluting a senior officer: One salutes the uniform, not necessarily the clown who is wearing it.

[jrm]

While I am not an attorney, I am not sure that the attack violated the Constitution due to the War Powers Act. The high level summary is as follows.



So Congress was notified with forty-hours of the commitment (maybe depending upon when the operation was approved as the notification was on 04-JAN and the operation occurred on 03-JAN) and the action is complete. One could also argue that the Congress has already authorized the action due to Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq and Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Terrorists. While passed back when Bush 41 was POTUS, those engagements never ended and are the reasons the personnel are already deployed in Iraq.

The War Powers Resolution requires “(1) a declaration of war, (2) specific statutory authorization, or (3) a national emergency created by attack upon the United States, its territories or possessions, or its armed forces.” It is not a block grant for the president to do whatever he wants for a limited period of time. I find it hard to call the status quo for over 10 years an emergency. Of the two potential congressional authorizations cited one is specifically related to Iraq not Iran the other is specifically related to the September 11 planners, perpetrators, authorizer, aiders, and harborers. I’m am not aware of Iran being any of those. From Rand Paul and Mike Lee’s reaction it does not appear that the senate has been given any information that would contradict my understanding. There may be some theory that makes the strike constitutional I honestly don’t know. The government is supposed to be limited in power they need to explain why they are authorized to take action; not take action and see if anyone can come up with a reason they aren’t. That goes for the executive and legislative branches, Republicans and Democrats, Trump and any future or past elected official. After they present a reason they are empowered to take an action then the judiciary and citizens can have a real discussion on wether it is lawful or appropriate.

[RoyGBiv]

National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) for Fiscal Year 2012(Pub.L. 112–81)

Emphasis mine...

Subtitle D—Counterterrorism
SEC. 1021. AFFIRMATION OF AUTHORITY OF THE ARMED FORCES OF
THE UNITED STATES TO DETAIN COVERED PERSONS
PURSUANT TO THE AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF MILITARY
FORCE.
(a) IN GENERAL.—Congress affirms that the authority of the
President to use all necessary and appropriate force pursuant to
the Authorization for Use of Military Force (Public Law 107–40;
50 U.S.C. 1541 note) includes the authority for the Armed Forces
of the United States to detain covered persons (as defined in subsection
(b)) pending disposition under the law of war.
(b) COVERED PERSONS.—A covered person under this section
is any person as follows:
(1) A person who planned, authorized, committed, or aided
the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001,
or harbored those responsible for those attacks.
(2) A person who was a part of or substantially supported
al-Qaeda, the Taliban, or associated forces that are engaged
in hostilities against the United States or its coalition partners,
including any person who has committed a belligerent act or
has directly supported such hostilities in aid of such enemy
forces.

[RoyGBiv]

Gen. Keane: Iran's 'feeble response' was a result of Trump's 'full-throttle' approach

Keane said he believes Iran's leaders realized that Trump would authorize a "full-throttle" response if they had undertaken a more significant retaliation.

"We would have taken down all eight of their refineries, most of the power plants in the country that drive the electricity grid, and we would have taken down their cruise missiles and all of their strategic short-range and ballistic missiles," he said. "They would have been done at that point."

[nalesq]

Right, and remind me how many times we tried to assassinate the head of the KGB when the Soviets were funding and assisting the PLO, the Red Brigades and every other fricking terrorist group out there, except for the guys who took over the Nakitomi Tower. Conversely, how many times did the Soviets try whack the head of the CIA or Charlie Wilson when the US was sending weapons to the Mujaheddin in Afghanistan. And then there was/is the Israeli assassinations of Iranian nuclear scientists. And our use of damn-near invisible drones to drop weapons on people we disapprove of.

Guess it all depends where one stands.

Yeah, I get why, as a general rule, it might be a bad idea to go down the road of whacking high-ranking officials from foreign countries.

But to me what makes this particular situation different is the sheer scale of Suleimani’s shenanigans directed at killing Americans combined with the fact that he actually showed up in Baghdad to own and oversee the shenanigans personally. That stepped over a line.

He is kind of like the villain at the end of Lethal Weapon 2 who lit up Riggs, and then somehow reasonably expected Murtaugh to just leave him be right then and there under the cloak of “diplomatic immunity.” Sorry, but there comes a point where that just doesn’t work anymore.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

[fly out]

Yeah, I get why, as a general rule, it might be a bad idea to go down the road of whacking high-ranking officials from foreign countries.

But to me what makes this particular situation different is the sheer scale of Suleimani’s shenanigans directed at killing Americans combined with the fact that he actually showed up in Baghdad to own and oversee the shenanigans personally. That stepped over a line.

He is kind of like the villain at the end of Lethal Weapon 2 who lit up Riggs, and then somehow reasonably expected Murtaugh to just leave him be right then and there under the cloak of “diplomatic immunity.” Sorry, but there comes a point where that just doesn’t work anymore.

According to the Obama-era sanctions filing, Soleimani traveled under an Iranian diplomatic passport.

[TGS]

FWIW, travelling under a diplomatic passport grants no form of immunity.

[Borderland]

Keane said he believes Iran's leaders realized that Trump would authorize a "full-throttle" response if they had undertaken a more significant retaliation.

"We would have taken down all eight of their refineries, most of the power plants in the country that drive the electricity grid, and we would have taken down their cruise missiles and all of their strategic short-range and ballistic missiles," he said. "They would have been done at that point."

That's exactly what would have happened. The US has the capability to launch cruise missiles from ships or aircraft (B-52) that never enter Iranian airspace. Stand off range is about 1000 miles for the latest air launched missile.

[Borderland]

QFT


IIRC, we were putting full faith and effort in countering the Soviets and pretty much every US politician was on board. MAD dictated different tactics in that relationship. Iran today creates trouble on a scale they are far too puny to defend, are pursuing nuclear weapons and what do we do? We give them planeloads of cash and a treaty that lets them build a bomb, but only far enough after Obama leaves office that his legacy might deflect the blame.

Eventually Iran will have a bomb. My guess is once they have the capability to deliver one the country will go dark. Israel will make sure of that.

[fly out]

FWIW, travelling under a diplomatic passport grants no form of immunity.

That depends on the country you're standing in with said diplomatic passport, but nalesq and I were just reliving a little LWII.