In an interview broadcast on Friday, President Trump continued to try to skirt around the intelligence on Iranian Gen. Qassem Soleimani which was used as the pretext for his assassination last week.
Following other suggestions that Soleimani was plotting to attack an embassy, Trump now claims he personally believes that Soleimani would’ve attacked four embassies. He provided no evidence to back this up, claiming it was a “belief.”
Asked by interviewer Laura Ingraham if the “American people have a right to know what specifically was targeted,” Trump was dismissive, saying “I don’t think so,” and saying that it would “probably” be the Baghdad Embassy.
Secretary of State Mike Pompeo has struggled with this narrative in recent comments as well, claiming at times that Soleimani was involved in “imminent” attacks, but conceding that the US didn’t know precisely when or where the attack might happen.
Pompeo started suggesting the target was “embassies” after Trump spoke, and argued to the media that his claim that the attack was imminent, his claim they didn’t know when or where, and Trump’s claim it was four embassies did not plainly contradict one another. This has continued Pompeo’s strategy of saying something that didn’t jibe with Trump’s narrative, and then insisting the comments were somehow fully consistent.
Between the lack of evidence on these claims, and the revelation that the US also tried to kill a second Iranian general in Yemen on the same day, the signs are that the president just started trying to kill Iranians, and came up with official excuses well after the fact.
Soooo what happens when Iran assassinates a US general in, say, Canada and uses the excuse that well he had killed Iranians before and we thought he was going to do it again some time. But, we cry, where’s your evidence?? The Iranian reply: see, we have this list of people we say are terrorists and he’s on it, so we’re just doing our part in your War on Terror, preventing future attacks. Oh the howls of indignation and calls for the use of nuclear weapons on Iran would be deafening.
When you say it’s a belief you don’t need no stinking proof. Kind of like the sky fairy.
Sky fairies are unusually well armed nowadays…
“Secretary of State Mike Pompeo has struggled with this narrative in recent comments as well, claiming at times that Soleimani was involved in “imminent” attacks, but conceding that the US DIDN’T KNOW PRECISELY WHEN OR WHERE THE ATTACK MIGHT HAPPEN.”
And your honor, the prosecution rests. With absolutely nothing.
This is the “Bethlehem Doctrine”, explained by Craig Murray, above. It is nonsensical, and only accepted by the USA and Israel. Enough said!
Eh, Bethlehem doctrine?
https://consortiumnews.com/2020/01/09/lies-the-bethlehem-doctrine-the-illegal-murder-of-soleimani/
The Bethlehem doctrine gives too much fame to Daniel Bethlehem and Israel.
U.N. Charter Article 51, cited by both the U.S. and Iran for their aggressions, enshrines the right to self-defense under conditions of ‘immanent threat’. The U.S. attacked with no proof given after the fact, Iran attacked with the initial threat over.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-defence_in_international_law
Bethlehem may have tried to put his stamp on the formal gaming of ‘self defense’, but that would be just another Israeli fame-grab Israel wanks like to push, like how Israel ‘invented’ cherry tomatoes.
Seems implausible that Soleimani would have personally attacked four U.S. embassies. His subordinates called off the attacks to mourn him?
True; Soleimani’s men would follow through if they had such plans – unless Soleimani was induced into calling them off and never lived to re-issue the orders. Eastern soldiers seem trained to obedience, not initiative.
Soliemani was called off whatever he was doing for a diplomatic mission.
https://consortiumnews.com/2020/01/06/the-economic-risks-of-trumps-reckless-assassination/
One cannot rule out Soleimani was Iran’s Surena. That famous general defeated the Roman Empire’s invasion of Parthia but was then executed for becoming too powerful, a threat to the Parthian King Orodes II.
Don’t trust the Supreme Leader’s tears, or Rouhani. The Middle East is kind full of that kind of history.
Trump has turned out to be just another lying war criminal for the Inbred Dynastic Banker Clan mafia. He is a fool to trust a proud professional liar like Pompeo or anyone else from the CIA.
All U.S. presidents in recent memory have been war criminals. It comes with the job, apparently.
This particular war criminal ended for now, cries for hot war with Iran, removed a critical opponent to American hegemony, while facing down impeachment for trying to end wars more straightforwardly.
War with Iran was never a possibility, though; the quadrillion dollar oil derivatives scam paradoxically needs disruption with peace.
https://consortiumnews.com/2020/01/06/the-economic-risks-of-trumps-reckless-assassination/
“trying to end wars more straightforwardly” and what instance, exactly, was that ?
Most recently, and for the third time since being in office, Trump announced he was pulling troops out of Syria. Then Sen. Graham and other MIC lobby lackeys frantically ran to the White House, as in prior instances, and more than hinted his Senate Republican “allies” would not help Trump out of the impeachment threat hanging over him unless he re-hardened his line in the Mideast. Presto changeo, Trump keeps troops in Syria.
First, the troops in Syria were deployed by trump himself. There were only 300 when he took office. Since when does it matter what he said ? Obama “said” he wanted to close out the war on terrorism authorization in 2015, didn’t change anything, did it ?
Obama sent in the troops, and that makes it Obama’s op. Trump warned him not to, and he was right because now he’s stuck.
That Trump added more troops was politically inevitable. He is not a dictator with dictatorial powers; he has to cut deals.
Trump does own the problem now, but domestically and geopolitically, the demanded solution is not a straightforward pullout, ’cause that’s ‘losing’, its win and stay (unrealistic) or at least stay (sadly doable).
The only way Trump can withdraw from America’s wars, is to win them (impossible) or yield to an unforseeable overwhelming circumstance (not so impossible) overriding imperial court politics, like when Iraq tossed Obama from Iraq.
Except, Obama left a back door back in with the IS.
Those spec ops in Syria have most likely been there since Iraq war 1. What Obama did do was increase air strikes, allegedly against ISIS. No, trump sent in the three thousand marines in early 2017, quadrupled air strikes, and leveled Syrian cities with marine artillery. Of course he owns it, he owned it since he was sworn in. If you buy a used car with flat tires, guess what, you now own the flat tires. You either fix the flat, or as trump has done flatten the other three to match.
“Iraq tossed Obama from Iraq”…sheesh. the withdrawal of forces was negotiated by bush 2, Obama, like what used to be a norm, honored the agreement.
Your definitions of win, lose or draw in Iraq sounds like Afghanistan 15 years ago.
Face it, trump escalated every theater, in deployments and air and artillery strikes. Its year three. He brought us to the brink with Iran, in fact, the assasination was a declaration of war.
Took me 10 days in to show me Obama would not draw down on the war on terror, what is the problem with you trump apologists ? 3 years of war escalation, and you’re still waiting for that trumpU diploma.
I can’t speak for every Trump supporter.
By now the second lowest common objective is to annoy the War Party and maybe get out of some wars and get a little prosperity back.
The lowest common objective is simply to annoy the War Party.
Don’t you get it? Someone’s going to squat the White House; may as well be Trump. Trump is the Great Disruptor, the protest candidate, the Great Last Hope.
He’s not a real Republican or real Democrat. He’s just the real thing, even if we have no idea what that is exactly – but it ticks off the War Party off real good.
Also shuts the Global Reset half out of the Presidential Protection system.
Your alternative would be…? I still prefer a Jill Stein fantasy sport Presidency, but there’s no way she’d survive a real impeachment drive.
“He’s not a real Republican or real Democrat. He’s just the real thing”
Only if by “real thing” you mean “career con artist, doing what con artists do.”
Yes – one who promised to work on ‘our’ side’. Behind closed doors, he probably promises oligarchs to work for them. Of course he’s working for himself.
At the same time, Trump is the perfect protest candidate; he can get elected, still stay in office, and somehow produce effective policies.
There may be intense disagreement with the quality of Trump’s policy effects, but they oddly enough reflect the democratic results of 2016.
The Popular vote went with War Queen Hiliarity. The sort-of peace vote went to Trump via the Electoral College, compensating for America’s rural-urban split. The Presidency is not a dictatorship; Trump has to make deals with all major stakeholders.
The U.S. may be frozen in partisan gridlock, but events move on. No new wars, no ended wars, overall perhaps still falling behind the Eurasian century while climate change reshapes the global chessboard…
However, Russia’s march across Syria is slowed to a crawl, China’s economic rise is faceplanted by trade war, and Iran’s scimitar across the Middle East broken in Iraq.
Trump is the real thing. Somehow.
I don’t like any of the militant potus. Impeach them all as soon as they get in office and conduct illegal war. I don’t care if it’s for a blue stained dress or a ridiculous tie. It’s obvious congress wont do anything about illegal war.
Trump isn’t being impeached for making war, unfortunately. He’s being impeached indirectly for trying to pull out of wars.
As Alan M. Dershowitz points out, one oft he major planks of the Ukrainegate saga is a farce; Trump is completely within his Constitutional rights to ignore Congress on a matter of foreign policy, including withholding funds from the Ukraine as he saw fit.
https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/15462/trump-had-right-to-withhold-ukraine-funds-gao-is
The Presidency had ignored for decades a bipartisan motion to move the U.S. Embassy to Jerusalem.
The danger Dershowitz doesn’t point out, is that this is yet another attempt by Congress to take over Executive powers whenever they feel the President isn’t imperial enough.
Tulsi Gabbard and others attempt to pass motions demanding the President withdraw troops from Syria, the legal implications are ignored.
On the surface, an order to withdraw looks anti-war; but really, if it stuck, the precedent of Congress directing troop movements would give Congress the right to wage war, not just declare it.
“As Alan M. Dershowitz points out, one oft he major planks of the Ukrainegate saga is a farce; Trump is completely within his Constitutional rights to ignore Congress on a matter of foreign policy, including withholding funds from the Ukraine as he saw fit.”
Dershowitz is pounding the table.
What made Dershowitz the effective lawyer and celebrity attorney that he is, is that Dershowitz can do time-on-target with the facts, law AND especially the table.
The Constitution is clear enough on the powers of the President in foreign affairs; Ukraine is only informally part of the U.S. Empire and still a foreign country.
The table is pounded with the facts and the law here.
“The Constitution is clear enough on the powers of the President in foreign affairs”
True. It gives him almost no power in foreign affairs.
He’s allowed to negotiate treaties, but the Senate has to ratify them.
He’s allowed to appoint a Secretary of State and ambassadors, but only if the Senate approves his appointments.
He’s commander in chief of the armed forces, but only when they’re “called into the actual service of the United States,” which used to mean “when Congress declares war.”
Congress, on the other hand, is specifically “allocated” control of foreign commerce, control of defining and punishing crimes on the high seas and against the “law of nations,” control of calling forth the militias to repel invasions, and complete power of the purse: All presidential spending has to be “in consequence of appropriations made by law.”
The president has seized substantial control of foreign policy over the last century or so, but nowhere is he “allocated” such power in the Constitution.
Furthermore, the evidence emerging over the last few days, including Giuliani’s letter seeking a meeting with Zelensky, indicates that Trump was specifically and intentionally acting as a “private citizen,” not as president, when he tried to set up the Ukraine bribe.
The COG perhaps wants to install failsafes against a rogue President not consistently pro-war, but by your interpretation this also becomes (surely inadvertently) an attempt to roll back the Imperial Presidency, not just add Congressional intervention; that won’t stand.
The Presidency was given control of foreign policy. Whatever seizing wasn’t all that convincingly opposed by Congress, which by statute and negligent precedence allowed the Imperial Presidency to arise. The[y] can maybe roll that back, but wouldn’t. Normally..
Also, Congress made the “bribe”; that’s what foreign aid usually amounts to. The President was exercising discretion of when to release it. Giuliani wasn’t paying anyone out of Trump’s pocket.
President Zelinsky didn’t know if Trump could or could not withhold aid any more than his predecessors in knew if Biden could withhold aid.
By acting in a partisan manner to prevent investigation of a leading Democrat, the Democrats are worse than Trump.
Biden did interfere in Ukraine and the Democrats then sabotaged Trump’s use of the same tactic Biden used – threatening to withhold aid.The trick will be difficult to use again.
However, if withholding aid was illegal… well then both Biden and Trump made hollow threats, but Biden was thwarting justice while Trump was pursuing justice.
https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2019/may/07/viral-image/fact-checking-joe-biden-hunter-biden-and-ukraine/
The faction of the Deep State empowered under Trump are no dummies; they will want to preserve the imperial Presidency and intimidate satellites.
Article II Section III makes clear, the President “… shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed…”
https://constitutioncenter.org/interactive-constitution/interpretation/article-ii/clauses/348
Making sure the Ukraine deals with corruption – including corruption emanating from the U.S. itself – to effect critical foreign policy outcomes is within Trump’s purview.
However, this is also arguably Political Question Doctrine territory, the Constitution’s great loophole.
As such, it is being handled as such at the Legislative, not Judicial, level as it should. Trump, however, appears to have done nothing wrong.
Withholding aid can’t be legal for Biden and illegal for Trump, and, the aid went through regardless – delayed – not prevented. Biden acted in bad faith, preventing a lawful and needed investigation while Trump wanted a lawful an needed investigation but was prevented from getting one by the Democrats blowing his hand.
“Withholding aid can’t be legal for Biden and illegal for Trump”
Nice try. Who said it was legal for Biden?
Precisely my point. No-one. Nor is the action illegal.
They made that up just for Trump. Impoundment controversies apparently go back a ways.
Odds are, if the Dems push, the Impoundment Control Act itself could get tossed as an infringement of Executive powers to faithfully enact laws according to a timeframe the Executive deems best to meet the policy goals of the law.
https://law.onecle.com/constitution/article-2/37-impoundment-of-appropriated-funds.html
It’s too early in the week, and in the morning, for “Dumbest Thing Tom Knapp Read This Week” entries. Please re-submit again later.
Translation: Knapp has no argument.
Congress had no clue or care if what Biden did was right or wrong, legal or illegal. They just agreed with what he was doing; the business of plunder as usual, as a privileged political elite.
Only after they became fixated with Trump Derangement Syndrome, finding an accusation of bribery irrational, did they dig up an old Nixon-era chestnut to roast [upon] the Trump witch-hunt pyre.
However, the Impoundment Act is a nothingburger Nixon-era law that while less convoluted than the War Measures Act, is the same legislative theatre miming accountability, written such that Congress need not enforce, and by the Constitution the President need not obey.
Public Law 93-344 [H. R . 7 1 3 0 ] July 12,1974.
https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/93/hr7130/text
The Impoundment Act wasn’t originally its own act but are the headline provisions of a Nixon-era popular balm revamping the Congressional budget-setting process. Beginning around Section 1000 of a 339-page, 1017-Section bill…
Its since been ammended a few times, but the preamble already explicitly violates the separation of powers insofar as until that time impoundment had been seen as integral Executive power.
“AN A C T
To establish a new congressional budget process; to establish Committees on the Budget in each House ; to establish a Congressional Budget Office; to establish a procedure providing congressional control over the impoundment of funds by the executive branch; and for other purposes….”
The Impoundment Act openly states its intention to be an infringement on the Executive’s until-then recognized right to impound allocated funds.
The Constitution also implies a leadership role for the President. While Congress may make laws concerning foreign affairs, this is often under Executive initiative.
Ukraine aid packages would not even exist, were it not for the Obama-era, Executive-directed colour revolution that secured the Ukraine (but lost Crimea to Crimean secession and return to Russia, and East Ukraine civil war).
Congress gave bipartisan support to Obama’s geopolitical efforts including aid packages. Obama even had to reign in Congressional efforts to give Kiev anti-tank weapons, when inadvertent war with Russia seemed certain. Trump later gave these weapons – after tensions had cooled substantially.
In the end the Executive need be free to execute according to executive discretion what the Legislative legislates according to Legislative discretion. That is the only interpretation that clears supposed confusion over Constitutional separation of powers. The Impoundment Act does not meet a standard of interpretation securing separation of powers.
https://www.cfr.org/backgrounder/us-foreign-policy-powers-congress-and-president
Unlike the War Powers act, the Impoundment provisions of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 are reasonably clear, but lengthy. While the WMA did nothing to stop Imperial Presidential wars of choice, the Impoundment Act did appear to end Presidential exercise of Impoundment. This is an unconstitutional outcome.
The provisions essentially called for the President to ask for an amendment or corallary called a ‘rescission act’ each time he impounded funds, against an arbitrary time limit of 45 days. In practice, the President is routinely ignored by Congressional prerogative to Legislate at its own discretion.
Nixon’s use of impoundment power to thwart progressive measures including the final trigger, obstructing funding for an environmental initiative, long offended Congress and the public. However, when weakened by scandal, Nixon opted not to fight the Impoundment Act and signed the bill into law as a kind of appeasement.
However, the 339-page, 1017-Section bill also includes the provision that:
“SEC. 1001. Nothing contained in this Act, or in any amendments made by this Act, shall be construed as—
(1) asserting or conceding the constitutional powers or limitations of either the Congress or the President;…”
…meaning, the act merely sidestepped questions as to who had what powers under the Constitution.
With the consent of the sitting Congress and President, Executive Impoundment powers were waived by statute – not Constitutional Ammendment. The Impoundment Act can be ignored at any time by Congress or the Senate, little more than a formal gentleman’s agreement for Executive consultation.
Curiously, as of this posting, the Wiki has an incomplete list of major supporters of Impoundment; leading neocons. However, there are probably fully supportive and far less smearingly suspect centrists and Constitutional patriots supporting the return of Executive Impoundment as well.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impoundment_of_appropriated_funds
Impoundment is an integral and critical power of the Executive, and, preventing Presidents from using Impoundment no longer suits America’s need for Executive flexibility in the Eurasian Century.
At the end of the day, no government applying democracy anywhere can be left to statutory autopilot. The People need to mind whom they elect and the what-how of laws passed.
“Congress had no clue or care if what Biden did was right or wrong, legal or illegal. They just agreed with what he was doing; the business of plunder as usual, as a privileged political elite.”
Interesting assertion.
You do realize that the entire time Biden was doing those things, both houses of Congress were controlled by, um, Republicans, right?
Why would I expect Republicans to have more of a clue then Democrats?
The War Party is also the Corruption Party.
“Impoundment is an integral and critical power of the Executive”
Not according to the US Constitution, which explicitly delineates the power of the president. Under that document, he can veto bills with appropriations in them, or he can disburse the appropriations. There is no executive power, explicit or implicit, to countermand legislation at will after signing it.
The Constitution places no time limit on impoundment, which is the point. Not that there aren’t workarounds.
If Congress passed a law to give Planned Parenthood a cash grant, Trump would eventually have to deliver, but could also delay for quite a while. However, Congress could get around that by stipulating the money was intended as a policy goal to help PP meet its bills by a fixed date.
Jackson delayed buying new Mississippi gunboats for a year and got a better deal.
Trump delayed handing over Ukraine aid money for less than a month to back up an ultimately empty threat to withhold aid.
A better argument on your part would have been to argue, Biden only threatened to withhold aid but nothing was delayed.
Ugh. Jefferson, not Jackson. Thomas Jefferson was the first President to use the power of impoundment. Jefferson not only delayed buying gunboats he delayed overpaying government officials.
http://www.stateoftheunionhistory.com/2016/04/1803-thomas-jefferson-power-of.html
You are pretending that trump gives a rat’s ass about impeachment. Isn’t he the anti-politician? Beholden to no one ? Even if impeached, and convicted, what happens? He plays golf every weekend, watches tv, gets a show that is about how great he is. Nothing changes in his life. What we observe is, trump is a militant pos, and he is going to stay that way. Stop making excuses, his campaign is perfectly able to do that better than you.
I am pretending nothing, I have the same balanced position on Trump that the late Mr. Raimondo had, that you do not. The insane level of institutional opposition and investigation he has faced in office is a function of his being overall less interventionist than his 2016 competitors, and recent predecessors in the White House. If Rand or other full non-interventionist had won, they would have faced the same pressures and scam scandals, if not more, in order to compromise him or force him out, so the swamp could return to the full War agenda. Stop ignoring reality.
If you believe trump is non-interventionist, your “balanced position” fell over years ago.
As HC Duran points out, support for the wars is bipartisan.
Popularly, Hilary Clinton did almost win 2016; unfortunately there is significant – if not outright support for their dark empire – very high tolerance of it.
All Trump’s direct peace overtures whether withdrawal from Syria and Afghanistan, or peace with NK, have been met with hostile political rejection with the obvious cudgel of impeachment overhead.
Enough defections to anti-Trump progressive partisanship from the supposed antiwar crowd from day 1, has invalidated antiwar as an independent and potent political movement.
Its impossible to say how sincere Trump actually is but its clear, enough Americans support imperial wars that he can’t directly withdraw without [harshly negative] political consequences.
or, trump was never antiwar at all, and you got conned. The success of a con is measured by the faith of the patsies.
Few believed Trump was antiwar. He was simply the only candidate making the offer.
The Democrats and Republicans were never antiwar either.
Therefore, ticking them off and voting Trump, was simply the most satisfying choice.
Oddly enough, he still is, but the 2019 candidate races aren’t over yet.
Few believed Trump was antiwar. He was simply the only candidate making the offer.
The Democrats and Republicans were never antiwar either.
Therefore, ticking them off and voting Trump, was simply the most satisfying choice.
Oddly enough, he still is, but the 2019 candidate races aren’t over yet.
Wheaties is not eaten by champions at breakfast, trump is no victim, it’s his “brand”, a schtick. Poor donny, no one is letting him bring peace..sheesh.
Or, Trump is smart enough to know the system won’t let him bring peace and is gaming it for political success.
Either way, he’s still smart enough to be the only real Presidential contender making antiwar noises.
The bipartisan opposition to Trump’s peace initiatives is kind of hard to miss.
I can see the long list of warmongering by trump is not going to change the stolid believer in you. I’ll just reduce it to the drone assasination is an act of war against both Iran, and Iraq, there, is 2 new wars for you.
Discrete results are to believed.
My belief that Trump’s provocative actions will have long-term deleterious effects are theoretical with no discrete results yet manifested. And when and if they do, tracing them back may not be clear cut.
In the meantime – what new wars? Neither Iran nor Iraq seem particularly interested in taking up Trump on his top-for-tat provocations, which would entail them entering into war with the U.S. of their own volition.
Also silenced for now are U.S. Iran-war hawks. No less than Resistance savior Nancy Pelosi herself declared “America & the world cannot afford war.”
https://thehill.com/homenews/house/477258-pelosi-urges-end-to-needless-provocations-after-iran-missile-attack
Presumably she speaks for her globalist friends as well, with that ‘& the world’ bit.
Money rules. Hot War (selectively) sucks. Dtiz and Escobar pointed that out. Some aren’t getting the memo.
https://news.antiwar.com/2020/01/12/us-threatens-to-block-iraq-from-key-bank-account-if-they-expel-troops/
https://www.globalresearch.ca/financial-n-option-will-settle-trumps-oil-war/5699905?print=1
Its like that one-up game putting hands up a baseball bat to see who gets to bat first. Eventually bat runs out and someone’s hand is on top. Or the bottom as the case may be.
Trump cheated murderously of course, but that’s kind of a nothing charge in realpolitik.
You are in delusion, the attack was an act of war, nothing discreet about it. Unless you think that nothing short of an attack on your personal immediate family warrants attention by anybody.
“no discreet results yet manifested”…lol…you think people there are going to storm US air bases with pitchforks ?
You won’t say the attack was an act of war for one simple reason, and I do mean simple, you are a trump adulator, and in your worship brain he can do no wrong. Liberals, deep states, mic, whoever are all at fault, not the guy that….actually signs the orders. I’m a little jealous, I’ve never loved a man like you love spanky.
As a left-leaning centrist, I’ve always been amazed at how little results mattered to politicized progressives. Half the U.S. voted for War Queen Hilary – the Progressive candidate.
Whether a war on poverty, drugs, or crime, or an actual war, counter-productivity let alone never winning, never seemed to matter as long as the money for the project kept flowing to the progressive activist class.
Obama’s invasion of Syria was an act of war as well as an actual war; you don’t see Assad declaring such a thing officially; that would be suicide.
The original stormers of the Tehran embassy didn’t even have pitchforks. You don’t seem to understand the nature of the wars being fought.
An Occupy Embassy movement in Baghdad, would have been very difficult to deal with cleanly and without severe and bloody PR fails, ultimately losing Iraq.
The wars – conflicts – in Iran and Iraq are still continuations of pre-existing conflicts.
Trump invited escalation to a new level of conflict – official war; new formal total war – and has been as good as formally declined at home and abroad.
A significant discrete result.
“invited escalation” you are pretending that assasination of several important government officials is like sending a written invitation. No, it is an act of war, by any definition you want. If you wish to send accolades for preventing war, send them to Iran and Iraq.
I thought I just did; Iraq and Iran did not respond to U.S. provocations by declaring war or undertaking full armed self defense that would lead to war.
You don’t understand the history of legally defined war as opposed to the popular definition of war.
Committing an act of war means, the nation so offended against may legally enter into a legal condition of war with the aggressor nation. That’s all it means. There is no guarantee of victory or even token support from other nations.
Wars of aggression are technically illegal under international law, but this is more or less meaningless, as armed actions in self defense – even so-called self defense – are legal. Making war illegal only set up a system of armed conflict to game. International law operates on a kind of Political Question Doctrine; an act of self defense, is so if everyone agrees that is so AND the U.N. Security council agrees.
https://www.theguardian.com/news/2017/sep/14/making-war-illegal-changed-the-world-but-its-becoming-too-easy-to-break-the-law
None of the nations the U.S. informally invades has chosen to do so, therefore, legally, no war has taken place.This puts a cap on the level of violence.
America’s wars are extralegal armed conflicts; essentially state-directed terrorism for which there is no legal definition and therefore no remedy.
There is no penalty for the U.S. acting in defiance of U.N prohibitions of war or terrorism, because the only body capable of making a binding ruling against against gaming the international legal system, such as claiming any act of aggression as legal ‘self-defense’, is the U.N. Security Council, where the U.S. would veto any such finding.
Trump’s business instinct was always to understand the regulatory environment; the regulatory environment is permissive of conflict including ‘acts of war’.
The only remedy to an act of war IS TO MAKE WAR – who in their right mind declares war against the United States by formal declaration or act?
Not even Gaddaffi dared declare war. He did make the mistake of not fighting total war in self defense, which does not need a Declaration. The destructive outcomes would have been the same, but his only hope had been to outlast U.S./NATO aggression. Only a full mobilization would have done that.
Iraq and Iran have a lot to lose – their infrastructure. Even Syria, although extensively methodically destroyed over the years, retained core infrastructure because the U.S. and NATO were not given free reign to immediately destroy everything by a formal condition of war.
[Edits for spacing and punctuation errors.]
I see, so the US hasn’t been “at war” since we declared war on Romania in 1942…have you informed antiwar.com their services are not required ?
Antiwar is vitally needed to help point out the manic cheating around the formal illegality of war. However, Deranged Trump Syndrome is contributing to the meme mechanism of war normalization, both which needs be highlighted and defeated.
Unfortunately, the word ‘war’ has been so carelessly used, any proper sense of its meaning has been lost. Being at war has thus been normalized with any emotional meaning lost, like a classic movie remade too many times.
One way to help restore the meaning of war, is to return a fixed sense of the formal definition of war.
The U.S. is the worst offender in war normalization. The naked truth came out in the Soleimani assassination, cynically citing the self defense war loophole in Article 51 of the U.N. Charter that allows… ‘warlike’ defensive actions to be taken against acts of aggression, contrived or otherwise.
https://sites.duke.edu/lawfire/2020/01/03/the-killing-of-general-soleimani-was-lawful-self-defense-not-assassination/
All of America’s military actions have been artfully framed as acts of defense. These conflicts are not formal wars. Even the 2003 Iraq War, abused Article 51.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legality_of_the_Iraq_War
War has become lawless; extralegal. The breakdown of a moral-emotional sense of when war is justified, closely parallels the loss of any legal sense of war.
As long as you open a claim with “probably” you cannot be found to have been lying. President Trump seems to have learned that after thee years in the White House.
Like Theresa May and her “highly likely”, evidence-free accusations against Russia???
“the US also tried to kill a second Iranian general in Yemen on the same day”
If that attempt was launched from a US base in Iraq it was another brazen violation of the currently valid US agreement with Iraq on such activities.
Of course our government does not care about agreements with Iraq but other governments will notice and draw their own conclusions: Watch out! The current US government is totally unreliable.
Why report on POTUSTRUMPET’s lies? You cannot kill someone for what you “think!!” he might do. Soleimani destroyed ISIS while the USA pretended to fight them and ended up helping them, and this is well-known.
Ignore the twittering twits and empty but dangerous words and look at the facts. Here, and in consortiumnews.com or Informationclearinghouse are plenty of clear explanations of truth. The article by Craig Murray here is very exact and interesting (the Bethlehem Doctrine”), and the Iraqi PM’s words are worth reading too. As for “bad guys”, why are GWBush, Cheney, Condoleezza Rice, Rumsfeld, Richard Pearl , Henry Kissinger, Tony Blair…. still alive???
Why wouldn’t Antiwar help Trump hang on his own words?
The war on terror authorization gives the POTUS the power to attack anyone, anywhere, he believes is a terrorist, or aided or abetted the 9/11 attack. If he wakes up one morning thinking some british landlord rented al Qaeda a room, he can rubble London. Yup, that is exactly what it says.
The only apparent ‘attack’ seems to have been an abortive ‘Occupy Embassy’ movement in Baghdad reported Jan. 29, 2019. This would not have been particularly violent or deadly save maybe to the Iraqis involved. U.S. personnel were already sheltered or absent.
https://thehill.com/policy/international/middle-east-north-africa/476318-protesters-storm-us-embassy-in-baghdad-after
https://africa.cgtn.com/2020/01/01/iranian-backed-militias-begin-to-withdraw-from-us-embassy-in-baghdad-reports/
Was Soleimani behind it, yes he’s capable, but would he follow through – that’s unclear. What is clear he was dead on Jan. 3, 2020, within three days.
https://thehill.com/policy/defense/476621-pompeo-soleimani-killed-due-to-imminent-threats-to-american-lives
The American Embassy in Baghdad may be indispensable to black ops; shutting it down with an Occupy movement would be disruptive. They didn’t even need to break all the way inside; just prevent access in or out.
Yes, and I “believe” that the US will someday be free again. LOL.