Iran Situation

[Benton]

(01-15-2020, 12:03 PM)TheLeonardLeap Wrote: Real question, are there really legitimate legality issues?

Soleimani was listed by the US as a terrorist for almost a decade before Trump came into office. I have never heard anyone deny that he is responsible for hundreds of US military deaths and thousands of injured.

Sure we can debate on if it was wise/worth it to kill a foreign leader and that's a valid topic to debate. 

That said, at the end of the day he was a designated terrorist, leader of a designated terrorist organization (a labeling that spanned 3 different US Presidents) who was responsible for killing hundreds of US troops and injuring thousands. That seems pretty open and shut as far as legality goes. It doesn't matter if you're powerful in another country. If you're a non-US Citizen directly going to other countries to arm and train people to murder US troops, I can't possibly see how there's a legality issue.

NK is also listed as a state sponsor for terror.

The terrorist/terror sponsor label has been muted because we apply it to anyone we disagree with. And that's not to say we don't have reasons to disagree with them. But labeling countries as terrorist sponsors or officials of countries as terrorists because our ideals and their ideals run in opposition seems like we don't know WTF the term means.

I may have missed it, though, I thought Trump was the first one to designate Saleimani's group as a terrorist organisation? I thought that's part of what sparked the latest pissing match.

[fredtoast]

(01-15-2020, 12:03 PM)TheLeonardLeap Wrote: Real question, are there really legitimate legality issues?

Soleimani was listed by the US as a terrorist for almost a decade before Trump came into office. I have never heard anyone deny that he is responsible for hundreds of US military deaths and thousands of injured.

Sure we can debate on if it was wise/worth it to kill a foreign leader and that's a valid topic to debate. 

That said, at the end of the day he was a designated terrorist, leader of a designated terrorist organization (a labeling that spanned 3 different US Presidents) who was responsible for killing hundreds of US troops and injuring thousands. That seems pretty open and shut as far as legality goes. It doesn't matter if you're powerful in another country. If you're a non-US Citizen directly going to other countries to arm and train people to murder US troops, I can't possibly see how there's a legality issue.

If it was an "act of war" then it was illegal without Congressional approval.

Killing a high ranking official from a sovereign country is usually considered an act of war.

Think of an officer who enters someone's home and kills a dangerous criminal. Unless the officer can prove there was an imminent threat it is illegal for him to enter the home without approval of a court's warrant.

[*TheLeonardLeap*]

(01-15-2020, 12:17 PM)Benton Wrote: NK is also listed as a state sponsor for terror.

The terrorist/terror sponsor label has been muted because we apply it to anyone we disagree with. And that's not to say we don't have reasons to disagree with them. But labeling countries as terrorist sponsors or officials of countries as terrorists because our ideals and their ideals run in opposition seems like we don't know WTF the term means.

I may have missed it, though, I thought Trump was the first one to designate Saleimani's group as a terrorist organisation? I thought that's part of what sparked the latest pissing match.

You're right, the group wasn't labeled a terrorist organization until 2019. He personally was labeled in 2007, which is what I was thinking of.

He was labeled a terrorist not because ideals run in opposition, but because he introduced, armed, and trained terrorists in Iraq to use roadside bombs against US Troops. That's a pretty far cry from a mere clash of ideals.

(01-15-2020, 12:19 PM)fredtoast Wrote: If it was an "act of war" then it was illegal without Congressional approval.

Killing a high ranking official from a sovereign country is usually considered an act of war.

Think of an officer who enters someone's home and kills a dangerous criminal. Unless the officer can prove there was an imminent threat it is illegal for him to enter the home without approval of a court's warrant.

Usually considered an act of war.

But usually high ranking officials from a sovereign country don't personally go to other countries and arm and train terrorists and militias to murder other countries troops.

The protection kind of gets washed away at that point. If Mark Esper personally flew to Hong Kong with a shitload of explosives and RPGs and armed, taught, and led the protesters how to effectively use them to kill pro-Chinese (and they murdered a shitton of civilians in the process) then Mark Esper wouldn't have the same protections as a high ranking official from a sovereign country.

[Belsnickel]

(01-15-2020, 12:03 PM)TheLeonardLeap Wrote: Real question, are there really legitimate legality issues?

Soleimani was listed by the US as a terrorist for almost a decade before Trump came into office. I have never heard anyone deny that he is responsible for hundreds of US military deaths and thousands of injured.

Sure we can debate on if it was wise/worth it to kill a foreign leader and that's a valid topic to debate. 

That said, at the end of the day he was a designated terrorist, leader of a designated terrorist organization (a labeling that spanned 3 different US Presidents) who was responsible for killing hundreds of US troops and injuring thousands. That seems pretty open and shut as far as legality goes. It doesn't matter if you're powerful in another country. If you're a non-US Citizen directly going to other countries to arm and train people to murder US troops, I can't possibly see how there's a legality issue.

Yes; there certainly are legitimate legality issues/questions. Assassinations are prohibited under US law. This is, of course, one of the big problems with targeted killings by drone to begin with. In addition, though, the whole reason the idea of an "imminent threat" is brought up is because international law prohibits such killings of foreign officials not on a battlefield unless there is evidence of an imminent threat. Just because he was responsible for many deaths doesn't make the assassination legal under international or US law. Designating his unit as a terrorist organization was done simply to muddy the waters on this, but he was still a foreign official of a recognized state and acting on their behalf.

[Belsnickel]

(01-15-2020, 12:33 PM)TheLeonardLeap Wrote: Usually considered an act of war.

But usually high ranking officials from a sovereign country don't personally go to other countries and arm and train terrorists and militias to murder other countries troops.

The protection kind of gets washed away at that point. If Mark Esper personally flew to Hong Kong with a shitload of explosives and RPGs and armed, taught, and led the protesters how to effectively use them to kill pro-Chinese (and they murdered a shitton of civilians in the process) then Mark Esper wouldn't have the same protections as a high ranking official from a sovereign country.

You're right, we don't send our personnel that are that high ranking to do this. It's usually just a small group of special operations folks or the SFAB units (though they would probably leave the training of less-than-savory folks to the special operations teams).

Now, say General Clarke, current commander of USSOCOM, was visiting Iraq, maybe in the Kurdish region to check on things. Iran, gathering intelligence on the general's whereabouts, decides to take him out using a drone (we'll pretend they have the capability for this) after landing at the airport and getting into a humvee to travel to the region. What would be your view on this?

[*TheLeonardLeap*]

(01-15-2020, 12:52 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: You're right, we don't send our personnel that are that high ranking to do this. It's usually just a small group of special operations folks or the SFAB units (though they would probably leave the training of less-than-savory folks to the special operations teams).

Now, say General Clarke, current commander of USSOCOM, was visiting Iraq, maybe in the Kurdish region to check on things. Iran, gathering intelligence on the general's whereabouts, decides to take him out using a drone (we'll pretend they have the capability for this) after landing at the airport and getting into a humvee to travel to the region. What would be your view on this?

If General Clarke was specifically taking a hands-on approach, then yeah, sure. Also if General Clarke was actively targeting civilians would be a large factor in it as well.

(Not to say I wouldn't say the US shouldn't retaliate for it in that instance, just saying at that point he stops being a non-combatant/just an official.)

The US loses Green Berets who are out doing that job, and the US doesn't treat it like illegal assassinations. Three were killed in Niger like 2-3 years ago.

Granted, this is also my opinion as a person who believes we should just mind our own business and let the world police itself if it's not directly effecting us. The only ground presence we should have in the ME is what we need to support the ships that protect US shipping lanes.

[GMDino]

(01-15-2020, 12:38 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: Yes; there certainly are legitimate legality issues/questions. Assassinations are prohibited under US law. This is, of course, one of the big problems with targeted killings by drone to begin with. In addition, though, the whole reason the idea of an "imminent threat" is brought up is because international law prohibits such killings of foreign officials not on a battlefield unless there is evidence of an imminent threat. Just because he was responsible for many deaths doesn't make the assassination legal under international or US law. Designating his unit as a terrorist organization was done simply to muddy the waters on this, but he was still a foreign official of a recognized state and acting on their behalf.

Yes but just because the POTUS broke the law (US and International) does that mean he can't lie about it?  

All seriousness aside the explanations don't matter.  There is a segment out there that wants a "tough guy" not a "wimp" like Obama so laws don't matter, lies don't matter.  What matters is Trump is "doing something".


Edit: If you don't fit in that segment I am not talking about you.

[fredtoast]

(01-15-2020, 12:33 PM)TheLeonardLeap Wrote: But usually high ranking officials from a sovereign country don't personally go to other countries and arm and train terrorists and militias to murder other countries troops.

The United States has a long history of arming terrorists to fight against the government of other countries.

What if Nicuraguan forces had killed our CIA Director for arming the Contras?

Or what if Russia had taken out a US official for supporting Al Queda forces fighting against them in Afghanistan?

[Belsnickel]

(01-15-2020, 01:04 PM)TheLeonardLeap Wrote: If General Clarke was specifically taking a hands-on approach, then yeah, sure. Also if General Clarke was actively targeting civilians would be a large factor in it as well.

(Not to say I wouldn't say the US shouldn't retaliate for it in that instance, just saying at that point he stops being a non-combatant/just an official.)

How hands on was Soleimani? Do we actually know? In addition, the targeting of civilians of another nation isn't our business as far as I'm concerned.

Anyway, none of that means that he is not a foreign official. He was acting on behalf of his government and so the assassination was very likely a violation of international law.

(01-15-2020, 01:04 PM)TheLeonardLeap Wrote: The US loses Green Berets who are out doing that job, and the US doesn't treat it like illegal assassinations. Three were killed in Niger like 2-3 years ago.

Three operators that were in the field and ambushed with the team they were working with. That's a very different situation and wouldn't be classified as a targeted killing, much less an assassination.

(01-15-2020, 01:04 PM)TheLeonardLeap Wrote: Granted, this is also my opinion as a person who believes we should just mind our own business and let the world police itself if it's not directly effecting us. The only ground presence we should have in the ME is what we need to support the ships that protect US shipping lanes.

I don't disagree with this, at all.

[*TheLeonardLeap*]

(01-15-2020, 01:22 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: How hands on was Soleimani? Do we actually know? In addition, the targeting of civilians of another nation isn't our business as far as I'm concerned.

Anyway, none of that means that he is not a foreign official. 

Yeah, but it does add pretty important information into the "is he a terrorist or is he an official" equation. 

He personally was labeled a terrorist through 3 different Presidents, he personally armed/trained/led forces to kill hundreds of US troops, and he targeted civilians. His people trained and armed bomb makers to distribute IEDs everywhere, including against civilian targets. He did all of this in Yemen, Iraq, and Syria. He was helping Assad as they used chemical weapons on their own citizens.

He went well past foreign official territory.

[*bfine32*]

https://definitions.uslegal.com/a/act-of-war/

Quote:An act of war is an action by one country against another with an intention to provoke a war

By legal definition it could only be considered an Act of War if Trump's intention was to start a war with Iran. It's why I've asked what people think his motivation was. Not one person has stated: "Because he wanted to go to war with Iraq" and I personally do not feel that was the motivation.

[fredtoast]

(01-15-2020, 02:14 PM)bfine32 Wrote: https://definitions.uslegal.com/a/act-of-war/



By legal definition it could only be considered an Act of War if Trump's intention was to start a war with Iran.

Not sure the international community is bound by a definition from that website.

Trump can't just call a bomb strike on China then claim he never intended to start a war.  In all legal cases "intent" is defined by what a reasonable person would perceive as intent.

[*bfine32*]

(01-15-2020, 02:22 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Not sure the international community is bound by a definition from that website.

Trump can't just call a bomb strike on China then claim he never intended to start a war.  In all legal cases "intent" is defined by what a reasonable person would perceive as intent.

I simply provided the legal definition; nowhere did I mention the international community was bound by it. You're the one that keeps throwing out the term.

FWIW, I never asked what Trump claimed;; i asked folks what they thought his motivation was. If you continue to refer to it as an Act of War then you're suggesting the motivation (intent as the definition reads) was to start a war

[Belsnickel]

(01-15-2020, 01:59 PM)TheLeonardLeap Wrote: Yeah, but it does add pretty important information into the "is he a terrorist or is he an official" equation. 

He personally was labeled a terrorist through 3 different Presidents, he personally armed/trained/led forces to kill hundreds of US troops, and he targeted civilians. His people trained and armed bomb makers to distribute IEDs everywhere, including against civilian targets. He did all of this in Yemen, Iraq, and Syria. He was helping Assad as they used chemical weapons on their own citizens.

He went well past foreign official territory.

This isn't an "either/or" situation; he was both. What you're not taking into account in your dismissal of his role as a foreign official is that everything he did was done as his role in the IRGC. He was a state actor, not a higher-up in AQ or IS. That is an important distinction.

It should be noted, though, that targeted killings even of terrorists in this manner that have no official state affiliation are highly questionable from a legal standpoint. Groups like AQ and IS just don't have representatives in the UN.

[fredtoast]

(01-15-2020, 02:30 PM)bfine32 Wrote:  If you continue to refer to it as an Act of War then you're suggesting the motivation (intent as the definition reads) was to start a war

No I am not.  I am saying that a reasonable person could interpret it as an act of war.  That is what matters, not what Trump was thinking.  


Like I said before, Trump can't just nuke another country and then claim it was not an act of war because he did not intend it to be.

[Dill]

(01-15-2020, 12:33 PM)TheLeonardLeap Wrote: You're right, the group wasn't labeled a terrorist organization until 2019. He personally was labeled in 2007, which is what I was thinking of.

He was labeled a terrorist not because ideals run in opposition, but because he introduced, armed, and trained terrorists in Iraq to use roadside bombs against US Troops. That's a pretty far cry from a mere clash of ideals.

Usually considered an act of war.

But usually high ranking officials from a sovereign country don't personally go to other countries and arm and train terrorists and militias to murder other countries troops.

The protection kind of gets washed away at that point. If Mark Esper personally flew to Hong Kong with a shitload of explosives and RPGs and armed, taught, and led the protesters how to effectively use them to kill pro-Chinese (and they murdered a shitton of civilians in the process) then Mark Esper wouldn't have the same protections as a high ranking official from a sovereign country.

Three quick points:

1. The Quds force was placed on a list of organizations subject to sanctions for "supporting" terrorism in 2007 by Bush. Solemeini was specifically named in the section which also designated the Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps as well. https://www.treasury.gov/press-center/press-releases/Pages/hp644.aspx. From this it is not clear that Solemeini was personally designated a "terrorist" through three presidents--two of whom who clearly elected NOT to kill him. The more recent (2019) designation of the IRGC as itself a "terrorist organization" extends the reach of sanctions to more banks, pharmaceutical companies, shipping and construction companies. If you are a bank teller working for the Bank Mellat or Bank Soderat you may now be a "terrorist," forbidden to travel or transact business with any US firm.

Such is the nature of "terrorist" activity which singled out the Quds force for this designation in 2007: In 2001, their help was welcomed in the US fight the Taliban. When Bush flipped on them, they helped the Taliban. A little. They now pay money for killing US solidiers and destruction of vehicles, but it is not clear they provide much or any material support. A strong Taliban is not in their interest. They would be fighting them WITH us still, if not for the Neocons in Bush's cabinet, who wanted to take the war to Iran after Iraq. (Trump's recent NSC advisor, Bolton, was a relique of that era and policy).

2. Here again the overly broad term "terrorist" works the magic of a double standard.  From Iran's perspective, high ranking officials from the US, a sovereign country, do personally go to other countries and arm and train terrorists and militias to murder other countries troops, not to mention civilians.  Imagine if Iran were a world power with troops occupying Mexico and Canada and imposing sanctions on the US resulting in deaths of civilians. That would seem an act of war to most Americans.  How would Fox News be defining "terrorism" under such circumstances; what would they say if Iran took out the US Secretary of Defense while he was in Mexico, helping Mexicans resist Iranian control of their government?

3. The Chinese might not think Esper protected, but the US certainly would. So far as I can tell, so long as the US and China are not at war, they could not legally kill him unless he, himself, was "imminently" threatening Chinese troops or citizens.

[Dill]

(01-15-2020, 02:22 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Not sure the international community is bound by a definition from that website.

Trump can't just call a bomb strike on China then claim he never intended to start a war.  In all legal cases "intent" is defined by what a reasonable person would perceive as intent.

It's also defined by what the other side perceives as intent, not to mention the international community.  China would very likely consider a bomb strike an act of war--even if it could be construed as an accident. 

It's also defined by power. The US dropped more tons of bombs on helpless Cambodia than on Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan, killing upwards of 50,000 "neutral" Cambodian civilians. But "secretly"; Nixon never considered that a declaration of war on Cambodia, though the international community and a large number of Americans considered it an act of war.

US citizens need to watch their own government closely wherever it resorts to lethal force.

[Dill]

(01-15-2020, 12:03 PM)TheLeonardLeap Wrote: Real question, are there really legitimate legality issues?

Soleimani was listed by the US as a terrorist for almost a decade before Trump came into office. I have never heard anyone deny that he is responsible for hundreds of US military deaths and thousands of injured.

Sure we can debate on if it was wise/worth it to kill a foreign leader and that's a valid topic to debate. 

That said, at the end of the day he was a designated terrorist, leader of a designated terrorist organization (a labeling that spanned 3 different US Presidents) who was responsible for killing hundreds of US troops and injuring thousands. That seems pretty open and shut as far as legality goes. It doesn't matter if you're powerful in another country. If you're a non-US Citizen directly going to other countries to arm and train people to murder US troops, I can't possibly see how there's a legality issue.

I think Fred, Bels and Benton have already answered the legality question, but I'd like to add my 2 cents. 

Actually, it does matter if you're "powerful" in another country because you are an official member of that country's government.  To kill such an official is an attack on that government. To do it on the sovereign soil of another nation (without permission) violates international law.

Legal issues appear on two fronts here--US and international.  Did the US have the authority to take out the leader of another government in what looks like state-sanctioned assassination? Such assasination is illegal under both US and International Law, though both would grant the US and its president a right to act against an imminent threat to US lives and property.  But this doesn't look like that--hence all the media attention to the differing explanations for why Solemeini was killed AFTER the US had already killed 25 members of the organization deemed directly responsible for direct attacks on US bases in Iraq, and why he had already been placed on a hit list months earlier.

Domestically, if the FBI puts someone on a "most wanted list" then that person can certainly be apprehended anywhere in the United States by the FBI, regardless of an individual state's jurisdictional rights, and by local law enforcement.  But the international arena is not like that. So far as I know, there is no international law allowing the US to take out anyone it designates as a "terrorist" anytime it wants to on the sovereign soil of a foreign nation.  Especially in this case, where the definition/target is largely the US's own construction, not shared by the UN or the EU and numerous other states. (Fox presents Trump's action as legally no different from NY cop John McClane taking out terrorists threatening his wife at Nakatomi Plaza in CA, while bumbling cops and FBI outside are bogged down in rules and worry about consequences of acting.)

Unless you presume the US is above international law, then any legal logic which would make Solemeini a target because he was responsible for killing hundreds of US troops would equally make those troops a legitimate target for Solemeini. 

There is another aspect to this when one considers that killing a government official could be considered as an act of war. A president so acting could, in effect, declare war on another nation without Congress--a violation of the separation of powers.  Again, most would find this tolerable in the case of "imminent" threat--e.g. if the guy were bearing down on a US base aiming an RPG at the gate. But it doesn't look like that was the case here. It looks like the US took Solemeini out because it can; and Trump did it because Congress and International law can't stop him; let the chips fall where they may.

[*bfine32*]

(01-15-2020, 06:04 PM)Dill Wrote: It's also defined by what the other side perceives as intent, not to mention the international community.  China would very likely consider a bomb strike an act of war--even if it could be construed as an accident. 

It's also defined by power. The US dropped more tons of bombs on helpless Cambodia than on Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan, killing upwards of 50,000 "neutral" Cambodian civilians. But "secretly"; Nixon never considered that a declaration of war on Cambodia, though the international community and a large number of Americans considered it an act of war.

US citizens need to watch their own government closely wherever it resorts to lethal force.

Why do we insist on making things up? I provided the legal definition of Act or War and nowhere does it mention the things you and Fred are adding. 

Was it illegal? Quite possibly.

Was it an Act of War? No

[fredtoast]

(01-15-2020, 06:48 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Why do we insist on making things up? I provided the legal definition of Act or War and nowhere does it mention the things you and Fred are adding. 

I don't think you understand the term "legal definition".

Based on your "legal definition" Trump has the authority to call a nuclear strike on China because it would not be an "act of war" unless he says he intends it to be.