Iran Situation

[*bfine32*]

(01-15-2020, 06:57 PM)fredtoast Wrote: 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.

Obviously, I am the one struggling to understand definitions. 

Is putting economic sanctions on Iran an Act of War if they consider it as such?

[Dill]

(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. 

Was it illegal? Quite possibly.

Was it an Act of War? No

Hmm. So your definition doesn't mention Cambodia?  Then I guess it could not apply to the bombing of Cambodia, nor could that bombing teach us anything about how legal definitions actually work.

As Fred makes clear, your definition sucks. And you have to see how a definition works in practice to understand it--hence all the "making things up" you refer to.  


Why not refer to 1) the US legal code, and 2) the actual practice of defining wars.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2331

[*bfine32*]

(01-15-2020, 07:34 PM)Dill Wrote: Hmm. So your definition doesn't mention Cambodia?  Then I guess it could not apply to the bombing of Cambodia, nor could that bombing teach us anything about how legal definitions actually work.

As Fred makes clear, your definition sucks. And you have to see how a definition works in practice to understand it--hence all the "making things up" you refer to.  


Why not refer to 1) the US legal code, and 2) the actual practice of defining wars.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2331

It's not "my definition". I looked at Act of War in the link you provided and none of that addresses what Trump did. You guys sure you don't want to call it something else? 

[Dill]

(01-15-2020, 07:24 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Obviously, I am the one struggling to understand definitions. 

Is putting economic sanctions on Iran an Act of War if they consider it as such?

1.  Yes. That's why you think we are "adding" things" and "making things up."

2. No way to answer your sanctions question without "adding things" (establishing the provenance of the legal codes in play and specifying which will count) and "making things up" (reference to legal precedents). 

[fredtoast]

(01-15-2020, 07:24 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Obviously, I am the one struggling to understand definitions. 

Maybe this will help.  In order to convict someone of murder they have to have an "intent to kill".  If Trump pulled a gun and shot Nancy Pelosi in the face would you say there was no "intent to kill" just because Trump said there wasn't?

The "intent" is defined by a reasonableness standard, not just what the person who took the action claims.

[*bfine32*]

(01-16-2020, 10:32 AM)fredtoast Wrote: Maybe this will help.  In order to convict someone of murder they have to have an "intent to kill".  If Trump pulled a gun and shot Nancy Pelosi in the face would you say there was no "intent to kill" just because Trump said there wasn't?

The "intent" is defined by a reasonableness standard, not just what the person who took the action claims.

Thanks for the lesson on intent; it could have been why I asked folks what they felt Trump's motivation was. Pretty sure I understood the intent requirement all along, so perhaps I'm not the one in need of assistance.

Not one person said: "To start a war." However, you seem to assert that was the intent as you what to classify it as an Act of War.

Was this "Act of War" against Iraq or Iran; as the attack occurred on Iraqi soil?

[GMDino]

Are some still trying to defend the attack as not illegal or is there an ulterior motive?

The "intent" doesn't matter when it comes to the legality of the killing in regard to what the POTUS can and cannot do without notifying congress and international laws on assassinations.


But somehow I don't think his defenders care so much about that as they care about trying to distract from everything else Trump has done/is doing.

[*bfine32*]

(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. 

Was it illegal? Quite possibly.

Was it an Act of War? No

(01-16-2020, 10:46 AM)GMDino Wrote: Are some still trying to defend the attack as not illegal or is there an ulterior motive?

The "intent" doesn't matter when it comes to the legality of the killing in regard to what the POTUS can and cannot do without notifying congress and international laws on assassinations.


But somehow I don't think his defenders care so much about that as they care about trying to distract from everything else Trump has done/is doing.

Obviously I'm not. Did you have someone else in mind?

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

Would it be considered an act of war if a foreign government assassinated the commander of SOCOM or USASOC?

[GMDino]

(01-16-2020, 11:32 AM)bfine32 Wrote: Obviously I'm not. Did you have someone else in mind?

Well you have tried to make this about his "intent" versus what he did and the lies he told to justify it.

So what is your motive?  If you believe it could have "possibly" been illegal what difference does his "intent" to start a war make?

Never mind, I already know but I had two minutes to waste and was in a giving mood. 

[*bfine32*]

(01-16-2020, 12:38 PM)GMDino Wrote: Well you have tried to make this about his "intent" versus what he did and the lies he told to justify it.

So what is your motive?  If you believe it could have "possibly" been illegal what difference does his "intent" to start a war make?

Never mind, I already know but I had two minutes to waste and was in a giving mood. 

AAhh so it was about me.

No motive. Simply saw someone throwing around the term Act of War, just thought they might want to know it meant. 

Trump fully intended to kill the dude and it quite possibly could be illegal, but it was not an Act of War. I'm unsure what is so difficult to grasp in that concept.

[*bfine32*]

(01-16-2020, 12:18 PM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: Would it be considered an act of war if a foreign government assassinated the commander of SOCOM or USASOC?

If their intent was to start an armed conflict or had already declared war against us; then yes. Otherwise, it'd just be a huge mistake that they would pay for severely to include a possible declaration of war by the US.

[GMDino]

(01-16-2020, 05:58 PM)bfine32 Wrote: AAhh so it was about me.

No motive. Simply saw someone throwing around the term Act of War, just thought they might want to know it meant. 

Trump fully intended to kill the dude and it quite possibly could be illegal, but it was not an Act of War. I'm unsure what is so difficult to grasp in that concept.

More you were swept up in with the others in the world who have suggested such things.

Shoes that fit and all that.

But since you know for a fact that it was not an Act of War (bolded) why even ask?  You're right, everyone who disagrees is wrong. Thanks?

[fredtoast]

(01-16-2020, 10:39 AM)bfine32 Wrote: Thanks for the lesson on intent; it could have been why I asked folks what they felt Trump's motivation was. Pretty sure I understood the intent requirement all along, so perhaps I'm not the one in need of assistance.

Not one person said: "To start a war." However, you seem to assert that was the intent as you what to classify it as an Act of War.

Was this "Act of War" against Iraq or Iran; as the attack occurred on Iraqi soil?

I am saying that Iran would be justfied in going to war over the assassination of one of their high ranking government officials.  The President is not allowed to start a war without the consent of congress. Therefore it was an illegal act by Trump.

If Iran had gone to wsr over this you and your Donald would have been laughed at for claiming the assassination was not an act of war just because Trump said it wasn't. 

[fredtoast]

(01-16-2020, 05:58 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Trump fully intended to kill the dude and it quite possibly could be illegal, but it was not an Act of War. I'm unsure what is so difficult to grasp in that concept.

Why are you saying it was not an act of war. I am pretty sure any sovereign country would be justified in claiming an assassination of one of their high ranking officials was an act of war.

What do you think constitutes an act of war.......other than "whatever Donald says"

[fredtoast]

(01-16-2020, 06:00 PM)bfine32 Wrote: If their intent was to start an armed conflict or had already declared war against us; then yes. Otherwise, it'd just be a huge mistake that they would pay for severely to include a possible declaration of war by the US.

So if it happens to us it could be an act of war. But if your Donald does it to someone else it isn't ?

[*bfine32*]

(01-16-2020, 07:14 PM)fredtoast Wrote: I am saying that Iran would be justfied in going to war over the assassination of one of their high ranking government officials.  The President is not allowed to start a war without the consent of congress. Therefore it was an illegal act by Trump.

If Iran had gone to wsr over this you and your Donald would have been laughed at for claiming the assassination was not an act of war just because Trump said it wasn't. 

No where have I said it was not an illegal act. I'm pretty sure I have stated it quite possibly was. 

I've really not seen a whole lot of "my Donald's" claiming it was not an Act of War; as only the fringe or the ignorant would classify it as such.

WTS, I'm out. Feel free to call it an Act of War; I tried. 

[*bfine32*]

(01-16-2020, 06:48 PM)GMDino Wrote: More you were swept up in with the others in the world who have suggested such things.

Shoes that fit and all that.

But since you know for a fact that it was not an Act of War (bolded) why even ask?  You're right, everyone who disagrees is wrong. Thanks?

At least we can agree I'm not trying to show it wasn't illegal, as you asserted. 

[GMDino]

https://www.politico.com/news/2020/01/15/state-department-cancels-embassy-security-meeting-099296?nname=playbook-pm&nid=0000015a-dd3e-d536-a37b-dd7fd8af0000&nrid=0000014e-f112-dd93-ad7f-f9178bf80001&nlid=964328

Quote:State Department abruptly cancels briefings on Iran, embassy security
Congressional staffers sought updates following the president's decision to kill a senior Iranian general.


The State Department abruptly canceled two classified congressional briefings Wednesday that were supposed to focus on embassy security and the U.S. relationship with Iran, Capitol Hill aides said, infuriating lawmakers and staffers seeking answers on the fallout from President Donald Trump's decision to kill a senior Iranian general.

The cancellations also coincide with the release of documents suggesting that associates of Trump’s personal lawyer Rudy Giuliani had put the former U.S. ambassador to Ukraine under surveillance — an issue that touches on both embassy security and the president's impeachment.


“Staff are furious,” a House aide said about the scuttled embassy security session. “This briefing is required by law every month, and today's was the most important we've had scheduled in a long time. The State Department has given us no explanation whatsoever.”


A Senate aide said the Iran briefing was scheduled for the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. It was supposed to be given by senior State Department officials, including Iran special envoy Brian Hook and David Schenker, the assistant secretary of State for the Middle East.

"We know they will vaguely claim it was a logistical issue, even though this briefing had been already locked into the schedule for days," the Senate aide said.

Press aides to Secretary of State Mike Pompeo did not immediately respond to a request for comment on Wednesday.
The canceled briefing on embassy security was originally going to focus on the situation in the African country of Burundi. It was supposed to be held for lawmakers and staff of various national security-focused committees and House and Senate leadership, the House aide said.

At congressional staff’s request, the topic was broadened to cover embassy security in the wake of the U.S. drone strike that killed Iranian general Qassem Soleimani earlier this month, the House aide said.

The Trump administration has given varying explanations for why it decided to kill Soleimani, at times claiming the Iranian general was planning “imminent” attacks on Americans.
Trump has said he believes that Soleimani may have been plotting attacks on as many as four U.S. embassies. But Defense Secretary Mark Esper said on Sunday that he hadn't seen intelligence saying so.

Congressional staffers had planned to ask questions about the shifting explanations and wanted to receive a global threat assessment for U.S. personnel. The State Department agreed to provide the embassy security briefing, then said Tuesday that it would not do so, the House aide said.


Pompeo has already been the target of ire from House Democrats who asked him to appear for a public hearing earlier this week. He did not appear, instead traveling to California to deliver speeches, including an address about the U.S. relationship with Iran at Stanford University's Hoover Institute.


On Tuesday, House Democrats released additional information they’d recently obtained from Lev Parnas, who worked closely with Giuliani on his efforts to dig up damaging information on former vice president Joe Biden in Ukraine.


Some of the material, including text messages, indicated that Republican congressional candidate Robert Hyde was working with Parnas to track Marie Yovanovitch, the U.S. ambassador to Ukraine at the time. It's not clear whether Giuliani knew of Hyde's activities, and Hyde has dismissed questions and suggested to reporters that he was making idle talk.


At Trump’s insistence, Pompeo recalled Yovanovitch from Ukraine in May as Giuliani circulated unsubstantiated reports claiming the veteran ambassador was acting corruptly.


The president described Yovanovitch as “bad news” in a July 25 phone call with Ukraine’s president, saying said she was “going to go through some things.”


Yovanovitch testified in Trump’s impeachment inquiry last year, and said that she felt frightened when she read the rough transcript of Trump's call.


Yovanovitch’s lawyer, Lawrence Robbins, says investigators should look into exactly what happened in terms of the surveillance.


“Needless to say, the notion that American citizens and others were monitoring Ambassador Yovanovitch’s movements for unknown purposes is disturbing,” Robbins said in a statement. “We trust that the appropriate authorities will conduct an investigation to determine what happened.”


The revelations has also troubled serving and former U.S. diplomats, some of whom were demanding to know what the State Department’s diplomatic security division did to protect Yovanovitch, and what, if anything, Pompeo knew about it.

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

This is from the United States Code . . .

https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?path=/prelim@title18/part1/chapter113B&edition=prelim

4) the term "act of war" means any act occurring in the course of—
(A) declared war;
(B) armed conflict, whether or not war has been declared, between two or more nations; or
© armed conflict between military forces of any origin;

You don’t need to intend to start a war with armed conflict for it to meet the US government’s definition of act of war.

If a government uses a military drone to kill a general in another country’s military that meets the definition of act of war. At least according to our government.

But, that won’t stop some folks from only focusing one aspect of the definition while completely ignoring the rest of the definition.