A president attacking a sovereign nation

[wing2000]

What on that resolution thing? That' not binding. The only thing they could do would be to stop on going funding.

The Senate bill is binding and had enough votes to pass earlier this week. When a vote will occur is unknown given the Impeachment trial. If it were to pass the Senate, the House would need to vote on the Senate version and then send it to the President....

 

[evoeth]

If a president ordered a full bombing attack on a country we are not at war with and posed no threat to us whatsoever, should he be impeached?

Clearly he had good reasons to do that. Let's investigate the Bidens or the Clintons to find out.

 

[SimplyMe]

Well, Grenada certainly didn't involve a "full bombing" of anything.

What I immediately thought of was Obama's billion-dollar bombing attack against Libya in which its head of state was killed and government overthrown. Not a peep out of the same people who are presently uncomfortable over the killing of one terrorist, of course.

We (Americans as a whole) seem to have really short memories. Gee, if Obama should have been impeached then I guess Reagan would have been, as well. Don't forget he bombed Libya.

 

[civilwarbuff]

You think he will be re-elected?

Given what the democrats are running....yeah.

 

[civilwarbuff]

The Senate bill is binding and had enough votes to pass earlier this week. When a vote will occur is unknown given the Impeachment trial. If it were to pass the Senate, the House would need to vote on the Senate version and then send it to the President....

Who would promptly veto it.......

 

[durangodawood]

Well, Grenada certainly didn't involve a "full bombing" of anything.....

I think a military occupation of another nation counts as war even if bombs arent dropped.

 

[wing2000]

Who would promptly veto it.......

...unless enough Senators find their war powers spine...which has been AWOL for a few decades....

 

[civilwarbuff]

...unless enough Senators find their war powers spine...which has been AWOL for a few decades....

Wonder what Lincoln would have said about a war powers act?.....

 

[ThatRobGuy]

Neither the action of Obama nor Trump (with regards to use of force) should result in impeachment as neither were outside the scope of the currently recognized power given to a president at the time they authorized those actions.

For starters, "assassinating" is a term that's used for political mud flinging, which is why many on the left have jumped on board with exclusively using that term to describe the situation.

If we go by Eric Holder's definition of a president's powers (re-affirmed by Pompeo) the action was a "targeted killing" based on the fact that the interpretation of powers suggests that taking out someone who was perceived as an imminent threat doesn't qualify as an "assassination" and with well within the scope of a president's power.

Attorney general Eric Holder explained of Obama’s drone program that “the Constitution empowers the President to protect the nation from any imminent threat of violent attack, and international law recognizes the inherent right of self-defense.” Accordingly, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo justified the killing of Soleimani with evidence that he was plotting “imminent and sinister attacks.”

If we're going with the idea that "any president I don't like who's authorized taking out a threat is guilty of assassination", then Trump's not the first, he's just the most recent.

It's always quite telling when either side want's to suddenly adopt a strict, verbatim, interpretation of the constitution when it happens to be the other side that has their guy in the oval office after being "not so strict" when it was their side's turn to run things.

Its basically political hackery.

 

[RocksInMyHead]

Accordingly, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo justified the killing of Soleimani with evidence that he was plotting “imminent and sinister attacks.”

Generally, I'd agree with most of what you said, but this bit isn't true. Trump is the one who initially talked about imminent attacks on US embassies, which the Secretary of Defense then proceeded to deny any knowledge of. Pompeo started out echoing Trump, but then walked back to just talking about Soleimani having American blood on his hands. When members of Congress were briefed about the justifications, none of the briefing materials made any mention of those "imminent attacks" on embassies or any solid intelligence on planned attacks - just probabilities. We also now know that Trump first talked about killing Soleimani in June - seven months ago. Frankly, at this point, the only evidence we - and Congress - have been given that Soleimani presented an imminent threat to the US are Trump's own words and the words of his flunkies. Given Trump's awful track record with the truth as well as the constantly shifting and contradicting nature of these justifications, I'm not particularly inclined to believe them.

And that's why I call Soleimani's killing an assassination.

 

[Ana the Ist]

Generally, I'd agree with most of what you said, but this bit isn't true. Trump is the one who initially talked about imminent attacks on US embassies, which the Secretary of Defense then proceeded to deny any knowledge of. Pompeo started out echoing Trump, but then walked back to just talking about Soleimani having American blood on his hands. When members of Congress were briefed about the justifications, none of the briefing materials made any mention of those "imminent attacks" on embassies or any solid intelligence on planned attacks - just probabilities. We also now know that Trump first talked about killing Soleimani in June - seven months ago. Frankly, at this point, the only evidence we - and Congress - have been given that Soleimani presented an imminent threat to the US are Trump's own words and the words of his flunkies. Given Trump's awful track record with the truth as well as the constantly shifting and contradicting nature of these justifications, I'm not particularly inclined to believe them.

And that's why I call Soleimani's killing an assassination.

Call it whatever you like....it doesn't really matter at this point.

Trump was presented with a problem and several options for dealing with it. Supposedly, he chose a softer option and the result was a violent protest outside a US embassy. It was then that he gave the green light to striking Soleimani.

I can understand why people might think the intel behind that strike was weak or even false. That doesn't make the military action illegal by any US law I know of...nor does it seem to rise to the level of impeachable.

 

[RocksInMyHead]

Trump was presented with a problem and several options for dealing with it. Supposedly, he chose a softer option and the result was a violent protest outside a US embassy. It was then that he gave the green light to striking Soleimani.

Would you mind elaborating? I haven't heard anything about that. I'm aware of the embassy protest, of course, but what was this "softer option" that you're talking about, and how did it relate to assassinating Soleimani?

I can understand why people might think the intel behind that strike was weak or even false. That doesn't make the military action illegal by any US law I know of...nor does it seem to rise to the level of impeachable.

I don't think anyone has argued that it was an impeachable act here (aside from the fact that anything can be an impeachable act should Congress deem it so). My post that you quoted was specifically addressing ThatRobGuy's issue with my use of the word "assassination." I was laying out my reasoning for using that word rather than "targeted killing." And honestly, I don't know enough about US laws governing the use of military force to say whether or not it might have broken any US laws. I do think that it was wrong, and it was likely in violation of international law.

 

[Ana the Ist]

Would you mind elaborating? I haven't heard anything about that. I'm aware of the embassy protest, of course, but what was this "softer option" that you're talking about, and how did it relate to assassinating Soleimani?

I've read more articles about this than I ever cared to....and I don't want to post something that I'm remembering incorrectly...but this article should give you the general details.

Trump authorized Soleimani's killing 7 months ago, with conditions

"There have been a number of options presented to the president over the course of time," a senior administration official said, adding that it was "some time ago" that the president's aides put assassinating Soleimani on the list of potential responses to Iranian aggression.

Right? So not as if it was the only response considered...

But it was just one of a host of possible elements of Trump's "maximum pressure" campaign against Iran and "was not something that was thought of as a first move," said a former senior administration official involved in the discussions.

So even though we don't get the exact details about the other options, it sounds like other measures were pursued and killing Soleimani was only given the green light once they killed Americans.

I don't think anyone has argued that it was an impeachable act here (aside from the fact that anything can be an impeachable act should Congress deem it so).

Really? I was under the impression that only treason and high crimes were impeachable.

My post that you quoted was specifically addressing ThatRobGuy's issue with my use of the word "assassination." I was laying out my reasoning for using that word rather than "targeted killing." And honestly, I don't know enough about US laws governing the use of military force to say whether or not it might have broken any US laws. I do think that it was wrong, and it was likely in violation of international law.

Maybe it was? Tbh I'm not sure either. The guy did organize, fund, and plan terrorist attacks on US citizens. He was a state actor....but so what? Iran sponsors terrorism through both individual actors and militias that act as proxies for Iranian interests.

Soleimani was the lynchpin for all that....and so far, there seems to be very few downsides to killing him. Iran lost its most important and effective military strategist...and any boost in popularity the regime might have capitalized on seems to have gone down in flames with that Ukrainian aircraft.

What exactly is wrong about it in your opinion?

 

[RocksInMyHead]

So even though we don't get the exact details about the other options, it sounds like other measures were pursued and killing Soleimani was only given the green light once they killed Americans.

Not sure where you get that other options were tried. They just say that a list of possible retaliations was presented, and assassinating Soleimani was one of them. Besides, I think that makes it look worse.

Really? I was under the impression that only treason and high crimes were impeachable.

Yes, and the term "high crimes and misdemeanors" isn't clearly defined. It can mean pretty much whatever Congress wants it to mean. The old English law that the Founders pulled it from used the phrase to refer to abuses of power and the like - acts that weren't necessarily criminal under traditional law, but wrongdoing afforded by one's political privilege. There's a lot of things that could apply to.

Maybe it was? Tbh I'm not sure either. The guy did organize, fund, and plan terrorist attacks on US citizens. He was a state actor....but so what? Iran sponsors terrorism through both individual actors and militias that act as proxies for Iranian interests.

Soleimani was the lynchpin for all that....and so far, there seems to be very few downsides to killing him. Iran lost its most important and effective military strategist...and any boost in popularity the regime might have capitalized on seems to have gone down in flames with that Ukrainian aircraft.

What exactly is wrong about it in your opinion?

From a purely pragmatic standpoint, you're right. Given how events unfolded, it seems to have turned out okay. However, things working out in the end through sheer dumb luck doesn't make your actions right. All of the backlash against the US was cancelled out by Iran shooting down a civilian airliner. There was no way for anyone to anticipate that accident, and had they not shot it down, I think the situation would be quite a bit different. And while we benefit from Soleimani being dead, that doesn't justify killing him - doesn't make it right. If that's all the justification a country needs to assassinate someone, then get ready for the world to bleed.

 

[Ana the Ist]

Not sure where you get that other options were tried. They just say that a list of possible retaliations was presented, and assassinating Soleimani was one of them. Besides, I think that makes it look worse.

It's the most reasonable conclusion. Do you think they laid out these options 7 months ago and decided to do nothing? Or did you think the military/intelligence community should keep us updated on all they do?

Yes, and the term "high crimes and misdemeanors" isn't clearly defined. It can mean pretty much whatever Congress wants it to mean. The old English law that the Founders pulled it from used the phrase to refer to abuses of power and the like - acts that weren't necessarily criminal under traditional law, but wrongdoing afforded by one's political privilege. There's a lot of things that could apply to.

High crimes isn't clearly defined...but I haven't seen anyone claim that gives Congress carte blanche to define it anyway they like. Generally speaking, it's accepted to be speaking about....

1. Crimes. It's rather obvious that the offense has to be a crime in the first place.
2. Crimes of such a serious nature as treason and bribery. Those were examples outlined as impeachable offenses....and it's generally considered the standard for any other impeachable offenses.

From a purely pragmatic standpoint, you're right. Given how events unfolded, it seems to have turned out okay. However, things working out in the end through sheer dumb luck doesn't make your actions right. All of the backlash against the US was cancelled out by Iran shooting down a civilian airliner. There was no way for anyone to anticipate that accident, and had they not shot it down, I think the situation would be quite a bit different. And while we benefit from Soleimani being dead, that doesn't justify killing him - doesn't make it right. If that's all the justification a country needs to assassinate someone, then get ready for the world to bleed.

I'm sorry...I thought you meant "right" from a strategic perspective.

Are you saying you think it's morally wrong?

 

[TLK Valentine]

...unless enough Senators find their war powers spine...which has been AWOL for a few decades....

And not likely to grow back so long as Donald promises them shiny, shiny trinkets...

 

[RocksInMyHead]

It's the most reasonable conclusion. Do you think they laid out these options 7 months ago and decided to do nothing? Or did you think the military/intelligence community should keep us updated on all they do?

No, but at the same time, if they're trying to justify killing him, it would make sense to explain what they tried first that (presumably) didn't work.

High crimes isn't clearly defined...but I haven't seen anyone claim that gives Congress carte blanche to define it anyway they like.

How about Lindsey Graham?

User Clip: Lindsey Graham: Crime not required for impeachment | C-SPAN.org

I'm sorry...I thought you meant "right" from a strategic perspective.

Are you saying you think it's morally wrong?

I'd say both. It wasn't right from a strategic perspective because it didn't achieve much and had very high potential costs. In the end, those costs didn't really materialize due to Iran shooting down the airliner, but again, a plan working out through sheer dumb luck doesn't mean that it was a good plan. It just means that you got lucky.

And yes, I also think it was morally wrong. It compromises ideals that our nation has supposedly held for hundreds of years for what amounts to an act of petty revenge. I'm aware that those ideals have been compromised many times before, but this is the first time I've seen it done so brazenly and openly. That shows a total disregard for those ideals and what they stand for on the part of our President and his administration.

 

[civilwarbuff]

How about Lindsey Graham?

User Clip: Lindsey Graham: Crime not required for impeachment | C-SPAN.org

And that is very true. Impeachment is a political act not a legal act. However, all previous impeachments have been based on criminal acts or direct violations of a law. Given those precedents it seems reasonable that the same trend continue otherwise, as I noted elsewhere, the president can be impeached simply because congress does not like the person....as I believe we are witnessing in this case.

I'd say both. It wasn't right from a strategic perspective because it didn't achieve much and had very high potential costs. In the end, those costs didn't really materialize due to Iran shooting down the airliner, but again, a plan working out through sheer dumb luck doesn't mean that it was a good plan. It just means that you got lucky.

And yes, I also think it was morally wrong. It compromises ideals that our nation has supposedly held for hundreds of years for what amounts to an act of petty revenge. I'm aware that those ideals have been compromised many times before, but this is the first time I've seen it done so brazenly and openly. That shows a total disregard for those ideals and what they stand for on the part of our President and his administration.

So, are you suggesting that when a country, and Soleimani did have an official position in the Iranian government, https://www.usnews.com/news/world/a...ns-celebrity-soldier-spearhead-in-middle-east, attacks Americans on American soil we should just sit by and say what?....'that's OK because we are bigger than that'?..... cuz that would just make any American a legitimate target to them with no fear of retaliation from our government.

I'm aware that those ideals have been compromised many times before, but this is the first time I've seen it done so brazenly and openly.

my bolding
If this is the 1st time you have seen it then you must be young indeed (remember Obama) or deliberately not looking or not knowing your history (think JFK and Bay of Pigs or LBJ and Vietnam or on and on and on.....)

 

[RocksInMyHead]

And that is very true. Impeachment is a political act not a legal act. However, all previous impeachments have been based on criminal acts or direct violations of a law.

That's beside the point. To be clear, I do not personally think that Trump should be impeached for Soleimani's assassination.

So, are you suggesting that when a country, and Soleimani did have an official position in the Iranian government, https://www.usnews.com/news/world/a...ns-celebrity-soldier-spearhead-in-middle-east, attacks Americans on American soil we should just sit by and say what?....'that's OK because we are bigger than that'?

So's Law.
No, that's not what I'm saying. There are other avenues besides assassination. You're creating a false dichotomy here.

If this is the 1st time you have seen it then you must be young indeed (remember Obama) or deliberately not looking or not knowing your history (think JFK and Bay of Pigs or LBJ and Vietnam or on and on and on.....)

I'm not aware of Obama targeting members of foreign governments for assassination. I know he went after terrorist leaders aggressively, and I had issues with that, but Trump's strike on Soleimani takes things a step further.

In the case of the Bay of Pigs and Vietnam, the government had the good grace to at least try to keep their activities secret. It doesn't make it any more right, and as I said, I'm well aware that those ideals have been compromised many times in the past, but Trump doing it openly signals to me a lack of understanding of those ideals and their significance to the country, if not a signal that he wants to totally abandon them.

 

[wing2000]

I'm not aware of Obama targeting members of foreign governments for assassination. I know he went after terrorist leaders aggressively, and I had issues with that, but Trump's strike on Soleimani takes things a step further.

Until now, there has been an understanding between nation states that we do not kill each others officials. With the killing of Iran's top official, the US is signaling all countries that senior officers are fair game. Additionally consider this: American military and civilian contractors are training proxy forces around the world...

The American president essentially has said he can take out anyone, anywhere, for any reason. This will alter our adversaries' actions dramatically. For a country like Iran, it opens up a whole new realm of possibilities. Tehran can now attempt to justify a future assassination of one of our officials on the basis that they represented an "imminent threat" to Iran. In fact, we may see this justification repeated by other governments for quite questionable purposes.
Opinion: The Danger From Iran Didn't Die With Soleimani