What was the point of the murder of Soleimani?

0
2

The murder of Qassem Soleimani was not only illegal under international law and US law (Exec. Ord. No. 12,333) but it made little sense. It has been a barrage of lies by President Trump and his administration. Right after the murder, “the Pentagon said that General Qassem Soleimani was” actively developing “plans to kill US diplomats and service members when he was killed Friday in an attack with US drones near Baghdad airport, shortly after arriving in the country. ”

“The president of the United States, Donald Trump, defended on Monday his decision to order the assassination of Iranian General Qassem Soleimani, who he said was justified due to the” horrible “actions of the Iranian in the past.

Trump’s claims that an “imminent threat” to four unspecified embassies was part of the reason for the US drone attack. UU. Who killed Soleimani have been attacked as flimsy. On Sunday, Defense Secretary Mark Esper said he did not know any strong evidence about an attack plot. . . .

“The fake news media and their Democratic partners are working hard to determine if the future attack by the terrorist Soleimani was” imminent “or not, and if my team agreed. The answer to both is a strong YES, “Trump tweeted.

Later, both the administration and Trump departed from what they said for the first time, no doubt because they could not prove any of that.

Other excuses were made. “Mr. Trump, after the strike, told associates that he was under pressure to deal with General Soleimani of the Republican senators that he considers to be important supporters in his next Senate political trial.” Defense Secretary Mark Esper said “there was a threat” orchestrated by Soleimani, “and it would be” just a matter of days, certainly not more than weeks. “Secretary of State” Pompeo, announcing new sanctions against Iran, said: ” I don’t know exactly what minute. We don’t know exactly what day it would have been executed, but it was very clear. Qassem Soleimani himself was plotting a large-scale broad attack on American interests and those attacks were imminent. “Two days later, Esper said that He had not seen strong evidence that four US embassies had been in danger when Trump authorized the attack on Soleimani.

“The president did not cite specific evidence, he says he probably believed …,” Esper said. “I didn’t see one regarding four embassies.” Then, the next day, Trump tweeted that “it really doesn’t matter” what Soleimani was planning because he was a “horrible” man.

“Qassem Suleimani was killed as part of a broader strategy of deterring the challenges of American enemies that also applies to China and Russia,” said US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo. [on January 14], further diluting the claim that the Iranian general of high rank was attacked because he was plotting imminent attacks against US assets. ”

But on January 13, it was reported that “President Donald Trump authorized the assassination of Iranian General Qassem Soleimani seven months ago if the increase in Iran’s aggression resulted in the death of an American, according to five current and former senior administration officials.

“The June presidential directive came on the condition that Trump would have the final approval of any specific operation to kill Soleimani, authorities said.”

“Secretary of State Mike Pompeo and Attorney General William Barr said Monday [January 13] that killing the Iranian commander Qassem Soleimani was part of a broader deterrence strategy, a change from the Trump administration’s previous justification that the attack was carried out to avoid an “imminent” attack.

“Barr’s comments were particularly notable when he tried to reject criticism about the administration’s claim that Soleimani was planning attacks that represented an imminent threat, calling the concept” something like a false clue. ”

If the murder of an Iranian was simply meant to deter Iran instead of “preventing” an impending attack, then Trump and his administration violated US law. Under Exec. Order 12.333, part 2.11, “No person employed or acting on behalf of the Government of the United States shall participate or conspire to participate, murder. ”Less than 50 U.S.C. Second. 1541 (c),

“The constitutional powers of the President as Commander in Chief to introduce the United States Armed Forces into hostilities, or in situations where imminent participation in hostilities is clearly indicated by circumstances, are exercised only in accordance with (1) a declaration of war, (2) specific legal authorization, or (3) a national emergency created by an attack on the United States, its territories or possessions, or its armed forces. ” If an imminent attack was not planned and the general’s murder was simply to “deter” future actions, then the murder was clearly a murder, which is illegal.

It has been argued that several Authorizations for the use of military force (AUMF) authorized the murder. They do not do it The AUMF 2002 is directed specifically against actions of Iraq, not of Iran. The 2001 AUMF is directed against those responsible for the September 11 attacks. That did not include Iran. It was sponsored by Al-Quaeda.

Iran is Shia. Al-Quaeda is Sunni. They do not cooperate with each other.

Two intelligence officials say that while it is true that a handful of al-Qaeda members, including one of Osama bin Laden’s children, have been in Iran since shortly after the United States attacked their refuge in Afghanistan in 2001, no There is evidence that Shiite Muslims Iran and the Sunni extremist group have carried out joint operations against the United States.

On the contrary, three officials pointed out that the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria, a direct descendant of Al Qaeda in Syria and Iraq, claimed credit for an attack in 2017 against the Iranian parliament building and the tomb of the founder of the Republic Islamic, Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, who according to Iran’s state media killed at least 12 people.

Iran had nothing to do with the September 11 attack:

Vice President Mike Pence incorrectly and misleadingly linked Iran with the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001 in a series of tweets aimed at justifying the assassination of Iran’s top general the previous day.

While the Trump administration defended the assassination on Friday, the vice president said in a tweet that Soleimani had helped “in the clandestine trip to Afghanistan of 10 of the 12 terrorists who carried out the September 11 terrorist attacks in the United States.”

But the official government report on the events that led to the attacks, known as the September 11 Commission report, undermines Pence.

The report indicates that “there is no evidence that Iran or Hezbollah were aware of the planning of what later became the September 11 attack.”

Taking all this together, the Trump regime had no authority to assassinate a high-ranking Iranian general. Nor did he have a reason to do so, except to take revenge for his past acts. But no statute or law of the United States, let alone the Constitution, allows such acts of our President.

COLLECTION OF AUTUMN FUNDS

If you liked this article, donate $ 5 to keep NationofChange online until November.

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here