Jan 2020. The Legal Arguments of the Qassem Soleimani Killing

January 2020. When the US government killing of top Iranian general Qasem Soleimani was first announced, officials from the Pentagon up to President Donald Trump were careful to make clear the strike was meant to head off an imminent attack on Americans. That the strike, which took place last week without congressional approval or debate, should be conducted with the urgency of heading off an imminent threat is actually key to making it legal under US law. But Trump has subsequently made clear – notably in comments Tuesday from the Oval Office – that he was also motivated by retribution after the death of an American contractor at an Iraqi military base, possibly caused by Iranian-backed militias, or violent protests at the US Embassy in Baghdad. Trump’s Oval Office comments left out the idea of an imminent threat and echoed his arguments on a conservative radio show that the attack on Soleimani should have been carried out years ago, by either President Barack Obama or President George W. Bush, two men whose foreign policy Trump has repeatedly tried to undo. But Soleimani’s killing could lead to war, even if it was an attempt to disrupt a terror threat. On Tuesday night, Iran responded with force, launching more than a dozen missiles at two Iraqi bases that hold US troops in what appears to be an act of retaliation. In a statement, the Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps, an elite wing of the Iranian military that is also known as the IRGC, said the attacks were “hard revenge” for the death of Soleimani.

https://vk.com/video503532632_456239809

https://youtu.be/w4l92Sc1q7w

Leave a comment

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.