Quantcast
Connect with us

Trump isn’t just lying about the Suleimani threat — he’s covering up the fact that the strike was illegal: law professor

Published

on

President Donald Trump has frequently changed his story on the nature of the “imminent threat” posed by Iranian general Qassim Suleimani that led him to order a strike to take him out, leading many to believe that his justification is based on lies.

But that betrays something much more fundamental, wrote NYU Law professor Rebecca Ingber in the Washington Post. Trump is trying to cover up the fact that he had no legal justification to order the strike in the first place.

ADVERTISEMENT

“The question of imminence is crucial under both domestic and international law,” wrote Ingber. “Under the U.N. Charter, the president’s authority to kill Soleimani required that the United States was facing an armed attack — as well as that the use of force was necessary to repel or prevent it. The United States has long understood that doctrine to also permit force necessary to stop an imminent attack. Whether an attack was truly imminent is also key to the domestic legal question, because U.S. law does not permit the president to use force unilaterally (that is, without congressional authorization) outside of the most exigent circumstances.”

“These legal questions are no mere technicalities,” continued Ingber. “The purpose behind the law is to limit unnecessary war to the greatest possible extent. U.S. presidents have at times pushed the limits of such laws, but doing so has dire consequences — including unnecessary conflict, civilian casualties and the lost trust of our allies, as well as of the U.S. public.”

Many in the Trump administration have tried to argue the strike was justified by past threats from Iran, with Ambassador Kelly Craft listing a series of cases in which Quds-backed Iran forces attacked U.S. military targets in the region.

However, wrote Ingber, “Even were each of the acts listed in the letter both attributable to Iran and properly characterized as armed attacks — a stretch for various reasons, including that the U.S. drone was itself unmanned and that Iran claimed it shot it down in Iranian airspace — the use of force in response must still be necessary to stop an ongoing attack or prevent one. Soleimani’s history, and Iran’s, provide context for analyzing the nature of any current threat. But the use of force as retaliation or punishment for a past wrong is strictly prohibited under international law; the narrow exceptions the charter permits do not include revenge. So we are back to the original question: whether Soleimani posed an immediate threat for which the use of force was necessary.”

“Finally, even were an attack against Iran itself justified, the fact that the Soleimani strike took place in Iraq makes the question of imminence even more important,” wrote Ingber. “Iraq, of course, did not itself attack us. A crucial step in determining whether it is necessary to use force on the territory of a state that did not itself attack us — the long-standing U.S. approach, dating to the Caroline incident, increasingly adopted by other states — has been to, first, establish the imminence of a forthcoming attack and then to analyze whether that state is itself unwilling or unable to prevent or stop the attack. The administration has not put forward evidence on either question — and has not even addressed the issue of Iraqi sovereignty.”

ADVERTISEMENT

“The most significant check on a president who has little inherent interest in law or norms is a political one,” concluded Ingber. “Elections matter. Law can constrain the president, but only if we care, sufficiently and in sufficient numbers, when he violates it.”

You can read more here.


Report typos and corrections to: [email protected].
READ COMMENTS - JOIN THE DISCUSSION
Continue Reading

Breaking Banner

Trump issues new threat to schools if they refuse to reopen in the fall despite deadly pandemic

Published

on

President Donald Trump is doubling down on his threat to cut funding from schools that decided to remain closed this fall during the deadly novel coronavirus pandemic.

Writing on Twitter, the president appeared to walk back his own administration's efforts to walk back his earlier threats to cut off funding for schools that don't reopen on schedule.

"Now that we have witnessed it on a large scale basis, and firsthand, Virtual Learning has proven to be TERRIBLE compared to In School, or On Campus, Learning," the president wrote. "Not even close! Schools must be open in the Fall. If not open, why would the Federal Government give Funding? It won’t!!!"

Continue Reading

Breaking Banner

White House sidelining medical experts for ‘too much focus on public health’: AP reporter

Published

on

President Donald Trump and other White House officials are reportedly tuning out public health experts -- who they believe are "deep state Democrats" who aren't working against the president's re-election.

The Washington Post reported that officials with the Centers for Disease Control are feeling pressure from the president to sign off on reopening schools and businesses despite dire coronavirus risks, and Associated Press reporter Jonathan Lemire told MSNBC's "Morning Joe" that's what he's hearing, as well.

Continue Reading
 

2020 Election

‘Betrayal’: Trump fuming over Brett Kavanaugh voting with majority in tax return cases

Published

on

According to Jonathan Lemire of the Associated Press, Donald Trump is reportedly focusing his ire on Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh, along with Neil Gorsuch,  for siding with the majority of justices who ruled on Thursday that the state of New York must be given his tax returns as part of a criminal investigation.

Appearing on MSNBC's "Morning Joe" with co-host Willie Geist, Lemire was asked how the president -- and the White House -- are reacting to the setback for the president.

"You're at the White House, it's either a witch hunt or a big win depending on who you ask," host Geist began. "[Trump attorney] Jay Sekulow is also calling it a win. The president doesn't want his tax returns, financial records to see the light of day particularly before election day. What's the concern now with the two 7-2 decisions?"

Continue Reading
 
 
You need honest news coverage. Help us deliver it. Join Raw Story Investigates for $1. Go ad-free.
close-image