CNN Is Super Concerned With Legality Of Whacking Suleimani

It really is still amazing that the killing of an Iranian terrorist, a high ranking member of the Iran government and military, who is responsible for hundreds of American deaths, is being trashed by the American news media and Democrats. The same folks weren’t concerned when Obama was whacking big time terrorists

But, um

See, it was cool when Obama did it. But, Orange Man Bad, so, they’ll defend Iran. And virtually no one was whining about the legality

Growing doubts on legality of US strike that killed Iranian general

In the hours and days after Qasem Soleimani was killed in a US drone strike, his demise was described in various terms: President Donald Trump said he had been “terminated”; other US officials talked about a “targeted killing” and “lethal action.”

But both the Iranian President and Iraq’s Prime Minister said Soleimani’s death was an “assassination” — essentially a politically motivated murder.

See, CNN’s Tim Lister and Eve Bower prefer to listen to Iran. And then make a huge mistake regarding the legality

US officials have rejected the characterization of his killing as an assassination. That’s hardly a surprise because assassinations have been illegal under US federal law since 1981. But people have still been assassinated, and the government has not always been considered in violation of the law. This is, in part, because US law does not define “assassinations” with precision, and there are other laws that administrations have used to justify their actions.

What they want people to do is not click that link for “1981”. Go ahead and click it…..that’s right, it is not a law, it is an executive order. Any president can change, modify, cancel, or ignore an EO, because they are the president, and an EO is not law. Kinda like a CEO creating a dress code policy, then coming to work in sweat pants himself/herself while you wear dress pants. There is no U.S. law against assassination, nor one with guidance.

The crux of the Trump administration’s argument is that the threat posed by Soleimani’s plans was “imminent” and that the US response was “defensive.” A key requirement in order for a strike to be lawful under Article II of the US Constitution is that a threat must be imminent.

Yeah, they have no link for that, because it doesn’t appear in Article II anywhere. So, CNN is really just making things up because Orange Man Bad.

But targeted killings are permitted under international law in only very narrow circumstances, and some legal experts are skeptical that the White House’s justification for the strike — offered without evidence at the time of writing — meets those standards.

There were a few that were concerned with Obama’s “targeted killings”, including Bin Laden, calling them illegal, but, the U.S. media and Democrats, and Republicans, cheered Obama taking out terrorists. Do we really care what international law says? This is the same international law that is ignoring what Iran and Suleimani were doing.

You know, if Trump killed Hitler the Democrats and their pet media would find ways to slam Trump.

Save $10 on purchases of $49.99 & up on our Fruit Bouquets at 1800flowers.com. Promo Code: FRUIT49
If you liked my post, feel free to subscribe to my rss feeds.

Both comments and trackbacks are currently closed

16 Responses to “CNN Is Super Concerned With Legality Of Whacking Suleimani”

  1. Nighthawk says:

    Don’t forget that liberals also cheered when Obama traded 5 terrorist leaders for ONE deserter. Just as, no matter what Trump does, it’s bad. But whatever Obama did was good and wise.

    And they wonder why we say they are brainwashed.

    • Chumpchange says:

      Don’t forget Obama assasinated an American citizen. Totally against the law and would have been an impeachable offense if Trump had done it but since the GOP loves war they were cheering in their closets at the action.

      Even Progressives now hate Obama after all his War mongering has been slowly coming to light.

      The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone and online survey finds that 43% of Likely U.S. Voters favor Trump’s order of a drone strike that killed the Iranian general. Just as many (43%) are opposed, with 14% who are undecided.

      Can’t be more evendly divided as a nation than this.

      • Elwood P. Dowd says:

        Obama would win in 2020 in a landslide.

        But Obama was roundly criticized in liberal circles for assassinating an al Qaeda leader and US citizen, Anwar al-Awlaki and his 16 yr old son Abdulrahman al-Awlaki, also a US citizen. al-Awlaki’s 8 yr old daughter was killed during Trump’s term by a US commando attack.

        aw-Alaki was the purported “spiritual adviser” and recruiter to some of the 9/11 murderers, Fort Hood murderer Nidal Malik Hasan, Christmas “underwear” bomber Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab and was linked to several other bomb plots.

        Like Soleimani, aw-Alaki probably deserved his fate, but it’s dangerous for the gov’t to start killing US citizens without due process.

        • formwiz says:

          Obama would win in 2020 in a landslide.

          Keep telling yourself that. Dr Evil’s paid rioters in Ferg were calling him halfa cracka even then.

          Black America has realized he wasn’t even all hat, let alone no cattle. That’s why Trump has 1/3 of blacks supporting him.

          But Obama was roundly criticized in liberal circles for assassinating an al Qaeda leader and US citizen, Anwar al-Awlaki and his 16 yr old son Abdulrahman al-Awlaki, also a US citizen.

          Sure he was. /sarc The only flak he took was from the Right.

          al-Awlaki’s 8 yr old daughter was killed during Trump’s term by a US commando attack.

          We don’t have commandos in the US Armed Forces. Which op do you mean? If you’re talking Baghdadi, he was the one who killed her.

          aw-Alaki was the purported “spiritual adviser” and recruiter to some of the 9/11 murderers, Fort Hood murderer Nidal Malik Hasan, Christmas “underwear” bomber Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab and was linked to several other bomb plots.

          In the immortal words of Philip Henry Sheridan, “The only good one is a dead one”.

          Like Soleimani, aw-Alaki probably deserved his fate, but it’s dangerous for the gov’t to start killing US citizens without due process.

          Gee, I’ll bet you didn’t start worrying about that until a few days ago.

          Of course, Salami wasn’t an American citizen.

    • Elwood P. Dowd says:

      You just now noticed partisanship in the US?

      And you wonder why we say you are brainwashed.

      • Chumpchange says:

        @Elwood.

        While speaking on the Senate floor Monday, he suggested Democrats are jumping to conclusions regarding Soleimani’s death and are accusing the government of misconduct without knowing any facts.

        Yes it was spoken by a GOP but think about what he is saying here and then think about what blogs across the world are doing.

        Blogs and commentors blame the governments for MISCONDUCT and McConnell is saying the democrats are accusing the government for which they ARE IN CHARGE of Misconduct.

        This caught me by surprise but in effect it is exactly what those in charge are accusing those in charge of doing.

        Not civil war. Revolution is on the front burner in this country. I do not see how it is remotely possible to come back from the massive gulf that seperates Americans to the point they hate each other.

        I just dont see how we escape what the Russians and chinesse and our enemies have been formenting in this country for decades can be resisted much longer.

        Not a single Democrat that ascends to the presidency will assauge the right and not a single replacement for trump would Assuage the left.

        Scary times as democratic states are trying to confisticate weapons from law abiding citizens ahead of the revolution they fear. They are not planning it….they fear it and this is why they are taking weapons away from citizens so their trust in the SAME GOVERNMENT THEY ACCUSE OF MISCONDUCT WILL SAVE US ALL!!!!

        • “Not civil war. Revolution is on the front burner in this country. I do not see how it is remotely possible to come back from the massive gulf that separates Americans to the point they hate each other.”

          We saw this happen in Yugoslavia too. A manufactured reciprocal hatred of two parts of the same population. The cure doesn’t need to include war. You just have to kill the activists. Might be able to get most of the same benefits if you just made political activism illegal as a paid job. Most people are calm and rational when they aren’t being constantly stirred up.

      • formwiz says:

        Only one brainwashed here is you.

        Nobody else is dumb enough to buy global nonsense.

      • formwiz says:

        According to Puffington, the split is 43 for, 38 against, 19 duh.

        Even better, 84% on the Right approve (Puffington must count Libertarians as Conservative) and (are you ready?) so do 29% of Demos.

        29%.

        That’s why you’re gonna lose big this year.

  2. “But targeted killings are permitted under international law in only very narrow circumstances…”

    International law is STUPID. It’s OK to kill a million nameless draftees but killing the actual guy in charge of them is bad. Moronic codes written by European aristocracy to ensure their own survival in WW1 and WW2.

    • Followup: In the past four years, the USA has expended over a thousand Hellfire missiles in Iraq and Syria, killing low ranking ISIS fighters on bicycles. In addition, we dropped TONS of various munitions from aircraft. In Mosul, we destroyed EVERY car that was parked on the street and didn’t care a bit about anyone sleeping in the house next to it or it’s proximity to cultural sites. No one complained about “escalation”, “war crimes” or “unending wars”.

    • Dana says:

      The entire concept of international law is a farce. When nations agree on something, through treaties or other forms of agreement, it’s easy. But international law has no enforcement mechanism, save military force. Slobodan Milošević could be captured and sent off to trial in The hague, because Serbia lacked the military power to prevent it, but nobody has the military power to haul Donald Trump off to the International Criminal Court, the ‘authority’ of which we do not recognize.

      Let’s face facts: ‘war crimes’ and the like are the excuses of the winners to hang the losers. General Curtis LeMay, who ran our bombing campaign against Japan, said that, had the US lost World War II, there was no doubt that Japan would have been trying him for war crimes. Had Germany won in WWII, there’s little doubt that they’d have hanged Winston Churchill, though there’d never have been the pretense of a trial.

      • Professor Hale says:

        The Japanese and Germans wouldn’t have been cynical enough to do war crimes trials. Just bullets into foreheads.

        It was interesting the trial the Iraqis had for Saddam Hussein. They tried him for hum rights violations and murder, and found him guilty. But as the supreme ruler of his country, literally nothing he did was illegal for him to do. Dictators everywhere know that they can’t go away peacefully. They would get only as far as the nearest lamp post without the power of the state to protect them.

        • Dana says:

          Der Führer was rather fond of hangings, as he had hanged the 1944 assassination conspirators, naked, in nooses made of piano wire, hoisted rather than a neck-breaking drop. And I suspect that, had he captured Messrs Churchill and Stalin, Reichkanzler Hitler would wanted to have gloated to heir faces.

  3. formwiz says:

    A lot of Zippy’s hits (y’know, the ones he bragged about) were extra-judicial.

    Maybe Commie News Net should look into that.

    And Willie hitting that aspirin factory.

    Yeah.

    Dat’s da ticket.

Bad Behavior has blocked 10064 access attempts in the last 7 days.