The targeted killing of Soleimani was a lawful, proportional, preemptive military action against a combatant enemy who had killed and was planning to kill Americans. See my book: Preemption: A Knife that Cuts Both Ways.
— Alan Dershowitz (@AlanDersh) January 3, 2020
January 3, 2020
Dershowitz gives the legal opinion on the blowing up of Suleimani.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
152 comments:
Well okay then!
Dersh promoting his book
He's not wrong.
There’s no wrong reason to kill an Iranian general.
These legal guys crack me up.
Maybe they can pontificate on whether Sollozzo’s attempted hit on Don Corleone was legal.
mccullough: "These legal guys crack me up.
Maybe they can pontificate on whether Sollozzo’s attempted hit on Don Corleone was legal."
Well, Sonny was hot for the deal and I've no doubt Barzini signed off on it as well.
All the reactions to this killing have been entertaining, enlightening, and puzzling.
I mean, I get it. There's always this rush to either attack or defend Trump since he's the fulcrum of the moment. But nobody seems interested in waiting and ruminating at bit. What happens next? Do you think you know? Spoiler alert: You're probably wrong.
"lawful"
Then again, who the hell cares about law these days?
Not Obama or Clinton, not the FBI or the CIA, not prog judges or other Dems.
So?
Whose law?
I’m sure it was a violation of Iran’s law.
Always be closing.
Queue the Michael Moore[on] film showing Iranian generals innocently flying kites in Iraq, and the fawning moron-army lefty audience.
We must investigate this horrendous abuse of power! How will we ever not know Trump doesn't have personal interests in Iraq and Iran, that he hasn't personally benefited from these drone strikes, unless we get the last 50 and all future years of his tax records!
Plastic turkey!
(Sarcasm)
You can always count on Dershowitz for the Likud perspective.
It seems clear cut to be legal. The US has Congressional approval for the use of force in Iraq. Has that been withdrawn?
Also, with foresight, Trump Admin designated IRGC a terrorist organization. Did Congress vote to override that designation? No. Then shut up and do your job the next time.
J. Farmer: "You can always count on Dershowitz for the Likud perspective."
And there that is, again.
What's next Farmer? Did the Rothschilds order Trump to hit this target?
Manufacturing activity hits 10-year low...
https://www.instituteforsupplymanagement.org/ISMReport/MfgROB.cfm?SSO=1
Exactly! And not an assassination.
bbkingfish: "Manufacturing activity hits 10-year low..."
...for Iranian Revolutionary Guards Planning Corps planning....
LOL
Nice try bbkingfish. Banned Commenter LLR-lefty Chuck was already on here doing everything he could to change the subject.
I'm really sorry this is happening to you.
"Maybe they can pontificate on whether Sollozzo’s attempted hit on Don Corleone was legal."
Interesting twist: in the book, the Tataglias vouch for Sollozzo and request the meeting with the Corleones. For dramatic effect in the movie, the Corleones tell Sollozzo that they've learned the Tataglias are his partners ("My compliments"). Thus, in the book the Tataglias asked for an accommodation and were refused, but in the movie that didn't happen, even though Vito said it did at the peace conference.
@Drago:
And there that is, again.
What's next Farmer? Did the Rothschilds order Trump to hit this target?
In the other thread you mentioned that Amash was owned by the Chinese communists. Why are you so Sinophobic?
Rory: "Interesting twist: in the book, the Tataglias vouch for Sollozzo and request the meeting with the Corleones."
The Tataglias are pimps.
No, it was Barzini all along pulling the strings.
Farmer: "In the other thread you mentioned that Amash was owned by the Chinese communists. Why are you so Sinophobic?"
How do you know I'm not praising Amash's business acumen?
Screw arguments about preemption.
Iran attacked a high-ranking US official's diplomatic mission in Baghdad.
We responded by attacking a high-ranking Iranian official's diplomatic mission in Baghdad.
That's a tit-for-tat retaliation. That the guy we hit was the ultimate military commander of the attackers in the first case just makes it unusually morally justified for state-vs-state tit-for-tat retaliation.
Now to get the next parasite who steps into Suleimani's shoes.
Probably just as he is doing up the laces.
@Drago:
How do you know I'm not praising Amash's business acumen?
Because I have two eyes and a brain.
Farmer: "Because I have two eyes and a brain."
This sounds vaguely familiar to an argument you were having earlier today with another poster where he was making that very argument and you rejected it.
Hmmm.
"In the other thread you mentioned that Amash was owned by the Chinese communists. Why are you so Sinophobic?"
We may as well support Chinese domestic and foreign ambitions, means, and progress. We do support these conflicts, albeit through multiple layers of abstraction.
Bloomberg assures us Xi is accountable to his minions.
@Drago:
This sounds vaguely familiar to an argument you were having earlier today with another poster where he was making that very argument and you rejected it.
Hmmm.
I'm afraid you'll need to get specific, because I don't have the foggiest idea of what you are talking about. I don't give a fuck if you want to say someone is "completely and utterly owned by the Chinese communists." Just spare me the pearl-clutching when someone makes a similar claim about someone being owned by the Israelis.
I think I've actually be happier if it was ruled to be illegal.
Lawyers don't have any place in military action until it's all over then they can try the criminal losers
I love Dershowitz, but we need lawyers to stay in the courts and warriors to stay on the battlefields.
Farmer: "Just spare me the pearl-clutching when someone makes a similar claim about someone being owned by the Israelis."
Huh?
Come again?
Whom did I say was "owned by the Israelis?"
Strangely, in the face of charges that he raped two underage teens during his years as Jeffrey Epstein's fixer, Dersh went out of his way to write a 1997 editorial in the New Yorker advocating lowering the age of consent to 15. Then, in the middle of evens of Epstein's death on July 29, the man "who does not own a computer" tweeted:
I stand by the constitutional (not moral) argument I offered in my controversial oped: if a 16 year old has the constitutional right to have an abortion without state or parental interference, how could she not have the constitutional right to engage in consensual sex?
So we know why the Harvard professor needs Trump badly enough to continue kissing his ass. Friends of Epstein have to protect one another.
@Drago:
Huh?
Come again?
Whom did I say was "owned by the Israelis?"
I didn't say you said it. It was your response to my claim about Dershowitz I took exception.
Drago said...
J. Farmer: "You can always count on Dershowitz for the Likud perspective."
And there that is, again.
What's next Farmer? Did the Rothschilds order Trump to hit this target?
And this is why I want Ted Cruz to take over from Trump in 2024:
https://dailycaller.com/2020/01/03/ted-cruz-obama-rhodes-iran/
Yes, he'd also be great on the Supreme Court, but, who else on the GOP side has the balls to continue Trump's work as President?
And just like that, The Poor Man's LLR-lefty Chuck gadfly pops in with more wild-eyed lawfare smears against Dershowitz including the many times debunked Age of Consent discussion.
gadfly, LLR-lefty Chuck is extraordinarily pathetic, but you really do take the cake!
So, you've got that going for you, which is nice.
BTW, how long did it take you to shut down that moronic blog you started? You know, the one you started and while coming to Althouse blog and linking back to your loserville chat-site in hopes of driving up your traffic?
LOL
Farmer: "I didn't say you said it."
Okay then. It's all good.
Drago,
i.e. While you constantly exhibit Sinophobia, you get butt-hurt over antisemitism.
Drago
Not only has Trump exposed the media and the Democrats, now Farmer has no deniability left.
walter: "Drago,
i.e. While you constantly exhibit Sinophobia, you get butt-hurt over antisemitism."
I would call it a healthy respect for what the ChiComs are doing geo-politically and militarily.
They are acquiring key chokepoint control (Panama Canal), building up their already large forces to compete with us globally, securing and locking up strategic metals/chemicals contracts with foreign nations putting them in a position to squeeze us in times of crisis, placing China-controlled "academic" departments in large numbers of key US universities, they are wholesale raiding/hacking/stealing from our technology and government sectors, creating new islands in strategic areas (currently the Spratly Islands), seeding their technology products sold into the US and Europe with capabilities which will allow them to spy wholesale on American citizens (why didn't they just hire Comey and Brennan?), they have an army of lobbyists in DC at their beck and call, and really interestingly, they are creating an infrastructure that will allow them at the drop of a hat to completely isolate their computer networks from outside penetration!
That last one is very very interesting.
Now, what were you saying about sinophobia?
George Packer, long time war correspondent for The New Yorker, writing in The Atlantic:
A lot of commentary has focused on whether Soleimani deserved to be killed. Trump’s supporters call him a monster and pound their chests in righteous triumph, as if the purpose of the strike was to show our power and produce a moment of visceral satisfaction at seeing dead this man who’d mocked American resolve for years. Trump’s critics point to all the destruction caused by the American war in Iraq, as if that disaster should require impotence of us rather than simply wisdom and restraint.
But the main question about the strike isn’t moral or even legal—it’s strategic. Soleimani was a supremely powerful leader of a state apparatus, with his own cult of personality, but he was not a terror kingpin. His death doesn’t decapitate anything. He had the blood of tens of thousands of people—overwhelmingly fellow Muslims—on his hands, but he was only the agent of a government policy that preceded him and will continue without him. His deeds are beside the point; so is the display of American resolve. The only reason to kill Soleimani is to enter a new war that the United States can win.
What would that war look like? How will Iran fight it? How will the U.S. respond? What credible allies will we have, after Trump’s trashing of the nuclear deal thoroughly alienated Europe? Who will believe any intelligence about Iran’s actions and intentions from an administration that can’t function without telling lies? How will American officials deliberate when Trump has gotten rid of his experts and turned his government into a tool of personal power? What is the point of having a Congress if it has no say about a new American war? What is our war aim, and how can it be aligned with Trump’s obvious desire to be rid of any entanglement in the region? What will happen if Jerusalem becomes a target and Israel enters the conflict? What will the American people accept by way of sacrifice, when nothing has prepared them for this?
One more question; will Trump's unilateral military risk distract from his impeachment trial?
https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2020/01/suleimani/604402/?utm_campaign=the-atlantic&utm_content=edit-promo&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter&utm_term=2020-01-03T17%3A23%3A37
Banned Commenter LLR-lefty Chuck: "George Packer, long time war correspondent for The New Yorker, writing in The Atlantic:"
LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL
Really, what else needs to be said?
Was a translation.
@Ken B:
Not only has Trump exposed the media and the Democrats, now Farmer has no deniability left.
Deniability about what?
Farmer: "Deniability about what?"
See?!
(just a joke)
"will Trump's unilateral military risk distract from his impeachment trial?"
What trial?
Amazing how little Americans even try to know about Iraq - even the Pundits.
Iraq - President and Prime Minister have resigned months ago and in caretaker roles (lame ducks)
Soleimani was there pretty much to take over and put his man in place.
The reserved bbc
https://mobile.twitter.com/pbolyard/status/1213162342437064704
If there was a hero dog involved, it was automatically legal.
Well details like the wave of protests that crescendo back in november which was suppressed by quazali in co, which provokec the fall of the last govt get in the way of preferred narrative.
Another great success for the Dear Leader!
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-iraq-security-blast-embassy/us-embassy-urges-citizens-to-depart-iraq-immediately-statement-idUSKBN1Z20NR
narciso,
I encountered a European (German living in Britain) who told me the BBC was required by Guvmint to be unbiased..
bbkingfish: "Another great success for the Dear Leader!"
OMG!! How will the US survive without a few hundred civilians in Iraq?!!
What will become of us?!
I guess the terrorists have already won...
.....except for Soleimani and a couple of his pals that is!!
Its a darn shame Trump didnt deliver the victory that was Benghazi.
Well, tomorrow is a new day and hope springs eternal! With any luck we can have an Ambassador murdered before the month is out as bbkingfish and LLR-lefty Chuck hope for!
Good luck guys!
Like the ministry of truth, the iraqi government is suleimanis construct, caveat emptor
Who asked him?
One more question; will Trump's unilateral military risk distract from his impeachment trial?
I am beginning to believe that Chuckles is a bot.
Nobody is that arrogant in their ignorance, obsessive and tone deaf.
Alternative hypothesis is that he is on the autism spectrum, as was previously speculated.
Last nights operation was more than just eleinating Suleimani.
(1) Qasem Suleimani - Iranian major general in the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) and commander of its Quds Force who was responsible for hundreds if not thousands of American dead.
(2) Naim Qassem, Lebanon Hezbollah deputy leader with the title of deputy secretary-general.
(3) Jamal Jafaar Mohammed Ali Āl Ebrahim aka Abu Mahdi al-Muhandis commander of Kataib Hezbollah reported to have close links to the Quds Force.
(4) Qais al-Khazali and (5) Hadi al-Ameri have been captured by US Marines - these are two of Iraq’s most powerful militia heads.
On 31 December 2019, U.S. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo named Khazali (4), along with Abu Mahdi al-Muhandis (3), Hadi al-Amiri (5), and Falih Alfayyadh, as responsible for the attack on the United States embassy in Baghdad
Just because I have been stewing about this all day I am going to repeat a post from the previous thread:
This was a brilliant stroke by Trump. We get attacked and respond with some restraint. We get attacked at the embassy and Trump lowers the hammer and wipes out a charismatic, extremely effective terrorist military leader with no, I repeat, no collateral damage. The Yamamoto parallel is almost perfect. Also think of what the loss of Stonewall Jackson (by his own pickets) meant to the Confederacy. I see this as a similar loss to the Iranians. There are only so many commanders who have the combination of smarts, organizational skills, daring, and charisma to accomplish the things Suleiman - or Jackson- did. No one is irreplaceable, but these come very close.
That we had the intelligence, the decision making process, the military assets on hand and the firmness of command to carry out this attack says a lot about what the Iranians risk if they continue to escalate. The BS from the Democrats is aggravating, but it underscores once again their lack of understanding of what it takes to survive dealing with Islamic fanatics and how little they really care about the safety and well being of Americans.
The best part of the impeachment charade so far?
The fact that FakeCon Banned Commenter LLR-lefty Chuck, who has pretended to respect McConnell to keep up the facade, is now fully on board with Pelosi and Schumer!!!
ALL of LLR-lefty Chuck's masks are off now and its glorious!
" J. Farmer said...
You can always count on Dershowitz for the Likud perspective."
Well at least Farmer is consistent in his love for Iran and his hate for Israel.
The Atlantic? BWAHAHAHAHAHA
THEOLDMAN
Might as well have been The New Yorker
Chuck and his mini-minions need to explain why the Congressional Authorizations of Military Force against Iraq of 1991 and 2002 , STILL in FORCE, do not apply to this case.
That was george packers previous employer.
Packer is another Conventional Wisdom Warrior
Wholelotta: "Chuck and his mini-minions need to explain why the Congressional Authorizations of Military Force against Iraq of 1991 and 2002 , STILL in FORCE, do not apply to this case."
Because the far left marxists at Lawfare told him the Authorizations do not apply. And that's always been good enough for Chuck!
Well at least Farmer is consistent in his love for Iran and his hate for Israel.
In any case the comment on Dersh was just an empty ad hominem. Apparently Farmer couldn't find anything wrong with his argument.
I would agree that legalities are not the main issue, but since the Democrats have brought them up, it's reasonable to respond. Even NeverTrumper David French has acknowledged that the killing was completely legal: "It's very important that Suleimani was killed in Iraq. Why? Because American troops are lawfully in Iraq -- there by congressional authorization and with the permission of the Iraqi government. Moreover, they have a right of self-defense."
Chuck: "One more question; will Trump's unilateral military risk distract from his impeachment trial?"
1) You're the only one paying attention to the impeachment. Not even Pelosi is doing so anymore. Since you have briefly talked about Soiledremain's death rather than impeachment, I guess the answer is yes. It's N/A to anyone else.
2) Remember Operation Desert Fox? When Clinton unleashed what was then the largest bombing strike in world history against Iraq *during his impeachment hearings*? Do you remember what Republicans were told when we questioned the timing? I do: "HOW DARE YOU???!?!?!?!"
Oh, and "POLITICS STOPS AT THE WATER'S EDGE!!!!!" Remember that one? It's obvious there isn't a Democrat or LLR alive that does.
Thank God, its "legal" unlike say supporting Illegal immigration or ignoring the drug laws. because y'know the USA is a nation of laws. LOL. BTW, Dersh was all mixed up Epstein and his fantasy island, the wretched Plea bargain, yet seems to have gotten away Scot free.
Here's what I find bizarre about all the attempts to link Dersh to Epstein:
Dersh's argument concerning age of consent is that it's absurd that a 16 year old should be able to unilaterally consent to an abortion but not to sex. And to someone who is pro-choice and favors 16 year olds being able to do so, that would seem to me to be an entirely sound argument. Now, I don't think 16 year olds (or anyone else) should be having abortions, so the argument really doesn't carry any weight with me... but it *should* carry weight with the people who seem the most intent on portraying that argument as somehow beyond the pale. No actual explanation of why 16 year old abortions is fine but sex is wrong is ever put forward. Just - OMG EPSTEIN! So utterly without principles.
I’m sure it was a violation of Iran’s law.
It occurred outside Iran's jurisdiction, in neighboring Iraq.
@Richard:
Well at least Farmer is consistent in his love for Iran and his hate for Israel.
Yeah, when I opposed the Iraq War, people used to say I was an apologist for and fan of Hussein. Can you dipshits ever get any new material?
@James K:
In any case the comment on Dersh was just an empty ad hominem. Apparently Farmer couldn't find anything wrong with his argument.
I didn't even read it. For me, it's beside the point. My criticism isn't legalistic, it's strategic.
I don't agree with J. Farmer about Iran or about Israel but he's not motivated by animus for Israel or love for Iran. I read him as he thinks he's being realistic about the nations we have to deal with in the Middle East, from the perspective of "nations have no friends, only interests".
For what it's worth, I don't think Trump will do it again until next time.
I think I agree with Gabriel on JF. But my question to Farmer is this.
Do you think it was a permissible idea for the CIC to take the action he took in these circumstances? If not, what would have made it permissible to you?
Farmer
You didn’t read it, you made a snark about Dershowitz being Jewish instead, and ask Iwhat I say you can no longer plausibly deny. Playing dumb doesn’t suit you.
@Ken B:
You didn’t read it, you made a snark about Dershowitz being Jewish instead, and ask Iwhat I say you can no longer plausibly deny. Playing dumb doesn’t suit you.
No, I just prefer men to say what forthrightly what they think instead of relying on innuendo. The "it" I didn't read was the book Dershowitz referenced. It my snark was not about his being Jewish but about his being a Likudnik. Plenty of Jews that doesn't apply to. And of course, it's no insult to call a Likudnik a Lukidnap.
But by all means, Kenny, keep searching for those monsters under the bed.
@etbass:
Do you think it was a permissible idea for the CIC to take the action he took in these circumstances? If not, what would have made it permissible to you?
I am somewhat confused by your using permissible. Whether it was permissible or not is really beside the point I am making. My point was that it was strategically dumb. I keep hearing about how Trump doesn't like endless war. It'd be nice if he actually ended one.
Like Trump was going to gove the impeachment train another car. Of course it was legally vetted.
war does not end when one party relents, that's called capitulation,
Alright Farmer. Tell me why it was "strategically dumb." And add, if you don't mind, your own idea as to what would have been a better course of action?
@etbass:
Alright Farmer. Tell me why it was "strategically dumb." And add, if you don't mind, your own idea as to what would have been a better course of action?
Some reasons in no particular order: It will invite reprisals from Iran and Shia militias in Iraq. It escalates an already very tense relationship with Iran. It will not seriously limit Iran's ability to operate in the region. It has caused a riff with Iraq and will likely increase Iran's influence in the country. It has provided a rallying cry for the regime in Iran. It has increased anti-American sentiment in Iran.
As for a better course of action, I am not supportive of American military deployments in Iraq, Saudi Arabia, and Syria.
Well, unfortunately, no one in Iran was willing to tell Soiledremains that attacking our embassies (including Benghazi and Iraq) would invite reprisals from the US, already escalate a very tense relationship with the US, it would not seriously limit the US's ability to operate in the region, it has provided a rallying cry for Trump's presidency, and it has increased anti-Iranian sentiment in the US.
So maybe they shouldn't have attacked our embassies.
Funny that it is only ever the US that has to have those kinds of concerns, though, doesn't it?
True. Now that America has struck, we should worry Iran may attack one of our embassies or arm terrorists to strike against Americans serving abroad.
Ok, I understand that. Just get out of Iraq, Saudi Arabia and Syria. But do we shut down our embassies too? And if not, should we take any action when our embassies are attacked? If so what? If not, why not?
" It will invite reprisals from Iran and Shia militias in Iraq."
They've been killing people for decades. The fact of the matter is, after their next attack there will be absolutely no way to know that they weren't going to do it anyway.
@Qwinn:
Well, unfortunately, no one in Iran was willing to tell Soiledremains that attacking our embassies (including Benghazi and Iraq) would invite reprisals from the US
Benghazi? And what is the evidence that Soleimani was behind the protesters attacking the embassy?
it would not seriously limit the US's ability to operate in the region
Supporters of the assassination claimed it would limit Iran's ability to operate in the region. It won't.
So maybe they shouldn't have attacked our embassies.
Again, who is "they?"
Funny that it is only ever the US that has to have those kinds of concerns, though, doesn't it?
The question was about US strategy.
INSTEAD OF GETTING A LOAN,, I GOT SOMETHING NEW
Get $5,500 USD every day, for six months!
See how it works
Do you know you can hack into any Credit cards machine with a hacked Credit cards??
Make up your mind before applying, straight deal...
Order for a blank Credit cards now and get millions within a week!: contact us
via email address:: {Legitblankcardsonline@gmail.com}
We have specially programmed Credits Cards that can be use to hack Credit cards Machines
Nation Wide, the Credits Cards can be used to withdraw at any Credits Cards or swipe Machines, at
Stores and POS Machines. We sell this cards to all our customers and interested
buyers worldwide, the Credit Card has a daily withdrawal limit of $5,500 at any Credit cards Machines
and up to $50,000 spending limit in stores depending on the kind of card
you order for. Credits Cards Can also be used in any other cyber hack{Services}, we are here for you anytime any day.
Here is our price lists for the Credits Cards:
Cards that withdraw $5,500 per day costs $450 USD
Cards that withdraw $10,000 per day costs $850 USD
Cards that withdraw $35,000 per day costs $2,200 USD
Cards that withdraw $50,000 per day costs $5,500 USD
Cards that withdraw $100,000 per day costs $8,500 USD
make up your mind before applying, straight deal!!!
The price include shipping fees and charges, order now: contact us via
email address:: {Legitblankcardsonline@gmail.com} Or
Add us on Whatsapp [+2349052476836]
Some reasons in no particular order: It will invite reprisals from Iran and Shia militias in Iraq. It escalates an already very tense relationship with Iran. It will not seriously limit Iran's ability to operate in the region. It has caused a riff with Iraq and will likely increase Iran's influence in the country. It has provided a rallying cry for the regime in Iran. It has increased anti-American sentiment in Iran.
Farmer-speak for "I feel hopeless and think that there is nothing we can do right, so let's do nothing".
Iran is a failing petro-theocracy that uses anti-American sentiment and foments international crises to keep the mullahs in power. Inaction and action both entail risks. Inaction is an insidious risk and can be as bad as foolish action, but leaders have to make decisions.
You can do better Farmer. You are a bright guy, but you seem to act out your depression by finding disagreements just to pick fights. That seems to be the only action you are willing to undertake. It seems to be the only thing you feel confident in.
Please understand that am not saying this in anger.
@etbass:
But do we shut down our embassies too?
No
And if not, should we take any action when our embassies are attacked? If so what? If not, why not?
That's way too hypothetical. Can I imagine a scenario where a reprisal attack would be justified? Sure. But so what? Then we're just off in a philosophy seminar. As for this particular case, I did not think it was a good response and outlined above why. Last week, in response to the attack on Kata’ib Hezbollah, Daniel Larison wrote: "The U.S. is still far too involved militarily in both Iraq and Syria, and these strikes threaten to pull the U.S. in deeper by feeding a cycle of tit-for-tat attacks in a country where the U.S. has few interests at stake. Our military presence in these countries has become self-justifying: we maintain a military presence and increase it in order to defend it from attacks that wouldn’t happen if our forces withdrew. That puts U.S. military personnel at risk for no good reason. The latest airstrikes can’t be separated from the context of complete policy failure that has led to them.:
@Francisco D:
Farmer-speak for "I feel hopeless and think that there is nothing we can do right, so let's do nothing".
First, being pessimistic about the long-term trends in the country is not the same thing as feeling hopeless. Second, I am not for do somethingism.
You can do better Farmer. You are a bright guy, but you seem to act out your depression by finding disagreements just to pick fights. That seems to be the only action you are willing to undertake. It seems to be the only thing you feel confident in.
Please spare me the armchair psychoanalysis. I have no interest in personality critiques from internet strangers who are a non-factor in my life. If you want to discuss the actual issues, I am all ears. And I don't consider disagreeing with someone picking a fight with them.
I think your strategy seems to be to just hope the problem goes away. Retreat entirely from the Middle East and our problems are ended.
@etbass:
I think your strategy seems to be to just hope the problem goes away. Retreat entirely from the Middle East and our problems are ended.
What is "the problem" that you are referring to?
Farmer
You were criticized for not responding to Dershowitz's argument, which he made in a tweet. You said you didn’t even read it. In case you decide to memory hole it I quote your comment here in its entirety.
> @James K:
“In any case the comment on Dersh was just an empty ad hominem. Apparently Farmer couldn't find anything wrong with his argument.”
I didn't even read it. For me, it's beside the point. My criticism isn't legalistic, it's strategic.
<
No reference to any book there. You didn’t read Dershowitz before you came out with “Likudnik”.
@Ken B:
No reference to any book there. You didn’t read Dershowitz before you came out with “Likudnik”.
Here's Dershowitz's tweet. The emphasis is mine.
The targeted killing of Soleimani was a lawful, proportional, preemptive military action against a combatant enemy who had killed and was planning to kill Americans. See my book: Preemption: A Knife that Cuts Both Ways."
Etbass
As Eric noted the other day, Farmer criticized the US for *being in Iran*. This operation was in Iraq. The place where the USA is “in” Iran is the embassy.
Ken B: "No reference to any book there. You didn’t read Dershowitz before you came out with “Likudnik”."
Imagine my surprise when Farmer informed me in no uncertain terms as to the extent of the intelligence briefings I received while a member of a Navy 2-star Flag Staff.
Farmer seems to just know a quite a few things.
Impressive.
Not as impressive as Admiral Inga and Banned Commenter LLR-lefty Chuck's amazing mindreading skills, but still.
Farmer, I think what we are looking for from you is a fairly comprehensive statement of your Middle East strategy that is just a bit deeper than total withdrawal, unless that is indeed your strategy. You have an ease with just taking shots at any other ideas that happen to be around. But we want to know with some specificity, what your plan is.
Drago
Well right now I have him obviously lying about a pronoun.
Chuck and his mini-minions need to explain . . .
You know what that's called? It's called "opening the door."
Thanks a lot.
@Ken B:
As Eric noted the other day, Farmer criticized the US for *being in Iran*. This operation was in Iraq. The place where the USA is “in” Iran is the embassy.
You'll have to refer me to that quote, because I don't know what you're talking about.
Well right now I have him obviously lying about a pronoun.
Wow, you really are grasping for straws. As I said, the "it" I didn't read was the book Dershowitz referenced in his tweet. I don't have a tremendous attention span, but I assure you it can muster 35 words. And as I said before, I have no concern with the legalistic argument. My criticism was not that it was unlawful.
"True. Now that America has struck, we should worry Iran may attack one of our embassies or arm terrorists to strike against Americans serving abroad." Matt, like Iran has been doing to us the last several decades? Now they are really going to go after us? When has Iran ever show restraint? Why does Iran feel like it can use Iraq as its sandbox with no repercussions? Trump may have made things worse but it's a bit rich to keep acting like Iran doesn't hold any responsibility for escalation.
@Drago:
Imagine my surprise when Farmer informed me in no uncertain terms as to the extent of the intelligence briefings I received while a member of a Navy 2-star Flag Staff.
By informed him in no uncertain terms, what Drago really meant was I asked him a question. Apologies for not being up-to-date on your resume.
@etbass:
Farmer, I think what we are looking for from you is a fairly comprehensive statement of your Middle East strategy that is just a bit deeper than total withdrawal, unless that is indeed your strategy. You have an ease with just taking shots at any other ideas that happen to be around. But we want to know with some specificity, what your plan is.
I have said this many times, but I would have diplomatic relations with all the relevant countries and trade with them. Beyond that, I'd stay out of their affairs. Again, what is the "problem" that you believe our troop presence is solving?
@Gk1:
I believe Matt was being sarcastic. But I have to admit I chuckled when I read, "Why does Iran feel like it can use Iraq as its sandbox with no repercussions?"
My answer: the Iraq War. And has for interfering in another country without repercussions, Saudi Arabia has gotten tens of thousands of people killed in its nearly five-year long effort to bomb and starve Yemen into submission. What repercussions have they faced? Other than more American arms and mid-air refueling.
Maybe Mrs. Kushner ordered the hit.
Farmer: "By informed him in no uncertain terms, what Drago really meant was I asked him a question."
No, you made it quite clear you did not believe that Flag Staffs that are focused on the Middle East would receive information on the head of IRGC.
You asked if I knew Soleimani's name before this week. I mentioned, tongue in cheek, casually that Flag Staffs usually know who the key players in regions are. The phrase I used was "a tad" more than your typical poster on blogs.
You did a cute play off that which minimized it, which is fine. That's you.
@Drago:
No, you made it quite clear you did not believe that Flag Staffs that are focused on the Middle East would not have received information on the head of IRGC.
No, I made it quite clear that I didn't know your resume.
You asked if I knew Soleimani's name before this week. I mentioned, tongue in cheek, casually that Flag Staffs usually know who the key players in regions are. The phrase I used was "a tad" more than your typical poster on blogs.
Yes, I had no clue what your job was/is until you mentioned it in our discussion. Now I know, and I'll try be less presumptuous in the future.
Farmer: "No, I made it quite clear that I didn't know your resume."
I explicitly told you I was a participant in briefings where the IRGC was discussed.
You made light of it because of course you did.
Whatever.
The bottom line Farmer is because you didn't know who Soleimani was before the other day, you simply couldn't conceive of anyone else possible knowing of him.
@Drago:
I explicitly told you I was a participant in briefings where the IRGC was discussed.
You made light of it because of course you did.
Whatever.
Oh for fuck's sake. Here was the exchange...
"Farmer: "Had you ever even heard of Qasem Soleimani before yesterday?"
The head of the IRGC? Yes Farmer. You'll find many current and former flag staff officers are a tad more informed on these matters than Banned Commenter LLR-lefty Chuck's hero Justin Amash (I-ChiComs)"
The bottom line Farmer is because you didn't know who Soleimani was before the other day, you simply couldn't conceive of anyone else possible knowing of him.
I actually learned about him primarily from Nader Uskowi's book Temperature Rising.
p.s. Soleimani was not the head of the IRGC, so perhaps you should read those briefings "a tad" more closely.
Farmer: "Benghazi"?
Yes. Benghazi. Note this article is from 2014, not some post-hoc rationalization.
https://nypost.com/2014/06/20/how-irans-spy-chief-paid-for-the-benghazi-attack/
"And what is the evidence that Soleimani was behind the protesters attacking the embassy?"
https://time.com/5758287/soleimani-us-citizens-leave-iraq/
"Soleimani had approved the attacks on the U.S.’s Baghdad embassy in the days before his death, the U.S. Department of Defense said in a statement confirming U.S. responsibility for the general’s death."
@Qwinn:
https://nypost.com/2014/06/20/how-irans-spy-chief-paid-for-the-benghazi-attack/
Yes, that seems to be a pet theory of Timmerman's based on his amorphous "Iranian sources."
"Soleimani had approved the attacks on the U.S.’s Baghdad embassy in the days before his death, the U.S. Department of Defense said in a statement confirming U.S. responsibility for the general’s death."
Yes, I get that it's the official pretext, but what is the evidence?
Farmer: "p.s. Soleimani was not the head of the IRGC, so perhaps you should read those briefings "a tad" more closely."
Correct. He rose to Major General rank within the IRGC and he led the Quds Force within the IRGC structure.
Um. On what basis do you *doubt* it?
That was the Department of Defense. The Department of State also backs it up:
“We can confirm that in the past several days, General Soleimani had been traveling in the Middle East coordinating further imminent large-scale attacks against U.S. diplomats and service members. These threats were highly credible and the intelligence is sound. General Soleimani’s travel also violated the ban imposed by the United Nations Security Council. Recent orders given by General Soleimani dramatically escalated Iran’s campaign of violence and terrorism against Americans and American interests in the Middle East. He orchestrated a series of attacks against American forces in Iraq in the past several months, culminating in the rocket attack on December 27, 2019, which resulted in the death of an American citizen, wounded four American service members, and threatened the lives of many more American personnel. General Soleimani also ordered the assault on the American Embassy in Baghdad. General Soleimani continued to command Iranian supported proxies in Iraq, which posed an escalating threat to the lives of Americans.”
https://www.dailywire.com/news/breaking-u-s-military-kills-more-top-iranian-backed-terrorist-leaders-in-airstrikes-report-says?%3Futm_source=twitter&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=dwtwitter
Do you think if this wasn't inarguably true, the Deep State wouldn't have produced any of its thousands of little swamp creatures in the State Department to contest it by now?
Seriously, if multiple US departments are attesting to it, one has to wonder exactly what level of proof you are requiring here. Do I need to give you canceled checks from Soleimain personally paying off the people engaged in the attacks from 5 days ago?
Iran needs more cash on midnight pallets.
@Qwinn:
Um. On what basis do you *doubt* it?
The government is saying it to justify an action it took. That's reason enough for me to be skeptical. The government has a long history of lying about military affairs. There was just a recent expose about how the Pentagon has basically been bullshitting Afghanistan was progress for years. The Libyan War was justified on claims that we had good intelligence a massacre was about to take place. And then of course there was the "slam dunk" case that got us into Iraq.
Don't you dare provoke! must pay up. Hillary and Biden family need the mega-bucks.
Incidentally, Trump tweeted that he held Iran responsible for the embassy attack. Khameini actually tweeted in reply, acknowledging that Trump blamed Iran for it... and didn't contest it. He just said "You can't do anything". Which is pretty fucking funny in retrospect.
Iran needs more cash on midnight pallets.
Or we could just stop trying to economically strangle them and overthrow their government.
“Wholelotta: "Chuck and his mini-minions need to explain why the Congressional Authorizations of Military Force against Iraq of 1991 and 2002 , STILL in FORCE, do not apply to this case."”
There are two different issues here. Dershowitz pointed out that taking out the Quds commander at the Baghdad airport under Trump was more legal than Sending Seals into Pakistan to take out OBL. I don’t think that anyone ca really refute that with a straight face. In the case of the Quds commander, we had both an agreement with the Iraqi government that we could be there, and that we could use lethal force. Moreover, Congress had approved use of lethal force in Iraq with the two different AUMFs, that had never been rescinded. Moreover, there are centuries of international agreements and understandings that embassies and consulates are sovereign ground, and attacking them is an act of war. In the case of OBL, his attack on American soil had been a decade earlier, not a day or two, as was the case in Baghdad last week. And we didn’t have permission by Pakistan, a putative ally, to use armed force within its sovereign borders. Moreover, Obama didn’t bother getting an AUMF, or otherwise formally justified attacking OBL in Pakistan without the permission of Congress.
The other question, though, is whether our attack on the Quds leader (etc) was wise. Whether it was good policy. Farmer has suggested that e doesn’t think that it was good policy. Many of us here disagree. We can’t really know until sometime in the future. Maybe the Iranians will redouble their efforts to terrorize and kill Americans. I don’t really think that they have that capability. We shall see.
Personally, I think that disabusing Khameini of the notion that he can blithely tweet that the US "can't do anything" in response to an attack on our embassy was reason enough to justify it.
Mr.Farmer, I have been agreeing with you more often than not these days but this Tu quoque approach of yours is disappointing. I can agree getting involved in Iraq was a mistake. Extricating ourselves will take more time. Leaving it to Iran to make Iraq into a vassal state seems the worst thing we can do. Perhaps Iran should go back to trying to make its country less of a shit hole and tending to its own growing demographic tenderbox? I'd love nothing more than to leave this whole kookoo birds nest in the ME all together.
Personally, I think that disabusing Khameini of the notion that he can blithely tweet that the US "can't do anything" in response to an attack on our embassy was reason enough to justify it.
Of course, if this event leads to the expulsion of US forces from Iraq, Soleimani will have achieved in death what he was unable to achieve in life.
@Gk1:
Extricating ourselves will take more time.
We've already extricated once before. And we're not extricating, troop levels are going up.
Leaving it to Iran to make Iraq into a vassal state seems the worst thing we can do.
If our goal was to keep Iraq out of the Iranian orbit (which is likely not even possible), the airstrikes in Iraq have had the exact opposite effect.
Perhaps Iran should go back to trying to make its country less of a shit hole and tending to its own growing demographic tenderbox?
Those countries should probably do a lot of things. That's for their citizens to work out, not us.
I'd love nothing more than to leave this whole kookoo birds nest in the ME all together.
What's stopping us?
"Of course, if this event leads to the expulsion of US forces from Iraq, Soleimani will have achieved in death what he was unable to achieve in life."
What is the evidence he had any interest in anything other than killing Americans?
I like surgical strikes. I like surgical strikes after these barbarians miss-calculate our usual delayed pussy bogus red-line response.
Agree that we don't know if Iran will continue to escalate. We can handle it.
First - we must purge our own intelligence of all Obama-Hillary-Strozk-Brennan-Clapper money whore bullcrap.
@Original Mike:
What is the evidence he had any interest in anything other than killing Americans?
For the same reason we didn't go into Iraq just because we were interested in killing Iraqis and for the same reason we don't attack Taliban strongholds just to kill Afghanis.
Okay, Farmer. For the sake of argument, assume that Soiledremains *was* in fact responsible for both Benghazi and the attack on the Iraq Embassy on the 27th. If you like, also acknowledge that he was the architect of the IED program in Iraq, since I know of no one else who contests that one either.
Assuming those provocations to be true, do you still disagree with our killing him?
I want to know if your doubt of the evidence is what really backs your objection here, or if the goalposts would move the moment evidence was provided anyway.
Drago said...
Farmer: "Because I have two eyes and a brain."
This sounds vaguely familiar to an argument you were having earlier today with another poster where he was making that very argument and you rejected it.
Hmmm.
Wait wait wait Drago I know this one. You can't refute an incredulous stare.
But we're not chanting "Death to Iraqis".
Or weaken them enuf and let the Iranians take the lead.
"can't do anything"
Maybe we should start burning their flag especially outside the UN.
Wait wait wait Drago I know this one. You can't refute an incredulous stare.
Nah. Drago was just being disingenuous.
@Qwinn:
Assuming those provocations to be true, do you still disagree with our killing him?
No, I wouldn't.
I want to know if your doubt of the evidence is what really backs your objection here, or if the goalposts would move the moment evidence was provided anyway.
No, the evidence thing was just normal skepticism towards dishonest government. My objection is that it is a dangerous escalation of the conflict. And given that there are many in Trump's administration who have been pushing for more conflict with Iran, it is a troubling sign.
@Original Mike:
But we're not chanting "Death to Iraqis".
"Death to America" is a political statement. It does not convey some kind of psychotic bloodlust for Americans. For one, contrary to popular belief, the regime is not rigidly ideological in its position and is much more realistic in its orientation. For another, thousands of Americans visit Iran every year and are not bothered by either the local citizens or the state apparatus.
Gen. Petraeus on Qasem Soleimani’s killing: 'It's impossible to overstate the significance'
snip:
Petraeus:
"Well, I suspect that the leaders in Washington were seeking to reestablish deterrence, which clearly had eroded to some degree, perhaps by the relatively insignificant actions in response to these strikes on the Abqaiq oil facility in Saudi Arabia, shipping in the Gulf and our $130 million dollar drone that was shot down. And we had seen increased numbers of attacks against US forces in Iraq. So I'm sure that there was a lot of discussion about what could show the Iranians most significantly that we are really serious, that they should not continue to escalate."
Interesting history. And a reminder of growing escalations by Iran.
J Farmer @ 8:23
So?
@BleachBit-and-Hammers:
Interesting history. And a reminder of growing escalations by Iran.
Yes, and Petraeus leaves out the reimposition of sanctions and the "maximum pressure" campaign. And I have to say I find it odd that Petraeus describes it as a means to "reestablish deterrence" but then goes on to list the various ways that Iran could retaliate. And we are increasing our troop deployment in Iraq due to the increased tensions in the country.
BTW, Hezbollah had already announced: This attack came hours after the spokesperson of the Kata'ib Hezbollah militia threatened that "they are waiting orders to target American bases in Iraq".#Iraq #Iran #USA #IRGC
Via Rantburg.
Hez b'Allah
The Iranian funded Army of God.
But they're not really interested in killing infidels.
Also, America's government lies.
The lies of Iranians are just more American lies.
Likud. Bad.
Iran. Pretend indifference.
Incredulous stares only work in one direction.
Smug!
Plus also, a top.
Fear the penis.
Farmer, Drago - go get a room and do your butt-f'n there.
Another Farmer thread.
Brain seepage < Bucket and mop.
The same people now having vapors were fine with Obama icing al Awlaki, a US Citizen, no less, by drone back ca. 2011.
Blogger J. Farmer said...
"Death to America" is a political statement
______&&&&&&++++++
What does it mean as political statement?
Netanyahu, Adelson, and bin Salman also thought the hit was clean.
Post a Comment