His administration unable to keep its story straight about how exactly General Qasem Soleimani posed an “imminent threat” to U.S. national security, President Trump now claims it “really doesn’t matter” if the assassinated Iranian commander was about to kill Americans. Nothing could be further from the truth. The question of imminence matters. Indeed, the legal justification of the strike depends on it. Killing a top-ranking government official of a nation that the United States is not at war with, on the soil of a third nation altogether, would be illegal, except as an extreme matter of self defense. Even acting to foil an imminent threat requires an expansive legal reading of Article 51 of the United Nations charter, which outlines the “inherent right of individual or collective self-defence if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations.” According to experts in international law, killing Soleimani was legal only if the U.S. could demonstrate he was the operational commander of attacks that were about to happen, and that killing him — and only the act of killing him — would disrupt that threat. Related Turns Out the Attack on Soleimani May Have Been Retaliatory. Trump Approved It 7… Read full this story
- Column: What did Trump know about Suleimani’s supposed ‘imminent threat’ and when did he know it?
- WTF Is Going to Happen With Impeachment?
How Trump’s ‘Imminent Threat’ on Iran Turned in to the New WMD have 235 words, post on www.rollingstone.com at January 14, 2020. This is cached page on The Best Articles. If you want remove this page, please contact us.