Day 1,088: Defense Secretary suggests Trump had no legal justification for killing Soleimani, kisses Trump’s ass anyway
The U.S. killed ruthless Iranian General Qassem Soleimani in a drone strike less than two weeks ago. Since that time, Donald Trump and his administration have tried to explain the rationale and justification for their actions.
To be a legal strike, Soleimani must have been an “imminent” threat to American lives.
Instead, the Administration’s legal case will likely depend on the assertion that Soleimani was planning a wave of attacks against American forces throughout the Middle East. Under an international law doctrine that traces back to the 1837 Caroline affair, nations are allowed to use force to defend against “imminent” attacks. Similarly, recent Presidents have asserted — without meaningful challenge from either the courts or from Congress — the constitutional authority to use force in this defensive manner. When the Pentagon first announced the strike, it stated that Soleimani was “actively developing plans to attack American diplomats and service members in Iraq and throughout the region,” and the Administration has continued to make similar claims.
That final, vague statement has earned more and more questions as the dust has settled.
Trump has tried claiming that Soleimani was an imminent threat. But Democratic and Republican senators at an intelligence briefing after the strike vehemently rejected the presence of any intelligence showing that and lambasted the briefing as amateur.
Trump later changed his story to allege that four U.S. embassies were actively being targeted by Soleimani. Again, senators at the briefing threw water on that, noting that there’s no evidence for that assertion.
Piling on to the idea that there is no proof for Trump’s latest tale for the strike is Trump’s Defense Secretary, Mark Esper. However, Esper added a whale of a sycophantic caveat to his disavowal.
Esper has security clearance to review any classified document that the U.S. holds. He acknowledged Sunday morning on Face the Nation that there’s no evidence that Soleimani was actively targeting U.S. embassies. Nevertheless, despite not seeing any such “specific evidence,” Esper said that he believes Trump.
On State of the Union, Esper was just as mealy-mouthed, refusing to answer simple questions and throwing around words like “believed,” and “probably,” to try and obfuscate the sheer lack of actionable intelligence at hand. (Notably, “believed” and “probably” don’t give Trump legal justification for his actions.)
Esper is implying that Trump has some sort of psychic powers. He openly admitted that Trump didn’t rely on intelligence but believed Soleimani was going to attack four embassies anyway. It’s wholly unclear where else Trump would have gotten those beliefs other than in his own mind.
Like seemingly everything else in the current White House, there’s an act first, ask second process. Trying to gin up a story or justification for short-sighted actions routinely leads to administration officials simultaneously disagreeing with Trump and kissing his ass.
No one is debating whether Soleimani was a bad guy, but it’s becoming patently obvious that Trump had no legal justification for killing him and drawing the U.S. closer to yet another war in the Middle East.
1,088 days in, 374 to go
Follow us on Twitter at @TrumpTimer
