The Soleimani Strike [Trump Makes Iran Situation Worse]

The words of this song continue to be quite relevant, especially after a top Iranian leader was killed (will avoided weighted terms) by U.S. military forces.  Yes, though not alone, one person ultimately decides and our current law likely makes how Soleimani was killed somehow "legal." As noted by the author there, this doesn't mean the strike was a good idea or that even that the current law is either.  One some level, at least, the reach of the two authorizations of military force is a tad insane on a constitutional level.  But, there is a range of reactions to make here so it's okay to cry foul too.

[There are reports that the reasoning offered for the attack are dubious and will affect the legal argument.  The details are of some importance both politically and as a matter of diplomatic policy, but dubious if the case is so bad that they would really have trouble in a legal sense. Realistically, there is no actual check there other than impeachment. Which is still pending.  It might help support of additional limits of the sort cited below.  Maybe.  Trump is now threatening attacks on Iranian cultural sites in a way that would violate international law.  But, what is going to happen?  Arrest at the Hague? To be continued.]

"One person" deciding -- in practice it's a bit more complicated -- to the degree involved, including using laws from the 9/11 era violates good constitutional policy.  Including due process matters in particulars.  We had a few cases, e.g., involving "targeted killings" that involved U.S. citizens.  I was loathe -- as some blithely did -- to just call these illegal "assassinations."  If an Al Qaeda member who is a U.S. citizen is killed by a drone, it very well might have been in 2004 legal to do so.  We killed lots of American citizens in the 1860s.  But, if Shelby v. Holder can hold the Voting Rights Act criteria for preclearance rules out of date, we might find something set up to deal with 2001/2 events too.

I thought this -- down to the "to his credit" comment -- a good analysis of the whole decision here though totally admit my ignorance on this sort of thing (making me on this mainstream).  Likewise, actually taking the people in this Administration at face value is a fool's game.  We've been down this road before, often with some of the same conservative leaning voices (not always of the same political party).  I was loathe to accept that invading Iraq in 2002/3 was a good idea, thinking that should be made as a last resort. The people in power didn't help my trust in judgment calls much more.  The Libya bombing under Obama, e.g., has been subject to serious criticism.  I'm open to that sort of thing, but both the parties involved and the specific details were different.  Yes, here, decision-makers can be key.

As noted here (including a link to the Washington Post, which I will cite below), the decision-making of Trump and to be clear "et. al" in various respects, should basically never be trusted.  Noting the grain of salt we should add to any analysis of insider decision-making, especially as events basically continue to occur, things like “Benghazi has loomed large on his mind" or how "tremendously bold" (not necessarily a good thing) it made him look stands out.  Ditto, his concern for media optics of not using force against Iran in the past.  For Republicans, "Benghazi" involves a lot of b.s. and Obama/Clinton bashing.  Motivated by that?  Ugh.

While the attack evoked the frequent rocket fire that rained down on U.S. troops in Baghdad and other locations in the years following the 2003 invasion, such incidents have been uncommon in recent years. The United States has found itself in the odd position of fighting on the same side as Iranian-backed militias against the Islamic State. But the rocket attacks resumed in recent months as the Trump administration continued its “maximum pressure” campaign of economic sanctions against Iran, growing in intensity until the Kirkuk attack.

The analysis provides the complexity involved here regarding what is occurring in the region ("a mess" as much as "very complicated" both fit) and the dead person's role in it.  There is a reason why Bush and Obama chose not to kill this guy.  Why Obama and others wanted to lower the temperature.  But, Trump wants to be anti-Obama; who wants lower temperatures?  Global warming for all!   Killing a top military leader, close to the leader of Iran apparently, is dangerous stuff.  If one of ours were killed, we would feel a need to retaliate.  The immediate reaction from some parts (talk of domestic terrorism etc.) is a tad scary.

[There was a constant tendency of those -- including people like Elizabeth Warren and Julian Castro [who ended his campaign; reports are Booker actually had good funding numbers though doesn't seem to translate into poll numbers] -- against the killing to lead with him being a horrible person.  This will lead many readers to stop reading and be glad he's dead.  If you oppose this attack as dangerous, lead with that. Don't hedge using the other side's own argument.  Someone noted if the people didn't start that way, they would be deemed "soft" on terror or something.  But, they would anyway if they ultimately speak out against the killing.  At least, don't lead with him being horrible.]

An incompetent asshole who was impeached for only part of his crimes worsened the situation and then had the power to very well possibly make things worse.  A basic principle when talking about constitutional issues here is the importance of the abilities and character of those in power. Because especially in this context one person is going to have a lot of power, in fact, it made some degree of sense (especially in non-modern times) to give one person such power.  Ultimately, a committee might in effect have some role in these things, but one person makes the final call.  Trump has no fucking business being the one to do that. I continue to be very pissed that this is not basically seen as obvious by more people. Including media hedging.

There are some means in place to restrain executive action here, including updating the AUMF and putting limits on actions in Iran. There should be a bipartisan group in place with the Rand Paul types out there to do that. But, as noted in the legal analysis above, one was recently filibustered in the Senate even though the House and a bare majority of the Senate supported it.  Senator Kaine (VP on Earth 2) is pushing for a war powers resolution on Iran.  One thing that can be added is some clear statement on the need to notify top people in Congress (not done here) before killing top Iranian leaders.  Of course, that might cause a veto or involve language that the executive department will find ("find") some loopholes in.

There is a barn door problem there but we need to start somewhere. If Republicans cannot understand a need to have limits here with Trump in power ... well, that's an old line.  The Iowa caucuses occur in a month. Unlike earlier, we do have a reason to start thinking seriously about the 2020 elections.  It is a basic necessity here to have the right result.