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  But, if Shelby v. Holder can hold the Voting Rights Act criteria for preclearance rules out of date, we might find something set up to deal with 2001/2 events too.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. 

Schumer: Disqualified to Be Reid's Replacement?

I think he comes off as an asshole and too beholden to the PTB at times, but was basically resigned to him over alternatives. He did his part to promote party interests and Harry Reid endorsed him. But this argument by Josh Marshall is pretty convincing. If Iraq was a line in the sand in 2008 vs. Clinton, why not Iran here? Have doubts it will matter though.

And Also: As noted in a comment here, his remarks on ACA are appalling too.

Iran Nuclear Deal

Overall, I support the Iran deal at least as the best option available. One liberal constitutional scholar continues his Cassandra routine on the matter here (see my comments). For constitutional and related analysis see here (plus links). As suggested by my comments, the whole thing is a bit complicated but overall Obama's reasonableness is appreciated.

And Also: A bit on the Republican debate and RBG's retirement from me here.

"Republicans Tell Iran A Nuclear Deal Won't Outlast Obama Presidency"

A few thought inviting the leader of Israel was a congressional act that violated constitutional norms (it is at least bad policy), but the interfering with executive negotiation with Iran is rather blatant. 47 Republican senators signed the letter, which to be blunt, is moronic. Or, implies Iranians on idiots. Really. This party jumped the shark big time.

Misogyny in Iran

“We do not want to propagate virtues by acid,” some of the protesters chanted, a reference to the Islamic obligation of “propagating virtue and preventing vice.” Others shouted, “Death to extremists.”

The current Iranian President denounced a new decency law as extreme. With the upcoming Rosewater film portraying the 2009 election, perhaps he is a small sign of progress.

Then They Came for Me (aka "Rosewater")

The Iranian-Canadian journalist Maziar Bahari took part in a joke segment for the Daily Show, not knowing it would be used as part of the "case" against him by Iranian authorities after the 2009 elections. Jon Stewart later directed the akin to a novel account of Bahari's four months of hell in prison, a film coming out next month entitled Rosewater.

Sanity on Iran

Per TPM, this is a good read, including some perspective on what is worst. Somehow, e.g., we managed to survive Chinese nuclear capabilities in the 1960s. And, unlike Iran, China actually sent troops against us not too long ago then. A bit more here.

Small Gestures: Iran and Foie Gras

So on the occasion of your New Year, I want you, the people and leaders of Iran, to understand the future that we seek. It's a future with renewed exchanges among our people, and greater opportunities for partnership and commerce. It's a future where the old divisions are overcome, where you and all of your neighbors and the wider world can live in greater security and greater peace.

I know that this won't be reached easily. There are those who insist that we be defined by our differences. But let us remember the words that were written by the poet Saadi, so many years ago: "The children of Adam are limbs to each other, having been created of one essence."

With the coming of a new season, we're reminded of this precious humanity that we all share. And we can once again call upon this spirit as we seek the promise of a new beginning.

Thank you, and Eid-eh Shoma Mobarak [Happy New Year].

-- President Obama

It is a bit remarkable how small acts can be so important, showing a certain respect and effort that can mean so much. We know this from our daily lives. Though some people who would know such things suggest Obama's message is an important act, we need not give too much credit to be appropriately respectful. We are obviously just talking about a single gesture. Still, this is the sort of thing he meant when he talked about engagement -- it does not mean being naive or a lapdog. It does mean engaging with nations, particularly ones that aren't going anywhere, and reaching out. And, doing so in a way that shows understanding and respect of their culture.

Reminding them, and us, that we are of a "common humanity," too precious to have a policy dominated by war and war-like attitudes. Talking about small gestures, the now no more ban on foie gras in Chicago -- joining California and many European countries (plus Israel) -- is ridiculed by a Salon piece reviewing a book on "The Foie Gras Wars." The Chicago measure surely was more interesting to most people as a reflection of local politics than as a push to stop restaurants from selling a controversial delicacy. But, the review -- even for someone who doesn't care about the issue -- is best seen as a biased case of bad journalism.

The article doesn't start off on the right foot, the very first sentence telling us the stuff (which I never tasted to my knowledge) is "truly, indisputably, delicious." Are you kidding? How can we take someone who starts off like that totally seriously? Besides, we are talking about fatty duck or goose liver here, right? I have tasted normal liver -- it isn't as horrible as some make it out to be, but it wasn't "truly, indisputably, delicious," and I doubt foie gras ("fat liver") is somehow uniquely special either. I also am not a big proponent of lard. Anyway, after finishing drooling, the author notes:

It's undoubtedly true that some farms use inhumane methods, like caging the birds in tiny, individual cages that cause them pain and distress, but when foie gras is produced the right way (the way Hudson Valley does it, for instance) it's simply not torture.

The author, however, does not actually discuss how "the way Hudson Valley does it." The review also does not say some compromise can be reached, where only product from those HV-like nirvanas can be sold. The result is that many animals are needlessly harmed, the good (a minority? who knows from such coverage) covering the bad. It quickly quotes one critic to suggest she simply cannot admit reality, but a quick search led me to some who question (one with video) how grand Hudson Valley does things. The video, for instance, shows many birds in a single cage, roughly handled, and so forth.

And, the fact the birds do not have a gag reflex or normally might gorge before long flights does not suggest artificially doing it via feeding tubes for our benefit does not hurt the birds. The author (and opponent) of Farm Sanctuary also discusses the process, involving force feeding ducks and geese to unnatural levels, and any credible review would actually spend a paragraph or two truly putting forth that side. Not saying things like:

They're being waged by vegans who believe that all meat eating inevitably involves torture but who are smart enough -- and disingenuous enough -- to focus on a product the average person might never eat, one that can easily be portrayed as a decadent luxury enjoyed only by fat cats who could not care less about animals.

Many movements receive their core power from true believers who realize that the best they can do are small steps that might lead to bigger ones down the road. It is not "disingenous" to take such a tack, nor is it left to crafty vegans. The impossibility of tacking bigger fish, if the true vegans will pardon my metaphor, underlines why it is not hypocritical or anything to tackle this while factory farms churn out eggs, meat, and so forth. And, there also can be degrees of harm, and force feeding for a delicacy involving fatty livers quite arguably might be different than mass production of meat or even use of the whole duck or goose. Next up, those who eat chicken, but find veal particularly distressing are hypocritical liars.

A regular reader of this blog does not share by views on eating animals, and obviously the matter of what is "torture" in this context, and what the appropriate path might be is a matter of much debate. And, the book in question might very well raise good questions, including supplying perspective of the production of this particular item, plus background on its long history. But, this is not helped too much by slanted articles that begin with insisting that obviously its so yummy, which is both debatable and a dubious way to open up discussion on what some think is a horrible practice. (Item: You can't deny child labor is so cute, especially when they sing while making all those clothes. ... Not that this would matter if it's cruel and all.)

Meanwhile, California recently passed a ballot measure dealing with treatment of animals raised for food. It is a small step, but one that is in the right direction.*

---

* Item: "Report: Energy Production Choking Bird Population ... The U.S. State of Birds report, released by the Interior Secretary Ken Salazar on Tuesday, was requested in October 2007 by President George W. Bush. The report did not indicate whether one form of energy production is more detrimental than the other." That last bit would be useful to know.

The Complete Perespolis

The movie version (there is also an English dubbed version but I bet it is better in the original French) of the graphic autobiographical novel of Marjane Satrapi growing up in Iran should have won an Academy Award. The book (I read The Complete Perespolis, two parts in one volume) was very good too. Her comment that Iran making everyone so concerned about appearance kept their mind off more basic deprivation of human rights (I share Satrapi's emphasis on "human") has applications in this country too. Just one of many gems,including the art, diverse characters and so on. More proof it's useful to learn a bit about other cultures, if possible in the voice of their members.

My Life as a Traitor

My Life as a Traitor by Zarah Ghahramani is a striking account of a dissident Iranian's short stint as a political prisoner in turn of the century Iran. That is, a few years back. Sensory deprivation as much as physical mistreatment (including cutting off of her long hair) is her biggest enemy. Marjanne Doree performed the audio book -- and it was some performance, akin to a one woman show. Powerful, especially the ending. Much recommended.

Snow and Snowjobs (NYC and Iran Edition)

First real snowstorm of the season in NYC -- not too bad, but a true little downfall, not comparable to the ton of stuff that fell upstate. It is said to be below 20 today (SD+1), but without wind, it really doesn't feel that bad. The slush and such isn't nice, but it all has a nice feel and look to it -- winter!

Meanwhile, the President and company wants to give us a snow job ... again, remarkably, we basically hear that there is "no doubt" that Iran is supplying dangerous weapons, but hey, no one wants war. Likewise, scary, but interestingly opaque and changing language is used. This time, though some members of the press are credulous, the doubts are more immediate. One hopes we learnt something, but one never knows. Will the Democratic Congress -- nod to HC -- again whine about how Bush lied to us and had the responsibility for this war, by their inaction being complicit?

The usual blogs have the ongoing details, "Today's Papers" over at Slate suitably dubious today as well. Stay Tuned! Meanwhile, one of the Edwards bloggers voluntarily resigned, even some idealistically dissenting sorts sad about the details.