Soleimani was an enemy of the United States

[TheWorldNewsOrg]

SEN. CHRIS MURPHY (D-CT): “Soleimani was an enemy of the United States…
The question is this… did America just assassinate, without any congressional authorization, the second most powerful person in Iran, knowingly setting off a potential massive regional war?”

— LIVE Breaking News (@NewsBreaking) January 3, 2020

 

[JW Insider]

It would be the same thing as if a U.S. "General Mattis" had been assassinated by Iraq, except that Soleimani was tremendously more popular, not just in Iraq, but with people from several Mid-East countries believing he deserved some kind of Nobel Peace prize for recent strategic negotiations.

[James Thomas Rook Jr.]

A President does not need Congressional authorization to assassinate  a non-US Citizen, someone who has murdered hundreds of your "brothers", and countrymen.

The President has authority to incinerate half the planet, if necessary, entirely at his discretion.

 

 

[JW Insider]

9 hours ago, James Thomas Rook Jr. said:

A President does not need Congressional authorization to assassinate  a non-US Citizen, someone who has murdered hundreds of your "brothers", and countrymen.

You are probably wrong on this point, especially since Reagan's time. But "rules are meant to be broken."  The real problem is not who murdered hundreds of whose brothers and countrymen first, as there can always be a claim made in both directions. (And sometimes we are talking about much more than two directions.) If this was the full justification you might be admitting that you think it would be fine if Iranians tried to assassinate any high level US citizen in return based on Iranians killed by the US and our proxies in Syria. Some persons actually are OK with this --even desirous of this-- in the assured expectation that such an attempt will fail and provide further justification for escalation of forces. This is a fairly common tactic in the United States: trying to provoke a war so that the USA has an excuse to escalate.

But these are often foolish and hot-headed moves that are calculated to shore up the loyalty of a political base. The calculations don't always work, however. In this case there are many vulnerable Americans inside Iran and Iraq. And if there is no stomach for such a difficult war, even to pay for those early lives lost, or there is a stomach but the US finds that to win it must resort again to atrocities, then neither of those scenarios will seem like justice to Americans or the world. And "parity" payback might even make the President himself more vulnerable because he will be more exposed during his campaigns in the next few months. The president may be hoping for a few more deaths inside Iraq to help build impetus for expanded aggression. But the president can only hope for failed attempts on that second scenario, as failed attempts increase popularity.

9 hours ago, James Thomas Rook Jr. said:

The President has authority to incinerate half the planet, if necessary, entirely at his discretion.

Again, persons who really think this "authority" is just, must, in the interests of justice, also accept then that any other sovereign president or leader also has the same authority to incinerate half the planet entirely at his discretion.

I submit that most Americans who believe your statement, are too prejudiced to accept that this is the same as admitting that in every other country, even Iraq's president, has the authority to incinerate half the planet at his discretion.

[TrueTomHarley]

Someone said that Kim Jung Un might be feeling uncomfortable about now. Unlike the Iranian general, does Kim really have any allies staunchly in his corner, come hell or high water? Maybe Russia.

[James Thomas Rook Jr.]

On 1/3/2020 at 4:05 AM, JW Insider said:

I submit that most Americans who believe your statement, are too prejudiced to accept that this is the same as admitting that in every other country, even Iraq's president, has the authority to incinerate half the planet at his discretion.

There is a very real difference between having the authority to do something, and having the authority and the ABILITY to do something.

[JW Insider]

28 minutes ago, James Thomas Rook Jr. said:

and the ABILITY to do something

That's true. A person can ask you for your lunch money, or if they're a big enough bully, they can just steal it.

[TrueTomHarley]

Apparently the evangelicals are going bonkers over this about Trump, cementing their notion of him as the “faulty messiah used by God.” I’m so glad we don’t play this game. As it is, there are some who have said for every POTUS since Truman, ‘He’s the one!’  but it is not for anything specific and without any connotation of good or bad—just for whoever happens to be presiding at the time. 

It is in one of my books, I think No Fake News....Oscar Oxgoad’s ancient dad stares as the TV screen, as he has for every President since Truman: “He’s the one!” his voice quavers.