(01-12-2020, 03:03 PM)The Real Marty Wrote:

(01-11-2020, 12:48 PM)MalabarJag Wrote:
It was a response to an attack on the US. A response to an attack that had already occurred. 

What part of the word "response" confuses you?

He did not carry out any attack.  He may have directed an attack.  But in that case, is it okay to kill the Ayatollah?   We have to assume he approved the attack, too.  Is it okay to assassinate the leadership of any country that we say supports terrorism?  And who makes that determination?  The President?   So the President is authorized to kill any foreign leader without anyone stopping him, as long as he claims the guy approved an act that killed Americans?  

If we can do this, I assume it's okay for other countries to do this.  We've sent arms to Ukraine, arms which were used to kill Russians.  Can Putin have Trump assassinated, would that be okay under this standard? 

I think Mike Lee just wanted to know, what's the rule?   Are there any limits on this?

If our country is attacked the c&c has the ability to respond in kind and kill those responsible.  Full stop.

If you start talking about general warfare, regime change, or an action taking longer than 90 days then that theoretically requires congressional authorization for use of force (assuming the 73 wpa is constitutional).  

Soleimani was killed in a foreign theater after explicit warnings not to leave his country.  He was meeting with a militia leader that just attacked a us embassy at his direction and the general cost this country hundreds of billions of dollars and hundreds of lives subsidizing the insurgency against our duly authorized military action in iraq.  There's no serious argument that this action was an act of OVER REACH.

As to Putin or other foreign leaders killing our leaders, we dont look to the internal legal framework of our enemies to keep our people safe.  We look to credible military DETURANCE.  this action wasnt about advancing regime change, it was about restoring the calculus of deturance.

---