On 1/4/20 8:45 AM, John Young wrote:
Quietly waiting for AP by Muslim Oswald.
At 10:27 PM 1/3/2020, you wrote:
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Language: en-US
I think it speaks volumes about how many of this list's posters work for US intel agencies and contractors by the lack of any commenting on your new war with Iran.
"There is no existing congressional authorization for the use of force against Iran. While some in the Trump administration, including Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, have made arguments attempting to link Iran and al-Qaeda — in what may be an effort to lay the groundwork for invoking the 2001 AUMF, which was passed in the aftermath of the 9/11 attacks, as authorization to use force against Iran — that argument is
Along those lines.. from a fb post addressed to the local 'drainbow' infestation, with location redacted, not that my location is supersecret but why publish it? In relation to "After killing of Iranian general, California authorities boost security, eye Iranian assets" -LA Times https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2020-01-03/killing-of-iranian-gener... "As I was saying yesterday, addressing all those Apolitical retarded #drainbows that pass for "hippies" in #XXXXX... Are you aware of how many Iraqis and Iranians attend UC-X? Your government just started a war with their home nations, Tard. The state in general is home to a huge number of them... Expats mostly who might not care for the 'regimes' (quotes intentional) that govern their nations today, but now they might like YOU even less, Tard. You can use people like Tsarnaev, the "Boston Marathon Bomber", an expat college student whose family helped the US in it's dirty war on Russia an as an example of what the feds expect. I KNOW you're gonna say "Great! Less surveillance on ME!". I say: "That's because you're a narcissistic scumbag." You can take that quote to the bank, scumbag." And you see? I'm not one bit nicer on Farcebook. Rr Ps. The US also attacked Iraqi troops yesterday. Pentagon-Gone-Wild enabled by someone obviously unfit to carry out the duties of the office of US president. I read multiple National Security postings from Brookings and elsewhere and they all agree that there is no actual legal protection for what occurred in US law OR the 2001/2002 AUMFs, which Brookings made very clear... Let me quote: thoroughly unconvincing. The 2001 AUMF authorizes the president to use:
“necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons.”
This has long been understood to refer to al-Qaeda and the Taliban, who harbored al-Qaeda in Afghanistan at the time of the 9/11 attacks, and also has been interpreted by all three branches of government to apply to “associated forces” of those two armed groups based on the principle of co-belligerency in armed conflict. As we have previously written: “The 2001 AUMF does not authorize the use of force against Iran. Iran was not implicated in the 9/11 attacks, Iranian forces are not al Qaeda or the Taliban, or their associated forces, nor are they a ‘successor’ to any of those forces.” Many have suggested that Pompeo and other officials may be laying the groundwork for an argument that the 2001 AUMF authorizes military operations against Iran because Iran is “harboring” some members of al-Qaeda. As a factual matter, we are not aware of any credible information that Iran is “harboring” al-Qaeda as a group, or allowing al-Qaeda to plot attacks from Iran. As a legal matter, the AUMF has never been construed to authorize military attacks against a foreign nation based on the fact that some al Qaeda members may be located in or transit that country, even if that is the case with Iran. In addition, the AUMF’s use of the past tense — “harbored” — suggests that it was intended to refer to those who were responsible for providing safe haven for, and otherwise assisting, those who attacked the United States on Sept. 11, 2001. In the 20 years since the 9/11 attacks, there has not been any suggestion that the 2001 AUMF could be interpreted to authorize force against a present-day “harborer.” (Again, there is no known evidence to suggest that is what Iran is doing with al-Qaeda.) The 2001 AUMF authorizes force only if it is consistent with international law, as the Supreme Court explained in Hamdi v. Rumsfeld. Even if the 2001 AUMF were somehow thought to apply to Iran — which it does not — the executive branch would be able to use force against Iran only if necessary and proportionate to the specific threat from al-Qaeda. In a House Foreign Affairs Committee hearing on June 19, Rep. Deutch (D-Fl.) asked State Department Special Representative for Iran, Brian Hook, whether he believes “the administration could launch an attack against Iran under the 2001 AUMF?” His response, “this is something which the office of the Legal Adviser can give you an opinion on, if you’d like to submit it,” provides an appropriate next step for Congress to engage with the administration on this issue. Finally, it bears noting that there is no viable argument that another AUMF still on the books — the “Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002” (2002 AUMF) — authorizes force against Iran. It allows the president to use force that is “necessary and appropriate” to “defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq;” and “enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions against Iraq.” Those are plainly not relevant to the situation with Iran today." A LOT more: https://www.justsecurity.org/64645/top-experts-backgrounder-military-action-...