Oddly silent

[Razer]

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.
>>
>>
>>
>
>

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-general-has-california-authorities-boosting-security-eying-iranian-assets/

"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:

> "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
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-against-iran-and-us-domestic-law/


-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 819 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <https://lists.cpunks.org/pipermail/cypherpunks/attachments/20200104/77058c91/attachment-0001.sig>