Did Trump Act According to the Constitution in Regards To The Killing of Iran’s Soleimani?

Jan 8, 2020 | Politics

The Constitution provides only two means for the federal government to kill a human being. The first is pursuant to a declaration of war, which only Congress can do. That permits the president to use the military to kill the troops of the government of the country against which war has been declared. Congress has not declared war on Iran. The second way that the Constitution permits federal government killings is pursuant to due process. That means that the person to be killed is lawfully in custody, has been properly charged, lawfully tried and fairly convicted of a capital crime, and the conviction has been upheld on appeal.

[...]Think about it. If the American president can kill an Iranian government official in Iraq because of fear of what he might do — without a declaration of war or any legal process — can the Chinese president kill a Mexican government official visiting in Texas or an American intelligence agent encouraging revolution in Venezuela for fear of what they might do? This is not a fanciful or academic argument. It not only goes to the fidelity to the rule of law that we require of our leaders in order to maintain personal liberty and limited government, it also goes to our safety. We have laws to prevent wanton killings, lest killers turn on us.

“I am an expert on the use of targeted killings and a strong supporter of targeted killings of terrorists and ongoing terrorist situations. But it's not something the president discussed with me. I wrote a piece for The Wall Street Journal yesterday, and I've been talking about what I believe is the strong case for the legality. I don't take a position, particularly on the long-term wisdom of the action. But I think the legality is not even a close question. I think it was more legal, if anything, than the killing of Osama bin Laden, because the Osama bin Laden killing was not preventive. It was vengeance. It was getting even with a massive criminal that was justified, but it was justified on different grounds. The Soleimani case is a much stronger case for preemptive or preventive targeted killing.”

On whether Trump made the right decision by ordering the killing of Soleimani “I think that's reasonable. People could disagree about that. But I don't think anybody should conflate the policy arguments with the legal arguments, and many people do that. Something could be illegal and good policy and something could be legal and bad policy.” [Here & Now]

Iran vs Trump

Jan 8, 2020 | Politics

Writes Larry Elder on Iran vs Trump: How Did Trump Become the Villain?:

Of the numerous reasons Trump haters offer for their hatred of the President, the criticism over his withdrawal of the Iran deal is among the most difficult to follow. That these critics blame Donald Trump for Iran’s recent aggressive behavior is even more bizarre.

Iran attacks oil tankers and bombs Saudi Arabian oil facilities and Trump becomes the villain?

On the recent U.S. response to Iran see After Years of Appeasement, America Acts Morally Against Iran by Scott Holleran.

Iranian Americans in San Francisco Celebrate Death of Soleimani

Jan 7, 2020 | Politics

From Iranian Americans rally in SF to celebrate killing of Iranian general - SFChronicle.com:

Wearing red and waving large Iranian flags, demonstrators bid farewell to a man they said is responsible for the bloodshed of thousands of people in the Middle East and during the decades-long oppression of citizens in Iran. Mitra Rahmat, of Cupertino, couldn’t stop dancing as she held a poster with Soleimani’s picture that read, in part, “rot in hell.” Rahmat, who grew up in Tehran, said her best friend was tortured and killed by the Iranian regime at 16 during student demonstrations in 1981. She called Soleimani’s death the “best gift” she has received in 40 years. “I’m celebrating the death of this criminal that killed so many children in Syria, so many children in Iran and Iraq and Afghanistan, Lebanon, you name it,” she said. “We’re so happy that he’s gone, and we know that peace is going to come to the Middle East because he’s not there.”

Socialism Works?

Jan 3, 2020 | Politics

Why “Critics” Love Rian Johnson’s Knives Out

Dec 4, 2019 | Politics

"The Thrombeys ....believed themselves to be good people because they were nice to her despite all their casual racism and espousement of conservative talking points on immigration ....We want to see [the heroine] prevail over the scheming wealthy white people who callously brush off concerns about the grotesque inhumanity on the US southern border in drawing rooms, who feign principle in opposition to their most egregiously offensive family members but ultimately only maintain their noble beliefs from the comfort of wealth."

"As Knives Out twists its way toward a conclusion, it doubles down on condescension, elevating Marta over the political landscape that would rather demonize her. Trouble is, people like Marta are already demonized by bigger and crueler buffoons than the Thrombeys — and there's no fortune waiting to save them."

"And so, even though Knives Out ultimately brings its mystery to a satisfying conclusion with a culprit named and cuffed, there's another one that gets away clean: white guilt."

CBS News on YouTube: “Very Little Transparency in Transparency Report”

Dec 3, 2019 | Politics

From CBS News 60 Minutes on 300+ Trump ads taken down by Google, YouTube:

In an interview on 60 Minutes, YouTube CEO Susan Wojcicki said the controversial Trump/Biden ad does not violate their policy. 60 Minutes correspondent Lesley Stahl asked Wojcicki, "Have you taken down any of President Trump's ads at all?" YouTube's CEO responded, "There are ads of President Trump that were not approved to run on Google or YouTube." When pressed for an example, Wojcicki added, "Well, they're available in our transparency report."

In response to concerns raised after the 2016 election cycle, Google and YouTube, like Facebook, keep a searchable archive of political ads that have run on the site. 60 Minutes reviewed the archive to learn more about President Trump's problematic political ads. We found that over 300 video ads were taken down by Google and YouTube, mostly over the summer, for violating company policy. But the archive doesn't detail what policy was violated. Was it copyright violation? A lie or extreme inaccuracy? Faulty grammar? Bad punctuation? It's unclear. The ads determined to be offending are not available to be screened. We found very little transparency in the transparency report.