Trump

[Chulanowa]

And yet, Trump ordered this assasination now...

No disrespect meant to the US, but I honestly don't understand why stuff like that should be allowed :\ Was this Iranian general guilty of any crime that would warrant such action? Not a fan of the Iranian government, but still...

It's allowed because we do not have an opposition party. Right now most of our "opposition" legislators are just mad that Trump didn't file the proper paperwork with them, not that he ordered an airstrike against a politician in the civilian airport of a third nation. Not all are so flimsy-spined, thankfully, but they are in the minority by far.

Do note that this is just a few days after this same party negotiated away an amendment to our military budget that would have specifically forbade this from happening. So when they say "we didn't give authorization," no, they didn't - they made it so that authorization wasn't needed in the first place.

[gaggedLouise]

Yeah you’re right.. Executive order was given by President Ford.

That's when the CIA lost their overt "license to kill"? :)

[Callie Del Noire]

That's when the CIA lost their overt "license to kill"? :)

There were two further EOs put out by Carter and Reagan that further clarified assassination of political targets. The thing is given the General’s past actions, it could be argued he was a valid military target.

I’m not as sure, given his rank and position within the Iranian government and Revolutionary Guard. It’s quite tricky but I could see the White House saying he was for various regional actions.

[Beorning]

I'm really curious where exactly the line is regarding such attacks / assasinations? Is there anything in the international law regarding it?

I admit this situation rattled me. I mean, if a country like Russia or Iran assasinated, say, the head of US military's intelligence, we'd all be in agreement that this was unacceptable, unlawful, maybe even a terrorist action. Meanwhile, right now, there's no such anger regarding Soleimani's assasination, at least not in Europe. As if it was agreed that it's okay for the US government to assasinate people...

It kind of reminds me of the US's actions during the Cold War, like the support of military coup in Chile. I don't understand why the US government wasn't held account for stuff like this? Also, I still don't understand why George W. Bush hasn't been internationally prosecuted for starting a clearly unlawful war against Iraq, causing deaths of thousands of people and ruining the whole country for years...

[Callie Del Noire]

Decades Beorning, the consequences of the invasion will last for decades.

The problem is that most politicians here in the US don’t look much past the next two election cycles. The causes in the Middle East could be attributable to events going back decades in not longer. We backed on group who was intent on weaponizing their religion and overthrew a moderate socialist government to install a tyrant, a group of French and British diplomats drew lines on a map that have led to the deaths of thousands by now (nearly a century later)

What we did in Iraq could have stabilized the region, had we and our allies been willing to commit to long term state building. We didn’t.  So, it continues and our children, grandchildren and possibly their children will pay in blood.

Not all of this is on the west. Syria started as the result of internal strife and more than a few of the folks in ISIS started as killers in the employment of men like Asad and Soleimani.

Do I support the assassination of him? I’m not sure. I very much doubt in the long run that it will do anything to the stability of the region.

[Kitteredge]

I beg to differ on a couple of points. Syria de-stabilized and ISIS was created as a result of the invasion of Iraq under Bush and the subsequent handling of the aftermath. The invasion, of course, was based on careful lies, and the securing of the peace was lazy and disinterested. Famously, the U.S. sent political interns over to recreate departments and agencies. The U.S. also essentially fired the Baathist regime entirely, basically chopping out its civil service. Many of those, angry, went on to create ISIS and spill into Syria.

So, ISIS is the fault of the United States. Remember Colin Powell's "you break it, you bought it?" Well, they broke it, then just shrugged their shoulders. Whoops.

Also, what the U.S. has been doing to Iran, alone, has been remarkably undernoticed. The U.S. destroyed a functioning democratic government (with British help) in the 1950s, establishing a horribly repressive regime that was eventually to lead to the Islamic Revolution, things were so bad. So, yeah, the U.S. is responsible for where Iran is now. Also, fun fact, the U.S. blew out of the sky an Iranian jetliner in the 80s, murdering hundreds of men, women and children, and I don't think they've ever apologized. Imagine the shoe being on the other foot.

As for this assassination, by the rules we are unilaterally setting up for ourselves -- agent of possible terror can be blown up higgeldy-piggeldy in another sovereign country just because we say so -- why can't Donald Rumsfeld, Condaleeza Rice, Dick Cheney, Colin Powell, and George W. Bush be blown up at any minute anyone wants and we can't do anything about it?

Is that really the metric we want to defend? Because it sure looks like it is. The United States no longer has the moral high ground on anything.

[elone]

As for this assassination, by the rules we are unilaterally setting up for ourselves -- agent of possible terror can be blown up higgeldy-piggeldy in another sovereign country just because we say so -- why can't Donald Rumsfeld, Condaleeza Rice, Dick Cheney, Colin Powell, and George W. Bush be blown up at any minute anyone wants and we can't do anything about it?

Is that really the metric we want to defend? Because it sure looks like it is. The United States no longer has the moral high ground on anything.

I agree. The US is no longer, if it ever was, the good guys of the world. Why should other countries not assassinate our people. The US,Israel and others have been assassinating people for years and getting away with it on the premise that if we did not act, the victim could have done something bad. The better them than us option. Who determines that one?

Hardly seems like the moral high ground. If everyone with bad intentions were killed, who would be left?

[Callie Del Noire]

I agree.. I just think the causes are a bit deeper than GW Bush.. the men who lead/led/worked in ISIS were doing atrocities LONG before they tried to form the caliphate. Working for Saddam and Assad.

Some of them are definitely the result of the Invasion of Iraq. ISIS is most assuredly the result of that invasion BUT these men would have done something similar. Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi was assuredly incentivized by his his internment during the US occupation of Iraq.

I just want to point out that some of the causes of the issues in the Middle East are the result of earlier stupid moves. The fact that the Kurds were purposely spread between three different countries for example. The putting of the Shah of Iran back on his thrown, overturning the govenerment that Nationalized their oil assets after YEARS of opportunism by the British oil interests led directly to the Ayotollah seizing power.

My point, however badly I make it, is this: This is not something that can be fixed with the actions that have been done since 9/11. To stabilize the region would require DECADES of building states who are stable and not ruled by one faction. To use an example from WW II, I’d say you’d need the investment of capital and diplomacy of something on the scale of the Marshall plan, decades of work to build ALLIES.. by more than one nation.

Never going to happen with the current outlook in Washington and most specifically never be set up by the Man in the Oval Office that we’d have.

[Callie Del Noire]

I agree. The US is no longer, if it ever was, the good guys of the world. Why should other countries not assassinate our people. The US,Israel and others have been assassinating people for years and getting away with it on the premise that if we did not act, the victim could have done something bad. The better them than us option. Who determines that one?

Hardly seems like the moral high ground. If everyone with bad intentions were killed, who would be left?

Which is why I’m waiting for the other shoe to fall. Iran, and specifically the leaders, won’t let this stand. They are pretty busy putting down dissent in their own country. After the bodies are put away, this will be revisited.

Someone, most likely someone on the same level as the assassinated general, will wake up one morning to a car bomb or drive by shooting.

[Oniya]

The contents of Lev Parnas's Iphone have been brought to the HPSCI.  Parnas was one of the two people kicking around with Rudy Giuliani while he was in Ukraine, and was also involved in campaign finance violations (donating more than allowed) to many Republican candidates. 

Trump claimed not to know him, even after several pictures of Parnas and Trump were discovered, many at pretty high-level events.  This upset Parnas to the point that he's decided to cooperate with the House investigations.

[gaggedLouise]

Meanwhile, GRU (Russian Military intelligence) have trolled high-level employees of the gas company at the center of the Biden/Ukraine allegations Trump wanted to spin, and made them expose their credentials and logins by means of the old trick of phishing through fake websites. >:)

It is unclear what information the hackers sought or how deeply Burisma may have been compromised. A cybersecurity expert speaking to CNN about the situation said this was likely not the first time Russian operators have hacked Burisma, adding that Russian hackers are very aggressive in their cyber efforts inside Ukraine.

But in light of Burisma's role in the unfolding political saga -- in which Trump pushed Ukrainian officials to investigate Biden and his son, Hunter, who had served on Burisma's board -- the probing of the company's systems closely resembles Russian efforts in 2016 to destabilize the US election.

"The timing of the GRU's campaign in relation to the 2020 U.S. elections raises the spectre that this is an early warning of what we have anticipated since the successful cyberattacks undertaken during the 2016 U.S. elections," said the report.

https://edition.cnn.com/2020/01/13/politics/russians-hacked-burisma/index.html

[Oniya]

House Intel has released Lev's documents.

https://intelligence.house.gov/uploadedfiles/20200114_-_hpsci_transmittal_letter_to_hjc_-_new_evidence_attachment.pdf

[Orval Wintermute]

I can't decide which story is more concerning.

Trying to blackmail European allies into saying Iran broke the nuclear deal Trump pulled out of:
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-iran-nuclear-usa-autos/u-s-threatened-europe-with-auto-tariffs-over-iran-nuclear-program-washington-post-idUSKBN1ZE2L8

or the GAO flat out saying Trump broke the law.
https://www.usnews.com/news/politics/articles/2020-01-16/gao-trump-administration-broke-the-law-in-ukraine-aid-holdup

[Oniya]

Neither is surprising, if you've read any of the forensic psychology about Trump.  The fact that he broke the law with Ukraine is pretty well established, since the money was approved by Congress, and he didn't even blink in their direction before ordering the hold.

I'd say the blackmail is more concerning, since this is yet more crap that a successor administration is going to have to clean up to re-establish our foreign policy.

[Orval Wintermute]

Neither is surprising, i

That none of these are surprising is possibly the most concerning thing of all. Trump's behavior has become normalized but perhaps not acceptable just yet. 

[Oniya]

That none of these are surprising is possibly the most concerning thing of all. Trump's behavior has become normalized but perhaps not acceptable just yet.

My intent was not to say that it's been normalized.  If you've read any of the essays put forth by forensic psychologists about Trump, his reactions to things become almost predictable.  (Almost, in the sense that while the specific actions might not be predictable, the general course of conduct is.)

The 'blackmail', if you take it out of the arena of international politics, comes down to 'Iran made me hit them.  I can hit you too, if you don't back me up on this.' 

[Orval Wintermute]

I meant normalize in the "Trump's broken the law, it must Tuesday" sense rather than people thinking of it as acceptable behavior, even that's not strictly true Trumpians and hard GOP supporters take the illegality as baked in and normal.

The impeachment trial doesn't start until next week but everybody already knows what the result is going to be, Mitch McConnell has already gone on the record saying that he doesn't think witnesses or documentary evidence is needed because it won't change the outcome. When facts aren't relevant then they've accepted Trump's behavior as normal. And that behavior includes calling the impeachment trial a hoax right now, but when the inevitable predetermined result comes in Trump will proudly proclaim that the trial proved he was innocent all along.

[gaggedLouise]

Absurdly funny one-liner by Trump (how many times has he now said the phone call was "perfect"?):

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1217909231946477575

:D

[Oniya]

More docs from Parnas.

[Missy]

Absurdly funny one-liner by Trump (how many times has he now said the phone call was "perfect"?):

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1217909231946477575

:D

Is he sure it wasn't because he's a perfect imbecile?

[Oniya]

Is he sure it wasn't because he's a perfect imbecile?

'He is the very model of a very stable gen-i-us.' - Randy Rainbow

[Teo Torriatte]

I meant normalize in the "Trump's broken the law, it must Tuesday" sense rather than people thinking of it as acceptable behavior, even that's not strictly true Trumpians and hard GOP supporters take the illegality as baked in and normal.

The impeachment trial doesn't start until next week but everybody already knows what the result is going to be, Mitch McConnell has already gone on the record saying that he doesn't think witnesses or documentary evidence is needed because it won't change the outcome. When facts aren't relevant then they've accepted Trump's behavior as normal. And that behavior includes calling the impeachment trial a hoax right now, but when the inevitable predetermined result comes in Trump will proudly proclaim that the trial proved he was innocent all along.

Someone said on the news this morning, "If you walk past substandard and do nothing, it becomes standard." I'm afraid that's exactly where we are headed with this impeachment trial where 45 is going to get away with wiping his ass with the Constitution.

I don't even know why I am bothering to watch this stuff... it's like if I were to go see Infinity War for the first time but already knowing half the galaxy was going to be wiped out. We know how this ends as well, it ends with the Constitution in tatters and this country on the verge of becoming a banana republic, if that isn't an insult to banana republics.

[Oniya]

Well, we now have the new Space Force logo.  Looks... oddly familiar.

[Deamonbane]

Someone's getting sued.

[Callie Del Noire]

Someone's getting sued.

Oh quite so.. it’s gonna be HUGE.