10 Comments

• John Kelly 3rd Jan '20 - 11:46pm

  Could Trump’s reckless intervention have anything to do with his impeachment? Bill Clinton did something similar in 1998 when he was impeached. https://www.dropbox.com/s/73sadolmasy15j8/Clinton%20impeachment%20diversion.JPG?dl=0

• Manfarang 4th Jan '20 - 2:11am

  Trump’s views on Iran are shaped by personal enmity towards Obama and Trump’s desire wipe out any legacy his predecessor might leave.
  American Middle Eastern policy has been based on a massive failure to understand the region for decades and there is little sign that this is about to change.

• David Blake 4th Jan '20 - 8:02am

  Little doubt about that, John. Trying to divert attention.

• Richard Underhill 4th Jan '20 - 9:46am

  The Iranian general had worked against ISIS.
  Boris Johnson should keep quiet. There are two hunger strikers now.

• Jonathan Coulter 4th Jan '20 - 10:18am

  I agree that “the UK should not automatically follow whatever position the Trump administration takes”. Our statement could be tougher, notably getting behind Ages Callemard, the ‘UN Special Rapporteur on Extra-Judicial, Summary and Arbitrary Killings’, who questions the legal basis for Trump’s action and urging the UN to immediately set up an international inquiry into the situation.

• Joseph Bourke 4th Jan '20 - 3:43pm

  Jonathan,

  Ages Callemard said that the strike authorized by Trump was likely illegal because the US had not demonstrated that Soleimani was an “imminent threat to life.” She said that in order for a extra-judicial killing to be legal, the US would need to show that the person being targeted was preparing to commit an act that would lead to loss of life and that “an individual’s past involvement in ‘terrorist’ attacks is not sufficient to make his targeting for killing lawful.” In addition, she said that the anticipatory self-defense asserted by Trump at his press conference is also likely not legal, since such a preemptive strike requires that there be “instant, overwhelming, and leaving no choice of means, and no moment of deliberation” before acting.
  The invoking of anticipatory self-defense in International Law derives its legitimacy from the Caroline Case (1837). This case sets out a customary international law definition of the right to self-defence. It originates from a dispute between the British Government and the US Secretary of State regarding the destruction of an American vessel in an American port by British subjects. The reason behind this act was the use of the vessel to transport munitions and groups of Americans, who were conducting attacks on the Canadian territory. The US Government declared that the attack on the vessel constituted an attack against the American territory. The British Government responded by claiming the right to self-defense. The subsequent diplomatic correspondence between the parties contained an outline of the key elements for legitimate self-defense. The US Secretary of State, Daniel Webster, emphasised that for the self-defense to be lawful in international law, the British Government must prove the:
  “necessity of self-defense, instant, overwhelming, leaving no choice of means and no moment for deliberation and that assuming such necessity existed at the time:
  the act justified by the necessity of self-defence must be limited by that necessity, and kept clearly within it.”
  This is the standard normally required under article 51 of the UN Charter. If it is proven to be met the action is legitimate in International Law. If it is not met then UN Special Rapporteur on Extra-Judicial, Summary and Arbitrary Killings’ may rightly question the legal basis for Trump’s action and call on the UN to set-up an inquiry into the situation.
  NB: On this test ( “an individual’s past involvement in ‘terrorist’ attacks is not sufficient to make his targeting for killing lawful.”) the killing of Osama Bin Laden was clearly an illegal act under International law.

• David Becket 4th Jan '20 - 5:15pm

  The statement by ED is not sufficiently strong or robust, and it does not state what Lib Dems would do. Below is a stronger example with our proposed action.

  Responding to reports of the death of General Qasem Soleimani by a US Air Strike, Liberal Democrat Acting Leader Ed Davey said:
  Iran is governed by a brutal regime which has been openly hostile to the west.
  Donald Trump has yet again radically and recklessly escalated tensions in an area where peace-keeping was already on a knife edge.
  There is a real danger this will stoke further conflict, undermining peace and stability in the region. Given the severity of the crisis, the Prime Minister must make a statement about the UK’s position immediately.
  Liberal Democrats would:
  Not automatically follow whatever position the Trump administration takes, and publicly condemn the action Trump has taken.
  Work with our friends in the EU and other concerned states at the United Nations to deescalate the situation and bring peace to the region. This to include the deployment of UN Peacekeeping Troops in areas of conflict
  Immediately stop all arms shipments to the middle east and encourage other suppliers of arms to take the same action
  Withdraw all UK troops from the middle east unless they are part of a United Nations peacekeeping force.

• David Raw 4th Jan '20 - 5:25pm

  Apparently Johnson wasn’t consulted on any of this by Trump. Tells you something about the so called special relationship and the world status of the UK under this Government.

• nvelope2003 4th Jan '20 - 9:11pm

  David Raw: But the Prime Minister of Israel was consulted or was it Mr Trump who was consulted ?

• expats 4th Jan '20 - 10:33pm

  If Donald Trump was ‘removed’ by an Iranian agent would the US accept a justification of “He was an imminent threat to life.” ….

  Not a chance!