Welcome to European Tribune. It's gone a bit quiet around here these days, but it's still going.
Craig Murray's recollection is dim.
I am not inventing the Bethlehem Doctrine. It has been the formal legal justification for drone strikes and targeted assassinations by the Israeli, US and UK governments for a decade [?]. Here it is in academic paper form, published by Bethlehem after he left government service (the form in which it is adopted by the US, UK and Israeli Governments is classified information).

I don't doubt that fellow was a significant contributor from 10 Downing to the Bush Doctrine, fulminated by vanguard of The Project for a New American Century (PNAC, 1998). The WH published this novelty of "legal" warfare departing christ Grotius, Sep 2002, as US "THE NATIONAL SECURITY STRATEGY, of which "V. Prevent Our Enemies from Threatening Us, Our Allies, and Our Friends with Weapons of Mass Destruction".

For centuries, international law recognized that nations need not suffer an attack before they can lawfully take action to defend themselves against forces that present an imminent danger of attack.
We must adapt the concept of imminent threat to the capabilities and objectives of today's adversaries. Rogue states and terrorists do not seek to attack us using conventional means. They know such attacks would fail. Instead, they rely on acts of terror and, potentially, the use of weapons of mass destruction--weapons that can be easily concealed, delivered covertly, and used without warning.
The United States has long maintained the option of preemptive actions to counter a sufficient threat to our national security. The greater the threat, the greater is the risk of inaction-- and the more compelling the case for taking anticipatory action to defend ourselves, even if uncertainty remains as to the time and place of the enemy's attack. To forestall or prevent such hostile acts by our adversaries, the United States will, if necessary, act preemptively.

The United States will not use force in all cases to preempt emerging threats, nor should nations use preemption as a pretext for aggression. Yet in an age where the enemies of civilization openly and actively seek the world's most destructive technologies, the United States cannot remain idle while dangers gather. We will always proceed deliberately, weighing the consequences of our actions....

See Jay Bybee (now of the 9th Circ.), memorandum opinion for details: "AUTHORITY OF THE PRESIDENT UNDER DOMESTIC AND INTERNATIONAL LAW TO USE MILITARY FORCE AGAINST IRAQ", 23 Oct 2002 and Yoo, "The President's Constitutional Authority to Conduct Military Operations Against Terrorists and Nations Supporting Them", 25 Sep 2002; the cretins Delahunty and Yoo's exegesis, "The 'Bush Doctrine': Can preventative war be justified?" (Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy, 2009); and their collection of Torture Memos--1 Aug 2002, Bybee and Yoo.
by Cat on Fri Jan 10th, 2020 at 01:20:07 AM EST
In the past hours I read the assassination of Qassem Soleimani has been ab objective for some time. Especially former CIA chief Pompeo wanted it and he had Trump's ear.  

There was no scrutiny of the consequences as would be with such an major decision, but Trump kept the final decision within a small circle of his close advisors (Netanyahu had been notified and he was for). Only recent calculus and the events after the attack killing one US contractor, the choice was put forward. With the US Embassy under threat after the US military retaliation killing 25 Iraq's, the final decision got all votes to GO. It was a punishment and the execution of choice, not an imminent threat.

Doesn't meet UN convention or International Law? No one involved cared about that. Typical reactie as given by Dominic Raab yesterday, I'm not in a position to question the tactical or strategic decision of the US president. Would the US have bombed targets inside Iran if the Iran retaliation would have killed one US soldier? HELL YES! We've got a BIGGER stick than them.

by Oui on Fri Jan 10th, 2020 at 04:00:30 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Would anything would be different if the impeachment would be already going on?
by das monde on Fri Jan 10th, 2020 at 08:26:46 AM EST
[ Parent ]