US-Iran War Has Begun! Iran launches dozens of ballistic missiles!

[Admiral Yi]

Joan, am I right in thinking your argument is based on the yet untested War Powers Act?

[Sheilbh]

Just thinking back to Trump's Batman villain moment - are there rules on when US troops are allowed to disobey orders?

[Admiral Yi]

Just thinking back to Trump's Batman villain moment - are there rules on when US troops are allowed to disobey orders?

IIRC, you're not only allowed to, but required to disobey unlawful orders.

[The Minsky Moment]

Joan, am I right in thinking your argument is based on the yet untested War Powers Act?

No.

[viper37]

Just thinking back to Trump's Batman villain moment - are there rules on when US troops are allowed to disobey orders?

IIRC, you're not only allowed to, but required to disobey unlawful orders.

Asking a soldier to shoot an unarmed civilian or execute a war prisoner is clearly an unlawful order and any soldier with more than two working brain cells would know that.

But if you're asked to target an ennemy officer whom you're told is plotting an imminent attack against the US, it ain't exactly clear you are following an unlawful order.  Or if you're sent abroad to invade a country to dismantle their non existent WMD program, it's not clear in the first place that there is no such program in place and the reason for the invasion might have been made up or clearly exagerated.  It's not like every soldier is trained as a lawyer either.  I doubt the White House ordered the hit by saying "look, he's a bad guy, he deserves to die, trust me on this, we'll figure out something later to make it look like it's legit".

[Maladict]

I doubt the White House ordered the hit by saying "look, he's a bad guy, he deserves to die, trust me on this, we'll figure out something later to make it look like it's legit".

You really should know better by now.

[The Minsky Moment]

What makes this situation unique and different from the usual "let's bomb Libya" type of action that pretty much every President does, is that it was a targeted assassination of a foreign official. Assassinations are barred under US law unless otherwise specifically authorized.

We have gotten used to the idea of the US targeting individual jihadists for strikes.  However, so far those have involved al-Qaeda militants or jihadists associated with ISIL, which originated as an al-Qaeda branch.  Thus, the theory is that these strikes are covered by the 2001 AUMF authorizing force to be used against persons, organizations or states who planned, assisted, etc. the 9-11 attacks.  It is a stretch to apply that to ISIL but a fig leaf nonetheless.

Problem is that: (1) the AUMF can't be reasonably stretched to include Soleimani, (2) there is no other available justification under customary or international law or "emergency" authority.

[The Brain]

Just thinking back to Trump's Batman villain moment - are there rules on when US troops are allowed to disobey orders?

IIRC, you're not only allowed to, but required to disobey unlawful orders.

Asking a soldier to shoot an unarmed civilian or execute a war prisoner is clearly an unlawful order and any soldier with more than two working brain cells would know that.

But if you're asked to target an ennemy officer whom you're told is plotting an imminent attack against the US, it ain't exactly clear you are following an unlawful order.  Or if you're sent abroad to invade a country to dismantle their non existent WMD program, it's not clear in the first place that there is no such program in place and the reason for the invasion might have been made up or clearly exagerated.  It's not like every soldier is trained as a lawyer either.  I doubt the White House ordered the hit by saying "look, he's a bad guy, he deserves to die, trust me on this, we'll figure out something later to make it look like it's legit".

Yes, IIRC in Sweden an order has to be obviously unlawful, merely unlawful isn't enough. My guess is that the US would have something similar.

[Barrister]

What makes this situation unique and different from the usual "let's bomb Libya" type of action that pretty much every President does, is that it was a targeted assassination of a foreign official. Assassinations are barred under US law unless otherwise specifically authorized.

We have gotten used to the idea of the US targeting individual jihadists for strikes.  However, so far those have involved al-Qaeda militants or jihadists associated with ISIL, which originated as an al-Qaeda branch.  Thus, the theory is that these strikes are covered by the 2001 AUMF authorizing force to be used against persons, organizations or states who planned, assisted, etc. the 9-11 attacks.  It is a stretch to apply that to ISIL but a fig leaf nonetheless.

Problem is that: (1) the AUMF can't be reasonably stretched to include Soleimani, (2) there is no other available justification under customary or international law or "emergency" authority.

But the Quds Force is a designated terrorist organization (Hell even Canada recognizes it as such).  Which makes it somewhat unique as the only state agency designated as such, but also puts it more on par with AQ or ISIS.

[grumbler]

But the Quds Force is a designated terrorist organization (Hell even Canada recognizes it as such).  Which makes it somewhat unique as the only state agency designated as such, but also puts it more on par with AQ or ISIS.

I'm not sure what point you are trying to make.  The POTS doesn't gain the authority to assassinate anyone at will be simply by designating them as terrorists beforehand.

[The Minsky Moment]

Correct (grumbler).  AUMF does not cover all terrorists orgs but only those that planned, assisted etc 9/11 attacks.

[Barrister]

Correct (grumbler).  AUMF does not cover all terrorists orgs but only those that planned, assisted etc 9/11 attacks.

ISIS had nothing to do with 9/11.

[The Minsky Moment]

Correct (grumbler).  AUMF does not cover all terrorists orgs but only those that planned, assisted etc 9/11 attacks.

ISIS had nothing to do with 9/11.

ISIS used to be a branch of al-Qaeda.  So in 2014, Obama's lawyers argued that ISIS was an al-Qaeda successor entity and therefore covered by the AUMF.  It was a pretty questionable argument especially given that earlier in the year there was a very public split between ISIS leadership and what was left of al-Qaeda but it was at least a fig leaf of legality. Obama proposed a new ISIS specific AUMF draft in 2015 and a few proposals rattled around Congress but IIRC none of them passed. 

What's concerning about the Soleimani situation is that now the WH doesn't seems to think it even needs to bother with an explanation or to seek additional legal authority.  It's a step beyond Executive mandate stretching into total lack of interest in lawfulness.

[HisMajestyBOB]

40 years from now US Presidents will use the 2001 AUMF to justify targeted assassinations of, say, Chinese warlords.

[alfred russel]

40 years from now US Presidents will use the 2001 AUMF to justify targeted assassinations of, say, Chinese warlords.

If current US leadership trends continue, in 40 years we won't be in a position to target Chinese warlords, though the Chinese may be targeting warlords in the US.