Jan 12

Jan 12 NY-22 Minute: Brindisi embraces contested justification for Soleimani killing By Luke Perry

Rep. Brindisi has primarily focused on domestic issues during his first year in office. National security has become a prominent topic in 2020, stemming from conflict between the U.S. and Iran.

The two countries have experienced tensions since the U.S. helped overthrow the Iranian prime minister in 1953, and then backed Shah Mohammed Reza, who was deposed by a coup in 1979 that established the current Islamic Republic.

Earlier this month, the president’s senior national security advisers provided several potential responses to unrest at the U.S. embassy in Iraq facilitated by pro-Iranian militia. Iraq and Iran are two predominately Shia Muslim countries, a minority in Islam and throughout the Middle East, prompting a natural alliance.

President Trump was mindful of the U.S. hostage crisis in Iran (1979-81) and the 2012 attack on a U.S. embassy in Benghazi, Libya that killed a U.S. diplomat. Trump was very critical of former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton regarding Benghazi during the 2016 campaign.

Some of Trump’s advisers were stunned the president decided to kill General Soleimani, Iran’s top military leader, who is revered nationally.

The president had previously rejected this course of action, the “most extreme” option presented. The U.S. does not typically kill government or military leaders. The last known example is a Japanese admiral who killed during World War II.

“Qasem Soleimani was responsible for death, destruction, and violence against hundreds of brave Americans and now he has been brought to justice. There are many questions that deserve answers with regards to the Administration’s plan for peace in the Middle East. Keeping our servicemembers safe and fostering stability in the region should be the top priority. Congress needs to execute its Constitutional responsibility and oversight of military operations. The Administration needs to present a clear plan that will protect America’s soldiers and our interests in the region. The American people and our brave men and women in uniform deserve that much.”

— Rep. Anthony Brindisi

“I do believe that based on threats that were out there they had authority and were well in their rights to take out this general,” Brindisi said. (8:53 mark) He reached this conclusion after hearing from the Secretary of State, Secretary of Defense, and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.

Brindisi also believes Soleimani was “a terrorist” who has now been brought to justice, echoing the rhetoric of President Trump.

Secretary of State Mike Pompeo and Defense Secretary Mark Esper claimed that Soleimani was killed because of he was an “imminent threat” to the United States.

There is no doubt General Soleimani is responsible for orchestrating past attacks that killed Americans, but it is unclear if he was facilitating imminent attacks. Moreover, given his superior rank in the Iranian military, it is unlikely his death would prevent imminent attacks.

Facing a range of relevant questions, Pompeo initially said “we had specific information on an imminent threat, including potential attacks on U.S. embassies.” When pressed by journalists, Pompeo acknowledged “we don’t know precisely when and we don’t know precisely where.”

Presidents have constitutional authority to militarily respond to imminent threats. Absent this, the killing of a national leader, particularly from a country the U.S. is not at war with, can be understood as a political assassination, currently prohibited by executive order.

The president does have authority to use lethal force in counter-terrorism efforts via war powers resolutions passed by Congress after 9/11. These powers have been used broadly, though not without controversy, by Presidents Bush, Obama, and Trump to justify various military actions.

Asserting Soleimani is a terrorist, as the Trump administration has done, bolsters the legal rational for killing him. Terrorists, however, are typically non-state actors, meaning they do not identify with or act on behalf of a country. This was not the case with Soleimani.

Public knowledge is inherently limited when it comes to the pursuit of national security. While members of Congress are unable to speak in detail about classified briefings, they can share general reactions.

The Soleimani briefings were widely criticized by Congressional Democrats and even several Republicans.

"The administration firmly believes that based on good intelligence, the threat was immediate," said Rep. Anthony Brown (D, MD), "but it appears to me that the actions that were taken was much more of a response to the past conduct of General Soleimani.” “I've not yet heard the facts underlying what the potential imminent future threat that was posed by General Soleimani,” Brown explained, “I didn't hear anything about alternatives to neutralize or address the threat."

According to Sen. Chris Murphy (D, CT) "the bottom line is this: I did not hear evidence of a specific imminent threat that would allow an attack without congressional authorization. With consequences as serious as these, that is unacceptable. Congress needs to act."

More bluntly, Rep. Gerry Connolly (D, VA) said the briefing was “sophomoric and unconvincing,” and it was “absurd” that post-9/11 authorization of force was used to justify the killing.

These sentiments were echoed by Mike Lee (R, UT), who said it was “the worst briefing I’ve seen” on a military issue “in my nine years” in the Senate.

"I see no way in the world you could logically argue that an authorization to have war with Saddam Hussein has anything to with having war with people currently in Iraq," said Rand Paul (R, KY).

President Trump claimed without substantiation that he “had calls from numerous senators and numerous congressmen and women saying it was the great presentation they’ve ever had.” Mistruth and exaggeration have become a defining feature of Trump’s political style.

Recent presidents have tested the limits of their war powers, including Barack Obama, most notably, during the U.S. attack on Libya in 2011.

Meanwhile, Americans have limited knowledge of international affairs, including the Middle East. Per recent polling, just 28 percent of registered voters could locate Iran on a blank map.

Luke Perry (@PolSciLukePerry) is Professor of Government at Utica College

Read the NY-22 Minute for timely and comprehensive analysis of NY-22 politics