January 24, 2020

Rep. Guy Reschenthaler, Right-Wing Impeachment Distractor

This morning, Rep. Guy Reschenthaler tweeted this:
Wow. There's a lot to unpack.

Let's start in the middle and work our way out, shall we? Fox "News" talking head Trish Regan is appalled that some:
...liberal ex-CIA attorney is now accusing President Trump of HOMICIDE for killing Iranian terrorist general Solemani!
This part of the story is, in fact, true.

In her article at the Daily Beast, ex-CIA attorney Vicki Divoll writes as such:
In bragging that he ordered a successful hit on Iranian Maj. Gen. Qassem Soleimani, President Trump has admitted to killing a senior government official of a sovereign state, Iran, while he was traveling in another sovereign state, Iraq. On its face, his conduct and intent satisfy the elements of premeditated murder under Section 1116 of Title 18 of the United States Criminal Code, "Murder or manslaughter of foreign officials, official guests, or internationally protected persons."
If you were curious, you can find Section 1116 of Title 18  here. Opens with this:
Whoever kills or attempts to kill a foreign official, official guest, or internationally protected person shall be punished as provided under sections 1111, 1112, and 1113 of this title.
In this case, Solemani was a "internationally protected person" and the law defines that term as:
...any other representative, officer, employee, or agent of the United States Government, a foreign government, or international organization who at the time and place concerned is entitled pursuant to international law to special protection against attack upon his person...
I'm not a lawyer, but if I am reading the law correctly and despite the obvious blood on his hands, Solemani certainly fit that definition of a protected person entitled to protection against attack.

It's the law. And I am sorry, Rep. Reschenthaler, it's not ridiculous.

On the other hand, you and your party defend a man for whom the term "rule of law" has utterly no meaning.

Now let's back out of that to Guy's opening:
Solemani was taking the pallets of cash that Obama had sent him as part of that bunk nuclear deal...
There it is. Those mythological Obama "pallets of cash" that the GOP likes to reference (but not explain) whenever it's cornered.

I'll let Reuters explain this, again:
The United States and Iran on Sunday settled a longstanding claim at the Hague, releasing to Tehran $400 million in funds frozen since 1981 plus $1.3 billion in interest, the State Department said.

The funds were part of a trust fund once used by Iran to purchase military equipment from the United States but which was tied up for decades in litigation at the Iran-U.S. Claims Tribunal.
Yes, Solemani was a beast among men, no question. But assassination is against the law.

The ends do not justify the means.

Nor should they justify lying to the American People (as you did with those "pallets of cash"), Rep. Reschenthaler.


Social Justice NPC Anti-Paladin™ said...

You are an lying idiot hack Dayvoe.
If we’re going to dip into federal criminal statutory analysis I’d enjoy it if the Daily Beast and Vicki Divoll would identify what part of 18 USC 1116 was violated — the theory under the statute.
EX-CIA Lawyer: The Soleimani Hit Was a Homicide Under U.S. Criminal Law
Was this murder? It sure looks that way, under a law that Congress passed specifically to deter global terrorist acts.
/2 Because when you say that something violated the statute you can’t just read the opening paragraph and assume your internal definitions of the terms are right. You have to see if the statute defines those terms.
/3 “foreign official” and “official guest” are both excluded by these definitions because Soleimani was not in the United States. The first definition of “internationally protected person” is excluded because he was not a head of state.
/4 The second definition of “internationally protected person” requires that Soleimani was “entitled pursuant to international law to special protection against attack upon his person.” I’m not an international law expert but I am dubious on this.
/5 In short, it sure looks like the author read the opening paragraph of a statute, threw together a Hot Take, and Daily Beast ran it without anyone familiar with the law being invoked (or even basic statutory analysis) vetting it.
/6 The thrust of the article seems to be “the nuances of international law aside, it clearly violates US law,” when in fact the only remotely plausible theory under the statute is explicitly based on whether international law gave him “special protection”

c)If the victim of an offense under subsection (a) is an internationally protected person outside the United States, the United States may exercise jurisdiction over the offense if (1) the victim is a representative, officer, employee, or agent of the United States, (2) an offender is a national of the United States, or (3) an offender is afterwards found in the United States.

Jennifer Lawrence said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.