Update no.938

Update from the Sunland

No.938

30.12.19 – 5.1.20

Blog version:  http://heartlandupdate.blogspot.com/

            To all,

            Circa 01:00 [C] local time, Friday, 3.January, 2020 [22:00 [Z] UTC, 2.1.2020 (17:00 [R] EST, 2.1.2020)], a United States drone, missile airstrike assassinated Sarlashkar Qasem Suleimani, 62, Commander Quds Force, Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps of the Islamic Republic of Iran (IRI).  Along with Suleimani, four others were killed including Jamal Jafaar Mohammed Ali Āl Ebrahim, 65, AKA Abu Mahdi al-Muhandis, Deputy Chairman of the Popular Mobilization Committee (the Iraqi paramilitary militia conglomerate).  Al-Muhandis had previously been the Iraqi liaison to the Quds Force.  Suleimani had just landed at Baghdad International Airport on a flight reportedly from Lebanon and/or Syria.  The Intelligence Community localized Suleimani, and the president decided to take action on that intelligence.

            I have mixed feelings about this operation.  The Marine in me sees Suleimani as an established and well-documented enemy combatant leader, and thus a worthy target.  In that perspective, the president’s decision should be lauded.  While Qasem Suleimani was a comparable anti-terrorism target to Usama bin Laden [1.5.2011], Anwar al-Awlaqi [30.9.2011] and Abū Bakr al-Baghdadi [26.10.2019], he held a significantly different position as a state-actor; he wore the uniform of a military leader within and under the auspices of a sovereign country.  Suleimani’s terrorism activities over decades placed him in a different category; however, the last time the United States assassinated a state-actor was Kaigun-taishō Isoroku Yamamoto [18.4.1943]; he was the equivalent to the U.S. Chief of Naval Operations.  And before Yamamoto, it was SS-Obergruppenführer Reinhard Heydrich [27.5.1942], who was a senior paramilitary leader in the Nazi regime and a very bad man, akin to Suleimani.  This attack is the most direct action against the IRI state-sponsorship of terrorism in the Middle East and elsewhere in the world—also praiseworthy.

            Unfortunately, with this particular president, we cannot trust a word he says, which in turn raises suspicions that he may have had an ulterior motive, e.g., distraction from his looming impeachment trial and approaching election.  I can argue the provocative aspect of this attack from both sides.  It was easily and readily argued that the assassination is a retaliation for the myriad attacks he and his Quds Force conducted over many years throughout the region.  On the flip side, state-actor assassination is extraordinarily rare as noted above.  There is also a huge difference between Yamamoto/Heydrich and Suleimani; in the former case, President Roosevelt decided and sanctioned the assassinations of Yamamoto and Heydrich under the authority of a proper, declared, state of war.  This president does not have such a declaration of war.  As a consequence, this action can be and probably will be argued on the world stage as a state-sanctioned murder without due process of law.

            Since Friday, when the strike was publicly announced, the talking heads have been all abuzz about this precipitous action starting a war with the IRI.  Tensions have been mounting since the BIC unilaterally withdrew [8.5.2018] [854] from the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPA) signed by President Obama [14.7.2015] [709].  On one hand, the president had to draw the line somewhere on the mounting tensions with the IRI.  Further, while I am troubled by the ulterior motives aspect of this action, I currently think the president did what had to be done.  President Clinton was presented with a fleeting opportunity to capture or kill Usama bin Laden in May 1998, but rejected the operation; who knows how such an interdiction operation might have altered what happened on the morning of 11.September.2001?  Judging from my work on TWA 800 – Accident or Incident?, I suspect the IRI will not back down and will likely up the ante even more, and perhaps take a sufficient action to spark a war.  That is their choice.  For now, I think the president did what had to and should have been done long ago.

          Then, just 12 hours after the Suleimani airstrike, the president tweets:

Iran never won a war, but never lost a negotiation!

4:44 AM – 3 Jan 2020

I have not used my BIC-speak decoder ring in so long.  I could not find it in time to translate what on God’s little green earth the BIC was trying to say here.  First, he really should study some history before he says such things.  Simply put, the BIC is wrong, period, full stop.  Second, by saying such nonsense, he appears to be gloating over the death of other human beings without anything productive in his words.  Regrettably, the BIC and his followers continue to wonder and are baffled by why so many of us cannot trust a single word the Oh So Great Orange One (OSGOO) utters in any form, and further this tweet detracts from the laudable aspects above.  He would have been best served by keeping his bloody mouth shut and his twinkle fingers quiet.  Oh well, life goes on.

            Comments and contributions from Update no.937:

Comment to the Blog:

“‘Enjoy’ the holiday season is a bit beyond me.  This year, I made the mistake of not completely ignoring it, but at least I didn't get into political discussions.  I'll save that for this and other appropriate forums.

“Witness tampering is a ‘high crime’ in each instance if any American does it.

“One of your correspondents went seriously below the belt in bringing up personal names.  However, he unintentionally made one point.  ‘Nancy now needs to follow the next constitutional steps and allow the other side to present.’  That is exactly what Rep. Pelosi is trying to do, but ‘the other side’ (Chump) doesn't want to present his case.  He doesn't have one.

“Even with a presidential election next year, I look forward to leaving 2019 behind.”

My response to the Blog:

            Thank you so much for favoring this humble forum for sharing your opinions on contemporary topics.  Your thoughts are always appreciated, and I truly hope your contributions continue unabated.

            Yes, witness tampering is a high crime as it undermines the very basis of criminal justice.  Unfortunately, most citizens do not understand or appreciate the extraordinary care the Framers took in choosing the words of Article II, Section 4.  They considered listing actual crimes but abandoned that path for the broader and more general version of English common law.  The term in usage in the day was more akin to conduct unbecoming of the office—a political judgment, not a criminal one.

            I try to offer all sides of any argument from anyone willing to write down and submit their opinion.  That contributor is indicative of a substantial segment of our citizenry.  We cannot and must not ignore those who believe as the contributor does.  S/he is not alone.  I’ll continue to strive mightily to take the punches and turn my other cheek.

            I’m with you.  To quote Queen Elizabeth II, 2019 has been an “annus horribilis” on many levels.  The only optimism I see for a better 2020 is the election next November, but as with all elections, there is no guarantee of a positive outcome.  There is always hope until there isn’t.

 . . . follow-up comment:

“Unfortunately, the Chump's actions are unbecoming to any office, not merely the one he holds.  However, you're right that in the end, he faces a political judgment rather than a legal one.  I'd like him to present his defense, primarily for comic relief.

“I understand that you seek a rational discourse.  I'll stay with my prior position that it's not possible to have a rational discussion with an irrational person.  I assure you the Chump's supporters will not be ignored, no matter how much they deserve it.”

 . . . my follow-up response:

            Oh so true; however, there is a monumental difference between his “so-called business” domain and the Office of the President of the United States.  He is an employee of We, the People—not the emperor of his domain.  Whether he is removed from office, I do not hold much hope that he will ever face true justice in a court of law, which means he will likely get away with his multitudinous crimes while in office alone. But hey, that is not without precedent. Nixon got away with his crimes, although Nixon holds a unique place in history as the only president to resign the office.

            No, they will not be ignored, just as their vaunted messiah will not be ignored.  These are the times in which we live.

Another contribution:

“But you do seek agreement with the words you speak .. you say I’m not hearing what you are saying.. I am hearing but not agreeing with most of what you present  .. debate involves differing views .. your views you say are presented as fact and your fact evidently is this 600 page report .. why couldn’t they abbreviate it with maybe 6 pages of main points that the people would want to read .. like Obama’s healthcare act bill no one had time or desire to read in entirety.. “don’t read it, just pass it” Nancy said .. baffle the masses with bullshit is always the Democrat mode of operendi.. Quote me just two sentences from those 600 pages you read Cap that present with no argument the supposed crimes .. if Trump bringing up Biden’s corrupt dealings is a crime then Biden needs to come forward and explain how anything that was done with the Ukraine was honest!!!  I and much of the country would like Trump to be able to investigate numerous past wrongs that affected the American people committed by politicians on both sides .. but it is the Gestapo Democrat Communists who are attempting everything they can to keep that from happening.  If they keep the impeachment debauchery going all year they are hoping to provide “background noise” to keep the American people looking the opposite direction.. Saul Alinsky style .. so no more corruption is exposed ..

“Stay steadfast in your childlike dislike of President Trump but don’t become numb to real fact when it’s presented ..”

My reply:

            I will not dignify your ad hominem diatribe with a rebuttal.  Rest comfortable—you win.  Well done!  Nonetheless, your words deserve publication, since I know (there is ample public evidence) your views are indicative of a significant portion of the citizens of this Grand Republic and must be heard.

            I have no idea where you come up with some of your statements, but they are yours.  The best I can do in this light is to encourage you to cast a wider net than the raging ultra-right you appear to favor.

            I am truly sorry to have lost you as a friend, but the choice was not mine.  I have never held any animus toward you for any reason; and, I still do not, regardless of your political protestations.

            I hope you will continue to express your opinions.  It is very important for me to listen, for all of us to listen.

            To your query, if the entire report [H.Rept 116-346] could be boiled down to two sentences, it would have been done.  Impeachment of any president is not two sentences.  Further, the Article II, Section 4 salient phrase: “Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors” does not connote criminal proceedings.  In the vision of the Framers, the term comes from English history and common law far beyond our history.  Criminal trial is the domain of the Article III Judiciary.  Yet, in an effort to comply with your request, H.Rept. 116-346 page 46 of 658 states: “The essence of impeachable bribery is a government official’s exploitation of his or her public duties for personal gain.”  The presented evidence both testimonial under oath and documentary establish that the president did in fact attempt to extort Ukraine government compliance for his personal political gain using the congressionally allocated funds for the defense of Ukraine.  For a second quote, I offer Article II of H.Res.755: “Through these actions, President Trump sought to arrogate to himself the right to determine the propriety, scope, and nature of an impeachment inquiry into his own conduct, as well as the unilateral prerogative to deny any and all information to the House of Representatives in the exercise of its ‘sole Power of Impeachment.’”  For a third quote, I choose to quote from the Special Counsel’s Report of March 2019, p.215 of 448: “On June 17, 2017, the President called McGahn at home and directed him to call the Acting Attorney General and say that the Special Counsel had conflicts of interest and must be removed.”  As the BIC accurately states, there is no evidence he used the explicit word “fire” or “fired.”  But, I ask you, what is the difference between a presidential directive for someone “must be removed” and “fired.”  There are over a thousand pages of this stuff.  How much does it take?  This is NOT how any president should act; the BIC gets no pass because he is a novice.  All three documents reflect conduct more akin to a mafia don (boss) than a president of the United States.

            My very best wishes to all.  Take care of yourselves and each other.

Cheers,

Cap                  :-)