US Presidents And Fuzzy Legality Of The War
US Presidents And Fuzzy Legality Of The War US President Donald Trump’s actions and rhetoric against Iran led to accusations that he violated international law. But Trump is not the first US president to be accused of this in the war scene.
Trump’s threat of attacking cultural structures in Iran also reacted greatly, and officials from his own government were forced to declare that such an option was not on the table.
A step earlier, Trump pushed the button for the assassination of Qasim Suleimani, the most respected general in Iran.
Under international law, a government may conduct such an attack to defend itself. The US government also claims to defend itself.
Agnes Callamard, United Nations Special Rapporteur on extrajudicial and arbitrary executions, disagrees. Sharing a tweet on the subject, Callamard said it was understood that the rules set by the United Nations for a legal attack were not followed.
Trump also defended his troops, who have been criticized for committing war crimes, calling Special Operations Chief Edward Gallagher a “tough guy.”
Trump talks about military personnel and operations in a way that vague the lines of legality.
Attacking cultural sites in Iran is contrary to the 1954 Hague Convention for the protection of cultural assets.
But Trump argues that the US should respond in the same way, saying that his enemies are doing illegal things; They are allowed to torture and cripple our people, and we are not allowed to touch their cultural structures? says.
Trump’s statements that defy international law surprised even the most senior U.S. officials. “I have full faith that our President, our commander-in-chief, will not give us an illegal order,” U.S. Defense Secretary Mark Esper said.
This was one of the unusual moments when disagreements in Trump’s own Cabinet became public.