大祸临头：白宫刺杀行动说谎

CNN报道：

伊朗宣布，将向国际法院就苏拉曼尼被刺案对美国政府，军队，和川普提起诉讼，审讯将在案件发生地伊拉克进行。

同时报道，刺杀苏拉曼尼后，国务卿蓬皮奥第一时间宣称行动理由是得到“迫在眉睫”的恐袭情报。现在，他不再承认有“迫在眉睫”的情报，改口说这是美国遏制伊朗大战略的一部分。

司法部長巴爾週一也說，殺害伊朗指揮官苏拉曼尼是更大的威懾戰略的一部分，與特朗普以前说的的刺杀旨在防止“迫在眉睫”的恐袭理由背道而馳。

巴爾的言論特別引人注目，因为他在新聞發布會上說：

因为已经发生沙特军人在美国袭击美国军队情況，可以判断有一場對美國目標發動襲擊的運動，这时发动反击“不需要知道確切時間，及下一次襲擊的地點”。巴尔居然说這肯定是奧巴馬政府打击恐怖組織領導人的立場，暴露白宫班子的心虚。

很明显，白宫已将刺杀伊朗事实上的军队第二把手的原因，改为出于威慑伊朗的“更大的戰略” ，意味“迫在眉睫”的情报根本不存在，但责任被推给总统：“特朗普總統和我們國家安全團隊中的那些人正在重新建立威懾力-對伊朗伊斯蘭共和國的真正威懾力。”这可是要刑事追究的案件。

可以注意的是，美国国防部长从头到尾没有承认过“迫在眉睫”的情报的存在。而52%的美国人认为刺杀行动危及美国的安全，所以国会正在调查刺杀行动的决策过程。由于“迫在眉睫”情报来自“推理和想象”，无法证明，国会民主党一定会追究到底。 参议院正将提交弹劾川普的报告给众议院，“迫在眉睫”的假情报很可能提供更有力的弹劾理由。  

川普本人也不再提“迫在眉眉睫”，只是说“苏拉曼尼过去杀了很多美国人和伊朗人，所以决定杀他。”  但是假情报出口难追，忠实的反对党不会放过谎言。

伊朗刚决定的起诉美国政府，军队，和川普的官司，正逢其时，可以改变击落客机的恶运，对美国的实际打击比军事报复更加深远。  如果伊拉克把布什听信假情报发动对伊大战的后果也告上国际法院，川普难免成为千古罪人。

附上英文新闻稿。

Washington (CNN)Secretary of State Mike Pompeo and Attorney General William Barr said Monday that killing Iranian commander Qasem Soleimani was part of a larger strategy of deterrence, a shift from the Trump administration's previous rationale that the strike was carried out to prevent an "imminent" attack.

Barr's comments were particularly noteworthy as he attempted to push back on criticism over the administration's claim that Soleimani was planning attacks that posed an imminent threat, calling the concept "something of a red herring."

Why Trump's changing Iran story is costing him support in Congress

"I believe there was intelligence of imminent attack, but I do believe that concept of imminence is something of a red herring," he said during a press conference on last month's deadly shooting at a Naval Air Station in Pensacola, Florida.

"I think when you're dealing with a situation where you already have attacks underway, you know there is a campaign that involves repeated attacks on American targets, I don't think there's a requirement frankly for, you know, knowing the exact time and place of the next attack. And that certainly was the position of the Obama when it droned leaders of terrorist organizations," Barr added.

Pompeo, who has leaned heavily on the assertion that intelligence showed an imminent threat, did not mention that reasoning Monday during a speech at the Stanford's Hoover Institute.

"I want to lay this out in context of what we've been trying to do. There's a bigger strategy to this," the top US diplomat said. "President Trump and those of us in his national security team are re-establishing deterrence -- real deterrence ‒ against the Islamic Republic of Iran."

Shifting explanations

Trump administration officials have issued confusing explanations, contradicting each other about how imminent a threat the Iranian general posed, whether they had specific intelligence on the threat and even what that threat was, with Trump saying one thing, then another, while officials offered varying explanations.

Immediately after the strike, Pompeo told CNN Soleimani had been involved in planning an "imminent attack" in the region that put American lives at risk, adding that the US made an intelligence-based assessment that killing Soleimani would save Americans.

The Pentagon, however, offered a slightly different account, saying in a statement that the strike was carried out to deter future attacks against US interests.

Trump administration officials have contradicted each other on Soleimani again and again. This is the result.

While both could be true, the discrepancy has resulted in some confusion over how the administration intends to explain its reasoning for killing the man many considered to be the second most powerful figure in Iran without congressional approval.

During the question and answer portion of his remarks Monday, Pompeo did reiterate that "there was in fact a set of imminent attacks that were being plotted by Qasem Soleimani," but his emphasis on deterrence marked a notable departure from how he has sought to justify the strike in the 11 days since it took place.

Barr's comments also indicate the administration may be pivoting away from its core defense of the strike and reframing its argument around the idea of deterrence.

"Our ability to deter attacks had obviously broken down. The Iranians had been given a number of red lines and were crossing those lines," he said.

"This was a legitimate act of self-defense because it disrupted ongoing attacks that were being conducted, a campaign against the Americans. And it reestablished deterrence, it responded to attacks that had been already committed," Barr added. "Our purpose and our expectation was not to trigger a broader conflict or that events would spin out of control. On the contrary, we believed that the strike would restore deterrence and help avoid a upward spiral of the violence."

Rep. Justin Amash slammed the attorney general's comments, tweeting that the "red herring here is from Bill Barr."

"When there is a campaign that involves repeated attacks on American targets, then there is no excuse for the administration not to have sought an authorization from Congress, as the Constitution demands. Otherwise, imminence is required," the independent from Michigan added.

Comparing 'apples to oranges'

Critics argue that Barr's mischaracterized the Obama administration's position on drone strikes in an attempt to defend the Soleimani strike.

"Barr is comparing apples to oranges," according to CNN legal analyst Steve Vladeck.

"The Obama administration took the view that those strikes were authorized by Congress through the 2001 Authorization for the Use of Military Force, as opposed to the President's inherent constitutional authority as commander in chief. With those different authorities come different legal analysis," he said.

"The reason why imminence is viewed as such an essential part of the Article II question is because, without it, the President would arguably have the authority to use military force by himself in a remarkably broad array of situations," Vladeck added.

Details of the administration's legal argument remain unclear as the War Powers Resolution notification sent to Congress in the days after the operation remains classified.

But it broadly hinges on the same argument used by the Obama administration to conduct operations against ISIS -- a provision stating the President is authorized to use military force to defend the US against "the continuing threat posed by Iraq."

While many of the post-9/11 Office of Legal Counsel opinions related to presidential war powers have been withdrawn by previous administrations, there are still several that remain in force and could be cited by the administration to defend the strike against Soleimani.

One such opinion from 2002 explains the view of broad presidential authority to order military action without any additional legal authority.

"Article II vests in the President, as Chief Executive and Commander in Chief, the constitutional authority to use such military forces as are provided to him by Congress to engage in military hostilities to protect the national interest of the United States. The Constitution nowhere requires for the exercise of such authority the consent of Congress," it states.

US national security adviser Robert O'Brien also told reporters last week that the killing of Soleimani was "fully authorized" under the 2002 Authorization for Use of Military Force.

However, the administration has failed to convince congressional Democrats that the 2002 AUMF provided the legal authorization to conduct the strike.

'Totally consistent'

President Donald Trump's claim last week that Soleimani was targeting four embassies before he was killed, has only fueled more questions about the administration's rationale for carrying out the strike.

Defense Secretary Mark Esper on Sunday would not provide intelligence to back up Trump's comments but said he shared the President's belief that the embassies were threatened by Soleimani.

Esper also explicitly said on CBS that he had not seen any intelligence to back up Trump's claim about the four diplomatic outposts.

"I didn't see one with regard to four embassies," Esper said when asked if there was a specific piece of evidence.

O'Brien said "very reasonable security precautions" were taken, but suggested no specific warning was given to the embassy in Baghdad.

State Department security officials weren't notified of 'imminent' threats to US embassies

"We're not going to cut and run every time somebody threatens us," O'Brien said on Sunday when ABC asked why the Baghdad embassy was not evacuated. He emphasized military reinforcements which were moved to the region. "We are not going to have another Benghazi," he said, referring to a 2012 attack in Libya that left four Americans dead, including the US ambassador.

Pompeo has not said there were any threats to specific US embassies, describing the threat posed by Soleimani as one that "included attacks on US embassies."

Trump's claim was further undermined Monday after CNN reported State Department officials involved in US embassy security were not made aware of imminent threats to four specific US embassies.

Trump said Monday the intelligence that led to Soleimani's killing has been "totally consistent" but again declined to provide evidence supporting the claim.

"Well first of all, I think it's been totally consistent but here's what's consistent: We killed Soleimani, the number one terrorist in the world by every account. That person killed a lot of Americans, killed a lot of people. We killed him," Trump told reporters when asked specifically about the threat to the four US embassies.