Agnes Callamard, the United Nations special rapporteur on extrajudicial executions, speaks at a press conference in Brussels on December 3, 2019. (Photo: Aris Oikonomou/AFP via Getty Images)
Special Rapporteur on Extrajudicial Executions Demands Official UN Probe of Soleimani Assassination
"Messages and bilateral exchanges are not enough," said Agnes Callamard.
The United Nations special rapporteur on extrajudicial executions on Monday called for an impartial probe into the legality of the U.S. assassination of Iranian General Qasem Soleimani, warning that strongly worded denunciations from the international community are far from a sufficient response.
"Messages and bilateral exchanges are not enough," Agnes Callamard tweeted in response to U.N. Secretary General Antonio Guterres' call for deescalation of military tensions between the U.S. and Iran.
Callamard urged Guterres to activate Article 99 of the U.N. charter and "establish an impartial inquiry into [the] lawfulness of Soleimani's killing and events leading up to it." Article 99 gives the secretary general authority to bring to the U.N. Security Council "any matter which... may threaten the maintenance of international peace and security."
Callamard tweeted last week that the U.S. drone strike that killed Soleimani in Baghdad was likely a violation of international law, an assessment echoed by other legal experts.
President Donald Trump and members of his administration justified the strike on the grounds that Soleimani was plotting "imminent" attacks on American forces in Iraq, but the White House has yet to present any evidence supporting its self-defense narrative. Callamard told Reuters Saturday that the U.S. assassination of Soleimani "appears far more retaliatory for past acts than anticipatory for imminent self-defense."
"Lawful justifications for such killings are very narrowly defined and it is hard to imagine how any of these can apply to these killings," Callamard added.
During a press conference on Tuesday, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo failed to cite a specific example of the supposedly imminent threat that warranted Soleimani's assassination.
Karen Greenberg, director of the Center on National Security at Fordham University School of Law, argued in a New York Times op-ed Monday that the U.S. assassination of Soleimani was both "illegal" and a "predictable" consequence of the dangerous precedents set by the so-called war on terror.
"In employing the euphemism 'targeted killing' for a member of a sovereign state," Greenberg wrote, "the Trump administration has exposed the faulty assumptions and dangerous legacy posed by the war on terror's targeted killing policy."
"A policy that attempted to cordon off the war on terror from the rules of war, that depended on 'trust me' government, and that rationalized the expansion of executive authority without congressional approval," said Greenberg, "set the foundation for last week's killing and its unleashing of threats of violent retaliation."
We are at a crossroads
This country and this world are at a monumental crossroads. US voters have an opportunity to beat back the forces of fascism and confront the billionaires who are rigging the economy, our media system, and our democracy, making it increasingly impossible for ordinary people to get by. We’re not just talking about the election. We’re talking about what must be done once these fascist elements are vanquished from power. We need a bolder set of solutions than what either major party has so far been willing to offer and a working-class movement ready to fight like hell for it. Trump didn't emerge from nowhere. The conditions that fueled MAGA authoritarianism were created by decades of radical neoliberal economic policies and a corrupt political system dominated by corporate interests. They slashed taxes on the super-rich, promising that the benefits would trickle down. They said giveaways to the corporate titans would make life more affordable for the rest of us. It was all bullshit. And when a bitter, betrayed populace searches for someone to blame, right-wing demagogues have little trouble finding scapegoats. People know when they're being lied to, but you won't hear any of this from the corporate media. Only independent journalism—powered and funded by people who believe in building a better world—can deliver truly trustworthy daily news. Our Fall Campaign is underway, and we need your help. To power our newsroom through the rest of the year, we need to raise $125,000 by midnight on October 31. So if you share our vision, please contribute whatever you can to sustain our work. |
The United Nations special rapporteur on extrajudicial executions on Monday called for an impartial probe into the legality of the U.S. assassination of Iranian General Qasem Soleimani, warning that strongly worded denunciations from the international community are far from a sufficient response.
"Messages and bilateral exchanges are not enough," Agnes Callamard tweeted in response to U.N. Secretary General Antonio Guterres' call for deescalation of military tensions between the U.S. and Iran.
Callamard urged Guterres to activate Article 99 of the U.N. charter and "establish an impartial inquiry into [the] lawfulness of Soleimani's killing and events leading up to it." Article 99 gives the secretary general authority to bring to the U.N. Security Council "any matter which... may threaten the maintenance of international peace and security."
Callamard tweeted last week that the U.S. drone strike that killed Soleimani in Baghdad was likely a violation of international law, an assessment echoed by other legal experts.
President Donald Trump and members of his administration justified the strike on the grounds that Soleimani was plotting "imminent" attacks on American forces in Iraq, but the White House has yet to present any evidence supporting its self-defense narrative. Callamard told Reuters Saturday that the U.S. assassination of Soleimani "appears far more retaliatory for past acts than anticipatory for imminent self-defense."
"Lawful justifications for such killings are very narrowly defined and it is hard to imagine how any of these can apply to these killings," Callamard added.
During a press conference on Tuesday, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo failed to cite a specific example of the supposedly imminent threat that warranted Soleimani's assassination.
Karen Greenberg, director of the Center on National Security at Fordham University School of Law, argued in a New York Times op-ed Monday that the U.S. assassination of Soleimani was both "illegal" and a "predictable" consequence of the dangerous precedents set by the so-called war on terror.
"In employing the euphemism 'targeted killing' for a member of a sovereign state," Greenberg wrote, "the Trump administration has exposed the faulty assumptions and dangerous legacy posed by the war on terror's targeted killing policy."
"A policy that attempted to cordon off the war on terror from the rules of war, that depended on 'trust me' government, and that rationalized the expansion of executive authority without congressional approval," said Greenberg, "set the foundation for last week's killing and its unleashing of threats of violent retaliation."
The United Nations special rapporteur on extrajudicial executions on Monday called for an impartial probe into the legality of the U.S. assassination of Iranian General Qasem Soleimani, warning that strongly worded denunciations from the international community are far from a sufficient response.
"Messages and bilateral exchanges are not enough," Agnes Callamard tweeted in response to U.N. Secretary General Antonio Guterres' call for deescalation of military tensions between the U.S. and Iran.
Callamard urged Guterres to activate Article 99 of the U.N. charter and "establish an impartial inquiry into [the] lawfulness of Soleimani's killing and events leading up to it." Article 99 gives the secretary general authority to bring to the U.N. Security Council "any matter which... may threaten the maintenance of international peace and security."
Callamard tweeted last week that the U.S. drone strike that killed Soleimani in Baghdad was likely a violation of international law, an assessment echoed by other legal experts.
President Donald Trump and members of his administration justified the strike on the grounds that Soleimani was plotting "imminent" attacks on American forces in Iraq, but the White House has yet to present any evidence supporting its self-defense narrative. Callamard told Reuters Saturday that the U.S. assassination of Soleimani "appears far more retaliatory for past acts than anticipatory for imminent self-defense."
"Lawful justifications for such killings are very narrowly defined and it is hard to imagine how any of these can apply to these killings," Callamard added.
During a press conference on Tuesday, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo failed to cite a specific example of the supposedly imminent threat that warranted Soleimani's assassination.
Karen Greenberg, director of the Center on National Security at Fordham University School of Law, argued in a New York Times op-ed Monday that the U.S. assassination of Soleimani was both "illegal" and a "predictable" consequence of the dangerous precedents set by the so-called war on terror.
"In employing the euphemism 'targeted killing' for a member of a sovereign state," Greenberg wrote, "the Trump administration has exposed the faulty assumptions and dangerous legacy posed by the war on terror's targeted killing policy."
"A policy that attempted to cordon off the war on terror from the rules of war, that depended on 'trust me' government, and that rationalized the expansion of executive authority without congressional approval," said Greenberg, "set the foundation for last week's killing and its unleashing of threats of violent retaliation."