signalmankenneth
Verified User
Question, why is our military following illegal orders to attack Iran? Once Trump leaves office, I would like to see him, Pete and others in the Trump administration brought up on war crimes charges in the Hague?!!
Administration offers shifting explanations as it acts without congressional approval or legal premise
The Trump administration is waging an illegal war on Iran, one that defies both the US constitution and international armed conflict laws, according to several legal scholars and bipartisan lawmakers.
The Senate will vote Wednesday on whether to halt Donald Trump’s military offensive, which he launched on 28 February. Hundreds of people, including six US personnel, have been killed in a conflict that has now expanded to Lebanon, Syria, Iraq, Israel and the Persian Gulf.
The Trump administration has offered shifting explanations for its decision to launch attacks on Iran, at times describing a more pre-emptive war of choice designed to degrade Iran’s offensive and nuclear capabilities, while at other times asserting that the Iranians weren’t willing to renounce their nuclear ambitions, or that the US joined the attack to protect American interests after Israel had committed to launching a military offensive of its own.
“An Iranian regime armed with long-range missiles and nuclear weapons would be a dire threat to every American,” the president said in his first public remarks from Washington on Monday. “We cannot allow a nation that raises terrorist armies to possess such weapons.”
Trump has also described broader wartime objectives, including eliminating threats posed by Iran’s regional proxy forces. He has not set out a clear timeline for achieving his various goals.
Marco Rubio, the US secretary of state, offered a slightly different explanation, saying that the White House was compelled to launch strikes on Iran because its close ally Israel was determined to act.
“It was abundantly clear that if Iran came under attack by anyone – the United States or Israel or anyone – they were going to respond, and respond against the United States,” Rubio told reporters gathered at the Capitol.
“There absolutely was an imminent threat,” Rubio said.
Several lawyers have challenged the legal basis for the administration’s wide-ranging explanations for waging war.
“Those are military policy objectives,” said Wells Dixon, a senior attorney at the Center for Constitutional Rights after reviewing Trump’s rationale. “They are not a legal basis to launch an armed attack against another country.”
Marko Milanovic, a professor of International law at the University of Reading, agreed that Iran may pose a threat, but said that there are many ways to respond. “Using force would require a basis in self defense,” he said.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2026/mar/04/trump-administration-illegal-war-iran-experts
Administration offers shifting explanations as it acts without congressional approval or legal premise
The Trump administration is waging an illegal war on Iran, one that defies both the US constitution and international armed conflict laws, according to several legal scholars and bipartisan lawmakers.
The Senate will vote Wednesday on whether to halt Donald Trump’s military offensive, which he launched on 28 February. Hundreds of people, including six US personnel, have been killed in a conflict that has now expanded to Lebanon, Syria, Iraq, Israel and the Persian Gulf.
The Trump administration has offered shifting explanations for its decision to launch attacks on Iran, at times describing a more pre-emptive war of choice designed to degrade Iran’s offensive and nuclear capabilities, while at other times asserting that the Iranians weren’t willing to renounce their nuclear ambitions, or that the US joined the attack to protect American interests after Israel had committed to launching a military offensive of its own.
“An Iranian regime armed with long-range missiles and nuclear weapons would be a dire threat to every American,” the president said in his first public remarks from Washington on Monday. “We cannot allow a nation that raises terrorist armies to possess such weapons.”
Trump has also described broader wartime objectives, including eliminating threats posed by Iran’s regional proxy forces. He has not set out a clear timeline for achieving his various goals.
Marco Rubio, the US secretary of state, offered a slightly different explanation, saying that the White House was compelled to launch strikes on Iran because its close ally Israel was determined to act.
“It was abundantly clear that if Iran came under attack by anyone – the United States or Israel or anyone – they were going to respond, and respond against the United States,” Rubio told reporters gathered at the Capitol.
“There absolutely was an imminent threat,” Rubio said.
Several lawyers have challenged the legal basis for the administration’s wide-ranging explanations for waging war.
“Those are military policy objectives,” said Wells Dixon, a senior attorney at the Center for Constitutional Rights after reviewing Trump’s rationale. “They are not a legal basis to launch an armed attack against another country.”
Marko Milanovic, a professor of International law at the University of Reading, agreed that Iran may pose a threat, but said that there are many ways to respond. “Using force would require a basis in self defense,” he said.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2026/mar/04/trump-administration-illegal-war-iran-experts
