Brzezinski: US Should Shoot Down Israeli Bombers Targeting Iran's Nuclear Facilities

[FireGarden]

American interests are that Iran ceases its illegal nuclear weapons program and keep the products of that program out of the hands of terrorists.

How would a limited military attack achieve this? And I doubt a limited attack would be possible. It assumes that the Iranians would not respond.

So you are left with regime change. And that means a huge war in a region which is very important to the whole world, including China.

And besides which, you haven't answered my point: Do you want to give Israel the right to force America into war with Iran? Letting Israeli planes bomb Iran would be a huge risk for America.

 

[Sword_Of_Truth]

How would a limited military attack achieve this?

Israel has the means to set back the Iranian nuclear program by years, perhaps decades. They'll take what they can get.

It assumes that the Iranians would not respond.

You mean they might give more money to Hamas and Hezbollah?

So you are left with regime change. And that means a huge war in a region which is very important to the whole world, including China.

No we're not. The US and Israel want Iran not to have the bomb. You are reading too much into this. Bush critics have been screaming for years that regime change in Iraq was unnnecssary, that Saddam was contained. But suddenly now regime change becomes the only option?

And besides which, you haven't answered my point: Do you want to give Israel the right to force America into war with Iran?

Israel wouldn't be forcing America into anything. Iran is already at war with Israel and the USA and even then, it's still Irans choice how they respond to an attack. And it should be Iran that is held responsible. Not Israel for acting in self defense.

 

[AWPrime]

You mean they might give more money to Hamas and Hezbollah?

You mean like your Saudi friends are doing?

 

[WildCat]

IAnd why on Earth should Iran accept that America is a neutral third party when American bombs are being dropped on Iran from American planes? -- Even if those bombs and planes have an Israeli flag painted on them.

Now explain to me again how Iran shoul be considered a neutral 3rd party when Iranian weapons are being used to killl Israeli citizens even though they have a Hezbollah or Hamas flag on them?

You now accept that Iran is not a neutral 3rd party and that Iran is justified in attacking Iran, yes?

If another American war pushes oil to 4-500 dollars a barrel, I think the world may decide that America costs more than it's worth. China has oil interests too, you know.

China is not about to become a nuclear wasteland over the price of oil.

 

[WildCat]

On the other hand those pilots could simply be tried for treason and be shot.

No, that's not what treason is.

 

[WildCat]

Their are severely overrated, Americans with F-22s would annihilate their air force.

I doubt there's any F-22s in Iraq. What mission would they possibly have there?

Not that I think the US would shoot down Israeli planes. Besides, Israel could get to Iran without going over Iraq if they absolutely had to, assuming they have mid-air refueling capability. They could go over the Red Sea, arond the Arabian Peninsula and then to Iran without entering any other country's air space.

 

[Puppycow]

No, that's not what treason is.

I agree with you that people in this thread are misusing the words treason and traitor. Disobeying an order per se does not necessarily rise to the level of treason.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treason

In law, treason is the crime that covers some of the more serious acts of disloyalty to one's sovereign or nation. Historically, treason also covered the murder of specific social superiors, such as the murder of a husband by his wife (treason against the king was known as high treason and treason against a lesser superior was petit treason). A person who commits treason is known in law as a traitor.

Oran's Dictionary of the Law (1983) defines treason as: "...[a]...citizen's actions to help a foreign government overthrow, make war against, or seriously injure the [parent nation]." In many nations, it is also often considered treason to attempt or conspire to overthrow the government, even if no foreign country is aided or involved by such an endeavour.

However, disobeying a lawful order is still a serious crime.

 

[WildCat]

And I shudder to think what would happen should US pilots attempt to engage the most modern and experienced air force on earth.

That would actulally be the US Air Force.

Israelis aren't pushovers like the Iraqi air forces of 1991 or 2003. No one has the experience and the success rate that Israel does in modern jet combat. The C-in-C would be sending americans into a fight where they have a less than 50-50 chance of getting the job done, let alone surviving.

In this theoretical situation IMHO the Israelis would be toast. Their planes would be laden with bombs, making them slower and less maneuverable. US fighters armed only with air-to-air missiles would be at a huge advantage.

Not that I think this has better than 1 chance in a thousand of happening.

 

[WildCat]

I agree with you that people in this thread are misusing the words treason and traitor. Disobeying an order per se does not necessarily rise to the level of treason.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treason


However, disobeying a lawful order is still a serious crime.

You're not using the proper definition of treason. Treason is the only crime defined in the US Constitution:

Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort. No person shall be convicted of treason unless on the testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act, or on confession in open court.

You'd be hard-pressed to claim that Israel is an enemy of the United States.

 

[WildCat]

You mean like your Saudi friends are doing?

Evidence?

 

[AWPrime]

You're not using the proper definition of treason. Treason is the only crime defined in the US Constitution:

"Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort. No person shall be convicted of treason unless on the testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act, or on confession in open court."

You'd be hard-pressed to claim that Israel is an enemy of the United States.

So it wouldn't be treason if an American supplied the Russians with classified US documents and technologies during WWII?

In either case I do think that this would go beyond disobeying a lawful order. As it directly favors another nation.

 

[Puppycow]

You're not using the proper definition of treason. Treason is the only crime defined in the US Constitution:

You'd be hard-pressed to claim that Israel is an enemy of the United States.

Interesting. Is there an official definition of "enemy" in the constitution?
In the hypothetical event, there would be hostilities between the two countries. There would not be a congressional declaration of war, but then there hasn't been an official declaration of war since WW2, has there?

 

[WildCat]

So it wouldn't be treason if an American supplied the Russians with classified US documents and technologies during WWII?

Nope, the USSR was an ally then, not an enemy. It would still be illegal, but not treason.

 

[AWPrime]

Evidence?

According to a summary of the meeting written by a Hamas official, Mr. Mishaal and other Hamas representatives thanked their Saudi hosts for continuing ''to send aid to the people through the civilian and popular channels, despite all the American pressures exerted on them.''
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/09/17/world/flow-of-saudis-cash-to-hamas-is-scrutinized.html

But the strongest documented cases that demonstrate the ties between Saudi Arabia's global charities and international terrorism are related to Hamas. These ties were allegedly already in place in the mid-1990s when a Hamas funding group received instructions to write letters of thanks to executives of IIRO and WAMY for funds it had received. In 1994, President Clinton made a brief stop-over in Saudi Arabia during which he complained about Saudi funding of Hamas. These charges about Saudi Arabia bankrolling Hamas have become even more vociferous in recent years.
http://www.jcpa.org/jl/vp504.htm


The Hamas is active in a number of other countries in the Middle East, including Iran, Lebanon and Saudi Arabia. These countries provide support and assistance in funding and operations training.
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/para/hamas-funds.htm

 

[WildCat]

Interesting. Is there an official definition of "enemy" in the constitution?
In the hypothetical event, there would be hostilities between the two countries. There would not be a congressional declaration of war, but then there hasn't been an official declaration of war since WW2, has there?

Congressional authorizations of military force are for all intents and purposes a declaration of war, there is no wording specified under the Constitution to declare war.

Interestingly, the reason we don't use the words "declare war on Country X" any more is for diplomatic and propaganda reasons, so as not to appear to be at war against civilians of that country.

But I'm pretty sure that "enemy" would have to be defined by the POTUS at least before anyone could be tried for treason. It's an extremely high legal hurdle, for that reason a charge of treason is extremely rare. Not even Julius and Ethel Rosenberg, who supplied the USSR with information on the atomic bomb, were charged with treason. They were executed for espionage.

 

[AWPrime]

Nope, the USSR was an ally then, not an enemy. It would still be illegal, but not treason.

Then what would it be? It clearly goes beyond disobeying a lawful order as it directly favors another country at the expense of America.

 

[WildCat]

According to a summary of the meeting written by a Hamas official, Mr. Mishaal and other Hamas representatives thanked their Saudi hosts for continuing ''to send aid to the people through the civilian and popular channels, despite all the American pressures exerted on them.''
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/09/17/world/flow-of-saudis-cash-to-hamas-is-scrutinized.html

But the strongest documented cases that demonstrate the ties between Saudi Arabia's global charities and international terrorism are related to Hamas. These ties were allegedly already in place in the mid-1990s when a Hamas funding group received instructions to write letters of thanks to executives of IIRO and WAMY for funds it had received. In 1994, President Clinton made a brief stop-over in Saudi Arabia during which he complained about Saudi funding of Hamas. These charges about Saudi Arabia bankrolling Hamas have become even more vociferous in recent years.
http://www.jcpa.org/jl/vp504.htm


The Hamas is active in a number of other countries in the Middle East, including Iran, Lebanon and Saudi Arabia. These countries provide support and assistance in funding and operations training.
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/para/hamas-funds.htm

Your examples are of NGOs, not governmental organizations. By that definition the US funded the IRA. Hamas and Hezbollah have long tried to court the Arab world, but for the most part they are pariahs for being so closely linked to the Shia government of Iran.

The Iranian government not only funds Hamas and Hezbollah, they provide weapons and training to them.

 

[WildCat]

Nope, the USSR was an ally then, not an enemy. It would still be illegal, but not treason.

Then what would it be?

Espionage, still punishable by death back then. Not sure about now.

It clearly goes beyond disobeying a lawful order as it directly favors another country at the expense of America.

Doubtful.

 

[AWPrime]

Your examples are of NGOs, not governmental organizations. By that definition the US funded the IRA. Hamas and Hezbollah have long tried to court the Arab world, but for the most part they are pariahs for being so closely linked to the Shia government of Iran.

From my second link:

It would be incorrect to view these charities as purely non-governmental organizations (NGOs) or private charities, as they are mistakenly called. At the apex of each organization's board is a top Saudi official. The Saudi Grand Mufti, who is also a Saudi cabinet member, chairs the Constituent Council of the Muslim World League. The Saudi Minister of Islamic Affairs chairs the secretariat of WAMY and the administrative council of al-Haramain. All three organizations have received large charitable contributions from the Saudi royal family that have been detailed in Saudi periodicals. Indeed, according to legal documents submitted on behalf of the Saudis by their legal team in the firm Baker Botts, in the 9/11 lawsuit, Prince Sultan provided $266,000 a year to the IIRO for sixteen years.12 He also provided a much smaller sum to WAMY. In short, these Saudi charities were full-fledged GOs - governmental organizations.

 

[AWPrime]

Doubtful.

Got anything more?