In one of the series of blatant lies the USA has told to justify the assassination of Soleimani, Mike Pompeo said that Soleimani was killed because he was planning \u201cImminent attacks<\/strong><\/span>\u201d<\/a> on US citizens. It is a careful choice of word. Pompeo is specifically referring to the Bethlehem Doctrine of Pre-Emptive Self Defence<\/strong>.<\/span><\/p>\n Developed by Daniel Bethlehem when Legal Adviser to first Netanyahu\u2019s government and then Blair\u2019s, the Bethlehem Doctrine is that states have a right of \u201cpre-emptive self-defence\u201d against \u201cimminent\u201d attack. That is something most people, and most international law experts and judges, would accept. Including me.<\/span><\/p>\n What very few people, and almost no international lawyers, accept is the key to the Bethlehem Doctrine \u2013 that here \u201cImminent\u201d \u2013 the word used so carefully by Pompeo \u2013 does not need to have its normal meanings of either \u201csoon\u201d or \u201cabout to happen\u201d. An attack may be deemed \u201cimminent\u201d, according to the Bethlehem Doctrine, even if you know no details of it or when it might occur. So you may be assassinated by a drone or bomb strike \u2013 and the doctrine was specifically developed to justify such strikes \u2013 because of \u201cintelligence\u201d you are engaged in a plot, when that intelligence neither says what the plot is nor when it might occur. Or even more tenuous, because there is intelligence you have engaged in a plot before, so it is reasonable to kill you in case you do so again.<\/span><\/p>\n I am not inventing the Bethlehem Doctrine. It has been the formal legal justification for drone strikes and targeted assassinations by the Israeli, US and UK governments for a decade. Here it is<\/a> <\/strong><\/span>in academic paper form, published by Bethlehem after he left government service (the form in which it is adopted by the US, UK and Israeli Governments is classified information<\/a><\/strong><\/span>).<\/span><\/p>\n So when Pompeo says attacks by Soleimani were \u201cimminent\u201d he is not using the word in the normal sense in the English language. It is no use asking him what, where or when these \u201cimminent\u201d attacks were planned to be. He is referencing the Bethlehem Doctrine under which you can kill people on the basis of a feeling that they may have been about to do something.<\/span><\/p>\n The idea that killing an individual who you have received information is going to attack you, but you do not know when, where or how, can be justified as self-defence, has not gained widespread acceptance \u2013 or indeed virtually any acceptance \u2013 in legal circles outside the ranks of the most extreme devoted neo-conservatives and zionists. Daniel Bethlehem became the FCO\u2019s Chief Legal Adviser, brought in by Jack Straw, precisely because every single one of the FCO\u2019s existing Legal Advisers believed the Iraq War to be illegal. In 2004, when the House of Commons was considering the legality of the war on Iraq, Bethlehem produced a remarkable paper for consideration which said that it was legal because the courts and existing law were wrong<\/a><\/strong><\/span>, a defence which has seldom succeeded in court.<\/span><\/p>\n (b)<\/span> In the absence of a respectable international lawyer willing to argue this kind of tosh, Blair brought in Bethlehem as Chief Legal Adviser, the man who advised Netanyahu on Israel\u2019s security wall and who was willing to say that attacking Iraq was legal on the basis of Saddam\u2019s \u201cimminent threat\u201d to the UK, which proved to be non-existent. It says everything about Bethlehem\u2019s eagerness for killing that the formulation of the Bethlehem Doctrine on extrajudicial execution by drone came after the Iraq War, and he still gave not one second\u2019s thought to the fact that the intelligence on the \u201cimminent threat\u201d can be wrong. Assassinating people on the basis of faulty intelligence is not addressed by Bethlehem in setting out his doctrine. The bloodlust is strong in this one.<\/span><\/p>\n There are literally scores of academic articles, in every respected journal of international law, taking down the Bethlehem Doctrine for its obvious absurdities and revolting special pleading. My favourite is this one<\/a><\/strong><\/span> by Bethlehem\u2019s predecessor as the FCO Chief Legal Adviser, Sir Michael Wood and his ex-Deputy Elizabeth Wilmshurst.<\/span><\/p>\n I addressed the Bethlehem Doctrine as part of my contribution to a book reflecting on Chomsky<\/a><\/strong><\/span>\u2018s essay \u201cOn the Responsibility of Intellectuals\u201d<\/span><\/p>\n In the UK recently, the Attorney<\/span> So that is lie one. When Pompeo says Soleimani was planning \u201cimminent\u201d attacks, he is using the Bethlehem definition under which \u201cimminent\u201d means neither \u201csoon\u201d nor \u201cdefinitely going to happen\u201d. To twist a word that far from its normal English usage is to lie. To do so to justify killing people is obscene. That is why, if I finish up in the bottom-most pit of hell, the worst thing about the experience will be the company of Daniel Bethlehem.<\/span><\/p>\n Let us now move on to the next lie, which is being widely repeated, this time originated by Donald Trump, that Soleimani was responsible for the \u201cdeaths of hundreds, if not thousands, of Americans\u201d. This lie has been parroted by everybody, Republicans and Democrats alike.<\/span><\/p>\n Soleimani was a murderer, responsible for the deaths of thousands, including hundreds of Americans. But this reckless move escalates the situation with Iran and increases the likelihood of more deaths and new Middle East conflict. Our priority must be to avoid another costly war.<\/p>\n — Elizabeth Warren (@ewarren) January 3, 2020<\/a><\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\nfollowing this line, I am also of the view that the wider principles of the law on self-defence also require closer scrutiny. I am not persuaded that the approach of doctrinal purity reflected in the Judgments of the International Court of Justice in this area provide a helpful edifice on which a coherent legal regime, able to address the exigencies of contemporary international life and discourage resort to unilateral action, is easily crafted;<\/span><\/p>\n
\nGeneral gave a speech in defence<\/a> <\/strong><\/span>of the UK\u2019s drone policy, the assassination<\/span>
\nof people \u2013 including British nationals \u2013 abroad. This execution<\/span>
\nwithout a hearing is based on several criteria, he reassured us. His<\/span>
\nspeech was repeated slavishly in the British media. In fact, the Guardian<\/span>
\nnewspaper simply republished the government press release absolutely<\/span>
\nverbatim, and stuck a reporter\u2019s byline at the top.<\/span>
\nThe media have no interest in a critical appraisal of the process<\/span>
\nby which the British government regularly executes without trial. Yet<\/span>
\nin fact it is extremely interesting. The genesis of the policy lay in the<\/span>
\nappointment of Daniel Bethlehem as the Foreign and Commonwealth<\/span>
\nOffice\u2019s Chief Legal Adviser. Jack Straw made the appointment, and for<\/span>
\nthe first time ever it was external, and not from the Foreign Office\u2019s own<\/span>
\nlarge team of world-renowned international lawyers. The reason for that<\/span>
\nis not in dispute. Every single one of the FCO\u2019s legal advisers had advised<\/span>
\nthat the invasion of Iraq was illegal, and Straw wished to find a new head<\/span>
\nof the department more in tune with the neo-conservative world view.<\/span>
\nStraw went to extremes. He appointed Daniel Bethlehem, the legal<\/span>
\n\u2018expert\u2019 who provided the legal advice to Benjamin Netanyahu on the<\/span>
\n\u2018legality\u2019 of building the great wall hemming in the Palestinians away<\/span>
\nfrom their land and water resources. Bethlehem was an enthusiastic<\/span>
\nproponent of the invasion of Iraq. He was also the most enthusiastic<\/span>
\nproponent in the world of drone strikes.<\/span>
\nBethlehem provided an opinion on the legality of drone strikes<\/span>
\nwhich is, to say the least, controversial. To give one example, Bethlehem<\/span>
\naccepts that established principles of international law dictate that<\/span>
\nlethal force may be used only to prevent an attack which is \u2018imminent\u2019.<\/span>
\nBethlehem argues that for an attack to be \u2018imminent\u2019 does not require it<\/span>
\nto be \u2018soon\u2019. Indeed you can kill to avert an \u2018imminent attack\u2019 even if you<\/span>
\nhave no information on when and where it will be. You can instead rely<\/span>
\non your target\u2019s \u2018pattern of behaviour\u2019; that is, if he has attacked before,<\/span>
\nit is reasonable to assume he will attack again and that such an attack is<\/span>
\n\u2018imminent\u2019.<\/span>
\nThere is a much deeper problem: that the evidence against the<\/span>
\ntarget is often extremely dubious. Yet even allowing the evidence to<\/span>
\nbe perfect, it is beyond me that the state can kill in such circumstances<\/span>
\nwithout it being considered a death penalty imposed without trial for<\/span>
\npast crimes, rather than to frustrate another \u2018imminent\u2019 one.<\/span>
\nYou would think that background would make an interesting<\/span>
\nstory. Yet the entire \u2018serious\u2019 British media published the government<\/span>
\nline, without a single journalist, not one, writing about the fact that<\/span>
\nBethlehem\u2019s proposed definition of \u2018imminent\u2019 has been widely rejected<\/span>
\nby the international law community. The public knows none of this. They<\/span>
\njust \u2018know\u2019 that drone strikes are keeping us safe from deadly attack by<\/span>
\nterrorists, because the government says so, and nobody has attempted to<\/span>
\ngive them other information<\/span><\/p>\n\n