Question 4: The Feb. 25 U.S. strike was only in Syria. Did Iraq consent to June 27 U.S. strike on its territory?
Question 5: If Iraq did not consent, what's the international legal justification, and will the US submit a letter to United Nations (under article 51 of UN Charter)?
Question 6: DoD states it targeted facilities used by "Iran-backed militia groups, including Kata'ib Hezbollah (KH)." Does DoD/USG acknowledge that KH is a unit of the Iraqi armed forces?
Background reading (by Crispin Smith Jan. 2020 on KH and Iraq):
Question 7: If DoD/USG acknowledges KH is a part of the Iraqi armed forces, does that affect the analysis for the President's conducting these operations under domestic and international law?
Question 8: The DoD statement appears to be playing with words, or else is clumsily written.👇
Were the "operational and weapons storage facilities" that the U.S. struck being used by the groups to target U.S. personnel and facilities via UAVs (or were they for other purposes)?
Question 9: In answer to questions that involve an intelligence assessment (eg Questions 1 & 8) what is the U.S. intelligence community's level of confidence in that assessment?
<end>
Addendum
This addresses Q8:
"A U.S. defense official, speaking on the condition of anonymity ... said one of the sites hit was used in the launch and recovery of armed unmanned aircraft."
"American officials said the militias used the sites targeted in Syria mainly for storage and logistics purposes; the site hit in Iraq was used to launch and recover the armed drones."
Military Times reporting all three sites nexus to UAV attacks.
"The three targets were specifically associated with the militia drone threat — command, control and logistics — the defense official told Military Times."
Following the Feb. 25 strike, I mapped out some of the international legal arguments the USG is likely claiming here with respect to a series of ongoing military strikes against US personnel and facilities.
"The Speaker shall appoint 13 Members to the Select Committee, 5 of whom shall be appointed after consultation with the minority leader."
Maybe Members who vote against this Bill should be considered disqualified.
2. Good to see the bill to establish the January 6 Select Committee explicitly highlights investigation into "how technology, including online platforms ... may have factored into the motivation, organization, and execution of the domestic terrorist attack on the Capitol."
3. Judicious use of these powers👇 in public hearings could be an enormous benefit to the public and to truth-seeking.
Questioning for longer than 5-minutes
Questioning by staff of the Select Committee
“The Trump Organization is expected to be hit with criminal charges as soon as next week by Manhattan District Attorney Cy Vance’s office in a case that Trump attorneys say is tied to tax-related conduct, multiple people familiar with the matter tell NBC”
2. Ron Fischetti, an attorney for the Trumps “said company lawyers met with Vance’s office on Thursday and tried to persuade the Manhattan D.A.’s office not to go forward.”
3. “Manhattan district attorney’s office has informed Donald J. Trump’s lawyers that it is considering criminal charges against his family business”
“Vance Jr. could announce charges against the Trump Organization and the executive, Allen H. Weisselberg” nytimes.com/2021/06/25/nyr…
Giuliani's "misconduct directly inflamed tensions that bubbled over into the events of January 6"
He "communicated demonstrably false and misleading statements to courts, lawmakers and the public at large in his capacity as lawyer for" Mr. Trump and the Trump Campaign.
2. "One only has to look at the ongoing present public discord…which erupted into violence, insurrection and death on January 6, 2021 at the U.S. Capitol, to understand the extent of the damage that can be done when the public is misled by false information about the elections."
3. Mr. Giuliani is:
"suspended from the practice of law in the State of New York, effective immediately, and until further order of this Court" and "until such time as disciplinary matters pending before the Committee have been concluded."
In @PostOpinions, former FBI General Counsel @AWeissmann_ and I assess FBI Director Wray's two days of testimony on #Jan6.
First, Wray failed to explain FBI policy on social media monitoring that may be "galling to lawmakers" when they find out. washingtonpost.com/opinions/2021/…
2. Watch👇
@AOC: Does FBI monitor social media to combat violent extremism (such as threats to Capitol on social media pre-#Jan6)
Wray: DOJ policy prevents FBI without "proper predication"
DOJ policy: Can monitor social media WITHOUT predication for special events (like Jan 6)
3. Watch👇
@RepSwalwell: Does FBI have authority to monitor open source websites/social media where groups post about threats?
Wray: Att'y General Guidelines prevent FBI without "proper predication"
A.G. Guidelines: Can monitor WITHOUT predication for special events (eg #Jan6)
2. "Much of the correspondence also occurred during a tense week…when Mr Rosen and his top deputies realized that one of their peers had plotted with Mr Trump to first oust Mr Rosen and then to try to use federal law enforcement to force Georgia to overturn its election..."
NYT
3 With the Georgia criminal investigation note:
House Oversight Committee also requests transcribed interview with former US Attorney for Northern District of Goergia Byung Jin Pak who, the Committee notes, resigned on Jan 3 "reportedly under pressure from the Trump White House"