Monday @just_security:

We have dozens of questions for Congress, reporters, investigators to ask to get to bottom of what happened with U.S. #DroneStrike in Kabul on Aug 29.

cc: @EricSchmittNYT @mgordonwsj @helenecooper @barbarastarrcnn @missy_ryan @JenGriffinFNC @laraseligman
2. Example

As @ICRC explains, the presumption of civilian status is a part of binding laws of war. Isn’t it true that @DeptofDefense has highly anomalous view that considers this rule NOT part of binding laws of war? Does the US government as a whole agree with DoD’s position?
3. Who were the most senior DoD officials who authorized or signed off on the strike?

Before taking the strike, what did DoD estimate would be total number of civilian casualties killed?

What did DoD consider would have been acceptable level of civilian casualties?
4. Has DoD used its standard rule that places the burden on those who allege civilian casualties and requires proof by preponderance of evidence (more than 50% likelihood) that civilians were killed before DoD will even consider the reports credible for purpose of investigation?

• • •

Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to force a refresh

Keep Current with Ryan Goodman

Ryan Goodman Profile picture

Stay in touch and get notified when new unrolls are available from this author!

Read all threads

This Thread may be Removed Anytime!


Twitter may remove this content at anytime! Save it as PDF for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video
  1. Follow @ThreadReaderApp to mention us!

  2. From a Twitter thread mention us with a keyword "unroll"
@threadreaderapp unroll

Practice here first or read more on our help page!

More from @rgoodlaw

10 Sep
Many important insights and things that needed to be said in @BCFinucane @StephenPomper essay.

A most important read on:

War Powers
Executive Branch lawyering
Congressional oversight
National security

Should be centerpiece @ABANatSec @asilorg with @charlie_savage as discussant
2. On the list of things that needed to be said is the use of the “legally available" standard in Executive Branch lawyering to get to yes on contentious policies.

An issue that @charlie_savage spotlighted in his book Power Wars.…
3. The @just_security essay then reveals new details of how that standard has supported counterterrorism warfare.

cc: @barbarastarrcnn @missy_ryan @EllieCKaufman @MarkMazzettiNYT @glubold @mgordonwsj @Meghann_MT @karendeyoung1 @GregJaffe @alexbward @joshtpm @dklaidman
Read 5 tweets
23 Aug
One of most important accounts to follow on #Afganistan👇

If Mr. @AmrullahSaleh2 forms a government-in-exile, it significantly changes equation on recognition of Taliban, on United Nations credentials for Taliban, on interpretation of US sanctions and their humanitarian impact.
2. To spell some of this out, if @AmrullahSaleh2 forms a competitor government, it provides countries with great flexibility in withholding recognition from the Taliban.

@FCDOGovUK @CanadaDOFA @eu_eeas @GermanyDipl

@HouseForeign @SFRCdems @SenateForeign…
3. If @AmrullahSaleh2 forms a competitor government, it provides UN Member States with great flexibility in denying Taliban a seat at the #UnitedNations.

@UKUN_NewYork @irishmissionun @franceonu @NorwayUN @EstoniaUN @EUatUN @MexOnu…
Read 5 tweets
19 Aug
Good observations by @AaronBlake.👇

We just published opinion piece by @LisaCurtisDC.

"I witnessed first-hand the Taliban’s obstinance to breaking ties with al-Qaeda ... The most the U.S. negotiators could extract from the Taliban was a flimsy pledge."…
2. Longer (without internal ellipses):

"I witnessed first-hand the Taliban’s obstinance to breaking ties with al-Qaeda during countless hours of negotiations in Doha, Qatar. The most the U.S. negotiators could extract from the Taliban was a flimsy pledge"…
3. Her larger point here is about the decision whether (if ever) to recognize the Taliban government, the need for #HumanRights conditions, and to see actual compliance with human rights and #counterterrorism demands.

And a critique of both Trump and Biden actions.
Read 4 tweets
18 Aug
Despite the headline, there’s a lot in here that points instead to an intelligence failure.

1. The timing of some of these warnings came very late in the game (including when it was increasingly obvious that Afghan mil could collapse)

2. “Key American decisions were made long before July, when the consensus among intelligence agencies was that the Afghan government could hang on for as long as two years, which would have left ample time for an orderly exit.”

That’s called an intelligence failure.
3. “As late as a week before Kabul’s fall, the overall intelligence analysis was that a Taliban takeover was not yet inevitable.”

That’s more evidence of an intelligence failure.
Read 9 tweets
16 Aug
Important statement by over two dozen United Nations experts that meets the moment.

"It is unacceptable for States to stand on the sidelines when a [UN] listed terrorist organization overruns the territory of #Afghanistan and engages in acts that may amount to war crimes..."
2. "International law requires that those engaged in acts of terrorism be dealt with fully with the considerable capacity of the law and practice that has developed since the Taliban were first designated as a terrorist organization by the United Nations Security Council."
3. Their statement also calls for UN member states "to apply to the fullest extent and consistent with international law, the international sanctions on designated terrorist organizations, including the obligations of all States to suppress and prevent terrorist acts."
Read 4 tweets
11 Aug
Mounting evidence of Donald Trump's criminal intent under federal and Georgia state law.

U.S. Attorney in Georgia testifies: Trump was going to fire him for refusing to back up Trump's false claims (including on call with Raffensperger) of voter fraud.…
2. "Mr Pak had refused to support similar election fraud claims because of the lack of evidence, according to two people familiar with his investigation. 'You have your never-Trumper US attorney there,' Mr Trump told Mr Raffensperger during their phone call."

@ktbenner reporting
3. I put these in a separate thread.

Top candidates for crimes that fit these facts:

18 U.S. Code § 610
18 U.S. Code § 595

@CREWcrew's complaint specifically cites the facts involving the removal of Pak, for which we now have testimony under oath.…
Read 4 tweets

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!

This site is made by just two indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3/month or $30/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Too expensive? Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal Become our Patreon

Thank you for your support!

Follow Us on Twitter!