Does It Really Matter if the Killing of Iran’s Top Terrorist Was “Proper”?

There is no dispute that the demise of General Qassem Soleimani was desirable (with the exception of loony Bernie Sanders).  Yet there is consternation on the Left, mostly, that the head of Iran’s Revolutionary Guard was killed in violation of the 1973 War Powers Act that forbids such action unless the action was justified by “imminent” danger.

In other words, the objection to President Trump’s decision is that legalities may not have been observed.

That is an interesting concern – which The Sensible Conservative as a practicing lawyer certainly appreciates.  But I suspect that the general public cares not one whit about the reasons(s) behind the action.  And the Democrats – and their usual supporters in the media – are making major political miscalculations if they think they do. 

It’s a canard to say, as many believe, “the end never justifies the means”.  Real life says just the opposite.  People usually focus precisely on the result, not the details of the cause.  So what matters to most is that a top world terrorist, implicated in the deaths of hundreds of Americans, is dead.  And President Trump is celebrated for ordering the killing.

One can hold that legal niceties should matter in a nation pledged to the rule of law.  Yet to expect such subtleties to be recognized by the broad public is naïve in the extreme.