[defense.gov]

Statement by the Department of Defense
Jan. 2, 2020

"At the direction of the President, the U.S. military has taken decisive defensive action to protect U.S. personnel abroad by killing Qasem Soleimani, the head of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps-Quds Force, a U.S.-designated Foreign Terrorist Organization.
General Soleimani was actively developing plans to attack American diplomats and service members in Iraq and throughout the region. General Soleimani and his Quds Force were responsible for the deaths of hundreds of American and coalition service members and the wounding of thousands more. He had orchestrated attacks on coalition bases in Iraq over the last several months – including the attack on December 27th – culminating in the death and wounding of additional American and Iraqi personnel. General Soleimani also approved the attacks on the U.S. Embassy in Baghdad that took place this week.
This strike was aimed at deterring future Iranian attack plans. The United States will continue to take all necessary action to protect our people and our interests wherever they are around the world."

That is a Statement from an arbitrary (counterfeit) government bureaucracy. It belongs to the Cult of Might Makes Right, which is also the cult that has one thing in common: The Psychotic Narrative.

I will attempt to set the record straight by analogy. The analogy is a Corporate Leader, or Oligarch, or Aristocrat, or Mob Boss, dictates an arbitrary decision that the space in front of a moving train is in the Mob's Interest, or the Corporate Interest, the Oligarch's Interest, Aristocrats Interest, also known as The National Interest.

The Mob has soldiers who take an oath of allegiance to a Legal Fiction created on Paper in 1789. The Legal Fiction created was created by stealth, deceptively, fraudulently, and therefore by treasonous criminal actions, however the fraud worked, and it still works, so there is no shortage of very good people sharing a belief in the right of doing wrong, such as standing on the Rail Road Tracks, in the interests of Criminal Mob Bosses, because the Criminal Mob Bosses have convinced those following orders without question, that the orders cannot be questioned; ever.

The analogy may not suffice to impart the intended message without error occurring during the transfer.

For my own error prone, subjective, opinion on these matters, if it does not abide by the principle of law (Golden Rule), then it is not lawful, no matter who makes the claim, and enforces the claim, that it is lawful. It does not matter if it is one individual making the claim, two people sharing the same belief in the claim, or everyone on the planet sharing the same dubious claim. If it is not lawful for those on the train half way across the planet to stand in front of a train in America, then it is not lawful for those standing on those tracks now. Again, the analogy may not actually work in this case. I do not claim to know all the facts in this particular matter.

How about another analogy? First it may be worth communicating something known as Put Options, or Selling Short, which is a lead in to something written by someone who was then put in a National Jail cell just after publishing the Essay titled: Assassination Politics.

If it is lawful to assassinate someone, anyone, on the say so of one individual, then it is also lawful for anyone else to do so, under the same circumstances. A leader of a Mob, for example, knows that a leader of another Mob may assassinate anyone in any Mob, it is the way things work with Mobs: naturally.

If on the other hand the idea was Rule of Law, then someone assassinating someone else would have to face a trial by jury, a trial by the country, according to the law, to then state their case as to the justification of having assassinated someone, and the country, through their juries, in each county, would approve of, or disprove of, that particular assassination by that particular individual. It does not matter if the individual is the head of a Mob, or the head of a Corporate Arbitrary Nation State like Iran, or U.S. Inc. (LLC).

The reason I bring up Assassination Politics is to point out that it is in fact a regular (criminal) thing for a bunch of people to invest in future amoral acts, such as, for example, the destruction of a company, and therefore the devaluation of the company stock. Now, when these Futures, or Put Options, or when these people buy a Short Sale Option, become immoral is when those betting on the destructive outcome are either privy to information that indicates a high probability of the future destruction happening, and those betting the other way are not privy to the same, inside, information. An example is the Put Options placed on United Airlines before the events of September 11, 2001.

Before someone turns to SNOPES or some other authority concerning what is or is not a hoax, the point here is to point out, once again, that there is no law in America, not since 1789, if there was then there would be facts found the lawful way: published in Public Trials, according to the common law, were the facts are determined by the people, not by the government, and not by a faction large or small.

One link of many:

Insider Trading on 9/11: Speculative Trade in “Put Options”. The Financial Facts Laid Bare
by Lars Schall

“Between September 6 and 7, the CBOE saw purchases of 4,744 put options on United Airlines, but only 396 call options. Assuming that 4,000 of the options were bought by people with advance knowledge of the imminent attacks, these „insiders“ would have profited by almost $5 million.”

Moving then to Assassination Politics by Jim Bell, which is a method of selling Put Options predicting the death of undesirable people, which then can lead to sizable prizes for the most undesirable people who want the individual they bet against to die by Assassination Politics. Call it an unpopularity contest, governments (so-called) do it all the time.

So this guy Jim Bell goes to jail for publishing the idea, and in contrast the Government was found guilty of actual assassination of Martin Luther King Jr., so there is that fact that matters.

All that above is merely leading into a competitive alternative to the Troops standing on the Rail Road Tracks in a foreign country, supposedly in the National Interest.

If the leader who speaks for the National Interest wanted 1 bad guy in another country to disappear, or better yet to stand trial in America for doing bad things, terrorizing, or whatnot, and this leader can spend a few Trillion dollars getting what he wants, then why not post a bounty Dead or Alive, depending upon that arbitrary choice.