JulesB

Senator @ChrisMurphyCT, You have told the public that you were briefed on the plan to resume attacks on Iran, that you cannot share its details, and that "the plan is insane." You have said it will escalate the war, break international law and destroy America's commitment to the rule of law. Knowledge of that kind carries obligations. Public reporting points to what the plan holds. Israeli sources told ABC News the next strikes would target petrochemical facilities to erode Iran's economy. CNN reports US forces could strike within 96 hours of an order. In April your president promised that every bridge in Iran would be "decimated" and every power plant left "burning, exploding and never to be used again," and said he was "not worried" about war-crimes charges. You called that threat "a clear war crime." In July he told Fox News the United States would "knock out" all of Iran's power plants and bridges unless Tehran negotiated. The stated purpose was never military advantage but coercion: punish the population until its government yields. The UN called such attacks a very clear violation of international law. If the briefing showed the same intent, you are among the few Americans who "officially" know a war crime is being prepared. Secrecy does not bind you to silence about it. Executive Order 13526 forbids using classification to conceal violations of law; a stamp cannot convert complicity into a duty. The Speech or Debate Clause protects what you say in the Senate, as the Supreme Court confirmed in Gravel v. United States after Senator Gravel read the Pentagon Papers into the record. Senate Resolution 400 provides for disclosure over executive objection. Your oath runs to a Constitution that makes the Geneva Conventions the supreme law of the land, and their Common Article 1 requires every organ of the United States to ensure respect for them, the Senate included. The same duty reaches the chain of command. You said military leaders gave no sign of their private views. Make them state those views on the record: demand that the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs and the CENTCOM commander say, in open session, whether each target passes the military-objective test. Remind them that a source of revenue is not a military objective, and that the "war-sustaining economy" theory behind such targeting is rejected by the ICRC and most states. Tell every service member that the UCMJ requires obedience only to lawful orders, that superior orders are no defense to a manifestly unlawful one, and that the War Crimes Act follows them for life. History will not ask whether the plan was classified. It will ask who knew, and what they did.