{"id":33485,"date":"2026-04-06T04:25:06","date_gmt":"2026-04-06T03:25:06","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/kaizen-blog.org\/?p=33485"},"modified":"2026-04-06T04:25:10","modified_gmt":"2026-04-06T03:25:10","slug":"dienstag-die-hoelle-und-die-verfassung-wie-ein-praesident-seine-eigene-entmachtung-provoziert","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/kaizen-blog.org\/en\/dienstag-die-hoelle-und-die-verfassung-wie-ein-praesident-seine-eigene-entmachtung-provoziert\/","title":{"rendered":"Tuesday, hell, and the Constitution - How a president provokes his own removal from power"},"content":{"rendered":"

A president writes on Easter Sunday that another country will be living in hell if it does not comply, and adds at the end: Praise be to Allah. No diplomatic language, no attempt, it is the grammar of violence. It is a direct command tone, without any regard for the date on which it is spoken. The quiet certainty of what he says and what he does, because he believes no one will stop him. The day of resurrection becomes the language of inevitability.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\"\"<\/figure>\n\n\n\n
<\/div>\n\n\n\n

Donald Trump crossed a line that morning that stands out even by his own standards. \"Tuesday will be power plant day and bridge day at the same time in Iran. There will be nothing comparable. Open the damn strait, you crazy bastards, or you will be living in hell - just wait and see. Praise be to Allah,\" he writes. A sitting president naming civilian infrastructure as a target and placing religious language in the same sentence.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The reaction comes immediately. The Council on American Islamic Relations, a nationwide advocacy organization, sharply criticized Trump for invoking Allah in his Truth Social post while issuing threats against Iran. \"President Trump\u2019s outrageous mockery of Islam and his threats to attack civilian infrastructure in Iran are reckless, dangerous, and reflect an attitude that shows indifference toward human life and contempt for religious beliefs,\" CAIR said in a statement.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Trump had demanded in his post on Easter Sunday that Iran open the Strait of Hormuz by Tuesday, \"or you will be living in hell - JUST WAIT AND SEE! Praise be to Allah.\"<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\"The casual use of 'Praise be to Allah' in the context of violent threats shows a disturbing willingness to instrumentalize religious language while at the same time demeaning Islam and its followers,\" CAIR said.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Iran sees in Trump\u2019s threats against infrastructure an \"intent to commit war crimes\"<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

\"\"<\/figure>\n\n\n\n
<\/div>\n\n\n\n

Hours after Trump\u2019s profanity filled post, in which he told Iran it would be \"living in hell\" because of the blockade of the Strait of Hormuz, the Iranian UN mission said that the open threats against civilian infrastructure were \"a direct and public incitement to terrorize civilians and clear evidence of the intent to commit a war crime.\"<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\"The international community and all states have legal obligations to prevent such heinous war crimes,\" the mission wrote in a post on the platform X. \"They must act now. Tomorrow is too late.\"<\/p>\n\n\n\n

<\/div>\n\n\n\n
\n
\n \n
\n
\n Legal Classification\n <\/div>\n

\n Public threat against civilian infrastructure\n <\/h3>\n

\n International law assessment of a public announcement to attack power plants and bridges of another state.\n <\/p>\n <\/div>\n\n

\n \n
\n \n
\n
1. Threat of force<\/div>\n

\n Such a statement must first be classified as a threat of force within the meaning of Article 2 paragraph 4 of the UN Charter. Not only the use, but also the threat of force is prohibited, unless it is covered by Article 51 of the UN Charter or a mandate of the Security Council.\n <\/p>\n <\/div>\n\n

\n
2. Protection of civilian objects<\/div>\n

\n Under Article 48 of Additional Protocol I, the principle of distinction applies. Civilian objects are protected. Article 52 paragraph 1 of Additional Protocol I explicitly protects civilian objects. Only targets that meet the requirements of Article 52 paragraph 2 of Additional Protocol I may be attacked.\n <\/p>\n <\/div>\n\n

\n
3. Bridges and power plants<\/div>\n

\n The general naming of bridges and power plants does not meet the definition of a military objective. Both are initially civilian infrastructure. Without concrete demonstration of military use, there is no legally secure target qualification.\n <\/p>\n <\/div>\n\n

\n
4. Proportionality and civilian consequences<\/div>\n

\n Even in the case of possible military use, Article 51 paragraph 5 letter b of Additional Protocol I remains decisive. Attacks are unlawful if it can be expected that civilian damage will be excessive in relation to the concrete and direct military advantage. Power and transport networks regularly affect hospitals, water, communication, and supply.\n <\/p>\n <\/div>\n\n

\n
5. Prohibition of terrorization<\/div>\n

\n Article 51 paragraph 2 of Additional Protocol I prohibits acts or threats of violence whose primary purpose is to spread terror among the civilian population. A public announcement to destroy essential infrastructure may fall exactly into this category.\n <\/p>\n <\/div>\n\n

\n
6. Objects indispensable to survival<\/div>\n

\n Under Article 54 of Additional Protocol I, objects indispensable to the survival of the civilian population must not be attacked or rendered useless. Energy supply may fall under this if its destruction impairs water, food, or medical care.\n <\/p>\n <\/div>\n\n

\n
7. Criminal threshold<\/div>\n

\n The actual war crime generally requires more than words alone. Particularly relevant is Article 8 paragraph 2 letter b item ii of the Rome Statute - intentional attacks against civilian objects - as well as Article 8 paragraph 2 letter b item iv - attacks with foreseeably excessive civilian damage. The public threat, however, may serve as an indication of intent and later responsibility.\n <\/p>\n <\/div>\n\n

\n
Short conclusion<\/div>\n

\n Legally, such a public statement is already to be assessed as an unlawful threat of force under international law. If the announced attacks are later actually carried out against civilian objects or with clearly foreseeable excessive consequences for civilians, the prior statement may be used as incriminating evidence of intent, target selection, and responsibility. (Legal assessment: kaizen blog.org, status April 6, 2026)\n <\/p>\n <\/div>\n\n <\/div>\n\n

\n Relevant norms:<\/span>\n Article 2 paragraph 4 UN Charter, Article 51 UN Charter, Article 48, Article 51 paragraph 2, Article 51 paragraph 5 letter b, Article 52 paragraph 1 and 2, Article 54, Article 56 Additional Protocol I, Article 8 paragraph 2 letter b item ii and iv, Article 25 and Article 28 Rome Statute.\n <\/div>\n\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n<\/div>\n\n\n\n
<\/div>\n\n\n\n

At the same time, a second pressure is emerging, this time from within the United States itself. Within a few hours, the 25th Amendment becomes a trend. An instrument that is rarely mentioned, suddenly everywhere. Mehdi Hasan writes that this Easter message must lead the vice president and cabinet to remove the president. Chris Murphy goes further and says he would contact constitutional lawyers that very day. Joe Walsh calls for its immediate use. Anthony Scaramucci reminds that a mechanism was created precisely for such situations to remove a president who is no longer capable of governing.<\/p>\n\n\n\n