"Did Trump have clear authority under international law to attack Syria?" NY Times

"President Trump ordered the military on Thursday to carry out a missile attack on Syrian forces for using chemical weapons against civilians. The unilateral attack lacked authorization from Congress or from the United Nations Security Council, raising the question of whether he had legal authority to commit the act of war.

Mr. Trump and top members of his administration initially justified the operation as a punishment for Syria’s violating the ban on chemical weapons and an attempt at deterrence. But they did not make clear whether that was a legal argument or just a policy rationale.

The strike raises two sets of legal issues. One involves international law and when it is lawful for any nation to attack another. The other involves domestic law and who gets to decide — the president or Congress — whether the United States should attack another country.

Did Trump have clear authority under international law to attack Syria?

No. The United Nations Charter, a treaty the United States has ratified, recognizes two justifications for using force on another country’s soil without its consent: the permission of the Security Council or a self-defense claim. In the case of Syria, the United Nations did not approve the strike, and the Defense Department justified it as “intended to deter the regime from using chemical weapons again,” which is not self-defense. "  NY Times

-----------------

IMO it is very clear that the order for the strike on Shaykat air base in Syria was illegal in both international and US law.  The Democrats have been searching for grounds for impeachment.  Is commission of a criminal act using the powers of his office not an impeachable offense?  pl 

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/04/07/us/politics/military-force-presidential-power.html?_r=0

Comments

[Edward Amame]

I wouldn't count on Dem's calling for impeachment over this. Apparently Washington DC, both Dem and GOP (except for Rand Paul), were thrilled with Trump's manly display of muscle in Syria. He's probably still basking in the afterglow.

[eakens]

Why would they impeach him now that he has gone full neocon? Of course, for the reason you stated, there is no turning back now for him. We're screwed.

[b]

I am not aware that any U.S. president was ever impeached for starting an illegal war. The Democrats are falling over each other in lauding Trump for his stupid decision. Well, at least he got the RussiaGate nonsense off his back - for now.
The neocons and hawks will now demand more strikes and finally regime change in favor of the Takfiris. Al-Qaeda via the MIT and/or the CIA will provide for more "chemical attacks" to give justification to whatever/whenever is needed.

Trump likely lost his chance for reelection with this stunt. His base is no gone. He should have listened to his strategist, not to the neoconned NSC that was pushed onto him.

[Former 11B]

Yep. Dem's are all in. Not allowing snowflakes to use whatever bathroom validates them? Impeachment grounds for sure. Illegal strikes at Isreal's direction? Bad ass, welcome to the club, lets have a parade!

We are so screwed

[A. Pols]

"When the president does it, it's not illegal"
That's pretty much how we roll these days.
Both sides of the aisle love that sort of "decisiveness"

[Dante Alighieri]

Trump is taking his legal justification straight from the Obama book! Those who placed their hopes (or any hopes, for that matter
) on a Trump presidency are now scrambling to rationalize their utter delusions. It would be a joke if it wasn’t so serious. Would Col. Lang now really like to see this man impeached (IMO the best option, although entirely unrealistic)? I’m honestly flabbergasted. You promoted him, so you own him, for better or worse. But please don’t play such games.

[Kutte]

Trump was tricked into attacking Syria, probably with the promise that the "borg" (or deep state, or whatever) would go easy on him as a reward. Now they got him where they wanted him, and are going to impeach him. Some similarity to JFK being tricked into the hopeless Bay-of-pigs operation. Sound plausible?

[LeaNder]

just curious, since Bannon made news and concerns here in the comment section lately, followed by interpretations one way or another, what did Breitbart have to say Assad's latest poison attack:

https://www.google.de/search?q=site:http://www.breitbart.com/+Syria+gas+attack&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&gws_rd=cr&ei=VuDoWKTrM4fcgAakl7zYAQ">http://www.breitbart.com/+Syria+gas+attack&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&gws_rd=cr&ei=VuDoWKTrM4fcgAakl7zYAQ">https://www.google.de/search?q=site:http://www.breitbart.com/+Syria+gas+attack&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&gws_rd=cr&ei=VuDoWKTrM4fcgAakl7zYAQ

[Poul]

Hillary Clinton got the President's back on the Syria strike. So I doubt the Democrats will lift a finger.

http://edition.cnn.com/2017/04/06/politics/hillary-clinton-syria-assad/

[ambrit]

First; why would the Democrat Party want to deal with a President Pence? Wouldn't he be a more canny and effective opponent to them? The next in line is Paul Ryan, Right? Hah!
Second; an impeachment would open a real can of worms domestically. This isn't any run of the mill b--- job case. A real struggle for dominance in foreign policy is probable, with the spectre of the awakening of America's Isolationist tendency among it's population haunting the scene. The Borg has constructed a case for American Exceptionalism. Impeaching Trump on a case based upon the antithesis of American Exceptionalism would be "shoot yourself in the foot" level of bungling.
Third; even though, as Truman signaled, "The buck stops here," the mechanism of influence that convinced Trump to order the strike is of great importance. Who said what and when is crucial to predicting the future of this dangerous game we have all been "invited" to.
Thanks for your indulgence.

[LeaNder]

The Democrats have been searching for grounds for impeachment. Is commission of a criminal act using the powers of his office not an impeachable offense? pl

I may not have quite grasped the impeachment heat here on SST to the extend I should, and thus couldn't connect to (Gaius) Publius Tacitus. Harper? (not sure?) Maybe? The expat US expat impeachment representatives in German political talk shows felt a bit lost in the debate wilderness over here.

But this is certainly a good question.

[AndreL]

The Republican Party owns all branches of government. As long as Trump trickles down the goodies through exec orders and appointments and signs their legislation, impeachment is a pipe dream.

[turcopolier]

Dante Alighieri

A standard method of troll attack is to misquote someone and then comment on the false narrative. I did not support Trump for election. I did not give him money for his campaign. Nor did I vote for him or Pence. I revere the constitutional order in the US. It is the basis of our lives. Trump was legitimately elected president of the Unite States. The importance of a devotion to the original text and virtue of the Constitution of the United States may not be apparent to someone from another country where things like constitutions come and go or are not even written documents as in the UK and Israel, but the Constitution of the United States is what holds the country together. To seek to unconstitutionally remove a president from office is for me and many other Americans the worst possible civic "sin." You say that I have "promoted" Trump. Nothing could be farther from the truth. I accept his legally exercised authority as president/CinC so long as he legally holds office. The question I raise in this post is whether or not he has violated the terms of his oath of office and provided his opponents grounds for constitutional action against him IMO, he has. Whether or not I will begin to agitate against him is a question I have not yet answered for myself. pl

[turcopolier]

b

I agree that he has largely destroyed himself politically. This will become evident as time passes. He was easily trapped by the neocons. His ego and ignorance were his undoing. "I am not aware that any U.S. president was ever impeached for starting an illegal war" I am curious as to which US wars were illegal from your POV. pl

[Bobo]

Legal Authority is for lawyers to discuss as that is all they are good for, maybe too harsh. This was a CW event with innocents being harmed. Does not matter whose chemicals were involved or whose bomb was dropped by whose plane or who hyped the filmed event it happened in Syria and Syria is responsible for this long lasting internal war. Thus rather than procrastinating over who, what and where Syria was slapped which actually was a very minor slap but a very significant one. Thus they should beware as the next slap will be a proportionately larger one.
Impeachment seems to get dragged out way too often with this very young presidency and I'm sure it will be a discussed constantly over the next four years but this guy thrives in chaos and knows how to turn the tables quite quickly. Just look at them jackals screaming for his head a few days ago are now praising him.
So what was achieved with this slap. The Chinese now understand the mans capability, the Russia thing has been turned on its head, the Dems are on their rear end, Putin is now re-thinking Syria and ISIS knows they are next. But that is this weekend who knows what happens next.

[TV]

Get ready for more of this.
Trump operates from "gut" or instinct.
Sometimes that looks brilliant, most of the time, it's dangerous.
In the real estate business or reality TV, it's only about money.
Now, it's about lives.
Obama was so far the other way that decisions were not made or obfuscated.
Is there someone - not driven by ideology or the "gut" - out there?
You know, an adult.

[turcopolier]

Bobo

So, basically, you are a social Darwinist who has no time for the rule of law at all. Teddy Roosevelt walks the earth again, eh? "Pedicaris alive or Raisuli dead!" The Russians are re-thinking Syria? How do you know that? pl

[William R. Cumming]

IMO it will not take a great deal of skill by historians in the future to document that all BOOMER PRESIDENTS so far [Clinton-Trump] were largely uneducated WAR CRIMINALS!

And presidential decisions should be represented by WRITTEN ORDERS not informal oral discussion!

What is the best book on RTP vis a vis the Nation-State System?

[Degringolade]

This is a question for the folks here.

One of the things that I think have gone someone unnoticed is that Trump was meeting with Xi down in Florida when the attack was launched. It is my understanding that nothing came out of this erstwhile "Summit".

But I think that Xi probably took home lessons about Trump. Being able to observe directly the demeanor and the actions of a potential opponent during a "crisis" provides same damn fine "tells".

China has consistently backed Russia on Syria in the Security Council. They know that this action is contrary to international law. It also tells them just how low the bar is to military action is here in the US. It also tells them that the standard of evidence for that use is even more so.

China and Russia have been making nice lately. Russia opening a branch of it's central bank in Beijing and the ongoing work on the New Silk road make me think that there is a lot of common interests.

This premature and poorly thought out attack on what Russia considers part and parcel of its national interests, and Xi's front row seat at the spectacle may push them even further down the path to what may prove to end up a military alliance.

[Matt]

I admire your confidence that there will be historians or a future to document what is coming to a head at the moment,

when the President of a country, that has a military budget equal to the combined budgets of the next seven biggest spenders on the planet, spits out his dummy because he didn't like the latest 'video nasty' from the White Helmets and flings $100 million in ordinance at a foriegn country without even considering legality, I kinda sit up and take notice,

call me a pussy if you like, but aren't we watching people play 'Russian Roulette' with the future of the planet?

[Emad]

I for one am interested in Tyler's take on all of this. Maybe the good Colonel can have Tyler write his impressions of Trump's presidency so far?

[kooshy]

Did anyone heard what became of Xi visit?, no press conference, no interview, not much news coverage, seems he left quietly. It's strange there was no joint presser .

[1664RM]

It is refreshing to see the question of legality appear once again.

I asked a similar question a few weeks ago. At the time my comment received 'short shrift' - apparently at that time this forum was not thought of as the best place to discuss such legal trivialities.

Does the US have the legal authority under International Law to have ANY military unit inside Syrian sovereign territory? I am referring of course to to the clearance operation ongoing around Raqqa.

I am not sure what is worse - conducting a clandestine land invasion or firing cruise missiles from international waters for reasons based on the flimsiest of fake news.

Both acts are in blatant breach of at least one of the Nuremberg Principles, as was covertly & latterly overtly funding & supporting the 'insurgency' inside Syria in the first place.

[Bobo]

Teddy was well rounded and had substance this guy lacks both. The dig(s) were not charitable. We now know how this guy will react to North Korea which breaks anything legal ever written. It concerns me that Rex seems to have written off Diplomacy and the military is moving NW into that theater. Hopefully the Chinese leader understands the ramifications and has some ability to control that situation.
I did vote for the man and still support him as the alternative was unthinkable.

[Bill H]

turcopolier: re, "Putin is now re-thinking Syria"

He knows that, Colonel, because he has been told by the Washington groupthink that if we pressure Putin he will back down. 59 cruise missiles is certainly pressure, right, so Putin is certainly backing down and will run like a rabbit. Actually, he will pass rabbits on his way out of Syria. He will leave them in his wake, panting their little lungs out.