Watchdog Group Sues Trump Administration, Seeking Legal Rationale Behind Syria Strike
The United States had no self-defense rationale, and neither Congress nor the United Nations Security Council authorized the attack, raising questions about the scope
and limits of Mr. Trump’s power as a matter of domestic law and the United States’ power as a matter of international law.
Now, a government watchdog group run by former Obama administration lawyers is suing to force the Trump administration to disclose its legal theory — or concede
that it launched the April 6 attack without thinking about the law.
The United Nations Charter, a treaty the United States ratified, recognizes only two legal ways for a country to use
force on another soil without its consent: if the Security Council has authorized an attack, or in self-defense.
However, as Mr. Lederman pointed out, the 2011 rationale relied in part on the need to bolster the credibility
of the United Nations Security Council, which had authorized nations to use force to protect Libyan civilians.
He added: "Some countries may tolerate a head of state launching a new conflict without offering a clear legal justification, but we should not." In a letter to Congress, Mr. Trump asserted, with little detail,
that his constitutional powers as commander-in-chief gave him sufficient basis to unilaterally launch the attack to advance American interests, including deterring further use of chemical weapons.
" the unused Trump talking points said. that This domestic law basis is very similar to the authority for the use force
in Libya in 2011, as set forth in an April 2011 opinion by the Department of Justice’s Office of Legal Counsel,
