Senator Tim Kaine (D-VA) and Representative Adam Schiff (D-CA) have sent a letter to President Trump requesting information on the administration's domestic legal justification for the recent airstrikes in Syria, "in particular an explanation of whether this action expands ... precedents for action under Article II." The letter is available here and below.
Latest in Syria
Join the Hoover Institution this Thursday, April 27, from 5-7 pm for a panel discussion with the White Helmets on their humanitarian efforts in Syria.
To the extent that domestic political considerations may constrain or embolden the Trump Administration's foreign policy, it is worth considering recent polling data on the Administration’s airstrikes.
If the Trump administration is looking to escalate in Syria, it should consider working with Israel and Jordan in the country's south.
Rather than help curtail the slaughter and pave the way for serious peace talks, limited strikes risk re-empowering Assad while undermining the credibility of President Trump.
Those proposing an erosion of the U.N. Charter system in response to the Syrian airstrikes need to consider carefully whether the international legal system is strong enough to make nuanced use-of-force distinctions.
To those frustrated with the Syrian atrocities, the inability to legally justify an intervention under the traditional use of force construct is an unconscionable result. But we ignore the wisdom underlying the UN Charter at our own peril.
Is the Administration publicly acknowledging that the law has its limits and that other factors outweighed the constraints of international law in this instance?
For the Chinese government, no principle of international law is more sacrosanct than non-interference in the domestic affairs of other states. So why hasn't it yet condemned the U.S. missile strike on Syria?
Trump's airstrikes in Syria represent unilateral presidential war initiation, and the Founders would have unanimously held that the action was unconstitutional.