Quote:
Originally Posted by Platapus
Although the US is not especially interested in such technicalities, it would be interesting to learn of the legalities of this airstrike.
|
difficult to answer, since international law and even U.S. Constitutional law is in a grey area.
Under international law, an act of war is only valid if:
1. it is expressly authorized by the UN; or
2. it is done in self-defense.
Obviously the Syria strike does not fit either category and would seem to be illegal.
However, there is also a growing consensus in the international community that there is also a "duty to protect" civilians from the actions of their own government which would mean that the Strike could be legal.
Under the U.S. Constitution, POTUS derives his power from his position has commander-in-chief of the Armed Forces. As C-in-C, he has wide latitude to use military power as he sees fit in what he deems to be the best interest of the USA.
Congress has the express power to declare war, but in the 230 years since the Constitution was enacted, it still has not been clearly established when POTUS has to go to Congress to get his military actions approved.
so you can argue the Strike was legal/illegal/Constitutional/Un-Constitutional... take your pick.
Bottom line: a U.S. President can pretty much take whatever military action he sees fit.