What was the legal justification for these strikes?

[SHRED]

What immediate threat was there to the USA?

[elleng]

1. Article 2 of the United States Constitution is the section that makes the executive branch

of the government. The Executive branch of the government is the branch that has the responsibility and authority for the administration throughout the day of the state.

We'll likely hear more on this.

[dixiegrrrrl]

2. Like so much else, Trump is breaking the law again.

Congress has to approve acts of war.
Which they could do, being Repub. majority. But they have not.

[unblock]

3. The aumf from 9/11 that pretty much gives potus war powers anywhere.

[TomSlick]

9. I'm not convinced.

The AUMF was originally aimed at Al-Qaeda. It has been expansively interpreted to include any terrorist organization, e.g. Isis. I can't read the AUMF to include an attack on a government - no matter how evil. There is no immediate security threat to justify an immediate military attack. If, as Trump suggested, this is the beginning of a sustained action, it is hard to justify not obtaining Congressional authority for the attack.

If Congress does not act, it will have lost any power it has to authorize military force.

[unblock]

11. I'm not convinced either

In fact I've always felt the aumf was unconstitutionally broad and unconstitutionally open-ended.

I also agree that it's hard to justify attacking government assets under a terrorism authorization.

Just saying that will be the rationale and the republican congress will roll over.

[OliverQ]

10. Not according to several members of Congress today.

It applies to terrorism pending from 9/11. It's not a blanket authorization on all acts of war. Attacking the Assad regime over the use of chemical weapons has nothing to do with ISIS/Al-Qaeda or 9/11. It's illegal for him to do this strike.

[unblock]

13. I agree. See post #11

[Fred Sanders]

4. America is the self appointed judge, jury and executioner, joined in by nuclear Western powers who

need to periodically tell others that they can strike with impunity...justification and "evidence" is not need for rich white countries.

[leftstreet]

5. It's illegal under international law. But they don't give a shit

[Atticus]

6. I believe they invoked the well-known "ass in a jam lookee over there let's kill some folks"

exception to the War Powers Act.

[onecaliberal]

7. There is none. Where are the republicans threatening impeachment like they did to President Obama?

[spanone]

8. Comey, Mueller, Rosenstein, Wray....etc. etc.

[Initech]

12. Profit for military contractors?

[FarCenter]

14. It's against international law to kill innocent men women and children

Although we don't seem to have a problem with that in Yemen.

[BBG]

15. Its against international law to invade another sovereign nation

Although we didn’t seem to have a problem with that in Iraq.

[Kablooie]

16. Trump is nice enough to give us a new justification for impeaching him.

He's very thoughtful that way.

[Ghost Dog]

17. None.

“There’s an obligation, particularly when dealing with matters of peace and security, to act consistently with the Charter of the United Nations and with international law in general. The UN Charter is very clear on these issues,” (United Nations Secretary-General) Mr Guterres said in a statement issued by his spokesperson.

“The Security Council has primary responsibility for the maintenance of international peace and security. I call on the members of the Security Council to unite and exercise that responsibility. I urge all Member States to show restraint in these dangerous circumstances and to avoid any acts that could escalate the situation and worsen the suffering of the Syrian people.”

https://news.un.org/en/story/2018/04/1007331

[akbacchus_BC]

18. You forgot! America is judge and jury to world affairs, but

refuses to take care of its citizens and veterans who served. That cretin in the White House is an abomination to America.