U.S. Strikes in Syria Are an Illegal Response to Atrocity

No one disputes that Bashar al-Assad’s use of chemical weapons on Syrian civilians is illegal, immoral, and unacceptable. But Assad’s illegality does not excuse illegality in response.

In the face of constitutional law barring hostile use of force without congressional authorization, and international law forbidding unilateral use of force except in self-defense, President Trump has unilaterally launched strikes against a country that has not attacked us, and without any authorization from Congress. Doing so violates some of the most important legal constraints on the use of force. 

In order to ensure that war powers are exercised with wisdom, restraint, and popular approval, our Constitution assigns to Congress its most important and fundamental responsibility: to “declare War” by specifying enemies, defining clear objectives, and setting limits that keep the executive’s power as commander in chief within bounds. This fundamental principle of separation of powers lies at the core of the Constitution and is the foundation of our democratic form of government. That is why, although the ACLU does not take positions on whether military force should be used, we have been steadfast in insisting, from the Vietnam War through the wars in Iraq and strikes in Libya and Syria by the Obama administration, that the decision to use military force requires Congress’ specific, advance authorization. 

Yet last night, after the U.S. government used military force against the Syrian government for the first time since the civil war broke out in 2011, the Trump administration claimed, “No authorization from Congress is necessary.” It pointed to “several factors, including promoting regional stability, discouraging the use of chemical weapons, and protecting a civilian population from humanitarian atrocities.” Those arguments do not provide justification for the president to do an end run around the Constitution. As an initial matter, the hypocrisy of this rationale is galling. President Trump is invoking the Syrian government’s killing of helpless men, women, and children — beautiful babies, as he says — when his own Muslim travel ban would exclude those very people from the refuge of the United States.

According to reports, the Trump administration claims that its justification for strikes in Syria is similar to that used by the Obama administration in justifying strikes in Libya in 2011. But invoking the Obama administration’s wrongful precedent — which we and many others criticized as illegal at the time — does not justify still more lawlessness. Absent a sudden attack on the United States that requires a president to take immediate action to repel the attack, no president has the power under the Constitution to decide unilaterally to take the United States into war. Unilateral military action was unlawful when President Obama did it, and it’s unlawful now.

The Trump administration’s strikes also contravene the U.N. Charter, which is a binding treaty obligation for the United States, and helps preserve international peace and security. Article 2(4) of the U.N. Charter prohibits the use of force in the territory of another state unless authorized by the Security Council or in self-defense in response to a sudden attack. Neither condition was met before yesterday’s strike. 

These requirements exist for critically important reasons, as history shows. Our nation has a very long and painful history of civil liberties and human rights being jeopardized and violated during war. Under the Bush administration, claims of broad war authority were cited as legal justification for wrongs ranging from torture to indefinite detention without charge or trial to dragnet surveillance. More recently, the Obama administration’s claims of war authority were also used to justify keeping Guantánamo open and killing thousands of people in drone strikes in countries in which and with which the United States is not at war. President Trump has already claimed some of these powers to launch an unprecedented number of strikes in other countries already devastated by war — Yemen and Somalia — resulting in a sharp increase in civilian deaths and suffering.

For all these reasons, we call on Congress to act swiftly and do its job by taking up the monumental question of whether President Trump may continue to use military force in Syria. To do otherwise would be an abdication by Congress of the war powers reserved for it under Article I of the Constitution. And because these monumental decisions must be informed by meaningful public debate, we are also filing a Freedom of Information Act request with the Trump administration seeking its full domestic and international law justification for the strikes in Syria.

President Trump has unilaterally undertaken an act of war. If we are to be a country of laws, we must demand his legal justifications and our representatives in Congress need to ensure that his actions are properly debated and constrained.

View comments (67)
Read the Terms of Use


NO ONE has proven Assad did use chemical weapons!

Last two times that claim was made, it was PROVEN false.


That is Simply not so.


Has anybody found out if Anthony Romero is gay-gay?


My question is, how in 2 days do we KNOW Assad ordered this attack, yet 5 MONTHS later we still can't prove Russia "hacked" our election!
On Thursday April 6th the Bolivian Envoy to the United Nations Sacha Llorenti compared the U.S. ambassador Nikki Haley’s recent address to the former U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell’s infamous 2003 presentation to the body, when fraudulent evidence of an alleged Iraqi weapons program was presented to justify the U.S. war on Iraq.


I think the bottom line is that this administration is going to do whatever it wants. No one is going to stop them.


Gimme a break. The man's not human no matter WHAT he did or didn't use.


NO ONE has proven Assad did use chemical weapons!

Last two times that claim was made, it was PROVEN false.

Glenn Ruga

Thanks to the ACLU for providing the legal context to the attacks in Syria last night. The fact is that if Trump waited two weeks, got authorization from Congress, and went ahead with the bombing, it would have had the same effect but would have been achieved legally. But what if he tried to get Congressional approval and failed? Assad and Putin would have come out winners, and the Syrian people and the rest of the world would have lost that debate. Democracy is a messy game.


Even if "democracy is a messy game," I think we should try it some time.


A world of law is important. It matters. We don't know if the results would be the same. Probably so given the level of corruption but with Russia blocking, they would not be able to use a legal fig leaf. Yes, they will find one pretext or another for a war that they deemed as necessary after the failure of their many year attempt at using a CIA sponsored regime change through funding with Saudi Arabia to the extreme Islamic fundamentalists, escalated under Obama, but countered by Russia and Iran.

World empire relations are like gangster relations and thus operate at that level of morality, devoid of humanitarian concerns and concerned more with power politics, but they still need to lie to create cover because of of the need for the people to consent, the veneer legitimacy, something they work hard to manufacture through propaganda. It's this element of exposing and asserting our morality, the primacy of life and truth over lies and death that is still important.

Its not about taking sides, i.e. not wanting Putin to 'win"--its about civilized behavior that we must demand of our own govt, just as other citizens do of their own. Crimes are crimes, and the rule of law is the rule of law. Are we going to respond to the needs for peace and security for addressing crimes and other anti-social behaviors in a way that is consistent with its purpose and morality? I believe that being killed by bombs is an equal crime of murder as is being killed by chemical weapons. Both result in death & Both are crimes under international law. Now the whole world is being threatened in the name of security?

Hopefully we avoid more escalations but it may be up to the people, the citizens to rise up against the war making machine, and make our force a voice of an alternative, more sane world, repudiating all these proxy wars now by saying "Not In Our Name!" and which are now becoming a direct confrontations with the Russians and possibly China. Do we really feel more secure now, or less? Are people's lives not in greater danger now (esp in Syria)? This is not logical from any humanitarian concern perspective, nor valid from a legal perspective nor a security one that takes into account the dangers of a world war.


Stay Informed