Democratic lawmakers are questioning judicial authorities that used Biden to order the strike.
A day after President Joe Biden ordered the first military action of his presidency, an air strike in Syria, his government finds itself in the unlikely position of defending the move to democratic lawmakers over the rule of law it uses to justify it. .
Thursday night’s airstrike was aimed at a compound used by two militants backed by Iran and, according to the US, responsible for rocket attacks in Iraq that wounded Americans. A Pentagon spokesman confirmed on Friday that the bomber struck shortly after noon in front of a rally in eastern Syria.
During a visit to Houston on Friday, Biden told reporters that the message he sent to Iran with the attack in Syria, “you can not act with impunity, be careful.”
John Kirby, a Pentagon spokesman, said the airstrikes on the two militias were intended to limit the group’s ability to launch future attacks and send a “clear message” that the United States would protect its citizens.
Republican lawmakers praised the airstrike as an investigation into Iran’s support for attacks on U.S. personnel in Iraq through proxy groups.
But the reaction of important democratic legislators was quite the opposite.
Kirby called the air strike “defensive” because it was intended to protect U.S. troops from future attacks, but Democratic Sen. Tim Kaine of Virginia did not see it that way.
“Offensive military action without the approval of Congress is not constitutionally absent extraordinary circumstances,” Kaine said in a statement. “Congress needs to be briefed on this matter quickly.”
Kaine has been a vocal critic of the use of US military force in Iraq without congressional approval, and has so far enacted legislation to replace the broad authorization for the use of military force in 2002 with narrower restrictions.
“Congress must maintain this government to the same standard as previous administrations, and demand clear legal justifications for military action, especially within theaters such as Syria, where Congress has not approved any explicit U.S. military action,” the Democratic senator said. Chris Murphy of Connecticut said. .
Biden administration officials soon found themselves defending the legality of the strike.
“Under local law, the president has taken this action based on his Article II power to defend U.S. personnel,” White House press secretary Jen Psaki told reporters.
“The targets have been chosen to match the recent attacks on facilities, and to ward off the risk of additional attacks over the coming weeks,” she added. “As far as international law is concerned, the United States has acted on the basis of its right to self-defense, as reflected in Article 51 of the UN Charter.”
“I can assure you, and I spoke to the national security team that there was a thorough legal process and was reviewed in advance,” Psaki said.
Kirby said Biden was “well within his legal right to order this action,” citing Pentagon reporters to the same two legal authorities. He noted that the Pentagon had informed Congress leaders prior to the attack and that it had informed additional members and staff on Friday.
Thursday’s airstrike was carried out by two F-15E fighter jets dropping seven precision-aimed ammunition that resembled 11 buildings in Abu Kamal, right on the border with Iraq. While the damage assessment continues, Kirby admitted “we have preliminary details about casualties on the premises.”