Democratic lawmakers question the legal authorities Biden used to use to order the strike.
A day after President Joe Biden ordered the first military action of his presidency, an airstrike in Syria, his administration is in the unlikely position of defending the move in the face of Democratic lawmakers concerned about the legal authorities justifying it. .
The Thursday night airstrike targeted an enclosure used by two Iranian-backed militias that the U.S. believes are responsible for the rocket attacks in Iraq that wounded the Americans. A Pentagon spokesman confirmed on Friday the casualties from the attack in eastern Syria.
Biden, who visited Houston on Friday, told reporters that the message he was sending to Iran with the attack on Syria was that “you cannot act with impunity, be careful.”
John Kirby, a Pentagon spokesman, said the airstrike on the two militias was intended to limit the group’s ability to launch future attacks and send a “clear message” that the United States will protect its citizens.
Republican members of Congress have praised the airstrike as a check on Iran’s support for attacks on U.S. personnel in Iraq by groups of representatives.
But the response from leading Democratic lawmakers has been quite the opposite.
Kirby referred to the airstrike as “defensive” because he intends 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 congressional approval is unconstitutional if there are no extraordinary circumstances,” Kaine said in a statement. “Congress needs to be fully informed on this issue quickly.”
Kaine has been a vocal critic of the use of U.S. military force in Iraq without congressional authorization, until he introduced legislation to replace the broader 2002 Authorization for the Use of Military Force with more restrictions. narrow.
“Congress should maintain this administration with the same rule as previous administrations and demand clear legal justifications for military action, especially in theaters like Syria, where Congress has not explicitly authorized any U.S. military action,” he said. say Democratic Sen. Chris Murphy of Connecticut. .
Biden administration officials soon found themselves defending the legality of the strike.
“As a matter of domestic law, the president took this action, in accordance with his Article II authority to defend U.S. personnel,” White House press secretary Jen Psaki told reporters .
“The targets were chosen to match recent attacks on facilities and deter the risk of additional attacks over the coming weeks,” he added. “As a matter of international law, the United States acted in accordance with its right to self-defense, as reflected in Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations.”
“I can assure you and I have spoken to the national security team that there was a thorough legal process and a review in advance,” Psaki said.
Kirby said Biden “was within his legal right to order these actions,” citing the same two legal authorities to Pentagon reporters. He noted that the Pentagon had notified congressional leaders before the attack and had informed other members and staff on Friday.
Thursday’s airstrike was carried out by two F-15E fighter jets that dropped seven precisely guided ammunition that leveled 11 buildings in Abu Kamal, just on the border with Iraq. While continuing the damage assessment, Kirby acknowledged that “we have preliminary details about the victims on the spot.”