While the missile strike attracted bipartisan support as a political matter, its legal basis was disputed, the newspaper noted. Moreover, the decision was authorized neither by the UN Security Council nor by US Congress.
On Monday, the watchdog group, Protect Democracy, run by former Barack Obama administration lawyers, filed a lawsuit under the Freedom of Information Act for all emails, memos and other documents discussing Trump’s legal authority to launch the missile attack.
"We should all agree that in our constitutional democracy, the executive’s ability to attack another country is constrained by the law. Some countries may tolerate a head of state launching a new conflict without offering a clear legal justification, but we should not," Justin Florence, the group’s legal director and a former Obama administration lawyer, was cited by the newspaper.
"There is again public outcry over Donald Trump’s actions, those actions that once won bipartisan support. We’re witnessing a new tactic against Trump. He’s being criticized not for his outrageous moves and provocative rhetoric, but for a foreign policy decisions that was welcomed as successful within the US. This is a very interesting maneuver, which could be used to attack even Trump’s 'successful' moves. As a result, he could be once again discredited," Danyuk pointed out.
According to the expert, in terms of law, the lawsuit is unlikely to succeed with and attract nationwide public attention.
"They achieved what they wanted. Taking into account the fact that the majority of US media outlets are not loyal to Trump, they publish this information, portraying Trump as a despot and an authoritarian president. I think this is a projection of the struggle inside the US establishment which still cannot accept Trump as a legitimate president. But their goal was to spark media buzz, and they did it," Danyuk concluded.
Never miss a story again — sign up to our Telegram channel and we'll keep you up to speed!