bcfinucane.bsky.social
Senior Adviser, US Program, International Crisis Group. Editor at Just Security. Non-Resident Senior Fellow at Reiss Center on Law and Security at NYU Law. Ex State Dept Lawyer. War Powers| Use of Force| Counterterrorism| Law of War| War Crimes| Arms Sales
4,374 posts
18,470 followers
2,821 following
Prolific Poster
Conversation Starter
comment in response to
post
bsky.app/profile/bcfi...
comment in response to
post
Most noteworthy legal argument may be that the US is acting in Israel's collective self-defense.
Collective self-defense depends on Israel's own use of force being lawful.
Doubtful.
www.justsecurity.org/115010/israe...
And US deemed similar Israeli attack on Osirak in 1981 to be illegal. 3/n
comment in response to
post
Trump admin’s WPR report takes pains to stress that the U.S. attack on Iran does not constitute “war in the constitutional sense” (which would require congressional authorization) per factors previously articulated by DOJ’s Office of Legal Counsel.
2/n
comment in response to
post
RISING LION and MIDNIGHT HAMMER have not slowed the Iranian program nearly as much as the JCPOA. We hold diplomacy to much higher standards than bombing. The same people who endlessly complained about the JCPOA "sunsetting" are now happy to delay Iran's bomb by much less. 15/17
comment in response to
post
Trump admin might cite defense of Israel as a “national interest” justifying attack under Article 2.
Bad argument.
US lacks a mutual defense treaty with Israel. Even where such treaties exist (eg NATO) executive branch has been clear that it doesn’t substitute for congressional authorization. 6/n
comment in response to
post
The arguments don’t work.
Though, as you say, they may well be advanced.
bsky.app/profile/bcfi...
comment in response to
post
Ty
comment in response to
post
What the text says and what the text authorizes (or rather does not authorize) are two different matters.
The WPR imposes procedural and substantive constraints, but does not confer additional authority.
comment in response to
post
Surprise!
The President decided to wage an illegal war on Iran.
comment in response to
post
It is!
comment in response to
post
ty
comment in response to
post
"Thank you for your attention to this matter."
comment in response to
post
Will likely elaborate further, but neither the 2001 nor 2002 AUMFs provide a plausible domestic legal authority for this attack.
Without such a viable AUMF theory, the executive branch is lefts with its war powers and Take Care Clause problems.
(Trump 2.0 may invoke AUMFs, but it will be BS.) 5/n
comment in response to
post
And by virtue of the Take Care Clause of the US Constitution, Article 2(4) of the UN Charter is also law that the US President is bound to take care is faithfully executed—not manifestly violated. 4/n
publications.lawschool.cornell.edu/lawreview/20...
comment in response to
post
Article 2(4) of the UN Charter prohibits the use of force—barring UN Security Council authorization or self defense.
Neither relevant here.
No UNSCR authorization.
No plausible self-defense justification—neither individual nor collective. 3/n