Under the Radar Blog Archives Select Date… August, 2020 July, 2020 June, 2020 May, 2020 April, 2020 March, 2020 February, 2020 January, 2020 December, 2019 November, 2019 October, 2019 September, 2019

A liberal watchdog group is demanding quick answers on what legal rationale, if any, supported President Donald Trump's military strikes against Syria last month. | AP Photo Watchdog steps up demand for legal basis of Trump Syria strikes

A liberal watchdog group is demanding quick answers on what legal rationale supported President Donald Trump's military strikes against Syria last month.

The Protect Democracy Project — an organization founded by former Obama administration lawyers — is asking a federal judge for an injunction ordering expedited responses to Freedom of Information Act requests the group filed last month asking the Pentagon, the State Department and the Justice Department to turn over all legal opinions justifying the April 6 strikes.

Trump ordered that wave of 59 Tomahawk missile launches in response to fresh reports that the Syrian regime used chemical weapons against civilians, including women and children.

In a motion filed Monday night with U.S. District Court Judge Christopher Cooper in Washington, Protect Democracy's lawyers cited reports that the U.S. military carried out strikes against Syrian regime vehicles last week near the city of al-Tanf. The group said this was an indication that Trump might be escalating U.S. involvement in Syria without requesting new authorization from Congress or explaining why that was not necessary.

"Relief is necessary to avoid the irreparable harm that would occur if the military conflict escalates further while, at the same time, the American people and their elected representatives are denied the information they need to participate in democratic debate," lawyers Allison Murphy and Ben Berwick said in the preliminary injunction motion.

Protect Democracy's requests for expedited access to the legal records, if they exist, were granted by two offices in the Justice Department, but denied by the Pentagon and the State Department. Another Justice Department component said it was considering the request, while a fourth never responded, the group said.

Courts generally allow the government to avoid disclosure of internal legal advice sought under FOIA. However, some have forced its disclosure when officials have made public statements justifying their actions by citing legal opinions they were provided. The involvement of lawyers in preparing domestic and international law justification for Trump's Syria strikes in advance of them being carried out appears to have been minimal or non-existent.

After last month's strikes, the Trump White House cited as justification a 2011 Justice Department Office of Legal Counsel opinion regarding military action Obama ordered in Libya. However, critics questioned whether that applied to the recent operation, whose basis under international law seemed weak.

The Obama administration generally conducted robust legal analyses of planned military operations, although those opinions were not always made public and in at least one instance in Libya continued military strikes despite advice from the Justice Department and Pentagon that doing so violated the War Powers Resolution and required authorization from Congress.