Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

General Discussion

Showing Original Post only (View all)

bigtree

(93,949 posts)
Sun Mar 1, 2026, 09:46 AM Yesterday

This makes it abundantly clear the Iran strike isn't legal [View all]



I am not a law of war expert. I don’t play one on TV. But I wanted to share some basic principles and offer some suggestions for further reading as we watch the news unfold in Iran. The White House hasn’t offered the public a reason for the attack on Iran that would make it legal, and CNN is reporting they haven’t provided a “full accounting” to members of Congress either. This afternoon, Jake Sherman at Punchbowl News reported that “A senior Trump administration official said that U.S. intelligence ‘had indicators’ that the Iranians were going to use their missiles ‘preemptively, but if not, simultaneous’ to any American action on Iran.”

But if the real reason for our attack was warding off casualties from an Iranian first strike, you would have expected to hear the White House using that explanation from the start, which they didn’t. And now that we have struck, we haven’t seen any proportional response, “simultaneous” or otherwise, from Iran. The legality of the U.S. strike is, at best, highly questionable.

Of course, we all know that under the Constitution, Congress, not the president, has the power to declare war. We also know that for the past few decades, the executive branch has been assuming more of that power, adopting a “beg for forgiveness,” rather than an “ask for permission” stance. But no one has been as brazen about it as Donald Trump, who has bombed 7 different countries in just over a year in office and is at in a second time in Iran, after claiming, in June 2025, that he had “obliterated” their nuclear program. It’s not a good thing when the man with the nuclear codes is punch-drunk on the amount of power at his disposal, and it behooves us all to keep a close watch.

The UN Charter prohibits the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state in Article 2(4), which reads, “All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations.” Launching attacks, like the U.S. strike on Iran, is generally illegal. There are exceptions for self-defense against an armed attack (Article 51) or an attack authorized by the Security Council, but neither of those is in play here.



Treaties ratified by the U.S. Senate, like the UN Charter, have the status of federal laws under Article VI, Section 3 of the Constitution, which reads, “This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land.” (emphasis added). Upholding them is part of a president’s duties and the oath of office he takes under the “take care” clause of the Constitution.

read more: https://joycevance.substack.com/p/the-law-of-war
55 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Get thee to the greatest page malaise Yesterday #1
My sense, trump has been sold on this attack for cachukis Yesterday #2
Yeah, well, trump don't do that "now what" shit... Wounded Bear Yesterday #4
Uncharted fog of war. cachukis Yesterday #5
Yes indeed pfitz59 Yesterday #14
I'm no longer certain what "illegal" means in America today. sop Yesterday #3
THIS. MontanaMama Yesterday #11
Bravo MM popsdenver Yesterday #33
+1 leftstreet Yesterday #13
Yup! debsy 21 hrs ago #50
Seems like the attack falls into high crimes and misdemeanors territory JT45242 Yesterday #6
K&R spanone Yesterday #7
Trump is trying to force the Congress to accept this quagmire, Baitball Blogger Yesterday #8
The War Powers Resolution Greg_In_SF Yesterday #9
they'll never be legally sanctioned for this bigtree Yesterday #10
Clearly it doesn't matter if it's legal or not bif Yesterday #12
that's right bigtree Yesterday #21
The weak, impotent, make-up clad strongman Blue Owl Yesterday #15
K&R UTUSN Yesterday #16
I am reminded... GiqueCee Yesterday #17
yep bigtree Yesterday #24
I'll never count us out... GiqueCee Yesterday #29
As I recall, Just Jerome 23 hrs ago #43
I imagine he repeated that thought... GiqueCee 22 hrs ago #45
IT doesn't need a "reason" for anything he does. LoisB Yesterday #18
I'm telling you guys, pushing this line is going to blow back on us. Callie1979 Yesterday #19
I dunno bigtree Yesterday #26
I think the odds ARE against him. BUT; what if it WORKS? There's a chance. Callie1979 Yesterday #31
I think this take is what kept us in Iraq for 10 years. OhioBlue Yesterday #37
Iran is a much bigger sponsor of terrorists plus being Russia's #1 helper in UKR. Callie1979 22 hrs ago #44
Sadly Callie popsdenver Yesterday #34
Original link... Pluvious Yesterday #20
Sadly, it's abundantly unclear when serious people like Joyce Vance will be able... Ol Janx Spirit Yesterday #22
Pres REDACTED! Hahahahahahahahaha love it. Callie1979 Yesterday #32
Great post bigtree. Thanks. c-rational Yesterday #23
It wasn't legal, moral, ethical, nor wise Uncle Joe Yesterday #25
IT is also abundantly clear that Gordcanuck Yesterday #27
However, Alito, Thomas and Kavanaugh would approve. Sneederbunk Yesterday #28
right bigtree Yesterday #30
Trump's board of peace ends the United Nations. His Executive of War instructs Generals to disregard Geneva Convention ChicagoTeamster Yesterday #35
moot in his term bigtree Yesterday #36
Just like Iraq - Weapons inspector David Kay testified there were no weapons of mass destruction OhioBlue Yesterday #38
U.S. constitution gives Congress war declaration power DemocracyForever 23 hrs ago #39
We have been in Greg_In_SF 23 hrs ago #40
it's a further confirmation of his lawlessness bigtree 23 hrs ago #41
Was it evidence of the Obama being lawless when he launched attacks? EdmondDantes_ 2 hrs ago #54
they did them with a coalition of support bigtree 1 hr ago #55
Not sure I agree with your total DemocracyForever 4 hrs ago #51
It's somewhere Greg_In_SF 4 hrs ago #52
It's too late "to do this the right way." Congressional authorization is required BEFORE going to war Martin Eden 23 hrs ago #42
So? progressoid 22 hrs ago #46
There's "good" reason. usonian 22 hrs ago #47
Trump, and by extension his submissive Republican lackeys, have no use for democracy or the Constitution. n/t Beartracks 21 hrs ago #48
Oh, but the strikes on Iran were perfectly justifiable. Wednesdays 21 hrs ago #49
Since when has this administration worried about something being Illegal. republianmushroom 3 hrs ago #53
Latest Discussions»General Discussion»This makes it abundantly ...