We say we’re at war, but is there a formal process that was followed? IIRC, the constitution defines how we can declare war on a foreign power, but does it cover war against amorphous organizations? Does it require a specific enemy or state or are we at war in the way we’re at war against drugs?
Thanks,
PC
Irregardless of any official declaration, announcement or protocol we are at war because war has been declared on us.
No, we’re not really at war. “War on ” is a great way to rally people to a usually bullshit cause. Of course, terror is a real threat, but the way we persue it in the name of the war on terror may well turn out to be a bullshit cause.
I think that PC’s point would be can a non-governmental body/organisation declare war on the US (or anybody)? As we’ve seen, it’s an important distinction regarding POWs etc…
I suspect that they can’t. Otherwise a loony milita etc. can declare war and receive some protection under the Geneva convention.
I don’t know if the US even declared war on Afghanistan - I strongly suspect not.
The no-preview-blues again 
.
1 We are at war since we’ve been attacked - no congress vote is needed
2 the Congress has voted constitutionally that we are at war and has given the Pres sole discression as to who to attack (the constitution does not go into any detail as to what a D.o.W must/must not be.
3 War was declared on a group in the past (Barbary pirates) so there is precedent.
The answer is “not officially”.
P.S. “Irregardless” - not a real word.
k2dave:
Incorrect. See both the US Constitution and the declaration of war against Japan in 1941.
Incorrect. The US Congress has authorized the use of military force. There has been no declaration of war in the current crisis.
Incorrect. The US Constitution specifically limits the power to declare war to the Congress. The President cannot declare war. The President may request that Congress do so.
Those pirates were agents of the coastal states which is why the US, following the lead of other nations, was able to negotiate treaty payments with those states to keep the Barbary Pirates from harassing US shipping. Tripoli and Algiers broke the treaties and brought the war on themselves by doing so. {I got this info from Microsoft Encarta.}
jjimm:
From Merriam-Webster’s online dictionary (bolding mine):
Thank you, Monty, you saved me from lots of coding errors.
For a short lesson (with coding errors), please see this.
Thank’s everyone. I periodically hear various statements about it and, of course, there’s all those legality questions about what we do with our “POWs” and I was wondering where we stood.
PC
Monty There was no need to declare war on Japan - it was a formality when we are attacked we are at war.
The Constitution does not define what a formal D.o.W must be - I defy you to find it. What does the use of military force mean to you?
.You statement is sidestepping the issue and in no way counters my statement.
Just to add with WW2 Japan - Congress would look pretty stupid if they didn’t. This is part of what I believe happened/is happining now - congress had to delcare war on someone after 9-11-01 but now they are crying foul because they want the political boost that comes with supporting a war.
k2dave, since last year’s attacks were by a non-state organization, surely this makes the de facto war status difficult to declare: was the US state ‘at war’ with McVeigh?
P.S. I stand corrected re. “irregardless” (though MW does echo my feeling that it’s a sucky word).
You make a good point but it just leaves the issue open for interpertation not a conclusion.
It’s ironic that the same people who say this is a real war are the ones who deny the prisoners the status of POWs.
k2dave: Let me address that mal…er, statement of yours.
The fact that Japan attacked the United States meant that Japan had gone to war against the United States. You might recall (or maybe not, given your, ah, interesting take on events) that Japan had instructed their ambassador to deliver a declaration of war.
My posting does not sidestep jack.
A U.S. Declaration of War can only be made by the Congress of the United States.
A Declaration of War changes the Powers granted to the President of the United States, greatly increasing them. The President can suspend portions of the Bill of Rights, the Constitution, and Federal Laws. The Sedition Act of 1918. Internment of Japanese-American citizens in WWII. Federal takeover of tranportation and core industries. Price fixing.
Article I, Section 9 of the U.S. Constitution permits the federal government to suspend the writ of habeas corpus
This permits the president to arrest and detain anyone without trial for indefinite periods.
Can you see why Congress is generally reluctant to officially Declare War?
It’s been very informative. I appreciate k2dave’s subjective view of war as well as the legal/political meaning. I thought I remembered stuff about presidential powers and laws being ‘adjusted’ during a war as opposed to a military action (which I thought was limited to something like 6 months (weeks?) without congresional approval). So Section 8 of article I (see UncleBill’s link) says
Maybe that’s why congress passed that ‘patriot’ bill that gave the executive branch all those expanded powers instead of declaring war.
PC