# For legal/constitutional purposes, is the United States "at war" or not? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [August 19, 2006, 1:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/for-legal-constitutional-purposes-is-the-united-states-at-war-or-not/369338 "2006-08-19T13:46:14Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 5\ **Page:** 4
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [August 25, 2006, 3:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/for-legal-constitutional-purposes-is-the-united-states-at-war-or-not/369338/61 "2006-08-25T15:07:58Z")
[QUOTE=BrainGlutton] In the (highly unlikely, I admit, at least WRT to the Senate) the Dems should gain control of Congress this November, why wouldn’t they be successful in passing it? Would the Pubs dare to filibuster – and provoke the Dems to implement the “nuclear option” (the Pubs having opened that door already)? [/QUOTE] The Senate wouldn’t be able to pass “the nuclear option” in any case. But I still don’t see Congress defunding a military action that is in progress. Talk about “not supporting the troops”. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [August 25, 2006, 4:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/for-legal-constitutional-purposes-is-the-united-states-at-war-or-not/369338/62 "2006-08-25T16:00:51Z")
**BG** : Scratch that last reply, since I mixed up my AUMFs. The first AUMF is the one we’re talking about, but I doubt that that even a Democratically controled Congress could agree on wording for a new resolution and just scrapping the old one would be suicide for the Dems. Maybe you’d be able to get the Pubs to agree not to filibuster if there was a Democrat in the WH, but in that case the Dems in Congress probably wouldn’t be concerned enough to change it in the first place. And changing the wording in that AUMF isnt worth “the nuclear option” which would have to be redefined from what the Pubs wanted to do for judicial appointees only and applied to all acts of Congress. No way is the Senate going to ditch the filibuster rule entirely. No way. ---
**Author:** ![Evil\_Captor](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/f17d59/32.png) [@Evil\_Captor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Evil_Captor)\ **Post date:** [August 25, 2006, 11:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/for-legal-constitutional-purposes-is-the-united-states-at-war-or-not/369338/63 "2006-08-25T23:45:41Z")
[QUOTE=Ravenman] And if we picked up the prisoners either (a) not in the warzone, such as the guy who was kidnaped in the Balkans and sent to Guantanamo, or (b) captured after the “war was over,” like every suspected Iraqi “terrorist” we’ve caught since May 1, 2003, then it is reasonable to conclude that the Geneva Conventions should not apply because those people couldn’t be prisoners of war, because the war was over (or never there) before they were captured. Isn’t this the logical conclusion of the argument you are laying out? [/QUOTE] If they are not POWs they are criminals of the everyday sort, presumably, and should get a trial in a real court, and a speedy one too. Nothing that has happened in Guantanamo is legal, or should be. ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [August 26, 2006, 12:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/for-legal-constitutional-purposes-is-the-united-states-at-war-or-not/369338/64 "2006-08-26T00:07:53Z")
[QUOTE=DSYoungEsq] Years go by, and you still pick fights with me for no apparent reason other than your dislike of me. :rolleyes: [/quote] No, for your intellectual inconsistency, as I’ve already pointed out. That’s kinda part o’ what we \*do \* here, ya know. > [@](#): > > I also believe it to be a distinction of no true value in today’s world, where no one declares war, and where we engage in armed conflicts of quite large nature without such a declaration.. Please refer back to what I have already pointed out to you about where and when it is \*terribly \* important, if our Constitution and laws are to have any importance at all. Do you, in fact, \*have \* a reply of any substance? ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [August 26, 2006, 3:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/for-legal-constitutional-purposes-is-the-united-states-at-war-or-not/369338/65 "2006-08-26T15:29:49Z")
[QUOTE=John Mace] But I still don’t see Congress defunding a military action that is in progress. Talk about “not supporting the troops”. [/QUOTE] You can get around that with the slogan (which for once actually **means** something, “Support our troops! Bring them home!” [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/for-legal-constitutional-purposes-is-the-united-states-at-war-or-not/369338.md?page=3)