Only if you don’t read the actual AUMF passed by Congress. The first one is quite broad, and is not limitted to Afghanistan by any means.
The United States is not “at war.” We have not declared war.
What value that distinction may have in the modern world is not clear. Nor is it an unusual situation to be using our military to accomplish what Clausewitz would undoubtedly have considered covered by his use of the German word for “war;” we’ve been using the military that way since Washington’s administration (see the shores of Tripoli). But at present the quaint concept of formally notifying your enemies that you intend military action against them probably is gone for good. We certainly have been involved in a number of military actions since 1945 that looked a lot like “war.” So what the Constitutional requirement about declaring war really means any more is quite unclear.
Has anyone declared war since WWII?
That was sooooo last century…
Declaring war is now left up to nation wannabes, like al Qaeda.
I honestly don’t know. I suppose there might have been official declarations made in one or more of the Middle East wars between the various arabic nations and Israel, and it is possible that some form of declaration exists in the Korea conflict. I don’t know if either Argentina or the UK issued a formal declaration. Other than those wars, I can’t think of any wars off the top of my head since 1945 where the main fighting involved two nations squaring off against each other, as opposed to nations lining up on one side or the other of some internal insurgency (as, for example, Viet Nam).
But the question is not about “as a practical matter.” The question is whether, legally/constitutionally, we are in a situation that would justify according a “wartime” breadth of powers to the presidency.
Yes. We have, unless you would care to demonstrate that Congressional resolutions authorizing force do not constitute a declaration of war. To do that all you have to do is show me where in the Constitution it says that the declaration must say “I declare war” or “as of now a state of war exists between…”. Without such a cite I am forced to conclude that a Congressional resolution authorizing force is such a declaration.
I’m bringing this up because it went completely ignored, with a declarative “We have not declared war” from DSYoungEsq, when it is not at all certain that he is right. In fact, I think he is incorrect.
So there’s your debate, gentlemen.
Don’t think its quite that cut and dried, Dave. For instance, a treaty of alliance might very well insist on such a declaration before prearranged responses take effect. This allows “wiggle room” - America’s allys were not obligated to take part in our splendid military adventure in Grenada, for instance, since no Declaration of War was made, it was simply a informal beat down of a helpless nation which had the misfortune of annoying us.
Personally, I view the ongoing degradation of Congressional power as a slobbery slope to Executive autocracy, aided and abetted by craven and cringing Congressvarmints.
Did you miss this part?
Sounds like he’s saying the same thing you are.
That distinction has *tremendous * value in determining if the President does, in fact, have the authority to ignore our Constitutional rights in the name of fighting that war.
Maybe, and maybe it doesn’t. After all, there is nothing in the Constitution that says the President doesn’t have the ability to reduce the scope of the rights granted to us during a state of armed conflict that hasn’t been declared as a war. Of course, there isn’t anything in there that says he CAN do it, either.
Plenty of Democratic presidents have engaged in rights limiting behaviour during periods of armed conflict (can anyone say Viet Nam?) that weren’t declared wars, so this isn’t just some right wing conservative concept; the constant tug and pull between individual rights and collective security always ends up being severely tested when we are fighting someone abroad. Unless and until the Supreme Court is required to decide what, if any, value a “declaration of war” has on such issues (presumably by limiting the ability of the Executive to do something during a period of armed conflict that doesn’t have a declaration), we won’t know exactly what the declaration actually does legally.
As to Airman Doors, USAF, the answer is quite simple. The simple fact that the Constitution makes an express provision that Congress has the power to Declare War (along with the power to issue Letters of Marque and Reprisal; when was the last time anyone did THAT) means that, in the absence of such a Declaration by Congress, we have not as a nation Declared War. Which isn’t to say we aren’t fighting; I’m not certain that the Pasha/Bey of Tripoli was particularly concerned about the fact that no formal declaration of war preceded the arrival of Marines on his doorstep in 1805.
But if “at war” is to have some legal meaning, one must presume it comes in connection with the provision for declaring us at war contained in the Constitution. And that we haven’t done since 1941.
Barry Goldwater is spinning in his grave. But on the bright side, I hear Big Brother is looking for a new speechwriter to explain the current war with Eastasia.
The other simple fact is that the Constitution, while reserving the right to declare war to the Congress, makes no mention of the form that declaration must take. The Congress could pass a resolution saying that Kim Jong-Il is a poopyhead and therefore force is authorized, and that is a declaration of war simply because Congress authorized it. What you perceive as a declaration of war is nothing more than a formality which Congress has omitted since World War II. All of the standards for a declaration according to the Constitution are met, those being:
- Congress authorized the action.
- Congress budgeted for the action.
(aside)
Sam Houston and Davy Crockett? Yankees? Yore insultin’ a homeboy.
:rolleyes:
[quote]
Airman Doors
- Congress authorized the action.
- Congress budgeted for the action.
It’s just not the same language, Airman Doors. For example, in an emergency situation, the President declares that an emergency exists. Then he authorizes National Guard troups to go in or he authorizes FEMA to go into “action,” and federal funds to be channeled into recovery, etc.
If I file a grievance at work, I can’t just authorize the professional organization to take action on my behalf. I must first declare that a grievance exists. That is written policy. It means something.
It is like a contract: It puts a time and date and place to a statement.
We know the date of the Declaration of Independence and we know the wording. We know who declared our independence! They signed their names to the Declaration.
I’m curious. Was the Declaration of War in 1941 signed and dated?
If Congressional declarations didn’t matter anymore, then we overthrew three national government that day.
The boys love Davy Crockett
Who died at the Alamo
I heard him say when they attacked,
“I knew this room would kill the act!”
– The Kingston Trio, album The New Frontier
A slice of lime passed through my nose unimpeded…
We are in fact not at war at the moment. There may be a legal justification for giving the President wartime powers anyway, but if so it will be the usual legal obfuscation of the facts n the ground. Other than making that point, I’m not interested in the topic – I have seen the law twisted in all sorts of ways, I’m not interested in seeing the latest iteration of the Evil Legal Pretzel.
Which allies, elucidator? Our NATO allies had no obligation to participate in Grenada because (i) Grenada lies outside the geographical limits of Articles V and VI of the North Atlantic Treaty, and (ii) the treaty requires an attack on the physical territory of the signatories to obligate a collective response, without regard to whether war has been declared, and Grenada was an offensive war by the U.S. Text of the North Atlantic Treaty Point I above is why the US and the rest of NATO had no obligation to join Great Britain in the Falkland Islands war, even though there British territory was attacked and, IIRC, war was declared by Great Britain.
As for other allies, the Organization of Eastern Caribbean States did join the US in the attack on Grenada, as did Jamaica, contributing a total of 300 troops.
Sua
If we are not at war, then logically the laws of war must not apply, right? Why should the Geneva Conventions apply if we are not at war?
The Conventions apply to any armed conflict. We may or may not be “at war,” as a term of legal art; we are most certainly involved in armed conflict.