War to be declared

[Otto]

Rep. Bob Barr (R-GA) is on MSNBC right now stating that a joint resolution will be introduced in Congress today declaring war on “international terrorism and those who perpetrate it.” Ladies and gentlemen, if this passes, by the end of the day we will be at a permanent state of war. How can we declare war on an act? There’s no clearly defined enemy and no way objectively to know when the war is over. Depending on the wording, any time there’s a car bomb anywhere the argument can be made that this declaration of war opens the door for U.S. warfare without any further action. I’ve been angry, shocked, concerned, numb, and almost any other emotion that you can name over the last few days. This is the first time I’ve actually been terrified.

[BobT]

I don’t think you can declare war officially on an extra-national group. I don’t think there is any international precedent for such matters.

The Congress is much more likely to pass a joint resolution authorizing the President to use military force as he sees necessary.

Remember, we didn’t declare war against Iraq and that was an actual sovereign nation.

[Earthworm_Jim]

Well, let’s not forget that we’re currently at war with drugs, too…I wouldn’t put too much stock in the wording.

[evilhanz]

Nothing in the Constitutionally authorized war powers mandates that we identify a specific nation-state in a declaration of War.

The relevant sections are: Article I, Section 8 and Article 2, Section 2

[tiny_ham]

*Originally posted by Beelzebubba *
**Well, let’s not forget that we’re currently at war with drugs, too…I wouldn’t put too much stock in the wording. **

Beelzebubba, honestly, I want to thank you for making me laugh for the first time in about…oh, three days. I know this isn’t a time to be funny, but that was just so ‘wry’.

thanks

jarbaby

[Otto]

The Constitution (article I section 8: “To declare war, grant letters of marque and reprisal, and make rules concerning captures on land and water”) authorizes Congress to declare war. There is no restiriction on against who or what war may be declared. Barr stated that his resolution is not an authorization to use force, similar to what was passed prior to the invasion of Iraq. This is a “declaration of war.” The “war on drugs” is a rhetorical devide. This would not be.

I’ve emailed my Congresswoman and my senators urging them to oppose this resolution.

[Liberal]

I think they just want it to look like they’re doing something. There is precedent for such shadow wars, e.g., the War on Alchohol (Andrew Volstead of Minnesota), the War on Poverty (Lyndon Johnson) and the War on Americans I Mean Drugs (Richard Nixon).

[IzzyR]

I would say if they found out that Iraq or Afghanistan was behind it and wanted to declare war on them it might be appropriate. Otherwise its probably just some PR deal. (Although it may be that the president has greater leeway under US law if a war is declared. But I agree that it is pretty nebulous if not declared on a country).

[Otto]

In all but name:

The Associated Press
Sept. 14, 2001

Text of the joint resolution authorizing the use of force against terrorists, adopted Friday by the Senate:
To authorize the use of United States armed forces against those responsible for the recent attacks launched against the United States.

Whereas, on Sept. 11, 2001, acts of despicable violence were committed against the United States and its citizens; and
Whereas, such acts render it both necessary and appropriate that the United States exercise its rights to self-defense and to protect United States citizens both at home and abroad, and
Whereas, in light of the threat to the national security and foreign policy of the United States posed by these grave acts of violence, and
Whereas, such acts continue to pose an unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security and foreign policy of the United States,
Whereas the president has authority under the Constitution to take action to deter and prevent acts of international terrorism against the United States.
Resolved by the Senate and the House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
Section 1. Short Title
This joint resolution may be cited as the “Authorization for Use of Military Force”
Section 2. Authorization for Use of United States Armed Forces
(a) That the president is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on Sept. 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons.
(b) War Powers Resolution Requirements
(1) Specific Statutory Authorization – Consistent with section 8(a)(1) of the War Powers Resolution, the Congress declares that this section is intended to constitute specific statutory authorization within the meaning of section 5(b) of the War Powers Resolution.
(2) Applicability of Other Requirements – Nothing in this resolution supersedes any requirement of the War Powers Resolution.

So, who thinks that some force that this open-ended declaration authorizes will be deemed “unnecessary” or “inappropriate”?

[Opus1]

BobT wrote:

I don’t think you can declare war officially on an extra-national group. I don’t think there is any international precedent for such matters.

What about when the U.S. declared war on the Barbary Pirates?

[BobT]

When the U.S. declared war on the Barbary Pirates, there were actual nations that the U.S. declared war on, such as Tunis, Algiers, and Morocco. Morocco was the first country to recognize the United States.

And while the Constitution doesn’t specify that Congress has to declare war on a state, I would think that international law would make that requirement.

Since Congress passed a use of force resolution that pretty much gives the President carte blanche to use military force as he sees fit, a formal declaration of war is unlikely.