Are we at war?

[wtbymark]

I thought congress authorized military action which is different from a declaration of war. But they keep talking war war war, war powers blah terror blah. Which is it? A military action such as Viet Nam - or war? The answer could be the start of stripping the chimp of his powers. Congress did not declare war, therefor the fuckin' monkey outstretched his authority. Anyone concur?

[kenny blankenship]

1. war with everyone --the exact roster of countries TBA on an ongoing basis

[PDJane]

2. no.

The US is involved in an occupation. Not the same thing.

[MrModerate]

3. I don't know the legal definition, but . . .

It seems obvious to me that the more reasonable approach to terrorism would be to regard it as primarily an international law enforcement/diplomacy issue, and add in a liberal (pun intended) helping of world economic justice.

[bluethruandthru]

4. Yeah...just like the "War" on drugs. n/t

[Dhalgren]

5. Absolutely! We are not at war, period! The US, just like most

all of the "western" nations, are under threat from a small organization of religio-political fanatics who should be dealt with using modern criminal intelligence/law enforcement organs and capabilities. Not even close to a "war" - I mean, until we began the wholesale murdering of Iraqis for no damned reason. I guess you could call what we are doing in Iraq a "war", but it is a piss-poor murderous crime more than anything else...

[TahitiNut]

6. No. Even under the most enabling interpretaion ...

... the Executive Branch declaration of a "War on Terror" does NOT, I repeat NOT, extablsih a state of war. It is a foreign policy position only! To the degree that Congress authorizes and funds the use of military force for the purposes of going to war (i.e. invading and defeating another country), the state of war only exists up to the point of that defeat. In Iraq, that was around late April 2003 - when the "war" ended and we became an occupying force. It would be ironic to interpret Smirk's "Mission Accomplished" posturing as the end of a state of war - but that's exactly how the most rationally forgiving interpretation would have it, imho.

[rainy]

7. Thanks for this post as I have been wondering when anyone

was going to note all this "we are at war" shit. Didn't Bush delare major combat opperations over?

[wtbymark]

8. then he should have absolutely NO power to subvert FISA

and therefor committed a crime

then what is this hearing for? the legality of breaking a law under executive powers that were not granted?

[The Magistrate]

9. No, Sir, We Are Not At War

Not by any stretch of the legal concept of that state.

On the one hand, our military forces are engaged in a colonial venture of iccuoation, in Iraq. On the other, we confront a police problem, albeit one of colossal scale, consisting of a wide-ranging and fluid criminal conspiracy to commit acts of violence towatrds a political end, in which it has been, and certainly on occassion will be again, necessary to employ military force in order enable effective police action. Neither of these things constitutes war. Nor has war been declared, nor has the suppression of insurrection been declared, legally, by the only power able constitutionally to do so, the Congress of the United States.