Replies

Thank you for the historical background. I'm one of those who think that Congress should have officially declared war, so that there could be no question about whether the Constitutional requirement had been fulfilled. Furthermore, there was no persuasive reason not to have officially declared war, thereby avoiding a lot of legal disputes.

Nonetheless, a plausible argument can be made that the Congressional resolution you quoted is the functional equivalent of a "declaration of war" even if those exact words were not used. Certainly it goes a long way towards satisfying the underlying rationale for a declaration of war, namely, that it should be the decision of Congress rather than a single individual (the President) to formally commit our nation to military hostilities.

Furthermore, there was no persuasive reason not to have officially declared war, thereby avoiding a lot of legal disputes.

My understanding is that there would be no insurance payouts, including to the owner of the WTC, if there was an "official" declaration. By "official", I mean with by using the title "Declaration of War". However, the wording in the Joint Resolution is not my any means vague. It is clear that Congress FULLY authorized the use of Military Force, and that the State of War already existed at the time of the Resolution.

Nonetheless, a plausible argument can be made that the Congressional resolution you quoted is the functional equivalent of a "declaration of war" even if those exact words were not used. Certainly it goes a long way towards satisfying the underlying rationale for a declaration of war, namely, that it should be the decision of Congress rather than a single individual (the President) to formally commit our nation to military hostilities.

Correct.

..."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."

Nonetheless, a plausible argument can be made that the Congressional resolution you quoted is the functional equivalent of a "declaration of war" even if those exact words were not used.

Pure meecrob. Congress is required to declare war with a 2/3 vote and give a "declaration of war". When one has to spend hours stringing together opinions on this and that to explain why the resolution was the same as declaring war, when Congress should have just declared war, it is a prime example of mental yoga. Hell, they could dealre war right now, thus ending any and every legal dispute over the detention of persons helping the enemy.

There are several reasons why war wasnt declared. Among them are include the relationship of decalred war and the nullification of insurance policies. The second is that they typicallu need to name a country, and didn't want to name Saudi Arabia and Iraq. Thirdly, the gooberment needed an undending war to forward their orwellian plans.

If Congress did officially declare War, most insurance companies would not have to pay benefits to the families of the victims. Most policies have exclusions for Acts of War.

Further, Congress already passed a law the year before authorizing the President to respond to an attack just like this. I can pull the exact PL number if you need it.

Folks presume that War must be declared for this type of response. Nonsense: in the event of a nuclear war, the nukes are flying WITHOUT anyone's approval but the President's.