Posted on 11/28/2007 1:18:09 PM PST by ksen
AG Gonzales "There was not a war declaration, either in connection with Al Qaida or in Iraq. It was an authorization to use military force.
I only want to clarify that, because there are implications. Obviously, when you talk about a war declaration, you're possibly talking about affecting treaties, diplomatic relations. And so there is a distinction in law and in practice. And we're not talking about a war declaration. This is an authorization only to use military force."
The president says we’re in a war. Seems like war to me.
Hogwash.
Do you think if someone wanted to disregard a treaty that they would care one way or another if there was a formal declaration of war. I think not.
I don’t know why the AG said what he said, but I think it makes little difference.
I’ve yet to find someone that can tell me the EXACT difference between a formal declaration and what we have now.
World War II was the last.
Truman referred to the Korean War as a “police action,” and he invoked UN authority when the Soviets walked out and the Security Council passed a resolution.
Correct. Though US forces made up the bulk of the fighting men in the theater, it was a UN mission, not a US one. The US was not at war with North Korea; South Korea was attacked by North Korea, and the UN stepped in to assist. Ditto in 1991 -- the US was not at war with Iraq, but was part of an international coalition that went in to help Saudi Arabia and Kuwait.
A formal declaration of war is a tricky political move. Declaring war necessarily means recognizing another government that you're declaring war on. In Korea, in Afghanistan, and for that matter in the Civil War, the US could not formally declare war, because recognizing the enemy government would undercut the entire rationale behind the war. The US could not declare war on the Kim regime in Pyongyang, or on the Taliban, or on the Confederacy, because to do so would be to legitimize them.
I don’t think it’s clear from the Constitution whether there must be a formal declaration, and the president has certain emergency powers that do not require immediate congressional approval, although congress does have the clear right to withhold funds.
It's clearly unclear. As commander in chief, the president clearly has the power to send troops and call up the militia in cases of invasion or insurrection. The very first president, George Washington, did just that to combat the Whiskey Rebellion.
To clarigy the gray areas in the Constitution, Congress in the wake of Vietnam passed the War Powers Act. No president has accepted its restrictions, but they've all stayed within its terms. No president and no Congress has pressed the point, so there's never been a test case.
Iraq invaded Kuwait in 1990. An international coalition, led by the US, came to Kuwait's aid. None of those countries was in a formal state of war with Iraq -- Kuwait was, and the international troops were just there to help free Kuwait and defend Saudi Arabia.
The shooting stopped due to a cease-fire. There was never a formal peace treaty. If Saddam failed to abide by the terms of the cease-fire, then hostilities would resume. It's a fine distinction, but an important one in the world of international law.
Ergo, the claim that we didn’t need to declare war because the ceasefire was violated doesn’t hold. Iraq was run out of Kuwait - end of “police action”. For a ceasefire violation to warrant toppling a government, when the violation has nothing to do with the act that started the conflict, is an issue of war.
Opinions of an Attorny General carry no weight. It cannot be cited in a case before a judge.
I'm not sure what being able to be cited in a court case has to do with anything carrying any weight. Not being able to be cited in a court case would mean it doesn't carry any weight with the Judicial branch.
Good. That was what I thought, but I was working mostly from memory of old news items and discussions over many years.
The Romans believed strongly in the importance of formally declaring war, and largely as a result it became a tradition in western political thought. But Latin is no longer taught in our schools and Rome and Greece are no longer honored as sources of our civilization, so those traditions have grown pretty dim. If anyone thinks of Rome, it’s liberals who say, America is a second, evil Roman empire, and conservatives who respond, No, we are not.
Iraq is of course a country, but it was only a battle in the War against (Islamic)Terror. Iraq only became a war in itself after the battle was won.
Hope that helps.
Only the Seminol wars were declared by congress.
Rest do not count as declared wars...
They are infallible as well as incomprehensible.
Juries are always instructed that opinions and arguments of lawyers are not evidence. They cannot be used for any president.
Even judges cannot issue a ruling on a subject unless it is directly before the court, and have had both sides argued.
On this question, a federal court ruled that the resolution passed by congress is a "functional equivalent of a declaration of war".
Just because it didn't contain the words was immaterial.
Read post 93. There are SOME of the differences. Not to mention that, had congress actually said that a state of war exists between the United States and Iraq, we would not now have the funding issues, the “timelines” issues, nor any of the other barbra streisand we have now, as a declaration that we are AT WAR, a FORMAL declaration, COMMITS the congress and the country to WIN it. In the shortest amount of time. Which means doing whatever it takes to crush the enemy and rob him of his will to resist. THAT’S the difference and if you can’t or don’t care to see that, YOU got the problem. Not to further mention that we had no plan in place when we invaded Iraq TO win. A PLAN means having quantifiable goals, knowing when they are achieved, and then LEAVING. No open-ended stays. No endless state of nation-building. As we did in WWI, you beat the enemy until he surrenders unconditionally, then you go home. Oh, and you don’t let your “allies” continue to grind his face in the dirt, as the french and brits did to Germany, or you create OTHER problems for later on.
Um, the answer to your question is in the short excerpt that you posted.
So why did you respond to this one?
You don't see a point in this thread. Ok, good for you. Why are you responding to it then?
Because, as I told dcwusmc, you Paul Pods constantly wail that the Iraq war was undeclared, but never seem to say what difference it makes. Would Paul have supported going to Iraq if it had been declared formally? Of course not. Is there any other stance he has taken that would have changed? Uh uh. So why all the jibber-jabber? I want to know. You don't want to say. Usually, that means there IS no answer.
And if you don't know that there is a difference, legally and practically, between officially declaring war and not officially declaring war then I can't really help you.
Neither you nor Paul have elucidated why the difference matters. If either of you could, it would be as easy as linking to a speech in which he explains it, or your addressing it AT LEAST ONCE in the maddog thread, which you have failed to do. It doesn't speak well of a supposedly serious politician that one of his bullet points is a red herring.
Enjoy your illusion.
I’m not sure how a declaration of war ensures what you say it ensures. If you have any evidence of what you write I would love to see it.
As for WWI...yes we came home, not long after that we had to go back in. And we have maintained bases in Europe ever since! Your analogy is horribly flawed.
Because then we would have to actually win it and that would mean defining victory.
You will note that we never have defined what our objectives, so we can use that confusion to allow us to stay wherever we want forever!
Have we ever left a nation voluntarily, that did not throw us out first?
No. Gonzales is a putz. The Constitution prescribes no particular language for a declaration of war.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.