Replies

So soldiers should have refused to go to Iraq without a Congressional declaration of war?

There was a congressional motion passed to give the president authority to take military action in Iraq. So, no. Your red herring is BS. The United States has a system that allows a soldier to contest an unlawful order and, if he is in the right and has a good lawyer, to am that moral stand stick. Go try that in some other country. OF COURSE the 'system' gets to set the official interpretation. Who else is going to set it? No one is arguing against that. The difference between that and your cynical claptrap is that the constitution has the final say, even over the offical take on it. And we have systems in place to match that. The Constitution still matters, and there are an awful lot of people willing to keep it that way.

There was a congressional motion passed to give the president authority to take military action in Iraq. So, no.

Says you. I've read solid arguments that say it is not constitutional to go to war without a declaration. If everyone is bound to the Constitution, they are also bound to their interpretation of it, no? And you can have intelligent disagreement. What if a soldier THINKS it's unconstitutional?