CONGRESS DID DECLARE WAR! Joint Resolution Authorizing The Use Of Force Against Terrorists

U.S. Congress ^ | 9/14/2001 | U.S. Congress

[RightWhale]

Perhaps some of our favorite congressional spokesmen could speak to this matter, get the word out. The way it is now it seems 99% of the American citizens are under the impression that Congress needed to declare war in this case even though a state of war already exists whether some choose to ignore it or not.

Lately some are comparing this to Korea, Vietnam, or the Gulf War. Whatever one may think of those actions, this one is different, we are at war, we were attacked and are being attacked.

[William Tell]

Hacksaw said: "What nation should we declare war against?"

The government of Afghanistan for harboring criminals.

War is a political process. Crime is a judicial process. Confusing the two is not helpful.

[NormsRevenge]

Am I not 100% haPPy with the state of affairs or our current predicament. You seem to think Bush is capitulating to foreign interests or insurance companies at the expense of the american people. Say it. Don;t Imply IT.

[FreeTally]

thought it reads more like a 'Writ of Attorney' tha(n) any declaration. . .

I was thinking more along the lines of "Sh!T of Attorney", but thats just me.

[lavaroise]

bump

[sheltonmac]

Good points, Triple. I think there are three possible explanations for Congress intentionally avoiding a declaration of war:

1) Issuing a "joint resolution" would make it appear that they are taking decisive action without having to deal with the extra political baggage that might go along with actually voting to declare war.

- or -

2) Declaring war would require some effort on the government's part to determine who was actually responsible for the 9/11 attacks. In other words, a declaration of war on specific parties would put too many constraints on the actions of the federal government. By passing a "joint resolution," Congress essentially left everything open-ended. The president--and any future president, for that matter--is free to bomb anyone he pleases as long as it falls under the loosely defined "war on terror."

- or -

3) There is a general consensus in Washington that following the Constitution is old-fashioned and too restrictive.

[Wolfstar]

Agitator (and others with similar views), the truth of the matter is this: THE RADICAL ISLAMISTS WANT TO KILL YOU, YOUR FAMILY, AND ME, AND MINE, AND EVERY OTHER AMERICAN. Whether or not Congress used a formal statement that includes the phrase "declare war," there is absolutely no doubt that they authorized the use of the United States armed forces to combat this extreme threat to us.

A range of Constitutional experts have said that a formal (and some would argue, archaic) declaration of war is reserve only for conflicts between nations. It does not apply to loosely organized, shadowy groups who are acting for themselves rather than as any nation's army.

Simply because Congress did not use that phrase in its resolution, what would you have us do? Fail to act while we debate and try to resolve these issues.

[William Tell]

NormsRevenge said: "All you folks would give the terrorists there day in court is what I see going on here..."

Absolutely. War is a political matter. Crime is a judicial matter. The Bush administration is slowly making progress at distinguishing the two. The lack of a true declaration of war by Congress is not helpful.

[freeeee]

The way it is now it seems 99% of the American citizens are under the impression that Congress needed to declare war in this case even though a state of war already exists whether some choose to ignore it or not.

Why did Congress declare war after Pearl Harbor? For fun?

[NormsRevenge]

Thank U. This is what our enemies would hope for ,, That we would bicker so much amongst ourselves, they can accomplish their goals without being discovered becuz we are chasing our tails... or should I say details.

[RightWhale]

Why did Congress declare war after Pearl Harbor?

Did they?

[Donna Lee Nardo]

Someone ought to inform O'Reilly.

[William Tell]

moneyrunner said: "As a practical shield against a bomber, it’s [the Constitution] about as useful as my shirt, yet the fools who argue about the issue of whether every “i” is dotted and “t” crossed seem to believe that this little booklet is my ultimate defense against the people who are willing to give their own lives to kill us. "

I disagree totally. As a practical matter, my consent to be governed by the Constitution and to protect YOU with it is essential to any success you should expect from our government. I withdraw my consent to be governed by a Congress which ignores its sworn duty. You should be very concerned that I have withdrawn my consent.

[Eagle Eye]

There are those who vigorously defend the Constitution, liberty, and freedom.

And there are those that don't.

It is easy to read these threads and see who is concerned with liberty and who is not.

At least we all know where you stand.

[freeeee]

You seem to think Bush is capitulating to foreign interests or insurance companies at the expense of the american people. Say it. Don;t Imply IT.

Foreign interests, no. I don't think that's his motivation. I think he doesn't want a war declaration because that implies a possible end to the war, and with that go all the new war powers. His administration has already openly stated on several occasions that the war on terror is going to last all our lifetimes, or forever, depending on which statement you go by. Besides, if war were declared, enemy pow's would be protected by the Geneva Convention. I don't think he wants that either. But if we're going to sign treaties, we have to honor them, or formally withdraw from them. This signing treaties, and then ignoring the Constitution by not declaring war so we don't have to honor them when we don't feel like it doesn't fly.

The insurance policies were just icing on the cake.

[NormsRevenge]

I;d rather give all the terrorists a nice long dirt nap myself.

[NormsRevenge]

Uhh, was that a Thumbs Up or :-?

[NormsRevenge]

I think he doesn't want a war declaration because that implies a possible end to the war, and with that go all the new war powers.

Obviously your brain is wired different from mine.

[Eagle Eye]

You ARE concerned with encroachments on liberty and willing to defend the Constitutional processes, aren't you? You are NOT willing to give up freedoms for security, are you?

[freeeee]

Did they?

"Joint Resolution Declaring That a State of War Exists Between The Imperial Government of Japan and the Government And the People of the United States and Making Provisions To Prosecute the Same, 8 December 1941

Whereas the Imperial Government of Japan has committed unprovoked acts of war against the Government and the people of the United States of America:

Therefore be it Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the state of war between the United States and the Imperial Government of Japan which has thus been thrust upon the United States is hereby formally declared; and the President is hereby authorized and directed to employ the entire naval and military forces of the United States and the resources of the Government to carry on war against the imperial Government of Japan; and, to bring the conflict to a successful termination, all of the resources of the country are hereby pledged by the Congress of the United States.

Approved, December 8, 1941, 4:10 p.m., E. S. T."

Please note it only took one day to accomplish this. Please also take special note that an 'act of war' was taken against us, which did not constitute our declaring war against another nation. That is Congress's job, and certainly not that of a foreign aggressor.