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."
I have heard it argued that the real value of a war declaration gives the government the ability to do certain things that they’re not otherwise supposed to do, in terms of individual citizen’s rights- such as phone tapping, detentions, etc. Under a war declaration, there’s a mechanism to return the country to a state of freedom after the war is over.
I’m not sure about this, but this is what I’ve heard others say.
We didn't?
I don't remember war being declared during Desert Shield/Storm either.
Now, what is the context that Gonzalez said this?
I'm eagerly anticipating something resembling a point.
His opinion at that time was entirely relevant. He made the claim in front of the Senate Judiciary committee and no Senator, from either party, tried to correct him.
Declaration was not legally required. Dire threat is not the necessary reason for declaring war.
I like that bit about “speak truth to whiners” and I think I will steal it.
I will, of course, attribute it to you a time or two, but after that, its mine.
That’s what has been simmering in my head for quite some time.
Sure, the action itself can obviously be construed as “declaring war”.
But ... if it’s so easy to just declare it, why haven’t we? and why do supporters of the, er, activities in Iraq get so jumpy when I suggest doing so?
Welcome to the age of non-accountability. People want a war with the option of saying “well, it isn’t really...” if convenient to do so.
On the whole I support what’s being done in Iraq et al.
I just wish our leaders would officially declare what is happening to be what is happening, and not be squeamish about calling a war a war.
We dont want to be called "Unilateralists", so we dont declare war, we have a military action as being a part of a "Coalition" of nations. IMHO.
Obvious you did not even bother to read it, or even think about, this issue at all.
Nice you have feelings about Iraq. Too bad your feelings don't count for anything at all. Your minority viewpoint does not get to trump our votes. Our Govt., of, by and for the people, is doing the will of the people. That you don't care for what it is doing matter not in the least.
Try winning some elections then your Neo Isolationist dogmas might matter but until they do, your minority opinions do not trump our majority rights.
By the way, this not declaring war since WW2 really has to do with the UN. We’ve been playing by globalist rules for decades now. The elites want it this way, so this is what we get.
The Iraqi Liberation Act of 1998, signed into law by Co-President Clinton, shoudl be all the force of law we need.
Right?
(*crickets*)
I'm looking at Wikipedia's article titled Declaration of war by the United States.
It contains two lists - "Formal declarations of war" and "Military engagements authorized by Congress".
According to the article, Congress began the practice of authorizing the use of military force without a formal declaration of war in 1798.
If you follow the link you'll be able to read the whole transcript.
Basically Gonazales was testifying before the Senate Judiciary committee about wartime executive authority and NSA surveillance authority.
Specifically the AG was responding to Senator Brownback. Here is more of the exchange:
BROWNBACK: Having said that, I've read through most of your white paper material, and I've looked at a great deal of it. I'm struck and I think we have an issue we need to deal with.Part of what we're working off of is a war declaration dated September 18th, 2001, and the war declaration on Afghanistan, and the war declaration October 16th, 2002 on the use of military force in Iraq, and "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."
It strikes me that we're going to be in this war on terrorism possibly for decades; maybe not. But this could be the Cold War of our generation. Maybe it doesn't go that period of time, but it has the possibilities of going for some extended period of time.
And I share Senator DeWine's concern that we should look, then, at the FISA law, and make sure that as we move forward in this, that we're not just depending upon these authorizations of war to say that that puts us in a superior position under the Article II powers, but that to maintain the support of the American public, to have another set of eyes also looking at this surveillance technique is an important thing in maintaining the public's support for this.
And so I want to look and direct you to looking at the FISA law in particular. And you've made some comments here this today that have been very well stated and thought through. You've talked to one point the FISA law was not well structured to the needs of today's terrorist war effort. The law was passed -- what? -- 27 years ago or something of that nature, and certainly didn't contemplate a war on terrorism like we're in today.
And I want to look specifically at how we could amend that FISA law, looking at a possible decades-long war on terrorism.
Now, one of the areas you've talked about that's cumbersome is the 72-hour provision within the law, if I'm gathering what you're saying correctly.
BROWNBACK: Congress extended this period from 24 to 72 hours in 2001.
Just looking narrowly at what would need to be done to use the FISA authority more broadly and still be able to stop terrorists, if that is extended further, would it make it more likely that she would use the FISA process, if that's extended beyond 72 hours?
GONZALES: It's hard to say, Senator, because whether it's 24 or 72, whatever, I have got to make a determination under the law that at the time I grant emergency authorization, that all the requirements of FISA are met. I think General Hayden said it best yesterday: This is not a 72-hour sort of hall pass.
I've got to know when I grant that authorization, whether I then have 24 or 72 hours to submit a written application to the court, I've got to know at the time I say, "Yes, go forward," that all the requirements of FISA are met. That's the problem.
If I could just also make one final point.
BROWNBACK: Fair enough.
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.
Senator Brownback made reference to war being declared and AG Gonzales took the time to correct the Senator that, legally, war had not been declared.
the Senator did not try and correct the AG and let the point stand uncontested.
isn’t wikipedia like posting a blog?
given the accademic weakness of the source I hardly call it appropriate.
We were not fighting a country, but an illegal dictatorship and its security apparatus.
I do not believe he did. My recollection is something like ... he sent the Navy and Marines during a Congressional recess. Then reported to them later.
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.