As for the failure of the congress to declare war, . . . The U.S. was not attacked by a nation.While the US was not attacked by a nation, it was attacked as a nation. These people have a distinct political and cultural aim—to destroy the U.S. and institute a theocracy.
Would a declaration of war be made if the perpetrators of terrorist acts were found holed up in Carlsbad Caverns? Was the capture of the Unibomber a result of a congressional act?Let’s look at a domestic group that would illustrate your concept: La Raza. Using the Kosovo model as an example, La Raza takes over San Antonio, claiming prior historic title and the majority of population. They have killed 5000 US citizens and threaten nuclear or biological warfare if their demands for an independent nation state are not met. In the meantime, they are perpetrating terrorist acts throughout the SW.
In such a scenario, civillaw enforcement would not make any sense. These are not citizens and shouldn’t be accorded the same rights and immunities as such. The other thing is that these acts of war are occurring on U.S. soil.
Since the military is (properly) proscribed from participating in civil law enforcement, how do you constitutionally deal with these actions?
. . . it was not an act of war, nor can and should it be treated as such. . . Bush calls it a war, but it is not, no more than poverty and drugs are belligerents in a war. In this case, the perpetrators should be regarded as mass murderers who must be prevented to commit their crimes again, and by any means necessary, including the US military. I believe the president is definitely acting with the proper constitutiional authority in seeking out the murderers and those that harbor them.One of the ironies of the WOD is that it has brought sharp focus to the difference between civil and military law. What started as simple rhetoric and braggadocio has resulted in the destruction of a vital doctrine: the separation of military and police powers.
Why are hundreds of innocent people (not convicted in a court of law) killed in the WOD? The government truly has been prosecuting a war against its citizens. Constitutional safeguards have been thrown on the ash heap and the motto of many police departments seems to have changed from “To protect and serve” to “Kill ‘em all and let God sort ‘em out.” This is not how police should view the people they are pledged to protect.
OTOH, the military has fallen prey to the other extreme. They have been constrained by civil law concerns and deployed on missions that destroy their battle hardness. This is why we have situations like OSB’s henchman getting away because a “lawyer” didn’t think taking him out was “proper.” We have the spectacles of Somalia and the Cole bombing because we don’t want our military to “intimidate” the locals. We don’t want anyone to think that our military represents a threat to any “peaceful” people.
Sorry, but war is about killing our nations enemies. It is not about truth, justice or any other such lofty goal. War is for the protection of the state and its people. You don’t have time for niceties such as trials and black robes—it is kill or be killed. That is why we need to declare war officially. To prove we are serious. We should not grant these animals the decency accorded to our citizens or even our domestic animals.
Your concern of granting terrorists equality with a nation state is misplaced. The fact they have no state, means simply that they are wholly without protection under treaty or law. In other words, the Geneva Convention does not apply.
And as far as Bush’s Constitutional authority, that doesn’t extend to prosecuting a war without Congressional authorization. I am sorry, but the facts are indisputable. I don’t believe in sidestepping our law for any purpose. Conservatives are too quick to confuse precedence with legitimacy. They are miles apart in both definition and practice.