Replies

"If it makes no difference, then why not just use the term "war"? Why the objection?"

As I understand it, "War" triggers an array of legal and treaty issues that restrict and complicate our options. Being that this is tied to the war on terrorism, it may spill over there. What pops into mind first is the treatment of POWs: No interrogations, regular mail delivery, furnishment of "scientific instruments", religious services etc… I know there’s more to it than just the POW issue, but that’s all I recall.

Now of course the inevitable call will come, "why are we in these treaties anyway", and "why don’t we just nullify them and call it war anyway". There are political answers to that involving world PR, domestic politics, timing, and the difficulty of reestablishing them next time if we are at war with a developed "civilized" nation, but that’s another long explanation. So rather than get bogged down in redefining a formal fraimwork for a new kind of war (as the publics memory of 9/11 fades), we’ve chosen an authorization method that is without a doubt constant with the sprit of the Constitution, has been upheld by courts and satisfies all but a tiny minority that are represented here.

Those are completely imaginary problems. Congress can provide whatever rules of war they want for a given war, and make them only apply to that particular war, if that is their desire.

The reason they haven't declared war is, quite simply, that the administration wants to be the one to make the decision as to war and peace. To them, the war option is their little ace in the hole, to be laid on the table and retracted entirely at their convenience when it suits their political purposes - in total opposition to the spirit of the Constitution.

See, elf, that's exactly my--and I think, Ron Paul's--objection. It DOES mean something. And it complicates things because our laws say it should complicate things.

The proper course--if we are to have war--is to declare war. If the complications are not acceptable, then those complications should be legally overturned.

Really, the objection to Viet Nam aside (and I maintain we WON the Viet Nam war, while the Congress lost the PEACE), Paul makes a pretty good case. That's why we have declarations of war--because sustained military action is serious.

Sorry, I didn't address your last sentence, where I disagree strongly. Being upheld by the courts is, of course, no guarantee whatsoever that a law is in the spirit of the Constitution. I doubt you will find one of-age, even semi-literate person who would maintain that it is. The "tiny" minority here is not so tiny off this forum for two reasons: many who believe we should formally declare war in order to go to war have never heard of or been on this forum, and, honestly, the vast majority of dissenters have been driven off FR.

It's strange about being "tiny", when I have not spoken with one person--and I converse with at least 20 from all sides of the political spectrum on a weekly basis--who disagrees with me or agrees with you.

FR is hardly a sampling of the American public or, any more, the conservative public.