Replies

"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."

You have absolutely no idea what you’re talking about. The Geneva convention that we formally become a treaty member to about 60 years ago does not bend to "whatever rules of war Congress wants for a given war". I really can’t take extraordinary claims seriously when they come from someone who doesn’t even know this.

I’m no authority on this, but I know better than to read a few kook editorials from fringe groups and start parroting them as if I’m now an authority and know something that the establishment hasn’t figured out. It’s not a grand conspiracy, the whole world isn’t more corrupt than you, and you’re not exceptionally brave, brilliant or insightful. This is an imperfect world, another tricky day, and this war is as just and legal as about any other that we’ve conducted. I’ve got some very important things to complete today. My apologies for not having more patience in this discussion. Best regards.

Since Iraq has violated its agreements with us, international law gives us considerable leeway regarding how we deal with treaties with them. And the fact remains, the resolution Congress passed was either a declaration of war in the constitutional sense, or it wasn't. If it was, all the same rules of warfare would apply just as if it had stated "Declaration of War" in explicit terms. One can't get out of treaty obligations just by calling something by a different name.

Since you've made such a point of challenging my ability to know what I'm talking about, perhaps you could provide your evidence to show that Congress avoided the term "Declaration of War" specifically so it could avoid its obligations under the Geneva Convention?