Replies

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?

" One can't get out of treaty obligations just by calling something by a different name"

We more or less just did.

The Bush administration specifically asked Congress not to declare war. I looked that up for someone several months ago who was under the assumption that Congress just wimped out. I found a report of it on Google Groups search from shortly after 9/11. There were probably a host of reasons that a declaration of war was not desired. I don’t have time for more research today.