[capitan_refugio]

You are parsing the term "war." I agree with you that Congress should have declared war outright, but given that we are fighting crimial organizations and unrecognized governments, a declaration of war against another sovereign state may not have been possible.

Then too, are you trying to tell me that there were no "prisoners of war" in Korea or Vietnam?? Korea was authorized by a UN vote as a "police action" and Vietnam was related to SEATO treaty responsibilitites and the "Gulf of Tonkin Resolution."

I think a legalistic definition of the term "war" will not mean too much when a laser-guided bomb is headed toward your bunker. You will be just as dead.

[dixierat22]

It's not a question of "parsing" a definition, but of working within the framework of the US Constitution. I don't think a declaration of war against Afghanistan would have done any good. But a declaration of war by Congress against Al Qaeda would have made a statement to other terrorists groups. Especially if we are successful in the procesecution of that war.

The problem I have with the current action is that the President, unconstitutionally comitted our troops to war. As did LBJ. The 'Gulf of Tonkin' was probably staged, but that's another story. The question we have to ask is do we allow ANY POTUS, regardless of party, continue to send our troops to war whenever he says, where ever he says? WJC got away with it as did Geoge I. Now GWB. Who's next? Will the world be better off? Will the United States?

The other trouble I have with it is if a domestic group gets declared by an administration to be a 'terrorist organization'. If Gore or someone like him were elected, he could declare the GOA or the NRA to be 'terrorist organizations'. Then what? My whole point is that the abuse of power is dangerous to us all.