[angkor]

The Justice Department has insisted that the judge must simply accept its declaration and cannot interfere with the president's absolute authority in "a time of war."

Presumably Turley put "time of war" in quotes because that's what DoJ argued.

If so, they are wrong.

There is no state of war, there has been no Congressional declaration of war, and the United States is not formally at war with anyone.

Congress can legally declare war against "al Qaeda, Hamas, Hezbolla, Lakshar-al-Jihad, Islamic Jihad, Osama bin Laden, and its members" as easily as it did against Japan. Why Congress has not done this is a mystery.

[ctdonath2]

Good and key point: despite events and rhetoric, war has not been declared.

[SAJ]

Throughout US history, although the US has participated in upwards of 200 armed conflicts of various descriptions, the Regress has only declared war 5 times. If not mistaken, these were: War of 1812, War of Northern Aggression, Spanish-American War, WW I, WW II. The Regress, in all its political posturing, couldn't even be bothered to declare war against Iraq in 1990-1991.

The argument that there is no state of war because the Regress hasn't declared war is historically fatuous at best.

[Don Joe]

"There is no state of war"

Bulls#it.

We were attacked last year in the opening battle of the war, and took heavy civilan casualties.

By your, ahem, "logic", if we received a massive nuclear attack that hit all of our major cities, we should be prohibited from launching a return attack, because there was no "formal" declaration of war, and thus, we were not "in a state of war."

You nitpicking hair-splitting pharasees make me nauseous.

[ninenot]

Congressman J. Sensenbrenner declared that we did NOT declare war specifically because "then we would be bound by the RULES of war."

Besides, Bush never formally asked for a declaration.

Obviously, Ashcroft likes it: no rules of war, and questionable Constitional arguments.