Replies

It is fitting that we consider the subject of "enemy combatants" who are residents, or even citizens, of the US and are thereby protected by the US Constitution.

The potential problem of enemy-fellow-citizens must be faced, and considered. In wartime, must every civil protection normally provided to someone suspected of a crime be accorded an enemy? Must activities that indicated loyalty to our military enemies be ignored, in the absense of a concrete criminal or paramilitary action?

If it is clear that someone has sided with the enemy, are we prevented from moving against him pre-emptively?

For that matter, by what law or dispensation do we move against anyone, anywhere, who has not been found guilty in a court of law?

Why was it not necessary to file charges against the Government of Japan, on December 8, 1941? By what right did we attack and kill German soldiers, who had not attacked us? By what right did we kill German and Japanese civilians, by the hundreds of thousands, who were most assuredly not proven guilty of any crime against the US at all?

Simple.

War, by definition, exists when the state of affairs, when the threat to the country, is beyond the ability of civil or criminal law to contain it.

When the threat is larger than the criminal justice system, and beyond the jurisdiction of normal courts, and normal police methods, we declare that we are in a state of war.

With a congressional finding that we are in a state of war, the need to subpoena witnesses and hold hearings and serve warrants, all falls away.

If the military command believes you to be an enemy combatant, whether you are a citizen of this or any other country, brother you are done for. You will be killed, if possible. Anyone standing near you when the attack comes, whether man, woman, or child, civilian or otherwise, innocent or otherwise, will almost certainly be killed as well.

The only way to avoid this fate is to surrender most energetically, and promptly, in which case you will be held until the end of hostilities. And then, and only then, will someone outside the military take an interest in your fate.

This is how it works, and this is also why a "finding", or "declaration", that we are at war, is legally necessary.

We already have an "authorization" from Congress to conduct military operations, which to my mind is recognition that we are at war. Ergo, a declaration of war. It does not need to be a declaration of war upon a specific enemy, simply a congressional finding that we are, in fact, at war.

Which we are, and which Congress has already done. If they feel like reiterating it prior to any further military action, then fine, but it doesn't change the "fact" that we are at war, or that they have already recognized that fact.

This is how it works, and this is also why a "finding", or "declaration", that we are at war, is legally necessary.

We already have an "authorization" from Congress to conduct military operations, which to my mind is recognition that we are at war. Ergo, a declaration of war. It does not need to be a declaration of war upon a specific enemy, simply a congressional finding that we are, in fact, at war.

Then which is it - are we already in a state of war as granted by the war powers act, or are we not? You speak from both sides of your mouth.

With a congressional finding that we are in a state of war, the need to subpoena witnesses and hold hearings and serve warrants, all falls away. If the military command believes you to be an enemy combatant, whether you are a citizen of this or any other country, brother you are done for. You will be killed, if possible. Anyone standing near you when the attack comes, whether man, woman, or child, civilian or otherwise, innocent or otherwise, will almost certainly be killed as well.
I believe that you are incorrect, thankfully. Because if you were correct, then we would be under martial law already.
We already have an "authorization" from Congress to conduct military operations, which to my mind is recognition that we are at war. Ergo, a declaration of war. It does not need to be a declaration of war upon a specific enemy, simply a congressional finding that we are, in fact, at war.
The clear problem here is that this is being viewed as:
(a) A war unlike any other war - e.g., not a war against a nation state. Against a nation state, we can fight them until we get a surrender from some controlling authority in that state, and we can enforce that surrender.
(b) A defined end to this "war". So - exactly when is this "war" over? When we take out Iraq? Syria? Iran? Saudi Arabia? No - those are nation states. The terrorist infrastructure is more like a multinational corporation. As long as they have funding and dissatisfied 3rd worlders who are willing to kill themselves to kill us, we can't force an end to this "war".
So I, for one, am not eager to declare this a "war", because if we really do that you will see all your civil liberties disappear over the next 10 or so years - until we really do live in a police state.
You see if we do declare this a war without any end point (e.g. in WWII it was the unconditional surrender of the Japaneses and the Nazis), we will find our constitutional rights gone without an end condition to get them back!
So they will be gone permanently.