4 ms·

The US is not at war with anyone so it's impossible for Afghanistan to be a war zone

dragonwriter 11y ago
> The US is not at war with anyone Yes, it is. A Congressionally declared war, even. People tend to get hung up on the mistaken idea that Congress's power to declare war requires the use of magic words in the legislation in which it is exercised (e.g., that it has to use the words "declare" or "war"), but this is not the case. A Congressional "Authorization for the Use of Military Force" is a declaration of war (perhaps -- as was the case with both the 2001 open-ended 9/11 AUMF and 2003 Iraq AUMF -- a conditional declaration of war conditioned on a determination to be made by the executive, but a declaration of war nonetheless.)
- pdeuchler 11y ago
  Thanks for explaining that, who are we at war against then?
  - koube 11y ago
    Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Terrorists[1]: "IN GENERAL- That the President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons." The wording is vague, however it would be most commonly interpreted as a war against Al-Quaeda. It could possibly but improbably be interpreted as a war against anyone. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authorization_for_Use_of_Military_Force_Against_Terrorists https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authorization_for_Use_of_Milit...
    - abecedarius 11y ago
      That's interesting: surely almost none of the state violence still being committed under this law is aimed at persons who had anything to do with 9/11, right? As for organizations, isn't Al Qaeda just a brand now?
      - sooheon 11y ago
        The obvious intended consequence of that wording was for the enemy to be an abstraction, to be extended as needed. It's much easier to justify going to war once, and simply readjust who exactly you are warring against as required.
      - dragonwriter 11y ago
        > That's interesting: surely almost none of the state violence still being committed under this law is aimed at persons who had anything to do with 9/11, right? Its all being targeted at people or organizations the President -- whether Bush or Obama -- has determined have the requisite relationship to 9/11. The accuracy of that determination is immaterial to the AUMF, which isn't contingent on the actual relation of the targets to 9/11, but on the President's determination of the relation.
    - Tepix 11y ago
      So, what's today's interpretation of the word "harboring"? The 9/11 terrorists lived in Germany, this could mean that Germany is considered fair game. Just giving another indication on how vague this wording is.
      - ptaipale 11y ago
        Not really. The 9/11 terrorists (those who participated in the actual hijackings) did not live in Germany -- or anywhere -- after the acts, so Germany clearly wasn't harboring them. At the time they lived in Germany (before the attacks), the officials in the country obviously did not know of their plans.
      - dragonwriter 11y ago
        The key words are "the President...determines"; the condition in the AUMF is not on an activity on the part of the potential enemy, it is a decision by the President. Given that, any other vagueness is fairly irrelevant; its pretty much a blank check no matter what things like "harbored" mean. Which is why even President Obsma has said it should be repealed.

> The US is not at war with anyone Yes, it is. A Congressionally declared war, even. People tend to get hung up on the mistaken idea that Congress's power to declare war requires the use of magic words in the legislation in which it is exercised (e.g., that it has to use the words "declare" or "war"), but this is not the case. A Congressional "Authorization for the Use of Military Force" is a declaration of war (perhaps -- as was the case with both the 2001 open-ended 9/11 AUMF and 2003 Iraq AUMF -- a conditional declaration of war conditioned on a determination to be made by the executive, but a declaration of war nonetheless.)

pdeuchler 11y ago
Thanks for explaining that, who are we at war against then?
- koube 11y ago
  Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Terrorists[1]: "IN GENERAL- That the President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons." The wording is vague, however it would be most commonly interpreted as a war against Al-Quaeda. It could possibly but improbably be interpreted as a war against anyone. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authorization_for_Use_of_Military_Force_Against_Terrorists https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authorization_for_Use_of_Milit...
  - abecedarius 11y ago
    That's interesting: surely almost none of the state violence still being committed under this law is aimed at persons who had anything to do with 9/11, right? As for organizations, isn't Al Qaeda just a brand now?
    - sooheon 11y ago
      The obvious intended consequence of that wording was for the enemy to be an abstraction, to be extended as needed. It's much easier to justify going to war once, and simply readjust who exactly you are warring against as required.
    - dragonwriter 11y ago
      > That's interesting: surely almost none of the state violence still being committed under this law is aimed at persons who had anything to do with 9/11, right? Its all being targeted at people or organizations the President -- whether Bush or Obama -- has determined have the requisite relationship to 9/11. The accuracy of that determination is immaterial to the AUMF, which isn't contingent on the actual relation of the targets to 9/11, but on the President's determination of the relation.
  - Tepix 11y ago
    So, what's today's interpretation of the word "harboring"? The 9/11 terrorists lived in Germany, this could mean that Germany is considered fair game. Just giving another indication on how vague this wording is.
    - ptaipale 11y ago
      Not really. The 9/11 terrorists (those who participated in the actual hijackings) did not live in Germany -- or anywhere -- after the acts, so Germany clearly wasn't harboring them. At the time they lived in Germany (before the attacks), the officials in the country obviously did not know of their plans.
    - dragonwriter 11y ago
      The key words are "the President...determines"; the condition in the AUMF is not on an activity on the part of the potential enemy, it is a decision by the President. Given that, any other vagueness is fairly irrelevant; its pretty much a blank check no matter what things like "harbored" mean. Which is why even President Obsma has said it should be repealed.