3 ms·
That appears to address the 'occupation' part but not the 'at war' part. Is that settled? Just because they didn't use it in the past doesn't mean they won't
by nickthemagicman 7y ago
That appears to address the 'occupation' part but not the 'at war' part.
Is that settled? Just because they didn't use it in the past doesn't mean they won't try in the future.
Things are going on right now in Washington that are completely unprecedented up to this point.
What caselaw defines 'at war' as it pertains to the third?