3 ms·
Bombing another country is literally a declaration of war. With explosions. Isn't an act of congress required for this, in the US?
by BartjeD 1y ago
Bombing another country is literally a declaration of war. With explosions.
Isn't an act of congress required for this, in the US?
- ExoticPearTree 1y ago> Isn't an act of congress required for this, in the US? Yes, but when only when you really need to go to a full wartime economy. Otherwise is just business as usual.
- riffraff 1y agoCountries stopped doing declarations of war decades ago, cause you know, war is not something _we_ do, it's something bad people do. _We_ do special operations, interventions, liberations, preventive strikes, weapon destructions.
- jiggawatts 1y agoAlso the enemy is always a guerrilla, terrorist, or a rebel and works for a regime, dictator, or king.
- karmakurtisaani 1y agoAnd then you make movies on how you were the good guys, and that's how we all will remember it.
- whilenot-dev 1y agoI'm all for a collective change there, so every foreign movie just ends in the same deus ex machina moment: every protagonist gets bombed out of existence. Might get repetitive after a while, but I guess that's the idea.
- xdennis 1y agoPart of the reason why countries stopped declaring war is because the laws of war make it harder to do so, so it's easier to have a war without one. Also, declaring war on certain groups would entitle them to being treated as war combatants, and people don't want to extend that privilege to terrorists (al Qaeda, ISIS, etc)
- BLKNSLVR 1y agoThe US, as rational thinking US citizens may have thought it to be, no longer exists. In fact, it may never have actually existed.
- lotyrin 1y agoIntelligent, rational, empathetic people need to realize that when they are doing theory of mind for others (and especially groups) they are projecting their own qualities where they do not exist.
- PeterHolzwarth 1y agoBy the body of American legislative tradition, no this is not an act of war. In fact, we haven't declared one since WWII.
- BartjeD 1y ago[flagged]
- khazhoux 1y agoWe were already at a declared war at that time.
- BartjeD 1y agoThe point being that under your definition, a thermo nucleair device also isnt a declaration of war. Hence highlighting the completely schizofrenic bind this position entails. Because no one would consider a nuke anything other than a war, and the same applies to these planes dropping these bombs.
- PeterHolzwarth 1y agoWWII was the last time American declared war.
- einpoklum 1y agohttps://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/artI-S8-C11-2-3/ALDE_00013914/ https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/artI-S8-C11-2... Use of military force requires congressional approval. Well, in principle. In practice, the US executive does not observe this restriction, or at most - makes a flimsy connection the 2001 AUMF following the twin towers attack. The courts do not enjoin it from using military force pretty much arbitraly; and congress does not impeach nor even adopt declarative denunciations of this behavior.
- Refreeze5224 1y agoGeorge Washington was the first president to take military action without congressional approval, so on the sense of precedent providing legality, it's quite an old concept.
- IceHegel 1y agoAny reasonable understanding of the term "war" obviously includes bombing a country's strategic military sites. Today Congressmen's main job is soliciting bribes. I expect they want their name on as few pieces of paper connecting them to a conflict as possible. They are not in charge of the government.
- GuardianCaveman 1y agoObama bombed a lot of countries with no act of congress: Pakistan, Yemen, Somalia, Libya, Syria, etc. I don’t know the legality but plenty of precedent besides him.
- ignoramous 1y ago> Pakistan, Yemen, Somalia, Libya, Syria ... Interesting. Bombing Muslim-majority countries seems to be accepted exception?
- kristjansson 1y agohttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authorization_for_Use_of_Military_Force_of_2001 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authorization_for_Use_of_Milit...
- jopsen 1y ago2001 seems like a long time ago, is that really the legal helmet here?
- kristjansson 1y agoI don't know if the current administration has articulated a legal basis for the Iran strike. I was only pointing out that the earlier strikes mentioned did have (a gesture toward) congressional authorization.
- rocqua 1y agoOnly a minor difference, but from what I know, those strikes were not against government targets?
- khazhoux 1y agoThat ship sailed decades ago, my friend.
- blahyawnblah 1y agoNo. The president is the commander in chief. I can't remember the president or the situation but a long time ago a president attacked and said "I'm sending the troops" then senate/congress had to approve it or troops would be stranded.
- Anduia 1y agoYou are thinking about Truman sending the troops to help South Korea. However, he had UN backing. The War Powers Act of 1973 was approved literally to avoid it happening in the future.