4 ms·
>Commandeering is a practice we're used to in wartime, where commercial ships are taken for military use, or production lines are converted to military producti
by pvnick 13y ago
>Commandeering is a practice we're used to in wartime, where commercial ships are taken for military use, or production lines are converted to military production. But now it's happening in peacetime.
No it's not. We are technically in "wartime." Congress passed a law in late September 2001 that declared war with "those nations, organizations, or persons [the president] 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" [1]. The mass-surveillance of the internet is being touted as one of the weapons in the fight against those entities [2]. As long as the AUMF is still law, the fight against terrorists, and all actions taken to prevent "any future acts of international terrorism against the United States," are governed by the rules of war.
[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authorization_for_Use_of_Military_Force_Against_Terrorists#Section_2_-_Authorization_For_Use_of_United_States_Armed_Forces http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authorization_for_Use_of_Milita...
[2] http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2013/07/31/nsa-director-keith-alexander-insists-mass-surveillance-programs-respect-privacy/ http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2013/07/31/nsa-director-keith-ale...
- gcr 13y ago2011? I'm curious; why was this done ten years after the original event? And why is the declaration so vague?
- deleted 13y ago[deleted]
- alan_cx 13y agoI would cynically guess that it is because the original event is irrelevant, and now used as an emotional patriotic excuse.
- hisabness 13y agoi think he means 2001.
- pvnick 13y agoOops, typo! Thanks, fixed
- PavlovsCat 13y agowhy is the declaration so vague? So it can be forever.
- runn1ng 13y agoStill, I have read somewhere that even that vague declaration is not vague enough, because most of the persons that aided the terrorists are dead already. Basically, most of of the people that organized 9/11 attacks are dead now. So USA will have to redefine the declaration, most probably.
- pivnicek 13y agoIf you allow your government to declare war on indefinite objects and actions you allow your government to declare permanent war. This is fucking dangerous.
- api 13y agoAnd that is the real issue. We are now in permanent war. The constitution is a dead letter. Wasn't it helpful to have a "liberal" Democrat in the White House to make the final stroke of the pen and abolish the constitution? Could you imagine if Bush had done this? The outcry? But with Obama in there the left is largely silent, and the right are ever-obsessed with irrelevant "culture war" crap. Culture war dog-whistle terms distract Republicans like moving objects distract cats. Not saying Bush was innocent of course. Just pointing out the continuity of the decay of America's ideals regardless of which party sits in power.
- dragonwriter 13y ago> And that is the real issue. We are now in permanent war. The constitution is a dead letter. > Wasn't it helpful to have a "liberal" Democrat in the White House to make the final stroke of the pen and abolish the constitution? I literally do not remember any president in my life who hasn't been accused of making the last stroke of the pen and abolishing the Constitution. And we've been in "permanent war" since, at least, the beginning of WWII (admittedly, you wouldn't notice it was anything other than normal war until well into the Cold War, but the "permanent war" isn't something that started with Obama, or even with Bush the Younger's "War on Terra".)
- api 13y agoThe OP implied that this was different-- as in an actual declaration of war. The cold war was never declared, am I right? Vietname, Iraq I, Korea, etc. were declared but they were declared on specific enemies and thus had sunsets. I do agree with your general point. We have been on this slippery slope for a very long time.
- 13y ago
- deleted 13y ago[deleted]
- tsax 13y agoNo. No war was declared. AUMF is NOT a Declaration of War.
- jonnybgood 13y agoActually, a war was declared. An AUMF is a term the US Congress uses to declare war.
- kindredlight 13y agoActually, it wasn't. "While the AUMF did not officially declare war, the legislation provided the President with more authority upon which to exercise his constitutional powers as Commander in Chief." http://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/commander_in_chief_powers http://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/commander_in_chief_powers
- jonnybgood 13y agoAs I said, it's a term they use. For example, see Vietnam, Gulf War, and Iraq War. Congress can declare war in different ways. The last "officially" declared war was WWII, I believe.
- dragonwriter 13y ago> AUMF is NOT a Declaration of War. A law passed by Congress authorizing acts of war is, ipso facto, a declaration of war (in the sense of an exercise of the Constitutional power to declare war.) The only effect of not using specific legal phrasing is that it may not trigger other effects under other statutes Congress has passed which require particular language in subsequent law to trigger their effects. This can be important, to be sure, but it doesn't make it any less a declared war. Open-ended declarations of war are, of course, extremely problematic and open to abuse, which is one of the reasons the last notable one (the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution) was repealed. I guess we get to learn the lessons of the Vietnam era all over again in this generation. Maybe this time they'll stick...
- Florin_Andrei 13y ago"We've always been at war with Eastasia."
- mtgx 13y agoSounds like AUMF needs to be repealed along with the Patriot Act and the FISA Amendments Act. We need to start everything from scratch again.