6 ms·

At the time when this was written, there was a clear distinction between times of peace and war. Nowadays, especially from the start of the "War on terror", th

At the time when this was written, there was a clear distinction between times of peace and war. Nowadays, especially from the start of the "War on terror", this distinction has been artificially demolished; one of the consequences is that there is way more leverage to wark around laws (and to do many other nasty things).

bediger4000 13y ago
I grant that funding for the War on Terror has taken place. But I also don't think that a real, formal declaration of war has been approved. So, is the USA at war or not? I suspect (but I'm only 52% certain) that we're not at war. The follow-on questions (after "are we at war or not?"): In what state are we? What are the legal ramifications of this half-at-war-state? Why hasn't the US Congress declared war since WW2? Is there some consequence to declaring war or not declaring war that they're trying to avoid?
- rhino369 13y ago
  There is no requirement, either under the Constitution or under laws of war, for any sort of formal declaration. And, there as an "authorization of military force" against al Qaeda and the Taliban. There certainly isn't some magic I DECLARE WAR requirement. > Why hasn't the US Congress declared war since WW2? Is there some consequence to declaring war or not declaring war that they're trying to avoid? Its an outdated concept.
  - bediger4000 13y ago
    I seem to recall that we've got laws that make some crimes have a greater penalty during "time of war", which I assume means declared war. How do you mean "outdated concept"? Are there no more wars? Are their no different legal penalties or obligations during war any more? Because I'm told that the USA has been in wars since 2001 at least. What are the consequences to me, and to my government of outdating an official declaration of war?
  - betterunix 13y ago
    Oh, so we are at war with a government that has been completely disbanded and a loose network of terrorists whose leaders are either dead or imprisoned. Next you'll be telling me that we are at war with Germany, Japan, and Italy.
  - dllthomas 13y ago
    "There is no requirement, either under the Constitution or under laws of war, for any sort of formal declaration." Given that the constitution explicitly gives congress "the power to declare war", I'm not sure this is entirely reasonable. That said, I don't think it's unreasonable to say the AUMF count, either.
- nl 13y ago
  The US is in a state of war, under the "Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Terrorists" act (2001). In particular, Section 2(b)(1): SPECIFIC STATUTORY AUTHORIZATION- Consistent with section 8(a)(1) of the War Powers Resolution, the Congress declares that this section is intended to constitute specific statutory authorization within the meaning of section 5(b) of the War Powers Resolution. This has been tested under law[1]. Notably, that the US was in a state of war wasn't even considered worth arguing, just if that state of war provided justification for indefinite detention. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hedges_v._Obama http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hedges_v._Obama
- pizza234 13y ago
  I wasn't referring to a formal state of war (although somebody pointed out that it may exist), but to an informal one. Under a certain perspecive, paradoxically, an informal state of war is worse than a formal one, because it's more subtle - it goes under the radar. There has been a big shift in mindset towards accepting offensive practices as normal, which would not be accepted in a clear state of peace, or at least, which would force a much stronger opposition. Mass surveillance? It's accepted, we're at war. Unaccounted (mass) murder of foreign civilians? It's accepted, we're at war. Torturing suspects? It's accepted, we're at war. Except, we're not at war.

bediger4000 13y ago

I grant that funding for the War on Terror has taken place. But I also don't think that a real, formal declaration of war has been approved. So, is the USA at war or not? I suspect (but I'm only 52% certain) that we're not at war. The follow-on questions (after "are we at war or not?"): In what state are we? What are the legal ramifications of this half-at-war-state? Why hasn't the US Congress declared war since WW2? Is there some consequence to declaring war or not declaring war that they're trying to avoid?

rhino369 13y ago
There is no requirement, either under the Constitution or under laws of war, for any sort of formal declaration. And, there as an "authorization of military force" against al Qaeda and the Taliban. There certainly isn't some magic I DECLARE WAR requirement. > Why hasn't the US Congress declared war since WW2? Is there some consequence to declaring war or not declaring war that they're trying to avoid? Its an outdated concept.
- bediger4000 13y ago
  I seem to recall that we've got laws that make some crimes have a greater penalty during "time of war", which I assume means declared war. How do you mean "outdated concept"? Are there no more wars? Are their no different legal penalties or obligations during war any more? Because I'm told that the USA has been in wars since 2001 at least. What are the consequences to me, and to my government of outdating an official declaration of war?
- betterunix 13y ago
  Oh, so we are at war with a government that has been completely disbanded and a loose network of terrorists whose leaders are either dead or imprisoned. Next you'll be telling me that we are at war with Germany, Japan, and Italy.
- dllthomas 13y ago
  "There is no requirement, either under the Constitution or under laws of war, for any sort of formal declaration." Given that the constitution explicitly gives congress "the power to declare war", I'm not sure this is entirely reasonable. That said, I don't think it's unreasonable to say the AUMF count, either.
nl 13y ago
The US is in a state of war, under the "Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Terrorists" act (2001). In particular, Section 2(b)(1): SPECIFIC STATUTORY AUTHORIZATION- Consistent with section 8(a)(1) of the War Powers Resolution, the Congress declares that this section is intended to constitute specific statutory authorization within the meaning of section 5(b) of the War Powers Resolution. This has been tested under law[1]. Notably, that the US was in a state of war wasn't even considered worth arguing, just if that state of war provided justification for indefinite detention. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hedges_v._Obama http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hedges_v._Obama
pizza234 13y ago
I wasn't referring to a formal state of war (although somebody pointed out that it may exist), but to an informal one. Under a certain perspecive, paradoxically, an informal state of war is worse than a formal one, because it's more subtle - it goes under the radar. There has been a big shift in mindset towards accepting offensive practices as normal, which would not be accepted in a clear state of peace, or at least, which would force a much stronger opposition. Mass surveillance? It's accepted, we're at war. Unaccounted (mass) murder of foreign civilians? It's accepted, we're at war. Torturing suspects? It's accepted, we're at war. Except, we're not at war.