"Zero Powers" <zero_powers@hotmail.com> writes:
> >From: Samantha Atkins <samantha@objectent.com>
>
> >Has the US actually made a formal declaration of war?
>
> Yes, and no. We have declared "war" on terrorism. It is not a "formal" declaration of
> war, simply because it is not technically a formal war. A formal war is armed conflict
> between sovereign nations. Terrorism is not, obviously, a sovereign nation.
>
> >Is such
> >necessary for us to actually be "in a state of war" and most
> >importantly, for wartime rules and powers to apply?
>
> Depends on what you mean by "state of war." Technically the President cannot declare
> war without the "advice and consent" of Congress. However the executive has fairly
> broad emergency power to engage the military in the interests of national security, even
> without a formal declaration of war.
I am more concerned by claims that since we are in a state of war, it
is permissible to suspend various guarantees of our rights and freedoms.
If we are not actually "in a state of war" then these claims are bogus
and should be opposed as false.
>
> >If such a
> >declaration is necessary and if it has not been made then why does
> >anyone take seriously the claim of wartime powers and special privileges?
>
> Because there is no practical difference between the president's "war time powers" and
> the power he has to address national security emergencies short of formal declaration of
> war.
If so this seems to be a big gaping hole in Constitutional checks and balances.
- samantha
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Fri Oct 12 2001 - 14:40:54 MDT