I thought that only congress could declare war

[Cyrano]

At least that's what it says in the Constitution (Article 1, Section 8, paragraph 11).

The last time that congress declared war was on December 8th, 1941. Every war since then has been conducted due to the whims or wills of U.S. presidents.

We're in Afghanistan because Bush/Cheney got the congress to fund them and let them go in. But congress never declared war on Afghanistan (or anyplace else since 1941).

Obama is now continuing the tradition. Some of us agree with him and some of us don't.

Nonetheless, let's just all admit that the American Constitution is nothing more than a piece of paper that can be ignored anytime a president feels like ignoring it.

Anytime I hear anyone say "We're a country of laws," I don't know whether to laugh or puke. I really, really need very badly to find a sane planet on which to dwell.

[stray cat]

1. Congress already did under Bush - this is clearly not a new war

and people should know that unless they have been in a coma for 8 years

[derby378]

3. No, they didn't...

...there was never a formal declaration of war as far as I'm aware, and certainly not against Iraq in any case.

[berni_mccoy]

6. They authorized the use of force. Declaration of War is not necessary for military action.

[Cyrano]

10. Okay, so I guess "military action" isn't war

Korea, Vietnam, Panama, Grenada, Iraq, Afghanistan, -- all represent military actions, so I guess none of them can be considered wars.

I'm not splitting hairs here regarding the meaning of the term "war." But I am saying that the intent of one of the most important distinctions in our Constitution has become meaningless. More-so under Bush/Cheney than ever before.

[Orsino]

12. That wasn't a declaration of war.

It was a cowardly abdication of responsibility. Unsurprisingly, the dead are still just as dead, for just as little gain.

[berni_mccoy]

16. And, except for Rep. Lee, it was unanimous. Dec. of War isn't necessary.

[Orsino]

20. You are restating the obvious.

A declaration of war is demonstrably not necessary to bring the horrors of war to a people at the hands of our troops.

War, however, is supposed to mean more when waged by Constitutional means. War is big business, and has been for the many decades it's been since it was officially declared.

[quiller4]

18. Congress passed a formal declaration authorizing the use of military force in Afghanistan.

NATO passed a force declaration and the UN adopted a motion endorsing use of force.

[Cyrano]

19. Then why don't we amend our Constitution to read

that a formal declaration of whatever by congress, a force declaration by NATO, and some kind of "yeah, go-ahead" by the UN can let a president go to war?

At the moment, the wording regarding war in our Constitution is meaningless (as was most of the Constitution under the Bush/Cheney mis-administration).

[Cyrano]

4. Congress never declared war on Afghanistan, Iraq, or anyone else

since 1941.

If you have information to the contrary, please share it with us.

[sabbat hunter]

8. they do not have to say

"we declare war" They approved the use of military force.

[atreides1]

9. There has been no Declaration of War

The February 6, 2006, testimony of Alberto Gonzales to the U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee Hearing on Wartime Executive Power and the National Security Agency's Surveillance Authority, however indicates otherwise:

"There was not a war declaration, either in connection with Al Qaida or in Iraq. It was an authorization to use military force. I only want to clarify that, because there are implications. Obviously, when you talk about a war declaration, you're possibly talking about affecting treaties, diplomatic relations. And so there is a distinction in law and in practice. And we're not talking about a war declaration. This is an authorization only to use military force."

Congress just authorized the use of military force which is not the same as a formal declaration under the US Constitution.

The US has only formally declared war five times: The War of 1812/ Mexican-American War/ Spanish-American War/ World War I/ World War II.

[derby378]

2. Welcome to the age of undeclared wars

It is true that we are not officially at war, but if you say that, the Republicans will beat Obama and Holder about the head and shoulders until they affirm that yes, Virginia, we are at war after all. Disgusting, I know, but there it is.

[Cyrano]

5. Yep. N/T

[sabbat hunter]

7. Congress can officially declare war

but the president is commander in chief of the armed forces, can use them as needed. Part of the reason why the War Powers Act was passed was to try and limit the ability of the president to use the troops without an actually war declaration

Congress should have activated the war powers act when Bush wanted to go to Iraq, but instead the republicans weakened it. As far as Afghanistan goes, the people behind 911 are there, mainly along the border between it and Pakistan. The Taliban gave aid and comfort to Al Qaeda, so our being there is justified.

If the US is attacked I believe that we have a right to go after who attacked us. The 911 hijackers mayhave been from Saudi Arabia, but they did their early training, learned terror methods, became part of Al Qaeda in Afghanistan.

[Cyrano]

17. I'm not arguing that we shouldn't go after those responsible for 9/11

However, the reality is that Bush/Cheney used it for the purpose of invading Iraq which was on their agenda before 9/11 and from the day they came into office. (It was, of course, about oil.)

Of course we should have gone after Al Qaeda in Afghanistan. And we also should have gone after them in Saudi Arabia where most of the 9/11 terrorists came from. But Saudi Arabia is part of the Bush extended family, they have the world's largest oil reserves, so there's no way we'll ever go after these Tsar's of Wealth and Power.

But the issue I've raised has nothing to do with any of this. It has to do with our own Constitution. I have little doubt that Bush/Cheney even thought about getting congress to declare war on Afghanistan.

But regardless of what I think, the fact is that congress never did declare war. So why don't we just burn our Constitution and make believe it never existed. For all practical purposes, that's exactly what Bush/Cheney did. (And they did it in many more areas than just war powers.) For some reason, Obama is not holding them responsible for it.

[Cleita]

11. I believe this started with Korea all the way up to these present wars.

Clearly the Constitution has been violated by both Democratic and Republican Presidents. Bush had the complicity of Congress in invading Afghanistan and Iraq yet these two wars very clearly, if you pay attention, are wars for profit using the tragedy of 911 to fuel hatred. At least in the past the military believed that we were trying to fight communism. There is no such ideology in the Afghanistan and Iraq wars.

[spanone]

13. i laugh then puke...tell that 'country of laws' bullshit to cheney/bu$h*/rove et al

[dixiegrrrrl]

14. Congress has failed to follow the Constitution in many instances.

As for war, the Constitution says:
Section 8. The Congress shall have power to

To declare war, grant letters of marque and reprisal, and make rules concerning captures on land and water;

To raise and support armies, but no appropriation of money to that use shall be for a longer term than two years;
( ha..how is THAT turning out???)

Constitution also says:
No money shall be drawn from the treasury, but in consequence of appropriations made by law; and a regular statement and account of receipts and expenditures of all public money shall be published from time to time. "
Yet Paulson was given the right, by Congress, to spend 700 Billion with no accounting.

[librechik]

15. They didn't do that--the means you would have to follow international law.

and that would be awkward.

Congress happy to muddle up its role in war and pretend they are mere victims of the system whose hands are tied.