Quote:
Originally posted by Hubris Boy
That's the whole point... a state of war can exist whether Congress declares it or not. Why? Because the Supreme Court says so.
|
The Supreme Court says nothing of the kind. You confuse 'state of war' with a 'declaration of war'. To be pragmatic, there is very little difference - especially to the soldier. But we are not being pragmatic. We must be legal. Legally a 'state of war' can exist with or without a 'declaration of war'. Domestic laws are applied differently based upon those definitions.
We can be in a 'state of war' - a police action such as VietNam, an internationally sanctioned peace mission such as Korea, or a declared war such as WWII. The first two involve no formal declaration of war. The third does. Big difference to lawyers. Little difference to soldiers.
As suggested, the difference was so great that the Bush administration may have released a finding that non-citizens can be tried in military courts. Normally that could be automatic IF we had declared war. We have not declared war. Big difference because top secret intelligence information and classified intelligence sources from our allies would have to be disclosed in open, civilian court - because we had not declared war.
It is irrelevant whether a state of war exists. Only relevant is whether war has been formally declared. I really hope I don't have to repeat this a fourth time. It does not matter whether you 'feel' we are at war. It only matters how lawyers define the conflict. 'State of war' and 'formal declaration of war' are not equal concepts. One is a subset of the other.