Quote:
Originally Posted by sugarpop
yes, yes, but it's cheaper than YEARS and YEARS of war... or... whatever it is when you engage in war, but Congress never approves it as a war...
|
It's a war. Quacks like a duck, etcetera.
Congressionally declared states of war carry with them enlarged government authority, so declaration is heavy with internal political consequence: Lincoln suspended habeas corpus for the duration. Jane Fonda might be either in exile as long as Roman Polanski, or only recently out of prison after being convicted of treason per Article III, Section 3 para 1, US Constitution. Things like that.
But, since the Constitution does not forbid calling out the Army without a Congressional declaration, and it is clear that the option of sending troops, and quickly, without having to put the entire nation on a war footing each time has some real advantages in promoting national policy, the precedent runs about 150 shooting affrays with or in foreign places to 5 Congressional declarations -- and they're still wars. Just various sizes.
Come to 9-11, the feeling both nationwide and on Capitol Hill was that while a declaration of war would very much focus the nation's energies on beating the kaffiyehs off the foe, such a response was somehow misaimed or disproportionate. Not, in the end, right.
None of which tergiversation makes trying to win the fight illegal.
Were it illegal, we're, what? Not supposed to win? Keerist. What's up with that?
And when you really think about what's up with that, it gives you the creeps.