Public Law 107-40 is pretty darn close.

Post #50,191 by Another Scott 8/22/02 3:38:26 PM Reply	Public Law 107-40 is pretty darn close. [link\|http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c107:S.J.RES.23.ENR:\|Authorization for Use of Military Force]. The House vote was 420:1, the Senate vote was 98:0. It became US law on 9/18/01 when Bush signed it. That the President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons. The law does state that the War Powers Resolution is still applicable. Cheers, Scott.
Post #50,206 by Simon_Jester 8/22/02 6:04:55 PM Reply	Re: Public Law 107-40 is pretty darn close. - not really.... Not really... To quote from the War Powers Resolution itself... (c) The constitutional powers of the President as Commander-in-Chief to introduce United States Armed Forces into hostilities, or into situations where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances, are exercised only pursuant to (1) a declaration of war, (2) specific statutory authorization, or (3) a national emergency created by attack upon the United States, its territories or possessions, or its armed forces. [link\|http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/warpower.htm\| source ] Specifically - it divides the attack upon the United States (3) from a declaration of war (1). Furthermore, while War Power Resolution is in effect - it limits Presidential military response to 60 days (well, 90 really) unless an extension is granted by Congess. (Yes, I think Congress granted an extension - but that's another story.) In any case, it's really simply. We're either at War or not. Most Insurance Companies have clauses in effect not to pay out during times of war. (This was the rational given for NOT going to war and why we are NOT AT WAR.)
Post #50,207 by Another Scott 8/22/02 6:20:17 PM Reply	A bigger problem, I think... How does one legally declare war against an organization that isn't a country? Brandioch and I have had disagreements about this. I think that a state of war can exist between the US and al Qaeda. If I understand him correctly, he regards them as criminal terrorists so the US can't go to war against them. We both regard the law as being very important. I think, though, that the spirit of international law is applicable in cases of (what I regard as) acts of war by non-governmental groups. Your points about the WPR are well taken, but remember that the executive branch still regards it as an infringement on its powers and AFAIK the USSC hasn't ruled on it. :-) Gotta run. Cheers, Scott.
Post #50,210 by Simon_Jester 8/22/02 6:27:06 PM Reply	I have no problems with a declaration of war... and I have no arguments about USSC and WPR and Congressional infringement... But I think that a lot of people who are hoping to use that law as a declaration of war are going to be surprised at what the ramification of "going to war" really are. I know that there are some insurance companies that would like nothing better that to NOT have pay out on some policies. And that's just the tip of the iceberg. :-)
Post #50,293 by Another Scott 8/23/02 1:02:19 PM Reply	Can war legally be declared against al Qaeda? You make good points about the buisness implications of a declaration of war. The point I'm getting at, though, is: Isn't war (by definition) a state of beligerence between nation states? I think it is. How did the US handle things like post-civil-war Indian wars? Were those declared by Congress? (And even if they were, the analogy wouldn't be exact because in some respects Indian tribes are nations according to US law.) I think that 107-40 is the closet the US Congress could come to a legal declaration of war against al Qaeda. I don't think US and international definitions of war fit with what has happened. That is, I think it's a definition problem, not an illustration that it's somehow not a war. Bruce Fein has an [link\|http://www.washtimes.com/commentary/20020820-18641767.htm\|article] at the Washington Times discussing the history of declarations of war, etc. It's an interesting read, IMO, whether you agree with him or not. He says that Congress has only declared war 5 times. Constitutional practice, however, has overwhelmed the specific expectations of Madison and Hamilton. During its 1973 hearings on the War Powers Resolution, the House Foreign Affairs Subcommittee on National Security Policy and Scientific Developments listed 199 instances of United States military hostilities without a declaration of war (of which there have been but five, and none since World War II). Only 81 of the 199 even arguably rested on prior legislative authority. The remaining 118 cases included President Franklin Roosevelt's warring against Nazi submarines before Pearl Harbor, and President John F. Kennedy's naval blockade of Cuba during the Cuban Missile Crisis. Constitutional practice and evolution have thus superannuated the congressional power to declare war. But the result seems untroublesome. The power of the purse still empowers Congress to thwart or terminate war making by the president. In 1973, for instance, Congress terminated all funds for American combat activities in Cambodia and Laos after Aug. 15 of that year. That precedent discredits the claim that voting to cut appropriations while our troops are militarily engaged is politically prohibitive. And Congress may impeach, convict, and remove a president for abusing warmaking powers. Moreover, the reasons at our constitutional birth for disfavoring war initiation by the executive have lapsed. Then, the popular vote and public opinion held little sway in presidential elections. Today, the president is as much a creature of the common man as are senators and representatives. Further, the two-term limit on the presidency enshrined in the 22nd Amendment has arrested executive inclinations to exploit war in hopes of permanency in the White House. Finally, requiring a congressional declaration of war before President Bush invades Iraq smacks of imprudence. Tactical surprise, like our Overlord landings in World War II, would be confounded. And the leaking of classified information by Congress that could endanger our soldiers would be as certain as the Archimedes principle. FWIW. Cheers, Scott.
Post #50,312 by Brandioch 8/23/02 4:04:36 PM Reply	I'll disagree on one point. Finally, requiring a congressional declaration of war before President Bush invades Iraq smacks of imprudence. Tactical surprise, like our Overlord landings in World War II, would be confounded. And the leaking of classified information by Congress that could endanger our soldiers would be as certain as the Archimedes principle. There won't be any tactical surprise. We'll have to move troops and equipment into place from over here. The Overlord landings were expected. Just not in the location that they happened. As for Congress leaking classified information, the same risks existed then as exist now. The correct scenario is for Congress to formally declare war. The US moves troops and equipment into friendly countries. Invasion plans are drawn up. Fake invasion plans are leaked and fake troop movements are staged. The real invasion goes ahead. Again, we've done almost this exact same thing back in WW2.
Post #50,216 by Brandioch 8/22/02 7:30:36 PM Reply	Not whether, but what is the best method. Brandioch and I have had disagreements about this. I think that a state of war can exist between the US and al Qaeda. Yes it can. And it can be done so by simply declaring war on them (as opposed to "The War on Terror" and such crap). I still maintain that we should treat them as any other criminal organization rather than a military operation. We could even declare war on a certain Mafia "family" in New York. Would this be the BEST method of dealing with organized crime? No. Too many civilians would be injured by our actions. More than would be injured during the normal criminal activities. And I don't believe it would be effective. Military units are designed and trained to attack structures and/or other military units. The al Queda organization is not vulnerable to the kind of attacks the military is capable of. Just as the Mafia is not vulnerable to military attacks. Now we're caught up in rebuilding Afghanistan. And that is exactly the outcome I predicted at the start of this fiasco.
Post #50,238 by boxley 8/22/02 11:08:53 PM Reply	I disagree with you a lot but in this case Define al Queda, do we define or them if us cannot in certain political circumstances can we define planned parenthood as "members" of al queda? or the "anti abortion folks" as al queda. What is the criteria for admittance to the enemies list? Islamic Jihad WDYHASM are the legit targets? Is the Aran Brotherhood who has almost the exact aims as the Nation of Islam gonna join? We cant target off shore criminal gangs the same way as domestic because of jurisdictional disputes. We need to use the rule of law to target these actors and regimes the same way we did the barbary pirates, The malasian piratical regimes and the japanese shogunates. Private entities with carte blanc to use and abuse until they kowtow to us and "join" rational regimes. Bloodthirsty traders and exploited by American warships will settle their hash rather quickly. thanx, bill will work for cash and other incentives [link\|http://home.tampabay.rr.com/boxley/Resume.html\|skill set]
Post #50,275 by Brandioch 8/23/02 11:00:12 AM Reply	You can "define" them as such. Define al Queda, do we define or them if us cannot in certain political circumstances can we define planned parenthood as "members" of al queda? or the "anti abortion folks" as al queda. You can, if you want to. But al Queda isn't a belief system. It is a group, headed by Osama. What is the criteria for admittance to the enemies list? Membership in al Queda. Islamic Jihad WDYHASM are the legit targets? If we declare war on them, then they are. If we declare war on al Queda, then only the members of Islamic Jihad who are also members of al Queda would be legitimate targets. Is the Aran Brotherhood who has almost the exact aims as the Nation of Islam gonna join? Same as above. We can declare war on Aryan Nation, if we wanted to. We cant target off shore criminal gangs the same way as domestic because of jurisdictional disputes. I'd rather say that we SHOULD NOT BE ABLE to "target off shore criminal gangs the same way as domestic because of jurisdictional disputes". I'm afraid we do, many times. We even invaded Panama to help stop the flow of drugs. The great thing about off shore criminal gangs is that they don't affect us in the US. We only have to worry about criminals on our shores. We need to use the rule of law to target these actors and regimes the same way we did the barbary pirates, The malasian piratical regimes and the japanese shogunates. Similar, but sufficiently different enough to warrant different action. If we sank one of the pirate's ships, that reduced the pirate's ability to be a pirate. The terrorists are suicides. They expect to die in the completion of their mission. The pirates wanted money. The terrorists want us out of the mid-east. And, finally, the pirates were operating far away from the US. The terrorist "threat" is that they will operate in the US. Now, if the terrorists were cruising around in tanks and holding US citizens as hostage for money, my response would be different. Tanks are military equipment and you need military force to take out military equipment. The loss of a tank would adversely affect them (tanks are expensive and hard to come by). It is also very difficult for innocent civilians to be injured when you're attacking a tank. The tanks are very visible and make a lot of noise. Civilians know when they're near a tank.
Post #50,404 by dmarker2 8/25/02 3:14:00 AM Reply	Re: Some difficulties in definitions It may be very difficult to declare any meaningful war against an idea. What is 'Al Qaeda' but a word coined by certain people ? - if it is a formal organisation then the identification is very easy - if not then who do we brand as Al Qaeda for the purpose of calling them enemy - this is where we may step into very dangerous ground as to call someone Al Qaeda is to call them enemy but who does the calling ??? - Senator McCarthy ??? - McCarthy's grandson ??? - Mr Cheney ??? We can take this down a path where we agree to accept a rule that says 'anyone associated with Osama Bin Laden' can be legally called Al Qaeda & thus be declared enemy. But again by whose definition ? The problem I see is that a lot more people who were ever associated with Bin Laden are being called Al Qaeda because we have created a bogeyman from the word & we can throw the word at those we choose to vilify. So if we want to blacken someone we just call them this - it is almost(well perhaps it already has been) happening with Saddam Hussien'. Again in the case of Hussien - if we have clear cut evidence lets get him but if not let us beware of those who want to get him until we clearly understand their real motives. Doug M
Post #50,643 by Brandioch 9/5/02 3:06:13 PM Reply	Definitions. It may be very difficult to declare any meaningful war against an idea. This is an idea: "All men are created equal" Al Queda is an organization. And organization is usually composed of people who share the same ideas. You can't win against an idea. You can win against an organization. That will not stop the idea. We can declare war on al Queda. We can win a war against al Queda. We cannot declare a war on "terrorism". Well, we can, sort of. Well, we can SAY we're at war with "terrorism". What is 'Al Qaeda' but a word coined by certain people ? - if it is a formal organisation then the identification is very easy - if not then who do we brand as Al Qaeda for the purpose of calling them enemy - this is where we may step into very dangerous ground as to call someone Al Qaeda is to call them enemy but who does the calling ??? - Senator McCarthy ??? - McCarthy's grandson ??? - Mr Cheney ??? Fortunately, it is a formal organization, with training grounds and leaders and financing and so forth. We can take this down a path where we agree to accept a rule that says 'anyone associated with Osama Bin Laden' can be legally called Al Qaeda & thus be declared enemy. But again by whose definition ? If you want to. But is anyone associated with Bush a "Republican"? The problem I see is that a lot more people who were ever associated with Bin Laden are being called Al Qaeda because we have created a bogeyman from the word & we can throw the word at those we choose to vilify. Pretty much. It doesn't help matters that "al Queda" and "Taliban" seem to be interchangable in the press now. But we didn't declare war on al Queda. We declared war on "terrorism". We just happened to take out the Taliban because they were associated with Osama and so forth. So if we want to blacken someone we just call them this - it is almost(well perhaps it already has been) happening with Saddam Hussien'. Yep. And we have a long history of exactly that. Check out "Communist" and McCarthy. Even now, label someone a "terrorist" and his/her rights are automatically revoked. Even if s/he is a US citizen. I believe this is because the majority of the citizens in this country are moronic sheep. As long as it isn't happening to THEM or anyone THEY can sympathize with, it doesn't matter. We're going into Iraq so we can secure a steady supply of cheap oil. This is okay with the sheeple because it means they will pay less to fuel their cars. Besides, no one over here LIKES Saddam. Nor are we particularly fond of Iraqis in general. Or in specific. Kill a bunch of camel jockeys for cheap oil. They're most likely "terrorists" any way.

Welcome to IWETHEY!