« Nothing to See Here, Just Move Along..... | JaDe's Blog | Fourteen Defining Characteristics Of Fascism »
Is America actually in a State of War?
The Op/Ed by James Carroll, published yesterday in the Boston Globe: http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/
2006/01/30/is_america_actually_in_a_state_of_war/ aptly asks a very real and important question.
The President and his supporters maintain he is a "Wartime President," and this distinction gives him unlimited executive power as our Commander in Chief.
However, The President announced almost two years ago that combat operations in Iraq were over. He announced this under a banner declaring "Mission Accomplished." So we are not at war with Iraq.
Similarly, we are not at war with al Queda. Our military is not pursuing al Queda through militaristic means, and most of our forces were diverted from Afganistan to be deployed to Iraq.
Given the above, there is now no enemy -- except for the idea or tactic called "terrorism." It is impossible to be "at War" with a tactic or idea. Merely struggling to squash an idea spreads it.
So, are we in a state of war? I think we can safely say we are not, and since we are not, the President's claims to extraordinary powers are even less credible and more wonton.
Advertisement
I think your argument would be better if you said that according to the Constitution we are not at war, because no war has been declared; thus the wartime Constitutional powers that Bush assumes do not exist.
January 31, 2006 1:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm not enough of a legal scholar to differentiate between the Use of Force Authorizations actually passed by Congress and a Declartion of War.
Is there a difference?
February 1, 2006 10:59 AM | Reply | Permalink