Full Version: Of Course You Know, This Means War?
LINK
The Attorney General of the United States has expressed his wish that Congress make a formal declaration of war against Al-Qaeda, a non-state actor. He we bold enough to state that he wants this declaration because it would allow the Government to hold alleged Al Qaeda terrorists indefinitely until the 'war' ends [Judgement Day]. My questions are simple.
Can we declare war on non-state actors? If so, should we declare war on Al Qaeda?
Would a declaration of war allow, as our esteemed AG suggests, the US government to indefinitely hold alleged terrorists despite the fact that non-state actors cannot commit acts of war, only crimes?
CP
QUOTE
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Congress should explicitly declare war against al Qaeda to make clear the United States can detain suspected members as long as the conflict lasts, U.S. Attorney General Michael Mukasey said on Monday.
ADVERTISEMENT
Mukasey urged Congress to make the declaration in a package of legislative proposals to establish a legal process for terrorism suspects held at Guantanamo, in response to a Supreme Court ruling last month that detainees had a constitutional right to challenge their detention.
ADVERTISEMENT
Mukasey urged Congress to make the declaration in a package of legislative proposals to establish a legal process for terrorism suspects held at Guantanamo, in response to a Supreme Court ruling last month that detainees had a constitutional right to challenge their detention.
The Attorney General of the United States has expressed his wish that Congress make a formal declaration of war against Al-Qaeda, a non-state actor. He we bold enough to state that he wants this declaration because it would allow the Government to hold alleged Al Qaeda terrorists indefinitely until the 'war' ends [Judgement Day]. My questions are simple.
Can we declare war on non-state actors? If so, should we declare war on Al Qaeda?
Would a declaration of war allow, as our esteemed AG suggests, the US government to indefinitely hold alleged terrorists despite the fact that non-state actors cannot commit acts of war, only crimes?
CP
Can we declare war on non-state actors? If so, should we declare war on Al Qaeda?
Our congressional and constitutional process isn't designed or equipped to deal with declaring war on non-state actors. But as that hasn't stopped us from bringing conflict to sovereign states since WWII, so I don't see why we shouldn't be able to declare war on AQ.
Would a declaration of war allow, as our esteemed AG suggests, the US government to indefinitely hold alleged terrorists despite the fact that non-state actors cannot commit acts of war, only crimes?
I think you answered your own question, in terms of constitutionality.
Our congressional and constitutional process isn't designed or equipped to deal with declaring war on non-state actors. But as that hasn't stopped us from bringing conflict to sovereign states since WWII, so I don't see why we shouldn't be able to declare war on AQ.
Would a declaration of war allow, as our esteemed AG suggests, the US government to indefinitely hold alleged terrorists despite the fact that non-state actors cannot commit acts of war, only crimes?
I think you answered your own question, in terms of constitutionality.
Can we declare war on non-state actors? If so, should we declare war on Al Qaeda?
We could make AQ a “state” by definition with undefined land borders. Then we could declare war on this entity imo.
Would a declaration of war allow, as our esteemed AG suggests, the US government to indefinitely hold alleged terrorists despite the fact that non-state actors cannot commit acts of war, only crimes?
If we could declare “war” on AQ then the terrorists that are connected to this group are no longer “non-state” actors – which is the reality we need to get to.
To go back to treating them as criminals, as Clinton did is imo a huge error.
We could make AQ a “state” by definition with undefined land borders. Then we could declare war on this entity imo.
Would a declaration of war allow, as our esteemed AG suggests, the US government to indefinitely hold alleged terrorists despite the fact that non-state actors cannot commit acts of war, only crimes?
If we could declare “war” on AQ then the terrorists that are connected to this group are no longer “non-state” actors – which is the reality we need to get to.
To go back to treating them as criminals, as Clinton did is imo a huge error.
Can we declare war on non-state actors?
Jefferson and Madison didn't seem to think so. They didn't declare war on the Barbary pirates. They did obtain Congressional authorization for the use of military force though.
If so, should we declare war on Al Qaeda?
No way. I shudder to think of what the president would do with a blank check for total war on a non-state actor.
Would a declaration of war allow, as our esteemed AG suggests, the US government to indefinitely hold alleged terrorists despite the fact that non-state actors cannot commit acts of war, only crimes?
It might allow for combatants to be held indefinitely as POWs. Not the same for war criminals. Our declaration of war on Germany, for instance, did not prevent the trial and sentencing of several German saboteurs during that timeframe.
Jefferson and Madison didn't seem to think so. They didn't declare war on the Barbary pirates. They did obtain Congressional authorization for the use of military force though.
If so, should we declare war on Al Qaeda?
No way. I shudder to think of what the president would do with a blank check for total war on a non-state actor.
Would a declaration of war allow, as our esteemed AG suggests, the US government to indefinitely hold alleged terrorists despite the fact that non-state actors cannot commit acts of war, only crimes?
It might allow for combatants to be held indefinitely as POWs. Not the same for war criminals. Our declaration of war on Germany, for instance, did not prevent the trial and sentencing of several German saboteurs during that timeframe.
QUOTE
We could make AQ a “state” by definition with undefined land borders. Then we could declare war on this entity imo.
There are two serious problems with that. A: The United States government does not have the power to 'make' a foreign entity a 'state'. B: No state in modern history [and I suspect ancient history as well] has had no borders.
Such a move is impractical, implausible and quite likely illegal [as the Constitution gives the gov't no power to 'make' an international entity a state].
CP
QUOTE(ConservPat @ Jul 23 2008, 12:06 PM) 
QUOTE
We could make AQ a “state” by definition with undefined land borders. Then we could declare war on this entity imo.
There are two serious problems with that. A: The United States government does not have the power to 'make' a foreign entity a 'state'. B: No state in modern history [and I suspect ancient history as well] has had no borders.
Such a move is impractical, implausible and quite likely illegal [as the Constitution gives the gov't no power to 'make' an international entity a state].
CP
Agreed. I would add that the use of the phrase "War against X" where X is anything other than a sovereign state is pure propaganda. You can't wage war against an emotion (terror) or a type of chemical (drugs). The analogy as absurd as it is misleading.
TC
QUOTE(Thought Criminal @ Jul 23 2008, 01:05 PM)
Agreed. I would add that the use of the phrase "War against X" where X is anything other than a sovereign state is pure propaganda. You can't wage war against an emotion (terror) or a type of chemical (drugs). The analogy as absurd as it is misleading.
TC
TC
While it is true that a nation cannot wage war against a tactic (or a chemical, or an emotion), Congress did authorized the use of military force against Al Qaeda. Not so for chemicals, or nightmares, or whatever.
Listen... here's the real deal... we can't very well say - Crusade. It upsets people so much. So the new name is War On Terror.
This is a simplified version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.