English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

Given that only Congress can declare war (Article I Section 8 of the Constitution), when did Congress declare the so-called "War on Terror", and against whom? FYI, I'm not talking about the 2002 Authorizations for the Use of Military Force (P.Ls. 107-40 and 107-243). These only authorize the president to use force against "those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001" and to "defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq". Neither of these are formal declarations of war, neither under the Constitution nor under the War Powers Act. So, when did Congress declare war, and how do we know if that war will ever end, since it seems to be completely are the discretion of the Commander-in-Sheik.

2006-06-26 13:57:50 · 12 answers · asked by coragryph 7 in Politics & Government Other - Politics & Government

The reason the formal declaration is relevant is because the Constitution (Article I Section 9) mandates that "the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in cases of rebellion or invasion". Yet, the Writ was suspended by Congress in December 2005, as part of the War on Terror. So, by extension, the War on Terror is considered by Congress to be a rebellion or invasion.

2006-06-26 14:23:18 · update #1

Everybody, thank freetyme813 for copying P.L. 107-40 (AUMF) onto the page.

2006-06-26 16:00:48 · update #2

12 answers

Congress did not declare "War on Terror." The term is used only in rhetoric and originated from the executive branch.
Since this isn't a formal war, it may not have a formal end time and may be used as an excuse for encroaching on civil liberties for many administrations to come if the American people are not careful.

2006-06-26 13:59:30 · answer #1 · answered by sariana09 3 · 11 5

It didn't. Congress hasn't declared war on anyone since the second world war. They have been "police actions" ever since.

And no, the war won't end until it is politically necessary for Washington to be not at war. Because Al-Qaeda won't hold a surrender ceremony on the USS Missouri in the Persian Gulf and because weaker opponents will always resort to the tactic of ambush when faced with the stronger, the war will go on and on until the powers that be decide that it no longer helps them achieve their political goals.

2006-06-26 14:02:25 · answer #2 · answered by derkaiser93 4 · 1 1

Hey bud check your history books. The formal declaration is a rare thing in 200 + years. From the Barbary Pirates, to the Hunt for Pancho Vila. We have have engaged in actions many times without it. As for The Use of Force Authorization. That was all that was needed. The Congress said ok and continues to Ok Funds. Case closed. The War is over when the job is done, not a date on a calendar.

2006-06-26 14:19:23 · answer #3 · answered by lana_sands 7 · 2 3

It seems like I remember hearing about the "War on Terror" being announced in March of 2003. My brother was just getting out of basic training when that was going on.

2006-06-26 14:00:20 · answer #4 · answered by Defiant_Rose 2 · 0 0

By appropriating funds to continue the lawful deployment of American troops by their commander-in-chief (via the War Powers Act), Congress authorizes their deployment, de facto. If Congress was of the mind to end the deployment, all they would need to do is cut off the money.

2006-06-26 14:11:01 · answer #5 · answered by jogimo2 3 · 1 1

they never really did, but because we have an all republican congress and executive branch, we basically need to wait until the next election and vote for some other poor sorry sap to clean up the masive mess. Or maybe we will get lucky and they will impeach Bush for his role in the unlawful wire taps, they can impeach Clinton for lying to a grand jury but Bush gets a free pass, give me a break were is the accountability anymore?, sorry to answer your question wth a new question

2006-06-26 14:08:37 · answer #6 · answered by answer man 2 · 0 3

The moment it decided that it would give them a good excuse to get into countries where they saw advantages for themselves. But realy, they decided after 9/11. Although i still think it was more of an excuse to do what they want.

2006-06-26 14:00:17 · answer #7 · answered by monomat99 3 · 1 1

Wow! Thanks! exactly what I was searching for. I looked for the answers on other websites but I couldn't find them.

2016-08-23 00:37:06 · answer #8 · answered by ? 4 · 0 0

even a liberal can't be so stupid as to try to imply congress had no involvement - well on second thought.

FYI moron,

SJ 23 ES

107th CONGRESS 1st Session S. J. RES. 23

JOINT RESOLUTION
To authorize the use of United States Armed Forces against those responsible for the recent attacks launched against the United States.

Whereas, on September 11, 2001, acts of treacherous violence were committed against the United States and its citizens; and

Whereas, such acts render it both necessary and appropriate that the United States exercise its rights to self-defense and to protect United States citizens both at home and abroad; and

Whereas, in light of the threat to the national security and foreign policy of the United States posed by these grave acts of violence; and

Whereas, such acts continue to pose an unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security and foreign policy of the United States; and

Whereas, the President has authority under the Constitution to take action to deter and prevent acts of international terrorism against the United States: Now, therefore, be it


Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This joint resolution may be cited as the `Authorization for Use of Military Force'.

SEC. 2. AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES.

(a) IN GENERAL- 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.

(b) War Powers Resolution Requirements-

(1) SPECIFIC STATUTORY AUTHORIZATION- Consistent with section 8(a)(1) of the War Powers Resolution, the Congress declares that this section is intended to constitute specific statutory authorization within the meaning of section 5(b) of the War Powers Resolution.

(2) APPLICABILITY OF OTHER REQUIREMENTS- Nothing in this resolution supercedes any requirement of the War Powers Resolution.
Passed the Senate September 14, 2001.

Attest:

Secretary.


107th CONGRESS

1st Session

S. J. RES. 23

JOINT RESOLUTION
To authorize the use of United States Armed Forces against those responsible for the recent attacks launched against the United States.

2006-06-26 15:25:18 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 3 4

They didn't.

2006-06-26 14:31:38 · answer #10 · answered by rhymingron 6 · 1 2

fedest.com, questions and answers