Do Republics say 'We are at war' to keep giving Bush war-time presidential powers?

Question

During war-time, the constitution gives the president the power to fight with any resources Congress makes available. Basically he can do anything he wants with the claim, 'he is protecting the nation.'

My claim is that we are not at war. The war ended within 6 months of invading Iraq and Afghanistan even sooner.

We are in the Reconstruction phase, not war.

Based on their logic, since we still have troops in Korea, we would still be at war with Korea.

Thoughts?

Answer 1

Despite what coragryph above said, there are times when wars occur without an actual declaration by Congress per clause 8 of section 1 of the Constitution (e.g., Korean War). But then you get into an interesting situation. Like with the situation at hand, where Congress authorized going to war. Is that a declaration of war? And what was/is the war? The current situation has been catagorized as a "war on terroism" more than a war against a specific country, which is odd and somewhat lacking restraints or limits. One can dispute that we are "at war" with terrorists, or that there actually exists a war at all as you have stated. Unfortunately, the Constitution does not define "war". It does say that if the troops are in service they are under the direction of the President, but all the funding must be by Congress. So, I don't think there's a real solution. Congress can say they believe there is no war, that they do not want to fund the troops as they are being used in an ineffective and unnecessary manner, or they can fund them with ultimatums, like they are trying to do. Certainly, just because troops are at a certain location does not mean we are war. With Korea there was a cease fire, but there was actually no end ever declared, and maybe that's why we still have troops there. But, there are other places we have troops for other reasons (i.e., peace-keeping). I don't think the Constitution contemplated this. Therefore our President must direct and remain under the check of Congress.

I know, doesn't sound like a real answer, but that's only because I don't think there is one.

Oh yeah, and to answer the question...I don't think it takes anyone declaring we are at war to give the President these powers, I think he can unilaterally take these steps. It would then be up to Congress and the Courts to determine whether they were appropriate war-time powers.

Answer 2

We are still technically at war in Korea. No peace treaty was ever signed, a truce was declared and remains in effect to this day.

As for the current conflict, I'll admit I'm a little hazy as to whether a formal declaration of war was ever promulgated. certainly, the adminsitration is operating under the War Powers act. Let's assume for the moment that war was declared formally.

If we are at war, with whom are we at war? You have to declare war against another nation, or a regime. You could decalre war against a group, but "terrorism" does not constitute a discreet group. Certainly, fighting terrorism, is a necessary thing. But does it require, or even justify, the invokation of the War Powers Act?

We could be at war with Saddam's regime, but it no longer exists.

We could be at war with Iraq, but clearly we are not.

We can't be at war with any religious group. i don't think the majority of Americans would support that, but I could be wrong. People do crazy things when they're scared spitless. I lived through the Red scare, the duck and cover drills, (which seem so quaint now, but they weren't to a 1o yr old) I lived through the Cuban Millile Crisis, when we tried to live normal lives, but each time we saw contrails in the sky,we wondered whose planes they were, how long we had to live) I know scared spitless.

So, if we were at war, we no longer *are* at war.
Soldiers fight wars. They shouldn't have to fight somebody else's civil war.

Answer 3

War has not been declared, only on terrorism, unless you consider the United States invading Iraq an act of war, we are not at war. Remember "the liberation of Iraq", mission accomplished? IF there ever was a war, then "mission accomplished" was obviously the end. If we are at war with Iraq how come after four years we cannot defeat a country with no military?

Answer 4

We were never at war in Iraq. Only Congress can declare war (Article I Section 8) and Congress never did declare war.

Congress merely passed an Authorization for the Use of Military Force (AUMF), which does not grant statutory war-time powers. Yes, that just the legal definition, but the legal definition is the only one that applies as a matter of law.

Bush's claim that he can do anything he wants is based on the Unitary Executive theory, which basically says that the President can ignore Congress or the Courts at will. This theory has been rejected by the US Supreme Court (decades ago), but since Bush is ignoring the Court, he doesn't care.

Answer 5

Actually, we are helping the Iraqi soldiers keep the civilians as safe as possible. The reason we went to Iraq was accomplished, Saddam got busted but the Muslims are still killing the Iraqi people. They were just waiting for us to get rid of Saddam so they could move in and now we have to deal with them or would you rather let the radical Muslims kill the innocent people of Iraq?

Answer 6

That is a good point.
I think so... I think it is obvious they invented this war and one of the main motivations is it makes George Bush much more powerful for our founding fathers set up the constitution so that in case of war more power is given to the commander in chief so that we win.
but what do we do when the perverted court of king George takes over and scares the American people to go to war and once in they don't care if they make any sense.
"but is that going to stop us" Dick Chaney

Answer 7

We are almost always at war, just everyone is too concerned with Bradjalina and Britney to acknowledge that there are still American troops occupying other countries for years.
Yes, we are technically at war with North Korea right now. There is also a defacto state of war in foreign relations. When Japan attacked Pearl Harbor, we declared war on Germany, believing there was ample evidence that we were already at war with Japan. Same goes for terrorists, just we keep ignoring that there has been multiple attacks against us for many years.
War is horrible, but ignoring evil people who are trying to kill us is very naive.

Honestly, do you think Hillary Clinton won't take us to war? Our foreign agenda is constant among both parties, they just argue about what path to take to get there.

Answer 8

Ah! Execellent point. I have considered the same thing. Once we captured Saddam, isn't the war technically over? Aren't we supposed to be there to rebuid? It's a good point with the exception that there are still many, many deaths happening. It's kind of hard to reconstruct while battles are still going on.

Answer 9

Beach Bum, there is no rime nor reason to what the repugs think, they have no understanding that the war in Iraq was not connected in any way to the war on terror, so how would you expect them to grasp the facts, that the war is over, we have won and it is now time to bring the troops home where they can protect us from the invasion that is happening every day on our southern border.

Answer 10

No, we say we are at war because WE ARE AT WAR!! Where have you been hiding? Troops are still fighting and dieing over there every day! What kind of American are you?