• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

American, Italian Hostages Killed in CIA Drone Strike in January

Declaration of War triggers different abilities with respect to domestic law (emergency powers).

AUMF gives none of that authority.

It's why Attorney General Gonzales said to the Senate Judiciary Committee in February 2006... this:

"There was not a war declaration, either in connection with Al Qaida or in Iraq. It was an authorization to use military force. I only want to clarify that, because there are implications. Obviously, when you talk about a war declaration, you’re possibly talking about affecting treaties, diplomatic relations. And so there is a distinction in law and in practice. And we’re not talking about a war declaration. This is an authorization only to use military force."
Link to the Convo on this.

Reality is there is a reason why AUMF didn't satisfy the legal standard for justifying illegal spying or anything else the US Government (President and Congress) has lost at the level of the Supreme Court. Be it granting rights to enemy combatants to giving them trials instead of holding them forever. Next up is FISA and NSA spying that Supreme Court will end up hearing (Klayman v. Obama). If this was a Declared War, none of this would have been questioned.
Thta's a god point on the domestics, iwassaying it doesn't matter in practice, since this is how modern war is declared
and outside of treaties, the domestics are triggered the same way.
Thanks for that!
 
What an ignorant, uninformed and naive statement. There will always be be bad people who will not stop what they are doing unless they are made to stop. Carrying out a war on these kind of people is not a bad thing. It is a necessary thing for a civilized society to exist. TO make a blanket statement as you just did reflects a level of naivete normally only seen in elementary schools.

Yes, unfortunately the US will be at the top of that list for some time. And of course the future world that you hold in your faith is the epitome of naïveté.
 
Thta's a god point on the domestics, iwassaying it doesn't matter in practice, since this is how modern war is declared and outside of treaties, the domestics are triggered the same way.Thanks for that!
There has been no Declaration of War since 1942 and likely never will be again. The term is now useless.
 
Thta's a god point on the domestics, iwassaying it doesn't matter in practice, since this is how modern war is declared
and outside of treaties, the domestics are triggered the same way.
Thanks for that!

But every domestic issue has been a loss in the Supreme Court level for the President and Congress because they didn't declare war. Supreme Court sees a AUMF as different legally speaking.
 
But every domestic issue has been a loss in the Supreme Court level for the President and Congress because they didn't declare war. Supreme Court sees a AUMF as different legally speaking.
you'd need to cite what you are saying..I don't follow
 
Declaration of War triggers different abilities with respect to domestic law (emergency powers).

AUMF gives none of that authority.

Absolute nonsense, there is absolutely zero legal difference between an AUMF and an official declaration of war in both instances both houses of congress must vote in favor of allowing the POTUS to send troops into battle, but hey maybe one day we'll see your claims being made in front of the SCOTUS, but don't hold your breath considering that the war powers resolution has been in effect for several decades.
 
Supreme Court sees a AUMF as different legally speaking.

No it doesn't and has never once heard a case regarding the legality of AUMF's let alone decide that they are different in any way from an official declaration of war.
 
ah OK. thanks for that..so if we are talking legal domestic grounds, there is less/little authority to hold..

here's a question for you ( I haven't followed it that much)..what happened because of that ruling?
Was the 'closure of Gitmo' process started because of that?
 
Absolute nonsense, there is absolutely zero legal difference between an AUMF and an official declaration of war in both instances both houses of congress must vote in favor of allowing the POTUS to send troops into battle, but hey maybe one day we'll see your claims being made in front of the SCOTUS, but don't hold your breath considering that the war powers resolution has been in effect for several decades.
well that is what I was thinking..in practice there is little difference..
 
Back
Top Bottom