- Joined
- Oct 20, 2013
- Messages
- 24,694
- Reaction score
- 10,538
- Location
- daily dukkha
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Undisclosed
Thta's a god point on the domestics, iwassaying it doesn't matter in practice, since this is how modern war is declaredDeclaration 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.
and outside of treaties, the domestics are triggered the same way.
Thanks for that!