In the discussion thread: When the president does it, that means that it is not illegal [View all]
Response to jeff47 (Reply #27)
Wed Feb 6, 2013, 03:25 PM
wtmusic (39,116 posts)
36. No, they're not equivalent. As much as you and Dubya want them to be.
I traversed this territory maybe 40 times ten years ago when the MIC had too many smart bombs on their hands and not enough countries to drop them on. The President and the U.S. Congress do not have the right to re-define war as they see fit. If you don't like it, take it up with the Congressional Research Service.
"Traditionally, peace and war have been deemed under international law to be distinctive forms of relations between states. Thus, peace has been defined as
a condition in which States maintain order and justice, solve their problems by cooperation, and eliminate violence. It is a condition in which States respect each other’ s sovereignty and equality, refrain from intervention and the threat or use of force and cooperate with one another in accordance with the treaties which they have concluded.
War, in contrast, has been described as “a condition of armed hostility between States,” “a contention, through the use of armed force, between states, undertaken for the purpose of overpowering another.” War has been said to terminate or suspend the laws and customs that prevail in peacetime and to substitute for them the laws of war. Under the traditional laws of war enemy combatants can be killed, prisoners of war taken, the enemy’s property seized or destroyed, enemy aliens interned, and other measures necessary to subdue the enemy and impose the will of the warring state taken. Moreover, the existence of a state of war traditionally has been deemed to terminate diplomatic and commercial relations and most of the treaty obligations existing between the warring States. A state of war also has brought into play the law of neutrality with respect to relations between the belligerent and non-belligerent States.
In this traditional understanding a declaration of war has been deemed, in and of itself, to have the effect of creating a state of war and changing the relationship between the states involved from one of peace to one of war. That has been the case even if no hostilities actually occur. Some question exists as to whether international law traditionally deemed a declaration of war to be a necessary prerequisite to the existence of a state of war; but it is clear that under international law a declaration of war has been viewed as “creating the legal status of war ... and giving evidence that peace has been transmuted into war, and that the law of war has replaced the law of peace.”
Authorizations for the use of force, in contrast, have not been seen as automatically creating a state of war under international law."
This post is not disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate.
Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
|Leslie Valley||Feb 2013||OP|
|Capt. Obvious||Feb 2013||#10|
|Solly Mack||Feb 2013||#4|
|Capt. Obvious||Feb 2013||#9|
No, they're not equivalent. As much as you and Dubya want them to be.
|Jack Rabbit||Feb 2013||#22|
Please login to view edit histories.