A resolution is not a declaration of war. Legally, they have nothing in common. But that doesn't really matter. What matters is that by refusing to grant the prisoners POW status, Bush took them outside of US law. So, either they are POWs, or they are criminals. Those are the only 2 choices. And if they were POWs, they would still be granted trials if charged with specific crimes. By doing neither, and then not allowing them fair trials, Bush forfeited the right to keep them prisoner according to US law.
Liz Cheney Would Call John Adams a Terrorists Pal
- Thread starter Cutlass
- Start date
Berzerker
Deity
All declarations of war are against narrow groups of people
A resolution declaring war is a declaration of war. Resolved: We the USA declares war.
And Bush aint relevant... This is about POWs having a constitutional right to a trial, and they dont have such a right. If Congress wants to try them in a court of law, thats up to Congress to decide.
There is no declaration of war in your link. Just an authorization to use force.
First, no declaration of war took place. Second, POW status allows prisoners to be held until a treaty resolves it. Second, no other punishment can be assigned without a trial. US law simply does not allow for it.
Berzerker
Deity
No it's not.
There's not a country to declare war against, either.
Berzerker
Deity
I dont see anything in the Constitution that says Congress can only declare war on other countries.
And I don't see anywhere in the Constitution where an authorization to use force is an acceptable substitute for a declaration of war.
sonorakitch
Overseas hunter
We never declared war....as some of you state....against Vietnam either. And I'm pretty sure POW status was granted to the throngs of VC we jailed.
Not necessarily saying its right or wrong, but there is precedent.
Not necessarily saying its right or wrong, but there is precedent.
Congress has basically shifted its Constitutional powers and responsibilities to the Executive branch in the post-WWII era. Once they pass the buck in this area, I'm not impressed by any crying for some nickels and dimes of that power back.
And I used to maintain that we should have used PoW status with the detainees. But that does not at all address the fact that we did not.
By not giving them PoW status and treatment from day one, Bush painted us into a legal corner where US law simply does not allow us a resolution. Our only choices are to ignore the Constitution and break the law, or let them go. Giving them fair trials and taking our chances is the best option remaining to us. And that's bending the law near to the breaking point.
How about Article I, Section 9 -- you know, the one immediately following the section you've cited -- where the Constitution states that
Cleo
Similar threads
