The Library of Congress:
Title: To authorize the use of United States Armed Forces against Iraq. <-link
I'm not even going to bother with the rest of it.
Some people ask the... silliest questions.
Have you not read the papers and watched the news? The answer lies therein. Yes, it has and it has been for a rather long time.
the love you withhold is the pain you carry.
Oh yes, "To authorize the use of United States Armed Forces against Iraq." and it's from Congress. What's more it obviously passed since it: "Became Public Law No: 107-243".
So try again.
I think Kiara is referring to the legal wording of the document, as it doesn't actually say "declaration of war," (unlike resolutions passed to join WWII, which specifically mention war...i.e, "Declaration of a State of War with Germany.")
Pretty much by leaving the phrasing open it allows the U.S more freedom in how they conduct their activities. For example, as much as this is pinned as being a "war," the U.S does not deem captured enemy combatants as "prisoners of war," (which is hypocritical, because if you're at 'war,' then combatants should immediately be P.O.W's). That's why there is a fuss about Guantanamo Bay, because the U.S is not treating the combatants as P.O.W's, and not giving them rights that are guaranteed by the Geneva Convention. It's selective use of the term 'war,' only when it suits their needs...(it's also a means of protecting U.S soldiers from being charged for war crimes by tribunals, because it allows the U.S to keep the process internalized, where the military investigates itself....i.e, the haditha killings).
So, in a sense you're both right. The phrasing of the document was done so in such a way as to say "we're going to war," without saying 'war', while leaving the legal phrasing open to give the U.S more flexing room.
Last edited by Chubz; Jan 22, 2007 at 11:50 PM.
Many Thanks To SasuraiHell For The Sig!