Perhaps there has been a declaration of war. Whether one in a legal sense treats the campaign against AQ as a 'War' or as a massive act of law enforcement against a terrorist network is somewhat fuzzy. Under the US Constitution though, the US President has a broad mandate to declare war.Originally Posted by Panda
President Bush has found the attacks to constitute an attack that
has placed the United States in a state of armed conflict. In his
November 13, 2001 order establishing military commission to try
terrorists, the President found that:
International terrorists, including members of al Qaida, have
carried out attacks on United States diplomatic and military
personnel and facilities abroad and on citizens and property
within the United States on a scale that has created a state of
armed conflict that requires the use of the United States Armed
Forces.
As a matter of domestic law, the President’s finding settles the
question whether the United States is at war.
http://www.law.berkeley.edu/files/yoonyucombatants.pdf
Some legal beagles argue though that a state of war can only exist between States- although this does leave a gaping question as to the status of Civil War? What is true though is that Pres Bush- and now Obama- exploited legal loopholes or grey areas. In a state of war the 'rules' of law apply, under the Geneva Convention etc. Captured enemy combatants are to be treated as POW's, for example. Whilst displaying armed aggression that is 'legal' under a state of war, the Bush admin set the legally dubious precedent that the enemy were not 'combatants' as legally defined under a state of war- thus we have extrajudicial rendition, Gitmo, torture, ghost prisons etc.
Legal scholars can, and will, argue this until they are blue in the face. Certainly, the asymmetric and brutal manner of 'warfare' waged by AQ was met with an asymmetric and equally brutal response from the US and Allies. There are several dubious legalities/ illegalities involved.




Reply With Quote