Declan McCullagh wrote:

The Washington Times ran a stratfor.com article (as a news article, like the paper would run Reuters or AP) yesterday. I haven't visited their website, but what I read yesterday is quite interesting.

-Declan

What I find interesting is how we can have a war without a Congressional declaration, which out of practical if not legal necessity requires something at least approximating a foreign power as the enemy. It would be extremely helpful if there were some overt state action or at least a smoking gun to publicly identify such party. Bin Laden and crew are not a foreign power, unless we are stupid enough to turn them into one, a hostile one. Sheer folly when their precise complicity and the extent of their involvement in the attacks has yet to be demostrated outside of their self-promotion and our desire to find the guilty parties. Who, I don't believe, give a shit about the Islam rampant bs. except as expedient, and as much as about selecting the toll collectors for the pipelines to be built through places like Afghanistan to China, the former Soviet Republics, etc. I don't rule out a war. There are grounds for it. That'll be folly, too, though, if we pick the wrong enemy, or support the wrong side again. Not speaking of Bin Laden now. Or cut another deal with a devil who'll bite us in the ass again a few years down the road. If not sooner. If we have to have Americans dying in remote, already blown-up, mine-laden poppy fields etc. as postulated, kindly let's not do it out of crass political expediency. Again. Nothing wrong with revenge for 5000+ dead, either, but don't let's get more killed going after the wrong motherfuckers, or trying to buy the right ones off. There, is that cryptic enough? jbdigriz

on Sun, Sep 30, 2001 at 04:11:21PM -0400, James B. DiGriz (jbdigriz@dragonsweb.org) wrote:

Declan McCullagh wrote:

...

The Washington Times ran a stratfor.com article (as a news article, like the paper would run Reuters or AP) yesterday. I haven't visited their website, but what I read yesterday is quite interesting.

-Declan

What I find interesting is how we can have a war without a Congressional declaration, which out of practical if not legal necessity requires something at least approximating a foreign power as the enemy. It would be extremely helpful if there were some overt state action or at least a smoking gun to publicly identify such party.

As the US President is CinC of the US armed forces, he may deploy these forces as he sees fit. However, Congress holds the purse strings, and the impeachment vote. My understanding is that the War Powers Act, passed in the wake of the SouthEast Asia Disagreement of 1965-1975, limits such deployments to 30 or 90 days. I have to admit being somewhat confused myself over just what distinctions there are between a formal declaration, and a vote of support such as we saw following the 9/11 attacks. I believe a formal declaration would entail far more Presidential support and powers, resources for the military, including likely more sweeping restrictions on civil liberties. Peace. -- Karsten M. Self http://kmself.home.netcom.com/ What part of "Gestalt" don't you understand? Home of the brave http://gestalt-system.sourceforge.net/ Land of the free Free Dmitry! Boycott Adobe! Repeal the DMCA! http://www.freesklyarov.org Geek for Hire http://kmself.home.netcom.com/resume.html

On Mon, Oct 01, 2001 at 08:25:08AM -0700, David Honig wrote:

Yes. Though these days they have Emergency Powers for everything, and chronic, continually extended 'Emergencies'.

I've always enjoyed the regular declarations of emergencies required to keep the encryption export control regime active. If an emergency exists for decades, can it still be properly called one? -Declan

On Monday, October 1, 2001, at 10:38 AM, Declan McCullagh wrote:

On Mon, Oct 01, 2001 at 08:25:08AM -0700, David Honig wrote:

...

Yes. Though these days they have Emergency Powers for everything, and chronic, continually extended 'Emergencies'.

I've always enjoyed the regular declarations of emergencies required to keep the encryption export control regime active.

If an emergency exists for decades, can it still be properly called one?

Lincoln began the process with his emergency decrees, including his suspension of habeus corpus. (Basically, folks could be jailed without the state producing strong evidence of a crime.) (I expect today's Emergency Orderers are sifting through all such decrees to see what they can crib.) --Tim May

On Mon, 1 Oct 2001, Declan McCullagh wrote:

On Sun, Sep 30, 2001 at 04:11:21PM -0400, James B. DiGriz wrote:

...

What I find interesting is how we can have a war without a Congressional declaration, which out of practical if not legal necessity requires something at least approximating a foreign power as the enemy. It would be extremely helpful if there were some overt state action or at least a smoking gun to publicly identify such party.

Call me unusually hawkish, but I don't see why that's necessary. Let's say our fleet was attacked at Pearl Harbor 60 years ago -- but by an enemy who did not paint his flag on his aircraft. Congress could, and should, declare war on an unidentified enemy.

I admit the situation is not as clear here, since generally only nationstates can raise air armadas and non-nationstate organizations could have trained the Hijacking 19, but perhaps the parallels are nevertheless sufficient. Think of it as an "unidentified co-conspirator" approach.

Better parallels: the Barbary pirates, against which the US sent a fleet in the early 1800s, or the US Army's incursion into Mexico under Gen Pershing in the early 1900s. You can dispatch troops without a nation-state as the target. -- Jim Dixon VBCnet GB Ltd http://www.vbc.net tel +44 117 929 1316 fax +44 117 927 2015