Talk:Declaration of war by the United States

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 Misleading paragraph? 2 NPOV 3 Jeanette Rankin 4 War on Terrorism 5 War Powers Resolution 6 Declaration of war vs "Military engagements authorized by Congress" 7 Formatting problems 8 Doe v. Bush 9 Operation Allied Force? And NPOV 10 Invasion of Panama 11 Constitution 12 Border War / Pancho Villa 13 After World War II, Congress voluntarily limited its use of the power to declare war to issuing authorizations of force. 14 Huh? 15 List of US military interventions since 1890 16 World War Two - who declared war first? 17 This appreas to be plagiarised anyway 18 The War Between the States? 19 Removing NPOV tag 20 American Civil War 21 War on Poverty, War on Drugs, etc. 22 Confusing first paragraph 23 Hungary 24 One big table 25 Operation Just Cause 26 A Useful Reference on this Topic

[edit] Misleading paragraph?

"Extremely heated debate developed in the United States beginning on or around September 11, 2001. Opponents of the uses of military force since began to argue, chiefly, that the Iraq War was unconstitutional, because it lacked a clear declaration of war, and was waged over the objection of a significantly sized demographic in the United States."

This paragraph seems to imply that the Iraq War is directly connected to 9/11.68.238.4.77 03:28, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

The two events are obviously related. Removed the "verification needed" tag. This opinion from the USDOJ, [1], is in large part a response to the "heated debate" subsequent to 9/11 regarding presidential authority to conduct military actions absent formal declarations of war. Azi Like a Fox 00:22, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] NPOV

This entire article is written as if the phrase "Declaration of War" had specific meaning under US law. There is no defined legally required format for "Declaration(s) of War." Therefore, the article takes a point of view. That is, it assumes the authors view of the meaning of "Declaration of War" is correct. The article is not really salvagable in the manner it is constructed and needs a major re-write to avoid the blunder. --138.162.0.41 20:10, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

US Constitution, Article One, Section Seven: "To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;"

It would be silly and confusing to not use phrases like "declare war" or "declaration of war" when that is the very text of the US Constitution.

Furthermore, "declaration of war" is the standard term that everyone uses about this subject, even if your claim is correct that it isn't a specific legal term. (I wonder about your claim. Got a citation for that?)

If yours is the reason for the NPOV, then I think the flag should be removed immediately.

I checked the history of the NPOV flag -=- and the person who put it on gave no reasoning (that I could see) and it was an anonymous user, anyway. I say remove it. (I won't, only because I'm not actively engaged in this article.)

The article isn't perfect but it's about as neutral as any others here on Wikipedia regarding law and politics. If users detect a bias, correct the passage -- don't just slap a NPOV flag on it!

--Calan 04:52, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Jeanette Rankin

I don't think the House vote for declaration of war against Japan in 1941 was indeed unanimous. Congresswoman Jeannette Rankin voted against it, according to both my memory and the article about her. I would change it, but I'm not sure how many members of the House of Representitives there were in 1941. Kairos 04:18, 28 Feb 2004 (UTC)

There were 435. See United States Congressional Apportionment. -- Seth Ilys 04:20, 28 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Yes, in both the "December 7, 1917, HR: 365-1" and "December 8, 1941, HR: 388-1" votes, the "1" was Jeannette Rankin -- maybe tha could be mentioned in the article... AnonMoos 01:21, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] War on Terrorism

Yesterday I made a few minor edits so that military conflicts were refered to not by their military operation names (i.e. Operation Just Cause) but by their colloquial names. I retained the operation names as an a.k.a.

Today Copperchair changed "Invasion of Afghanistan a.k.a. Operation Enduring Freedom" to "War on Terrorism a.k.a. Operation Enduring Freedom." I have reverted the change but post here because I'm not sure if this will be controversial due to the political overtones.

My justification for the revert is that War on Terrorism is generally understood to refer to a global campaign not confined to any particular conflict or country. It's a "meta" term not unlike the "War on Crime" or "War on Cancer." I reverted for reasons of clarity.

I also wonder whether the operation names should be included at all.

68.174.9.162 19:37, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

• I think you've got a good idea here. Colloquial names are better than military operation names. I simply changed it to 'Enduring Freedom' because I really didn't know what else to call it, and I say that "Just Cause" was already used.

I believe you should specify by the proper name then use a.k.a. to refer to a more non-specific term. Common usage does not supercede definition usually (tissue/kleenex). Also, by referring to, say, operational names in cases that lack a declaration of war (e.g. 90's gulf war) the separate stages of the overall conflict can be made clearer (desert shield vs. desert storm). Using this you can hopefully then more clearly define a broader colloquial term such as "The Gulf War." The parts better define the whole, but an absolutely clear whole name would be better if possible (occam razor). The complexity of these descriptions belie the political complexities that bore them, (Bush and Co. said current iraq conflict would take under a year ('03-'04), M. Daniels said total costs would be well under 100BUSD; as of Jan 07 many speculate full pull out to be outside of '09 and total costs between 1T and 2TUSD) and show the shifting nature of the conflicts (WMD to nation building to civil conflict intervention).

However, Copperchair's insistence on calling the invasion of Afghanistan the "War on Terror" is simply incorrect. The War on Terror is a concept that refers to a larger conflict that is not strictly married to any specific war, battle, opearation or arrest. Congress authorized war with the Taliban. They didn't say, 'hey go get terrorists' and Afghanistan is where the army ended up.

While I think it's absurd to say so, Bush claims the Iraq War was part of the war on terror. The arrest of the Buffalo sleeper cell a while back was certianly part of it. Any actions taken against militant Islamic inspired terrorists is part of the war on terror. Spaltavian 19:45, September 11, 2005 (UTC)

Good point. I won't change it again. And Spaltavian, you are absolutely right about the Iraq war/War on Terrorism lie. Copperchair 08:44, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

A LIE??? By what definition is Saddam Hussein not a terrorist? 12.144.20.254 18:28, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

By what definition are YOU not a terrorist? --Booch 20:40, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes, define terrorist. A person who commits criminal acts is not necessarily a terrorist. I would say that generally speaking a terrorist is concerned with spreading an ideology and working on a complex, but smale scale operation (in comparison to a full scale military, or even a special ops operation) that tries to achieve maximum political advantage, for instance. In this regard SH doesn't fit the definition at all, including the fact that the allegations of a connection between 9/11 and Iraq are completely unfactual. Killing some people doesn't make you a terrorist. What Saddam did was just dictatorial 101. North Korea does not engage in terrorism by this definition as well. State sponsored acts of hostility are not terrorism by this definition as well, although a state could sponsor a terrorist operation. Threatening to build a nuke by a state is not terrorism (Iran currently), imo. When Lenin and Hitler slaughtered people they were not acting as terrorists. There is a lengthy article on wikipedia on terrorists and terrorism which you may find useful.

[edit] War Powers Resolution

I quote:

It should also be pointed out that the Second Gulf War should really not be considered separate from the first Gulf War. Saddam Hussein signed a Cease Fire Agreement on April 4th, 1991 that halted military action. He then proceeded over the next 12 years to violate 17 U.N. resolutions, including that Cease Fire Agreement. Therefore the so called "Second Gulf War" is, in reality, a RESUMPTION of the FIRST Gulf War based on Saddam Hussein vacating the agreement.

I believe this to be a NPOV statement, and in fact biased for the current conflict in Iraq. Perhaps it should be reworded to read something like "One argument supporting the current conflict in Iraq is…" or something like that. --Micahbrwn 17:24, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Declaration of war vs "Military engagements authorized by Congress"

Is there a NPOV objective distinction between a "Declaration of War" and a "Military engagement authorized by Congress"? I'm worried it may merely be an attempt by critics of the USA's foreign policy to portray the .

Andjam 05:22, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

Well, Congress seems to think there is an objective distinction, since they went to the trouble of actually declaring war in some cases and not in others. "Military engagement authorized by Congress" is pretty bland wording, it's hard for me to see how it could POV. I mean, what else should we call it? They objectively are not a declarations of war, to call them such would be inaccurate. Spaltavian 08:19, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

The appropriate term should be "statutory authorization", which is the word embodied in the Article 2(c)(2) of the 1973 War Powers Resolution. LordKadghar 19:57, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Formatting problems

The page has some serious formatting problems. The article as it currently stands has the words "Headline text" and other meta-information strewn across the top of the table. I'm not familiar enough with wiki markup to fix it.

I restored the page to a previous version.--81.83.223.152 15:32, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Doe v. Bush

It seems to have passed notice, but the First Circuit United States Court of Appeals ruled in 2003 with regards to constitutional declarations of war by Congress in a case called Doe v. Bush. In their ruling the Court holds essentially that if it walks like a declaration of war and quacks like a declaration of war, then it's a declaration of war, whether or not the magic words "declaration of war" are any part of the text of the Congressional action.

http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/pdf.opinions/03-1266-01A.pdf

[edit] Operation Allied Force? And NPOV

No mention in this article is made of the US's participation in the air war against Yugoslavia in 1999, aka Operation Allied Force. Was there a Congressional authorization under the War Powers Act for this action? I do recall that a Congressman with ethnic roots in the region (was it Kucinich?) called for a formal declaration of war against Serbia so as to place the conflict more firmly under international norms and law.

Also, what exactly is the NPOV dispute over the "The War Powers Resolution" section? There doesn't seem to be any discussion of it here. --Jfruh (talk) 19:21, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Invasion of Panama

I'm pretty sure Congress never gave authority to Pres. George H.W. Bush for the use of force in Panama. I just weeded through every House of Reps. resolution related to American use of force abroad and the only thing they ever issued out of committee was a declaration of sorrow for the loss of American life and commendation to the President for an expressed goal to bring the troops home soon. If somebody could fix the article that would be great. unsigned

• Put a link to House of Reps. resolutions here.--Patchouli 01:36, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Someone had vandalized the table with the removal of Manuel Noriega from power.--Patchouli 01:22, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Constitution

Any reason NOT to mention what the U.S. Constitution has to say on the subject (Article 1 Section 8)? I don't want to start a war over this, but the Constitution is pretty important rewinn 05:24, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Border War / Pancho Villa

I couldn't find anything to support the assertion that the USA declared war against Pancho Villa as an individual. It's not included in the tables listing declared or undeclared wars. Nor is it included in the article on Pancho Villa, or the Pancho Villa Expedition. I didn't find any article on the (relevant) Border War. This makes me seriously question the completeness of those tables. --Booch 21:00, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] After World War II, Congress voluntarily limited its use of the power to declare war to issuing authorizations of force.

Is there a citation for this assertion? 165.124.253.153 20:41, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Huh?

"The Korean War was not a war authorized by the U.S. Congress. President Harry S. Truman cited authority under United Nations resolutions."

If Congress didn't 'authorize' it in some way where did Truman get the money? Misleading choice of words.

Don't you find it a bit odd that we have prominent mention of the intervention in the Bolshevik Revolution, an incredibly minor skimish in Paraquay, a note on the fight with the Apache's being quite long but we have no mention whatsoever of The Amevican Civil War?

I don't think "There are many undeclared "wars" missing from this list. The United States fought in Korea in 1870 and in Nicaragua in 1927." quite covers it.

And it would be a bit of a stretch to say Congress didn't 'authorize' it, although there was certain no DOW from the Fedearal Congress. But to mention Paraquay and leave out the Civil War (not to mention the American Revolution and the Phillipine Insurrection) leaves me speechless. Ks28 22:00, 17 October 2006 (UTC)Kenneth Schultz

[edit] List of US military interventions since 1890

http://academic.evergreen.edu/g/grossmaz/interventions.html It is quite long. What, if not war, is war making, i.e. troops fighting. I do not have the time now. And it would probably be added. What if not "The use of troops" is the obvious definition of war. The "suppression of silver miners' strike by the Army" in IDAHO, 1892 would not be considered war by today's mainstream. But it certainly was understood by all sides involved back then. Only those that ordered it probably called it something different, especially with the yellow journalism of that day that held the same economic interests as the bosses. The strikers I'm sure understood that there was a war declared on them. Maybe it was called "humanitarian intervention" or "securing of interests". The first "NPOV" here is a joke. It's just that the constitution has always been ignored when those with power view their interests to be threatened. So they ensure there is "no defined legally required format for "Declaration(s) of War." " But it is pretty common sense that the congress alone has the ability to authorize the executive the power to order troops to fight, using the words "declare war" as written in the US constitution. (State & Fed gov't can also order troops if actually or about to be attacked, as per the constitution) Whatever. The above entire list should be added as undeclared wars. But I thought there should be debate about it first. 21:25, 29 October 2006 -Shazbotz

[edit] World War Two - who declared war first?

Japan attacked on the 7th and then sent a declaration of war. Had the US received it when they declared war in turn? Does US law require it when the enemy has already made a declaration of war?

Likewise on the 11th, was it Nazi Germany that declared war first? It seems to have been the same day, but what was the sequence?

--GwydionM 20:43, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Now confirmed - the other side started it. --GwydionM 18:19, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] This appreas to be plagiarised anyway

== This article was lifted off another website (and, therefore, is plagiarized unless done so by the original author): http://experts.about.com/e/d/de/declaration_of_war_by_the_united_states.htm Neither the Wiki article nor the “All Experts” article has links to the other, so I cannot tell which came first. Either way this article has significant shortcomings – not the least of which is the grossly inadequate list of “undeclared” wars. Recktenbenwald 00:20, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Look at the very bottom of the other page: it says This is the "GNU Free Documentation License" reference article from the English Wikipedia.

I agree it could be improved. --GwydionM 18:06, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The War Between the States?

Why is the largest war in US histoy not included on the list of (undeclared) wars? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Frissell (talk • contribs) 15:11, 21 February 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Removing NPOV tag

Since no one objected and this article is a objective as most on Wiki, I'm removing the tag. --Calan 05:02, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] American Civil War

Where would the American Civil War fit in here? Ripberger 01:04, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, the US Congress never declared war on the Conferency in large part because it was felt that such a declaration would give legitmacy to the Confederate govt. It also would have been virtually unheard of C. 1860 to declare war on a seperatist goverment; the norm at the time would have been to just send the troops in to (attempt to) put the revolt down. Jon 16:57, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] War on Poverty, War on Drugs, etc.

Would this article be the place to mention U.S. presidential or congressional initiatives to which their authors applied the word "war" to? There's an article on Lyndon Johnson's War on Poverty and Richard Nixon's War on Drugs, for example, and perhaps other "wars" as well. patsw 18:39, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Confusing first paragraph

First paragraph needs to be cleaned up . It is too biased with too many legalisms and opinion mixed in with fact. The definition should be stated clearly first and then any debate should remane further down the article. Or it is just too confuisng. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.56.63.110 (talk) 08:05, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Hungary

It's noted that an argument could be made that the US twice declared war on Hungary. This argument is VERY valid, as Austria-Hungary was a personal union and dual monarchy. "It is not to be confused with a federation, which internationally is considered as a single state." The two states were both sovereign, but sharing a head of state. They are essentially two separate states. I would support changing those few sentences for these reasons. Grsz11 23:07, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] One big table

This page might work better if it had one big table that incorporated all U.S. military actions, whether there was a specific declaration of war, whether there was a congressional authorization of military force, or whether there was not declaration or congressional authorization. There's a good list of U.S. military actions here.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 23:17, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Operation Just Cause

I removed Operation Just Cause from the list of authorized operations because I read that the operation was not authorized before or during the operation itself and I was not able to find any post-fact authorization. I could be wrong. If someone knows better and you know where Congress authorized the operation I invite the revert.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 23:17, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] A Useful Reference on this Topic

May I suggest that those who are at work on this page have a look at the very useful book by Brien Hallett, The Lost Art of Declaring War (1998, Uni. of Illinois Press)? Someone who had examined Hallett would be able to clarify the sections on the ‘Controversy’ and the ‘Current status of the US debate’. --M.H. d. Ä. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.241.10.4 (talk) 03:45, 9 March 2008 (UTC)