When is a war not a war?

For the Fourth of July, the paper ran a profile of a man named Sergio who is studying to become a naturalized citizen.

The article included a series of sample questions from the naturalization test, and included a link to a practice Naturalization Self Test from the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services.

Click through the sample questions and you'll find some that Vice President Dick Cheney would get wrong:

What is the supreme law of the United States>

A. The Declaration of Independence
B. The Bill of Rights
C. The Magna Carta
D. The Constitution

(Cheney would answer "E. Whatever the president claims he has to do to fight terra.")

You'll find some questions that nativist CNN host Lou Dobbs would get wrong:

Whose rights are guaranteed by the Constitution and the Bill of Rights?

A. Everyone (citizens and noncitizens living in the U.S.)
B. Registered voters
C. The President
D. Natural born citizens

And you'll find some questions to which most members of Congress seem to have forgotten the correct answer:

Who has the power to declare war?

A. Congress
B. The President
C. Chief Justice of the Supreme Court
D. Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff

That last question got me to wondering -- when was the last time that the United States officially declared war?

The answer: June 5, 1942 -- against Bulgaria, Hungary and Romania.

That odd little fact could give you the wrong impression of America's history over the past 50 years if you didn't also realize that, short of declaring war, Congress also sometimes likes to "authorize" the use of "force." Since World War II, this has happened twice in Lebanon, twice in Iraq, and in Vietnam, Panama and Afghanistan. Not all of those ended well, and those that haven't yet ended don't seem likely to end well.

Recognizing the limits of Wikipedia, the entry linked to above includes some nice discussion of the War Powers Act and of the "current status of the U.S. debate" over declarations of war. I'm not entirely sure what to make of this debate, but it seems to me that the current practice -- in which "force" is "deployed" and/or "authorized," without "war" ever being declared -- can cloud the issue, insulating both Congress and the president from full accountability.

America (or at least America's military) is currently engaged in two "wars" -- one in Iraq and one against "global terror," meaning chiefly select parts of Afghanistan. President Bush proudly asserts that this makes him a "war president." Except that neither of these "wars" has ever been declared.

The problem is not merely semantic. A declaration of war includes a direct object -- you declare war against a particular foe. An "authorization of the use of military force" does not require such clarity.

Thus America seems to be at war in Iraq, but not at war with Iraq. The American forces who invaded and now occupy that country are, daily, getting shot at by someone. And those American forces are themselves shooting at, and dropping bombs on, someone -- but who exactly that someone is, and whether or not both someones are the same, doesn't seem to be established with much clarity.

Likewise the amorphous struggle in Afghanistan, another country that U.S. forces seem to be at war in but not with. The situation in Afghanistan is slightly clearer, in that some of the hostile someones there can be named: the Taliban, al-Qaida. Yet America has not specifically or explicitly declared war on either of these entities. (Al-Qaida has, explicitly, declared war on us -- I'm not sure why it is that we haven't returned the favor.)

Without a formal declaration of war President Bush is not really a "war president." He is an AUMF president. And that, I suspect, may be part of the problem.

Comments

[Amanda]

What are we even at war with? Not with people, not with states, but with ideas. We're not running a "War with Iraq" or even a "war against terrorists." We're waging a war against terror.

What's terror? A set of methods people use to bring about the results they want to see, social, political, whatever. Ideas.

Force doesn't work on ideas.

What works best to foster better ideas is, perhaps, up for debate. But it's obvious that authorized use of military force is feeding these ideas, not eliminating them.

[Kristin]

Let's pretend you didn't set us up to know that AUMF means authorization of the use of military force and play a game.

George W. Bush is an AUMF president. AUMF stands for ??
So far I only have something good for MF

[goboard]

@Kristin

"Absolutely useless?"

I'll leave the MF interpretation up to you.

[Duane]

As-yet Unindicted.

[pharoute]

Don't forget the War on Drugs and the War on Poverty...oh sorry poverty won that one.

[Scott]

Don't forget the War on Drugs and the War on Poverty...oh sorry poverty won that one.

Yep, the New Deal opened the door to "The Constitution means what we need it to mean, screw the actual text" - why should liberals whine about it now? We haven't 'needed' a Declaration of War since '42, surely that's enough precedent to make the mere Consitutional requirement now null and void. We cannot turn back the clock on 'Progress'. The world is simply a different place than the Founders could have imagined and the Consitution, a living document, must change with the times to reflect new threats. Fred, don't be such a literalist. Next you'll tell us you think the world is 8000 years old. :-)

The answer to Q1 is "whatever Bill Moyers or Jim Wallis wants".

[Puck]

For decades you've been preaching to us that the Constitution is a living document - now you get a Zionist emperor in office and he goes around the globe making war. Duh.

I know you only meant to deny the Constitution to those you don't like - but that's not how it works is it? You people who believe the constitution has "emanations and penumbras" should not be surprised that it now means anything anyone with the biggest gun wants it to mean.

Bush is the "conservative" you people deserve. But the rest of us we didn't deserve him - thanks a lot.

[Fred]

Shorter Scott and Puck:

Literacy is hard. Easier to create a false dichotomy between hamfisted literalism and anything-goes insanity.

[Puck]

Literacy isn't necessary when your words are about impact rather than meaning; and you have a pot-besotted readership that knows it can look at your adjectives for your intent - saving themselves the trouble of looking at your nouns and thinking.

[bulbul]

Literacy isn't necessary.
I don't have a comment. I just wanted to quote.

[Puck]

You deliberately mis-quote me. There is not a period after "necessary".

The correct quote is this "Literacy isn't necessary when..." But that isn't the quote you want to attribute to me is it.

Gee - are there any journalists on this list? Tell me - would your newspaper have inserted a period where there isn't one?

For decades you've been preaching to us that the Constitution is a living document - now you get a Zionist emperor in office and he goes around the globe making war. Duh.

(Is anyone else appalled that Puck is calling GWB a "Zionist emporer"? Just as an aside)

Also, I'd like to point out that the alternative to a living document is a dead document. One that ceased to have any meaning at all over a hundred years ago... which would you prefer?

I think that the point really is that the corruption in Washington has become so rampant that no one there pretends to do the job as laid out in the job description anymore... the problem isn't that the Constitution is living, it's that the men and women entrusted with its power want to make it dead.

[James Stewart]

It's just surprising that no kidnapper in Iraq has yet held a US serviceperson as an "illegal combatant". They'd probably have a clearer case for their terminology than we do for ours.

[Puck]

> Is anyone else appalled that Puck is calling GWB a "Zionist emporer"? Just as an aside

Guess no one is. What's up here Fred? - you people are so damnably conciliatory this morning. (PS: I spelled it correctly emperor.)

"Ding!!! Good morning - I'd like an argument please"

"Corruption" has no meaning when the laws by which you define the word are interpreted according to the "emanations and penumbras" perceptions of the observer.

[pharoute]

The beginning of "The Constitution means what we need it to mean, screw the actual text" began with the passage of the Alien and Sedition Acts of 1798 and considering that the Constitution only took effect in 1789 we've had a nice long history of just making it up as we go...

[Evan]

My favorite naturalization question:

Who helped the Pilgrims in America?
A Christopher Columbus
B George Washington
C The American Indians ( Native Americans )
D Southern plantation owners

Maybe they should have an essay question on how the Pilgrims (or colonists in general) 'helped' the Native Americans?

I get the feeling this test only ensures that you have firm grasp on elementary school level, whitewashed American history.

[bulbul]

You deliberately mis-quote me.
Yes indeed. I assure you I did notice that the sentence goes on. But I was trying to point out that *any* sentence that begins with "Literacy isn't necessary" is, well, basically meaningless at best, pure grade prime cut bullshit at worst. But then again, this isn't the first time you've commented here, is it?

[bulbul]

Is anyone else appalled that Puck is calling GWB a "Zionist emporer"?
Appalled? No. Surprised? Not the least. Remember, this comes from the author of the statement (paraphrasing): "Serbia has been the bulwark of Christianity of 2000 years."

Back to the point:
2. Can the Constitution be changed?
Yes
No
Yes, but only by the President
Yes, but only by the voters

Turns out the correct answer is Yes. Hm.

The difference between Scott and Puck is that Scott honestly and truly believes everything he says, even when it's the equivalent of someone telling us that raising and selling meat is bad while he himself is eating a roast beef sandwich, saying because the meat's there anyway there's no point in boycotting it. It's a special kind of crazy but at least it's consistent and entertaining.

Puck's a troll and has been since the beginning. Stop trying to reason with him. It won't work. He isn't here to discuss, he's here to pee in the pool.

[Edward Liu]

Puck: "Guess no one is. What's up here Fred? - you people are so damnably conciliatory this morning."

Speaking personally, "I'm not deaf. I'm ignoring you."

[bulbul]

Mmmmm.... roast beef sandwich...

Where was I? Oh yes:

even when it's the equivalent of someone telling us that raising and selling meat is bad while he himself is eating a roast beef sandwich, saying because the meat's there anyway there's no point in boycotting it
I don't think this actually describes Scott very well, but it fits like a glove for my "libertarian" and "conservative" buddies.

It's a special kind of crazy but at least it's consistent and entertaining.
Entertaining? Not so much. More like frustrating. To see otherwise very well functioning intellectual powers and reasoning skills caught up in a web of prejudice and hate, that always screws up my day. I find Puck much more entertaining. That's why I don't follow the "do not feed the troll policy".

[grenadine]

I recently took the sample naturalization test (as offered by CNN) for fun and was pretty proud to have gotten a 95%. Many of the questions, though, do seem to be aimed at an elementary school level of sophistication, which is perhaps a disservice to the many folks taking it (that is, they might not be fluent in english, but certainly many are college-level in their native language/learning).

I do think it would be interesting to require everyone running for office (ANY office) to pass it. We might weed out the worst candidates before wasting good campaign money. (notice, this method works for both ends of the red/blue spectrum.)

[bulbul]

I can't believe I missed this one:
Bush is the "conservative" you people deserve. But the rest of us we didn't deserve him - thanks a lot.
Apart from being stolen from Joe Sobran, this comment is wrong on so many levels:\
1. Who is "us"?
2. How did we deserve him?
3. If we did deserve him, why didn't you?

[Duane]

I recently took the sample naturalization test (as offered by CNN) for fun and was pretty proud to have gotten a 95%.

Congratulations, you can stay.

[Duane]

Apart from being stolen from Joe Sobran, this comment is wrong on so many levels:\
1. Who is "us"?
2. How did we deserve him?
3. If we did deserve him, why didn't you?

Questor, the answers to these oft-asked riddles will mean nothing to you until you have journeyed to the fantastical land of Conflation, Syllogism, False Parallel and Hyperbole. It is a rough journey and is not for the faint-hearted, or learned.

Questor, you must be willing to forsake reason and temperance and embrace your new master, Outrage. You will be reborn into a fierce conservative warrior through daily instruction from your spirit guide on the AM band.

Questor, are you prepared for your new calling or do you just want to drop the whole thing and play bocce?

[bulbul]

Congratulations, you can stay.
What about me? I took the test Fred linked to seven times (i.e. clicked the Generate Questions button) and only got the one wrong. Plus, I have actually read the US Constitution and got A++ on my college US history test. Can I come in?

[Duane]

What about me? I took the test Fred linked to seven times (i.e. clicked the Generate Questions button) and only got the one wrong. Plus, I have actually read the US Constitution and got A++ on my college US history test. Can I come in?

No pooftahs!

[bulbul]

Pooftahs?

[Duane]

This here's the wattle, the emblem of our land. You can stick it in a bottle, you can hold it in your hand.

[bulbul]

This here's the wattle, the emblem of our land.
I have no idea what you're taking, but can I get 2 grams of that stuff?

[Duane]

Haha.

Please, come into my humble country.

Sit down, I have some delicious Monty Python to show you.

[bulbul]

Brrrrr, snakes, me no like no snakes. Am gonna stay right here.

[Scott]

Literacy is hard. Easier to create a false dichotomy between hamfisted literalism and anything-goes insanity.

All I'm asking for is consistency. If Congress can delegate it's constitutional powers to the executive branch via the regulatory agencies liberals luuuuuv (can I be punished for violating a fed regulation that wasn't passed directly by Congress?), then it can delegate thru AUMFs. "Hamfisted" is just a rhetorical flourish meant to cover up wanting to bind Bush by the text of the Constitution while you want to ignore it if and when it says no to you.

I'd like to point out that the alternative to a living document is a dead document.

False choice based on taking an analogy literally, which is something some around here love to bash fundies for.

One that ceased to have any meaning at all over a hundred years ago... which would you prefer?

It didn't "cease to have any meaning at all over a hundred years ago" - if it denied govt the economic power you want then, it means the same thing now. The first amendment is just as 'dead' as the rest of the mere text.

[Scott]

Like I said earlier, any constitution that just so happens to protect everything you want protected (like abortions, for most liberals) but doesn't protect what you want banned (like guns, again for most liberals, despite the existence of an explicit 2nd amendment), and gives you any power you want (the ever-increasing scope of the Commerce Clause) but consistently says 'no' to your political opponents ("Commander in Chief" (*) doesn't seem to expand nearly as much as the Commerce Clause for some reason), is a consititution that exists only in your own heads.

(*) The draft is constitutional. The draft forces draftees to accept the CinC's authority in a way no civilian has to. Therefore, by liberal beliefs about implied powers, the govt can just make us all enjoy only those rights allowed to the lowliest private in the Army. If they can take away your right not to be searched by drafting you, they can just take it away period. Same logic liberals use, even if they object to the conclusion in this instance.

[pharoute]

Duane: who's in charge of the beer, sheep dip and Hegelian philosophy?

[Duane]

Bruce, Bruce and Bruce, respectively.

[Scott]

Easier to create a false dichotomy between hamfisted literalism and anything-goes insanity.

You're trying to rhetorically turn a double standard into a false moderation. There's a difference between a power being 'limited' vs. being limited to you and your political buddies. You cannot average "hamfisted literalism" applied to GeeDub and anything-goes insanity applied when you want some new and shiny power and then call that average a moderate position.

[mds]

So I've been generating practice questions, and this one came up:

Where does freedom of speech come from?
The Declaration of Independence
Emancipation Proclamation
The President
The Bill of Rights

I guess Hamilton's concerns in Federalist were legitimate. No wonder Republicans keep trying to partially repeal the First Amendment; apparently, the amendment grants us our freedom of speech. If the Bill of Rights didn't contain it, it wouldn't exist. Now, Madison and Hamilton both thought this was wrongheaded, and considered the Bill of Rights unnecessary except as a means to encourage ratification. Yet the mindset that the Constitution is an exhaustive list of rights enjoyed by the people, as well as governmental powers to promote the general welfare, is a pervasive one. Watch as Scott and Puck blather about "penumbras" and dump all over the right to privacy and bodily autonomy. On the other hand, I'm willing to accept some slack in the "well-regulated militia" portion of the Second Amendment, and not require everyone who wants to own a rifle or sidearm to join the National Guard. But then, I don't worship a dead, static Constitution, but a document that was made deliberately terse and vague for adaptability, an adaptability which was even exploited by the Founders, who made a lot of things up as they went.

[Duane]

and not require everyone who wants to own a rifle or sidearm to join the National Guard.

Hahah.

[grenadine]

mds: good point. liberals and conservatives alike tend to put much emphasis on the letter of the law rather than the spirit. that is, the first amendment's all fine and dandy, but it's not what's granting us our right to free speech - it's just a confirmation. can anyone here put that idea into something small enough for a soundbite? i know some folks with a short attention span who need to hear it.

[bulbul]

Questor, are you prepared for your new calling or do you just want to drop the whole thing and play bocce
Upon reviewing your proposal, Master, and having spent a short time trying to live by the rules you have outlined (my own personal "rumprinsga" in the Right-wing world - listening to Rush Limbaugh for about 15 minutes, searching the darkest corners of my soul to find that deep harboured hatred towards Ukrainians - sorry, no Mexicans here - and alike), I have decided to withdraw my inquiry and take you up on that offer to play. Or pool. Snooker will do, too.

[bulbul]

but doesn't protect what you want banned (like guns, again for most liberals, despite the existence of an explicit 2nd amendment)
Sigh. This would be the time to remind Scott that liberals do not want guns banned, merely regulated, and that the 2nd ammendment contains word "a well regulated militia...". But why bother?

[bulbul]

* contains the words. Stupid fingers, always faster than brain...

[Duane]

Questor, are you prepared for your new calling or do you just want to drop the whole thing and play bocce
Upon reviewing your proposal, Master, and having spent a short time trying to live by the rules you have outlined (my own personal "rumprinsga" in the Right-wing world - listening to Rush Limbaugh for about 15 minutes, searching the darkest corners of my soul to find that deep harboured hatred towards Ukrainians - sorry, no Mexicans here - and alike), I have decided to withdraw my inquiry and take you up on that offer to play. Or pool. Snooker will do, too.

At least you tried. Next time, I recommend first getting jacked up on hydrocodone and sildenafil citrate.

[Scott]

Sigh. This would be the time to remind Scott that liberals do not want guns banned, merely regulated, and that the 2nd ammendment contains word "a well regulated militia...". But why bother?

Why do you think that amendment is the second one listed in the restrictions on federal power that were necessary as a compromise to get the constitution passed? What, exactly, do you think it guarantees that makes it important enough to be just after freedom of press, religion, and petition? Should I be able to buy the same (full auto capable) rifle the military uses w/o any federal involvement in the decision?

It doesn't say regulated by the fedgov and lots of liberals want pretty damn tight restrictions that are incompatible w/ a "right of the people", a phrase (assuming you care about the mere text of the constitution) that would mean the same thing everywhere it shows up. A right of the people is a right of the people, even if those peole are NRA members.

"Well-regulated militia" just meant an armed populace that had guns and knew how to use them. Would the phrase "A knowlegable citizenry, being essential to the security of a free state" in the first amendment allow you to regulate the content of free speech to ensure the 'knowledge' is deemed legit by the govt or would it be a mere truism stressing the importance of the right and thus rhetorical cover for expanding it?

We all know liberals would expand the first but contract the second w/ equivalent preambles, because the whole point is squeezing what you want out of the text that's already there, then claiming everyone has already consented to their latest Big Thing so they can STFU and submit.

[cjmr's husband]

Why do people think that the Bill of Rights is in priority order?

[bulbul]

Why do people think that the Bill of Rights is in priority order?
Probably for the same reason some of them think these are the ONLY rights protected by the Constitution.

We all know liberals would expand the first but contract the second w/ equivalent preambles
Oh goodie! The perfect opportunity to try the Oxycontine experiment Duane suggested!

[Duane]

Haha.

[Scott]

Why do people think that the Bill of Rights is in priority order?

Duck the question if you must, but (as a good liberal), please explain what the 2nd protects that justifies it being in the first 10 amendments (the ones required to limit the fedgov enough to get the damn thing ratified, that alone qualifies as "priority order") and justifies the description of "necessary to the security of a free State".

Probably for the same reason some of them think these are the ONLY rights protected by the Constitution.

They aren't the only rights in the sense that the govt has to stay out of areas it isn't delegated authority in. The GOP forbid-abortion law they want Congress to pass is unconstitutional because the constitution is silent on abortion, thus not delegating the fedgov any power there.

You want to say that the govt gets to decide what rights we have or don't have (by creating or not creating new ones), which turns a limit on govt into an empowerment of govt, as long as that govt is run by wonderful people such as yourself.

[mds]

"Well-regulated militia" just meant an armed populace that had guns and knew how to use them.

Oh, well, thank you for explaining how "well-regulated" doesn't mean "well-regulated," but merely "knowledgeable." My Webster's isn't up to date with the Founders' completely novel definition.

And perhaps I'd make the same argument about freedom of speech and the press, if the First Amendment had the qualifier that you propose. But it doesn't. I wonder why? I also wonder why President Washington didn't act like he expected to encounter artillery during the Whisky Rebellion. After all, anyone was free to own a cannon and turn it on federal troops.

But you know what? Even though I'm ex-NRA, I'll concede the point. I'll give up wondering why the Second Amendment is the only absolutely unlimited one, given that I can't get away with shouting "Fire!" in a crowded theater if I know there's no fire. So feel free to keep tactical nuclear weapons in your basement, if it makes you feel so goddamn macho. But while you're at it, stop feeling free to hand over a woman's right to bodily autonomy to the tyranny of the majority, all because the Constitution doesn't mention the word "abortion" anywhere. Or "school segregation." Or "space shuttle." In fact, what were the Federalists and Republicans arguing about in the 1790s? Why didn't they just read that completely exhaustive list of rights and governmental powers, and go home? It couldn't have been all the wiggle room that was deliberately introduced into the document, oh dear me no.