This sets an alarming precedent where a sitting us president can kidnap the acting head of another country (elected or not) which is an act of war, without the us being at war or having authorization from congress.
see the logic is only the US can, anybody else cant even arrest netanyahu when he flies over their airspace cuz for some reason that would also be an act of war towards the US
You seem to not understand the term precedent. Neither is that a new thing to do for the US nor is it actually requiring congress authorisation. They gave up that power long ago and now don’t need to autorise anything for up to 90 days.
Also the US has not declared war once since WW2… They actually set the precedent for “military operations” and -again- not recently either.
Technically no. Congress passed the AUMF which let the President go after anyone they deemed complicit in 9/11. It did not declare war against specific nations iirc.
But seriously, declaration of war is a legal term specific to each country internal law system. War, as a legal term, hasn’t actually been a thing either in international law since the 50s. It was changed to armed conflict. Which, before you think is stupid and why not call a spade a spade, is actually not that stupid. It created a well defined but much broader concept that (this is the important bit) is independent of a country’s internal law standing or diplomatic declarations thereof. If a situation fulfills the criteria, then it is an armed conflict whether the countries involved like it or declared it. It gives tools to nation states and international organizations to do certain things on the international stage more freely in these situations even when the countries involved don’t want them to.
This sets an alarming precedent where a sitting us president can kidnap the acting head of another country (elected or not) which is an act of war, without the us being at war or having authorization from congress.
see the logic is only the US can, anybody else cant even arrest netanyahu when he flies over their airspace cuz for some reason that would also be an act of war towards the US
You seem to not understand the term precedent. Neither is that a new thing to do for the US nor is it actually requiring congress authorisation. They gave up that power long ago and now don’t need to autorise anything for up to 90 days.
Also the US has not declared war once since WW2… They actually set the precedent for “military operations” and -again- not recently either.
deleted by creator
Technically no. Congress passed the AUMF which let the President go after anyone they deemed complicit in 9/11. It did not declare war against specific nations iirc.
deleted by creator
It’s an act of war, not a declaration.
I DECLARE WAR
It’s normally done by congress before they start shooting missiles.
deleted by creator
“I didn’t say it, I declared it!”
But seriously, declaration of war is a legal term specific to each country internal law system. War, as a legal term, hasn’t actually been a thing either in international law since the 50s. It was changed to armed conflict. Which, before you think is stupid and why not call a spade a spade, is actually not that stupid. It created a well defined but much broader concept that (this is the important bit) is independent of a country’s internal law standing or diplomatic declarations thereof. If a situation fulfills the criteria, then it is an armed conflict whether the countries involved like it or declared it. It gives tools to nation states and international organizations to do certain things on the international stage more freely in these situations even when the countries involved don’t want them to.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Declaration_of_war_by_the_United_States