Talk:Police action
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Contents |
[edit] Congress
These actions violate the United States constution because only congress has the power to declare war.
- Only Congress has the power to declare war. Other activities, such as police actions or other forms of conflict, are believed not to violate the constitution because they fall under a separate category of "permitted, non-Congressionally sanctioned armed activities" (not a technical term, only a descriptor). The above cited statement is not fully true. Of course this point deserves to be explained in some detail...for which readers can see the respective articles on the US Constitution and Congress, etc. ~ Dpr 02:00, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Partial justification
Stating that police actions are always "unconstitutional" seems a bridge too far, under the doctrine of necessity. For instance, in the event of an emergency (actual invasion or imminent threat) if the executive had to wait for a congressional declaration of war to scramble military forces in defense would lead to an untenable result. However, the mere declaration of emergency by the executive does not a true emergency make! Nor does the assertion of "preemption" make military action factually preemptive (hence defensive). Clearly, there are some gray areas, but that does not mean that the executive should have full and unfettered authority to make war without a congressional declaration of war. Whig 18:52, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Minor POV wording
"Indeed, a declared war is an increasing rarity." This is debatable, as there ar very many wars that occur around the globe, minor or major. If there are no objections I wil remove this. --The1exile 18:43, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
- But were they "declared" wars? In a declared war your ambassador delivers a formal document to the head of state of the other nation(s) telling them that you are going to war with them. Are you asserting that this is still common? Can you name one recent war where this happened? The current style is to cross their borders in a sneak attack. -- Geo Swan 11:05, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Authorized use of force
Clicking on the "Discuss this" button on the merge panel suggesting Declaration of War and Authorized use of force should be merged. I dunno how that happened.
I don't think those two article should be merged. And I don't think either one should be merged into this article.
In spite of what the article says, I believe the phrase "Authorized use of force" is an Americanism, while other countries have declared war, or engaged in UN "Police actions". There should be no merge, for this reason. And, in general, I think this kind of merge sucks. Rolling smaller, more focused articles into big amorphous monolithic articles artificially restricts us to the linear reading that we are stuck with with paper documents. Wiki isn't paper, for crying out loud. -- Geo Swan 11:00, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Sources?
This article cites no sources. I am highly skeptical of the assertions it makes. It also has a heavy American bias, as if only the Wars, Police actions and other conflicts where the USA played a role are worth mention. -- Geo Swan 12:27, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
