Has anyone heard any senior Democrats say this recently? It's one of the main areas where we are abdicating the terms of debate to the Republicans. And unfortunately, its tendrils extend out everywhere, into Bush's "wartime powers", into the "unitary executive theory", into the wiretapping without a warrant, etc.
We're at war against terrorists. Or terrorism. Or, simply, "terror". We've done pretty well, I think, at complaining about the lack of exit plan, but that doesn't really go far enough. Wartime powers are designed to be temporary, which means they are for wars that have possible endings.
So here are the questions.
Is there a nation-state that we can defeat, where after it is defeated, the war on terrorism is over?
Is there an entity that we can defeat, where after it is defeated, the war on terrorism is over?
Is there even an identifiable collection of entities that we can defeat, where after they are defeated, the war on terrorism is over?
Is there an entity that even has the capability of surrendering to us in such a manner that terrorism will then cease to exist?
The answers to these questions are obvious. A terrorist attack is not necessarily an act of war from a nation-state. It's a behavior, that any one person can indulge of.
This aren't new points that I'm making. But it's still true that this ground is being abdicated, and that abdication is still directly causing the results we see - the NSA scandal, some of the arguments behind the Alito nomination process, the expansion and abuse of Bush's "wartime powers".
By calling this a war on terrorism (which cannot be entirely defeated), and calling this a time of war (which by definition will never end), and using it as justification for wartime powers, Bush's wartime powers become permanent. This is not how wartime powers were intended to be used, because otherwise they would not have been given the "wartime" distinction.
The only way to actually oppose this is to point out that "wartime powers" are not warranted. The only way to make that argument is to question whether we are really at war.
And who is asking that question? Who among senior Democrats are daring to venture that we are not actually at war? Isn't it necessary to say this, to finally oppose Bush head-on? Aren't we destined to keep losing if we don't finally declare that the War On Terrorism isn't actually a war at all?