MARINA DEL REY, CA--"We are not at war--not officially. And that makes the expansion of presidential powers since September 11 dangerous," said Robert Tracinski, a columnist for Creators Syndicate and a senior fellow at the Ayn Rand Institute. Robert W. Tracinski was a senior writer for the Ayn Rand Institute between 1997 and 2004.
Mr. Tracinski said that good arguments could be made for such emergency measures as military tribunals, indefinite detention of immigrants, greater government secrecy and a "homeland command"--as temporary actions during wartime. "In a war the commander in chief might need these temporary powers to act quickly and decisively. But President Bush has refused to ask for a declaration of war, and Congress has allowed him to prosecute this war without declaring it. The adoption of such measures when our country is not officially, legally at war, is dangerous because they can too easily become permanent increases in the powers of government."
"There are many reasons," said Mr. Tracinski, "why we should declare war, including the need to give our war policy a more definite shape, naming the specific enemies to be attacked. Just as important, a declaration of war would allow Congress to legally establish and define the war powers that can be exercised by the commander in chief--and it would ensure that those powers are granted only for the duration of the war. A declaration of war is our best guarantee that we will be able to restrain government and protect our full legal rights when the war is over."