There's quite a bit of discussion in Sam's post, some of which expresses appropriate concern about how long we have to put up with a modest (and sorry, that's all it is, despite all the nonsense about living in a police state under Bushitler) suspension of some of the civil liberties that many of us had taken for granted, given that we don't have a declared war, and that it's not clear when it will be over. Tigerhawk has an excellent essay on that subject.

Thanks for pointing that out, Rand. That is an excellent essay.

According to Joe Biden, who might have some reason to know (as both a law professor and a Senator), "Under the Constitution, there is simply no distinction ... Louis Fisher(?) and others can tell you, there is no distinction between a formal declaration of war, and an authorization of use of force. There is none for Constitutional purposes."

Lacking any dispositive claim to the contrary, I think we should simply call this a declared war, since I can see no sense, practical or legal, in which it is not.

The main problem with it being a declared war is that we're being a little cagey about who we're at war with. "Terrorists" isn't a very useful definition of an enemy, when it comes to knowing whether or not they've been defeated.