Are we still in a "Police Action" against North Korea

[JHH]

Correct me if I am wrong but I believe that we never signed a peace treaty with North Korea and are still technically still at war.

[htuttle]

1. Technically, I think it's a 'truce'

Here:
The Korean War armistice
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/2774931.stm

[JHH]

6. So Bush could claim that the armistice has been broken by the North

and start military action with out going to Congress

[htuttle]

8. No, not legally

It would require another UN Security Council vote. And since China would be present and voting (this time), it wouldn't happen. Legally.

But we all know what Bush thinks of the law.

[JHH]

10. Is not the old UN Security Council resolution still in effect?

[htuttle]

11. IIRC, the UN was a formal party to the armistice agreement

So the UN itself has a truce with North Korea.

In other words, no, it's not (still in effect). There are new UN resolutions covering the truce that supercede the old ones authorizing military action.

[Guy Fawkes]

2. Correct: there was a cease-fire in the '50s.

But we are still at war. (police action, whatever)

[htuttle]

5. Wrong. "We" are not still at war -- we never were 'at war'

Congress never declared war. The whole Korean War was legally an action by the United Nations. Hostilities could not legally be restarted without a UN Security Council vote to do so.

...as if legalities mattered to anyone anymore...

:shrug:

[slackmaster]

7. We have always been at war with Eastasia

:D

[Guy Fawkes]

9. see the ()'s.

I know, the US Congress hasn't declared war since WWII.

[WI_DEM]

3. I believe technically we are, but that we have a truce which is

why this situation with NK is much more dangerous and important than removing Saddam ever was.

[Joe for Clark]

4. Thats right.

It was never settled -

Thats why we have those divisions on the border.

It was a cease fire, not a capitualation. Still is.

Joe