First Female Conscientious Objector Sentenced for Refusing Deployment to Afghanistan

Why is the order to deploy questionable in terms of legality?

While Congress might not have officially declared war, Congress authorized military action. Any further objection is splitting hairs.

Of course if any citizen still questions the legality they are free to take it up with the courts.

David,

What I meant is that the Congress is supposed to declare war, not just issue an open-ended resolution authorizing the use of force.

But that is not the main point - the main point is, since the official theory of 9/11 is, to put it mildly, questionable, everything for which this theory has been used as a foundation is just as bogus, in my opinion.

I understand what the Constitution says, and at one point held a similar position. However the judiciary is the branch that decides such things. The Supreme Court has never ruled on this issue, and actully seems to have avoided ruling on the subject.

My guess is that the Supreme Court would be swayed by arguments that there are times it is desirable, even highly preferable, for the US to engage in military action without declaring all out total war.

At a minimum, the "spirit" if not the "letter" of the Constitution was adhered to in that Congress authorized the military action taken by the Executive branch. There are many advantages for the Legislative branch in doing things this way. If an official war is declared, Congress surrenders many powers to the President until the end of the war. With the resolution, Congress retains these powers.

As for the 9/11 attacks, I still hold the opinion that members of Al Qaeda flew planes into the buildings and that the crashes were the cause of the collapses. Where there failures in preventing the attacks? Yes, but this signals only human failures, not some vast conspiracy. I try to keep an open mind however, and still examine the arguments to the contrary.