Talk:Police action

message: Looks like there's a new police action on the horizon, folks.  Last night, Libya was hit by air strikes from the US, France, and Britain.  No authorization was given from Congress.Library4villiany (talk) 02:17, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: News Flash

message: These actions violate the United States constution because only congress has the power to declare war.
:Only Congress has the power to declare war. Other activities, such as police actions or other forms of conflict, are believed not to violate the constitution because they fall under a separate category of "permitted, non-Congressionally sanctioned armed activities" (not a technical term, only a descriptor). The above cited statement is not fully true. Of course this point deserves to be explained in some detail...for which readers can see the respective articles on the US Constitution and Congress, etc. ~ Dpr 02:00, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Congress

message: Stating that police actions are always "unconstitutional" seems a bridge too far, under the doctrine of necessity. For instance, in the event of an emergency (actual invasion or imminent threat) if the executive had to wait for a congressional declaration of war to scramble military forces in defense would lead to an untenable result. However, the mere declaration of emergency by the executive does not a true emergency make! Nor does the assertion of "preemption" make military action factually preemptive (hence defensive). Clearly, there are some gray areas, but that does not mean that the executive should have full and unfettered authority to make war without a congressional declaration of war. Whig 18:52, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: That hypothetical scenario bears no relationship to police actions, which inherently are carried out in foreign nations, rather than defending against a direct attack on America. Also, police actions have almost always involved Congress passing a resolution authorizing the use of force, but not declaring war. There is nothing in the Constitution that even vaguely implies Congress might actually have the authority to do that. Congress is explicitly granted the authority to declare war, but nowhere is it granted the authority to authorize military action without declaring war. 71.203.209.0 (talk) 00:06, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Partial justification

message: "Indeed, a declared war is an increasing rarity." This is debatable, as there ar very many wars that occur around the globe, minor or major. If there are no objections I wil remove this. --The1exile 18:43, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: But were they "declared" wars?  In a declared war your ambassador delivers a formal document to the head of state of the other nation(s) telling them that you are going to war with them.  Are you asserting that this is still common?  Can you name one recent war where this happened?  The current style is to cross their borders in a sneak attack.  --  Geo Swan 11:05, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Minor POV wording 

message: Clicking on the "Discuss this" button on the merge panel suggesting Declaration of War and Authorized use of force should be merged.  I dunno how that happened.  
I don't think those two article should be merged.  And I don't think either one should be merged into this article.
In spite of what the article says, I believe the phrase "Authorized use of force" is an Americanism, while other countries have declared war, or engaged in UN "Police actions".  There should be no merge, for this reason.  And, in general, I think this kind of merge sucks.  Rolling smaller, more focused articles into big amorphous monolithic articles artificially restricts us to the linear reading that we are stuck with with paper documents.  Wiki isn't paper, for crying out loud.  --  Geo Swan 11:00, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Authorized use of force 

message: This article cites no sources.  I am highly skeptical of the assertions it makes.  It also has a heavy American bias, as if only the Wars, Police actions and other conflicts where the USA played a role are worth mention.  --  Geo Swan 12:27, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sources? 

message: why isn't the Iraq war included as one of the examples?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.186.67.7 (talk) 05:58, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Iraq war 

message: The third paragraph states, "The term was first used by United States President Harry S. Truman to describe the Korean War [1]." 
How is that sentence meant to be parsed? Either "This was the first time the term was ever used by anyone" or "This was the first time that Truman used the term"? If the former, it's incorrect, and if the latter, it's trivial for the purpose of this article. I'm guessing whoever wrote that sentence meant to say that the term was first coined for U.S. entry into the war in June 1950.
(By the way, the reference for that statement uses a dead link, but I tracked down the editorial in Air Force Magazine that it refers to. Here is a working link. It does not confirm that Truman originated the term; it only states that he used the term.) 
The earliest use of the term police action as a euphemism for warfare was when it was applied to India's military incursion into Hyderabad State to annex it in September 1948. I would like to edit the article to establish this as the real origin of the term. Johanna-Hypatia (talk) 16:06, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I was mistaken about that. The Dutch term politionele acties (police actions), referring to attempts to recolonize Indonesia, dates from July 1947. It would seem that this is the real origin of the term. The article should be edited accordingly. If anyone knows of an earlier cite, bring it. Johanna-Hypatia (talk) 17:19, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Origin of the term 

message: This is a poor synthesis regarding the US Navy's "use" of the term.  The Navy Historical Command, which supplies the citation, refers to the  Korean War as a war and not a conflict or police action.  Use of the quotes by the Navy serves to recognize that the terms are used, but not with "official" endorsement.  Can anyone re-write this, please? --S. Rich (talk) 22:54, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  US Navy use of term