For almost a week now news broadcasts have been dominated by coverage with the banners and slick graphics proclaiming “War in Iraq.”

But debate exists whether the United States is currently in a war because President George W. Bush has never gotten Congress’ approval for such action.

Scott Stanzel, of the White House Press Secretary’s office, said Congress has supported the use of force in Iraq and that President Bush is doing his duty as commander in chief by taking action.

“The UN has failed to act over the past 12 years; that is why he had to take action,” Stanzel said. “Over 46 countries believe he (Bush) should be taking action to disarm the Saddam regime.”

Stanzel cited powers given to Bush in September 2001, after the Sept. 11 attacks.

After the attacks, Congress authorized Bush “to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on Sept. 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons.”

The White House said because Iraq President Saddam Hussein never complied with the previous Persian Gulf Conflict’s terms of surrender and because defensive measures adopted after Sept. 11 apply to a developer and user of weapons of mass destruction, no new Congressional authorization, or any United Nations Security Council resolution is necessary.

Prior to the attacks of Sept. 11, Bush would have had more obstacles to taking action in Iraq.

The United States Constitution states war powers are divided. Congress has the power to declare war and raise and support the armed forces (Article I, Section 8), while the president is commander in chief (Article II, Section 2). It is generally agreed that the commander in chief role gives the president power to repel attacks against the United States and makes him responsible for leading the armed forces. On Nov. 7, 1973, congress passed the War Powers Resolution (P.L. 93-148) over the veto of President Richard Nixon.

The War Powers Resolution states the president’s powers as commander in chief to introduce U.S. forces into hostilities or imminent hostilities are exercised only pursuant to (1) a declaration of war; (2) specific statutory authorization; or (3) a national emergency created by an attack on the United States or its forces.

It requires the president in every possible instance to consult with congress before introducing U.S. armed forces into hostilities or imminent hostilities unless there has been a declaration of war or other specific congressional authorization. It also requires the president to report to congress any introduction of forces into hostilities or imminent hostilities, Section 4(a)(1); into foreign territory while equipped for combat, Section 4(a)(2); or in numbers which substantially enlarge U.S. forces equipped for combat already in a foreign nation, Section 4(a)(3).

Once a report is submitted “or required to be submitted” under Section 4(a)(1), congress must authorize the use of forces within 60 to 90 days or the forces must be withdrawn.

Student Body President Alison Mormino thought Bush should have sought congressional authorization to declare war in Iraq.

“With the exception of the British, we are acting alone; the UN hasn’t backed us up,” she said. “It’s being justified as a humanitarian effort vs. the terrorism aspect. Bush has found a loop hole.”

Senior military instructor Master Sergeant David J. McKenney said regardless of what the media calls it, the threat is real.

“Call it what you want, but it is what it is, and it will have the same outcome,” he said. “I think that if we stand by and do nothing, it will get worse and our children will be fighting this war someday.”