Perhaps there is no better example of this than America's current "war on terrorism." Professor Bruce Ackerman colorfully depicts the phenomenon of "metaphorical war" when he invokes: "The Cold War. The War on Poverty. The War on Crime. The War on Drugs. The War on Terrorism." ²⁸ Analyzing the force of rhetorical "war," Ackerman continues: "There is something about the presidency that loves war-talk. Even at its most metaphorical, martial rhetoric allows the President to invoke his special mystique as Commander in Chief, calling the public to sacrifice greatly for the good of the nation."²⁹ Such rhetorical ploys for drumming up wartime national spirits, however, may have disastrous consequences. When America engages in "unconnected clashes over political, social and religious matters" in the name of a "war on terrorism," international political analyst Tim Garden remarks, "the term implies there's a military solution to each of these problems, and there isn't."³⁰ Even the September 11th Commission's report cautions us that "the notion of fighting an enemy called 'terrorism' is too diffuse and vague to be effective." ³¹

By forfeiting any categorical definition of war in situations involving the use of military force, the strained concept of "metaphorical war" will place a premium on popular approval in order to set any political boundaries on the President's unilateral initiation and continuation of armed hostilities. "President Bush has . . . already won in the court of public opinion," Bruce Ackerman stresses. "Thanks to the media's uncritical repetition of the President's rhetoric, (almost) everybody thinks it's obvious that we are in the middle of a 'war on terrorism.'"³²

Time-Unlimited Wars: Somewhat foreign to today's mind is an Article I, Section 8 concept of a declared war that begins at a specified point in time and ends at another equally specific time. The First World War is a classic example of a date-specific war. The "Great War" began on April 6, 1917, when Congress formally declared war, and ended with the armistice of June 28, 1919. Contrast that to the Korean War, which remained in formal existence for 25 years after hostilities ended in 1953, and the boundless nature of America's latest "war," namely, the "war on terrorism."

In this respect, Professor Stone's commentary on the phenomenon is noteworthy, to say the least. He appreciates that "a wartime situation that . . . has no time limit"³³ poses special problems. "If the government insists on framing the conflict in that way," he argues, "the Court should refuse to consider the restrictions of civil liberties as temporary measures designed to deal with a short-term emergency. It should be especially skeptical of such restrictions and should examine them with particularly careful scrutiny."³⁴ This crucial warning both anticipates and implicates the arguments made in later sections of this Article.