> Technically speaking, aerial attack alone is not a "war"
> - or at least it has not been in the past practice - so
> the POTUS is free to launch one without a Congressional
> approval.
Technically speaking, a unilaterally undertaken aerial attack by the U.S. military against a country with which the U.S. is not at war is an act of war.
Technically speaking, deaths of persons not acting as belligerents against the U.S. that result from such an attack are the result of a war crime.
Technically speaking, a unilaterally undertaken attack against a country with which the U.S. is not at war and which is not imminently threatening the U.S. violates the U.N. Charter.
Technically speaking, anyone/everyone ("whoever") from within the U.S. (e.g., a POTUS) who provides or prepares a means for or takes part in any military action to be carried on from the U.S. against any foreign state with U.S. is not engaged in war is guilty of a felony.
Technically speaking, a generalized claim of desuetude, of which the WS ukase quoted above is a near paradigmatic example, does not excuse violations of the U.S. constitution or penal laws.
Practically speaking, obviously, there is no way any one or a small and politically unorganized group of persons would be able to obtain redress for violations of the above principles of law -- a kind noiseless tree falling in the forest sort of thing.
And also practically speaking, while Rep. Barbara Lee and her congressional colleagues know the above, the letter cited by Robert Naiman is not surprisingly (Duh!) a mealy mouthed avoidance of addressing the POTUS' already accomplished and evidently very soon to be exacerbated violations of the above principles of law. Technically speaking, too.