It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Panetta: Obama Can Unilaterally Use Military to Protect ‘National Interests’

page: 1
11
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 14 2011 @ 09:07 AM
link   
More of that "change". Listen to the silence of the erstwhile anti-military gang. What is next? similar power grabs that will eventually be used against our own citizens.

Protect our national interests can mean against the people of the United States if he doesn't like what he sees happening politically.

Does Mr. Panetta think that the President at least has to supply the reasons he thinks America is at risk?


CIA Director Leon Panetta, who President Barack Obama has nominated to be secretary of Defense, told the Senate Armed Services Committee on Thursday that he believes the president can unilaterally use military force, without congressional authorization to “protect our national interests.”

Panetta’s claim of broad unilateral presidential power to initiate U.S. military action absent an attack or imminent threat to the United States came in response to a question from Sen. John McCain—who said he agreed with Panetta.



“Does it worry you if the Congress begins to tell the commander in chief as to exactly … what the president can or cannot do in any conflict?” asked McCain.





“Senator, I believe very strongly that the president has the constitutional power as commander in chief to take steps that he believes are necessary to protect this country and protect our national interests,” said Panetta. “And obviously, I think it's important for presidents to consult, to have the advice of Congress. But in the end, I believe he has the constitutional power to do what he has to do to protect this country.”

Article 1, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution says Congress “shall have Power … to declare War, grant letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make rules concerning Captures on Land and Water.” At the constitutional convention in 1787, James Madison of Virginia and Elbridge Gerry of Massachusetts proposed that the word “declare” war be inserted in place of “make” war in this passage so that it would leave the president the limited power to “repel sudden attacks.” Madison’s proposal was adopted.


Source

How can a president repeatedly thumb his nose at his country's constitution and remain president?

edit on 14-6-2011 by RUSSO because: (no reason given)




posted on Jun, 14 2011 @ 09:16 AM
link   
Your question is very easy to answer, and that is as long as our current Congress allows this charade to continue and not uphold their legal obligation to the U.S. constitution, then nothing will ever change. Thus the reason the articles of the U.S. constitution were formed, but if no one has the spine to implement them, then the Constitution is just a piece of toilet paper that the current Potus can use as butt wipe



posted on Jun, 14 2011 @ 09:23 AM
link   
Obviously the fear-mongering is working. As long as U.S. citizens believe that everybody is a potential terrorist, there will be no end to it. Here's the reality... at some point, someone's gonna get fed up with the arrogance and pay us all back. When war comes to U.S. soil, it will be to late to impeach this monster...

Doesn't this remind you of the feeding frenzy of sharks????
edit on 6/14/2011 by visualmiscreant because: added comment



posted on Jun, 14 2011 @ 09:34 AM
link   
The reality here is, that our President does not have any more or any less access to this particular power than any other President has or will. Where Congress comes into play is funding. Congress has never had any power to stop a President from ordering the military to do anything, they do have the power to deny him access to the defense budget or any other American source of funding. Panetta is 100% correct, President Obama can unilaterally use the military to protect national intersts, just the same as any President can. I think the manner in which Obama is operating speaks far more to the current Congress than it does to himself. Think about it.



posted on Jun, 14 2011 @ 09:40 AM
link   
Ah, the Hope and Change everyone can believe in.
Hope? No. Not on your life.
Change? Yes. Towards a Totalitarian Socialist Govt.

When people were showing Obama for what he was, most ignored.
Are the masses awake now and noticing that we are on a high speed train destined for Hell?
I sure hope so.

This really is just one of the moves in the Fed Govt taking over.



posted on Jun, 14 2011 @ 09:43 AM
link   
I can't believe we put these people in charge of the most powerful military ever on Planet Earth.

Please, somebody, wake me up.



posted on Jun, 14 2011 @ 09:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by Kali74
The reality here is, that our President does not have any more or any less access to this particular power than any other President has or will. Where Congress comes into play is funding. Congress has never had any power to stop a President from ordering the military to do anything, they do have the power to deny him access to the defense budget or any other American source of funding. Panetta is 100% correct, President Obama can unilaterally use the military to protect national intersts, just the same as any President can. I think the manner in which Obama is operating speaks far more to the current Congress than it does to himself. Think about it.


so just who is funding this world invasion
of Obamas ???

u know this is circumvention of the Constitution ...... right ??
no different than a loophole on a tax return.

I'm sorry, but Obama needs to face treason charges.



posted on Jun, 14 2011 @ 09:57 AM
link   
so what is the logic here, one man knows better then all the people in congress and the senate...

.....the same administration that wants more/bigger government

illogical hypocrisy

the next great step forward in evolution needs to be common sense



posted on Jun, 14 2011 @ 10:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by boondock-saint

Originally posted by Kali74
The reality here is, that our President does not have any more or any less access to this particular power than any other President has or will. Where Congress comes into play is funding. Congress has never had any power to stop a President from ordering the military to do anything, they do have the power to deny him access to the defense budget or any other American source of funding. Panetta is 100% correct, President Obama can unilaterally use the military to protect national intersts, just the same as any President can. I think the manner in which Obama is operating speaks far more to the current Congress than it does to himself. Think about it.


so just who is funding this world invasion
of Obamas ???

u know this is circumvention of the Constitution ...... right ??
no different than a loophole on a tax return.

I'm sorry, but Obama needs to face treason charges.


It absolutely is not treason nor is it circumventing the Constitution, the request for support on Libya is in congressional hands, they have no plans to vote on it. Iraq and Afghanistan are pre-existing wars approved for funding by congress. You want Congress to vote no to funding Libya? Tell your congressman. I bet it's easier though to sit there living in your dark fanstasies huh?



posted on Jun, 14 2011 @ 10:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by Signals
I can't believe we put these people in charge of the most powerful military ever on Planet Earth.

Please, somebody, wake me up.


Just stop the world because I want to get out.



posted on Jun, 14 2011 @ 10:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by boondock-saint

Originally posted by Kali74
The reality here is, that our President does not have any more or any less access to this particular power than any other President has or will. Where Congress comes into play is funding. Congress has never had any power to stop a President from ordering the military to do anything, they do have the power to deny him access to the defense budget or any other American source of funding. Panetta is 100% correct, President Obama can unilaterally use the military to protect national intersts, just the same as any President can. I think the manner in which Obama is operating speaks far more to the current Congress than it does to himself. Think about it.


so just who is funding this world invasion
of Obamas ???

u know this is circumvention of the Constitution ...... right ??
no different than a loophole on a tax return.

I'm sorry, but Obama needs to face treason charges.


Agree. I could not say anything better.



posted on Jun, 14 2011 @ 10:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by boondock-saint

Originally posted by Kali74
The reality here is, that our President does not have any more or any less access to this particular power than any other President has or will. Where Congress comes into play is funding. Congress has never had any power to stop a President from ordering the military to do anything, they do have the power to deny him access to the defense budget or any other American source of funding. Panetta is 100% correct, President Obama can unilaterally use the military to protect national intersts, just the same as any President can. I think the manner in which Obama is operating speaks far more to the current Congress than it does to himself. Think about it.


so just who is funding this world invasion
of Obamas ???

u know this is circumvention of the Constitution ...... right ??
no different than a loophole on a tax return.

I'm sorry, but Obama needs to face treason charges.


The Most Sane statement of the Month.

Boondock for Pres. !!



posted on Jun, 14 2011 @ 10:18 AM
link   
reply to post by RUSSO
 


Oh, so this is more of a rant. Not too interested in actual facts or the basic civics of how the government actually works. Gotcha. It's so much easier to drop words like treason amongst internet cronies than it is to write to your congressman and tell them how you want to be represented. You guys are the very disinfo agents you're all paranoid about.

edit on 14-6-2011 by Kali74 because: (no reason given)

edit on 14-6-2011 by Kali74 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 14 2011 @ 10:21 AM
link   
reply to post by Signals
 


Your comment shows the people haven't waken up yet. We the people didn't put any of these clowns in charge. The Bildeburgs pick them and our rigged election scam the people into thinking there was actually an election. Its been the same crap different day ever since the murder of John Kennedy. The information has been out there for years people either laugh at it or ignore it. One thing for sure is the general public has not acted on it.



posted on Jun, 14 2011 @ 10:23 AM
link   
reply to post by Kali74
 





Oh, so this is more of a rant. Not too interested in actual facts or the basic civics of how the government actually works. Gotcha. It's so much easier to drop words like treason amongst internet cronies than it is to write to your congressman and tell them how you want to be represented. You guys are the very disinfo agents you're all paranoid about.




to write to your congressman


What makes you think I didnt.

So If I dont agree with the administration of Obama and think I have some reason to call him a traitor makes me a disinformation agent?

I think you're a bit paranoid, and giving you back your logic, I think you are an agent paid by Obama.

edit on 14-6-2011 by RUSSO because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 14 2011 @ 10:26 AM
link   
reply to post by RUSSO
 


I didn't say anything is wrong with disagreeing with the Obama administration. I'm saying that your disagreement does not make him/them treasonous. He hasn't violated anything so how has he committed treason? The disinfo comment was clearly sarcasm.
edit on 14-6-2011 by Kali74 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 14 2011 @ 10:28 AM
link   
reply to post by Kali74
 


Show me the birth certificate.



posted on Jun, 14 2011 @ 10:28 AM
link   
So, when Obama - the "one term president" - gets voted out at the next election, the next one to hold the position will roll back all this stuff being blamed on Obama? Thought not!


It's all a game, and people fall for it every time. Get a new Prez to introduce measures people are not comfortable with, then get him out. The next one in just keeps that legislation running.

Also, by National Interests, what they usually mean is Corporate Interests. Of course, they can't just say this as the public migt not be too supportive of their loved ones being sent off to war for the private profit of a bunch of CEO's in expensive suits. So, dress it up as a National Interest, perhaps throw in an attack against Americans along the way to get the people riled up and baying for revenge, and away you go.



posted on Jun, 14 2011 @ 10:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by RUSSO
reply to post by Kali74
 


Show me the birth certificate.


Ohhhh, I get it now.



posted on Jun, 14 2011 @ 10:42 AM
link   
reply to post by Britguy
 

As sad as that is, it's dead on the money...




top topics



 
11
<<   2 >>

log in

join