It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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

Thank you.


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


PANETTA: International permission trumps Congressional permission for military actions.

page: 3
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in


posted on Mar, 8 2012 @ 11:41 AM

Originally posted by OldCorp

Chalk up another FU to the Constitution. That settles it; I'm going to run for Congress.

*Irony is sometimes a cruel mistress.

And I'll hold your coat, Mr. Powell.

"Son, we're paratroopers-- we're supposed to be surrounded." The Major

posted on Mar, 8 2012 @ 11:52 AM
Alex Jones is talking about this on his show right now.
I think he and others have been warning us about this for a while.

Let`s be honest.Most of us have seen this coming for a while now.
We done nothing when Obama decided to go into Libya without the go-ahead from congress.
We didn`t protest enough over the NDAA and other bills.

So it doesn`t surprise me that it`s now come to this.

posted on Mar, 8 2012 @ 11:54 AM
reply to post by xstealth

Crucially important post! Flag and Star with clusters!

This is an open usurpation of the Congress' power to
declare war, and Mr. Panetta should have been
IMMEDIATELY taken into custody by the Sergeant
at Arms. My personal feelings will be left out for
T&C, which voicing would get me AT LEAST banned.
I speak for nobody but myself. I'm calling for the
military at large to right now REFUSE to follow
orders by the illegitimate govenment; and cordon
off the District of Criminals, usurped and unresponsive
to the oaths they swore to the Constitution and the
people. The Rockefellers and the rest of this group
of fascists have crossed the line, this is treason in
the simplest definition. y'pi$$d yet, folks??

posted on Mar, 8 2012 @ 12:04 PM
reply to post by xstealth

Dear Congressman, you are fired! Mr. Leon Panetta said today we the citizens dont need you anymore nor does the executive branch.

posted on Mar, 8 2012 @ 12:16 PM
reply to post by milkyway12

The War Powers Act is supposed to only be used when our country has been attacked or is in danger of being attacked. The action against Libya was unconstitutional and on that ground alone congress has ground to start the impeachment process. The violation of Article 1. Section 9 is another reason to start the impeachment process. I'm not sure what they're waiting for.
edit on 8-3-2012 by TheAnswerTo1984 because: (no reason given)

posted on Mar, 8 2012 @ 12:17 PM

I don't understand why anyone is surprised about this. Every administration for the last 3 decades has wiped after a number 2 with the US Constitution. Congress? CONGRESS?!?!? They're too busy arguing about contraception. And of course the media is complicit. It's no secret most high level politicians think the US Constitution is an outdated document. Their ultimate goal is the demolition of national state sovereignty around the world. ie world government. That is what the United Nations is! UN Agenda 21.

here's Newt, who's one of the heads of the elite that want the Constitution abolished essentially.

posted on Mar, 8 2012 @ 12:21 PM
reply to post by lambros56

I'm listening to AJ and his heart is about to pop out of his chest over this!

Along with the NDAA, this is one of the most important topics of our time, and probably 75% of people won't even find out about it.

posted on Mar, 8 2012 @ 12:31 PM

posted on Mar, 8 2012 @ 12:37 PM
reply to post by xstealth

Get ready for the opening of the FEMA camps and confiscating our guns, New World Order goons on the streets...

Hitler and Stalin would be proud...

posted on Mar, 8 2012 @ 12:46 PM

Originally posted by beezzer
Let me get this straight.

If Congress okays a military action, but the international community says no; then we DON'T go???

Basically, yes.

The U.S. and all other nations serve the World Government now and its President of the World. Get ready for the One World Religion, the religion of the State that they'll push.

"You're obsolete, Mr. Wordsworth!"

posted on Mar, 8 2012 @ 12:48 PM
Unless I'm missing some sort of sarcasm, you guys seem like a bunch of idiots...
Why in the hell do you think IMPEACHING OBAMA is going to change anything?

God, do you really think he is the inventor of these governing methods?
Do you really, honestly think he's doing anything?

He is the product of Zbigniew Brzezinski and ZB is one of the more powerful recent "generals" of the NWO.

I cannot believe you people are aiming your discontent at the president of a corporation (America) that is run by the British Crown.

Do you really think we are an independent nation?
If so, then why were we fightin the Brits on our soil for 3 years, when we had signed the Declaration almost 40 years earlier?? Where is the Declaration? Nobody knows..

Bush killed the Constitution. Obama's just sticking a fork in it.
We have had previous Consitution-killing Patriot acts (National Security Acts) and it's been going on for over 60 years.

This country is done. It's being systematically weakened by World Banks and so is every other country of the world. We are heading for an era of disastrous living standards after the money/wealth has finally finished transferring vertically from the bottom to the top.

Anybody who puts Obama at the top of the foodchain of universal problems needs to seriously remove their head from their rectum... and stop staring at the world through a glass bellybutton.

Yeah, everything was perfect before that "outsider" came along, wasn't it?

edit on 8-3-2012 by LeonoraTenen because: (no reason given)

posted on Mar, 8 2012 @ 12:52 PM
I think you're all blowing this up to be honest. I mean he specifically avoided answering directly because they're wanting UN or NATO approval. (which is already wrong, as the middle east countries should have ousted that regime last year!)

So basically they're trying their best not to annoy China and Russia, who've delayed this already themselves. But's that's how they "work" isn't it? They're probably getting some of their stuff/people out first or something before others move in or it's settled without war.

But Panetta hasn't done anything to your constitution has he? So I don't get what the problem is...

posted on Mar, 8 2012 @ 12:52 PM
This is insane. It's nothing less than a violation of the Constitution. Surely the SCOTUS would weigh in?

This is what happens when:

A) Presidential powers are unchecked through the misuse of Executive Orders, circumventing the balance of power

B) You have a former CIA boss at the Pentagon (Panetta) and a former Pentagon boss at the CIA (Petraus) - the loyalties and lines are blurred.

In a related note, there was also an idea floated recently from the Pentagon that if troops in Afghanistan were put under the direction of the CIA, the deadline for troop removal could be technically circumvented as they are no longer troops but instead are classified as spies.

posted on Mar, 8 2012 @ 12:54 PM

Originally posted by milkyway12
reply to post by Nucleardiver

Again , let me state this. People have a mis-conception about the war act. The military action (after 90 days) is not done if the president wishes the troops to stay longer. The only way congress can appeal his action is by cutting supplies and funding to the soldiers deployed. Congress would most likely not do this to military personnel and would either have to get popular public opinion (voice) or to bring him before a court (which will cut all funding and supplies to the military personnel deployed while the court is in session) and the court will have a final ruling stating the action is unconstitutional blah blah while soldiers are dying , who would do that?

Again , Congress would most likely not do that and would have to follow along with the president and make due face or they could simply not say they are for or against the action and leave it be , such as Libya.

Actually you left out the fact that as written in the War Powers Resolution the president is only allowed to use the War Powers Act when America is under attack or in imminent threat of attack. The WPR was not written or designed to allow the POTUS to have ultimate power over when he could engage in military action. As written in the constitution the POTUS is the head of the Executive Branch until Congress has made a declaration of war, only then does he become the acting CiC of our armed forces. USC 50 Sec. 1541

You should also note that according to USC 50 Sec 1542 the POTUS is required to consult with congress prior to commencing any military action where our armed forces are being introduced to hostilities or where hostilities are imminent. USC 50 Sec 1542 also requires the POTUS to continue to consult with congress on a regular and timely basis as long as our armed forces are in hostile situations.

USC 50 Sec 1543 sets forth the reporting requirements that the POTUS must comply with anytime he introduces our armed forces.are in harms way, USC 50 Sec 1543(b) sets forth the 60 day limit.

Under USC 50 Sec 1544 if congress has not made a declaration of war the the POTUS must. Withdraw all troops within 30 days of congress issueing a Concurrent Resolution. These Concurrent Resolutions do not require a presidential signature and are therefore referred to as Legislative Vetoed. The POTUS must abide by these concurrent resolutions.

USC 50 also gives congress the power to move for impeachment proceedings if the POTUS fails to abide by the Concurrent Resolutions but I don't remember the exact section off the top of my head. It can be found i. The 1500's section of US Code 50 though.

So my point is that the POTUS is not all powerful in his ability to wage war. I did learn a little about this during my 15 years serving.

posted on Mar, 8 2012 @ 12:57 PM

Originally posted by kosmicjack
This is insane. It's nothing less than a violation of the Constitution.

How is it? Sorry I'm from the UK and not sure what he's supposed to have done. They've not bypassed your congress, they're just waiting to see if they get support from the UN or NATO first?

posted on Mar, 8 2012 @ 12:59 PM

Originally posted by Xcathdra
reply to post by xstealth

And if that happens the Congress better damn well draft articles if impeachment against Obama. Along with Panetta for going along with it. Holder for being the one who most likely approved this further shredding of the Constitution.

Im starting to seriously reconsider my position on the doctrine of sovereign immunity.
edit on 8-3-2012 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)

Let me offer you a standing ovation.

Seems to me there was a time in history when our entire Congress would have gone through the roof if a comment like Panetta's had been made. Nowadays, we're lucky if we hear objections from a handful of them. I guess that's what happens when you've got a Congress comprised of a bunch of multi-millionaires who are too interested in catering to lobbyists and pursuing their own self-serving agendas to worry about a silly piece of paper with the word "Constitution" on it.

posted on Mar, 8 2012 @ 01:00 PM

Originally posted by Xcathdra
Im starting to seriously reconsider my position on the doctrine of sovereign immunity.

Welcome aboard, mate... almost.

This is not our government. It has be hijacked by foreign powers.
At least it is now coming out into the open...

If you are serious, then at least allow me to get you on the right path.
The Red Amendment
I'm too tied to the system to get out, but hopefully you are not.

posted on Mar, 8 2012 @ 01:02 PM

Originally posted by mal1970
This is not our government. It has be hijacked by foreign powers.

Hahah! It probably always has been! You actually believe our governments are run by the people we elect?

Have got to go out but before going again, please, how has Panetta broken any rule in your consitution?
edit on 8-3-2012 by robhines because: added

posted on Mar, 8 2012 @ 01:09 PM
reply to post by robhines

I dunno what to tell you. Watch the video. Panetta clearly says he would seek international permission on action in Syria and then inform the Congress. That's not how it works in the USA.

In very simple terms:

Under the United States Constitution, war powers are divided. Congress has the power to declare war, raise and support the armed forces, control the war funding (Article I, Section 8), and has "Power … to make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution … all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof", while the President is commander-in-chief of the military (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[5][6] and makes the President responsible for leading the armed forces. In addition and as with all acts of the Congress, the President has the right to sign or veto congressional acts, such as a declaration of war.

posted on Mar, 8 2012 @ 01:16 PM

Originally posted by beezzer
Let me get this straight.

If Congress okays a military action, but the international community says no; then we DON'T go???

actually, it reads the other way around i believe. according to panetta, if the international community says yes and congress says no, that it's okay to still go to war.

new topics

top topics

<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in