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: International permission trumps Congressional permission for military actions.

page: 5
53
<< 2  3  4    6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 8 2012 @ 03:30 PM
link   
reply to post by beezzer
 


Then logic would dictate that the American people should deliver pink slips to our elected officials, regardless of party affiliation, and get people in office who aren't part of the problem.




posted on Mar, 8 2012 @ 03:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by Xcathdra
reply to post by beezzer
 


If Obama and Panetta go down this road Congress should pass legislation that freezes the Pentagons budget and forces the Pentagon to seek congressional approval of funds for each and every action.

The President can then exercise his Constitutional Authority as commander in Chief and can issue all the orders he wants. Congress can exercise their Constitutional Authority by refusing to fund those orders.


looks like they are working on this issue.

www.abovetopsecret.com...



posted on Mar, 8 2012 @ 03:39 PM
link   
I watched that first thing this morning and I was shocked and angered at the same time. Panetta needs to go.

I see now the Pentagon has put out a statement he "misinterpreted" the question and he did not mean it that way. Strange since the Administration he works for has consistently given the impression it is leaning towards exactly what Panetta was saying.

Obama even said in his State of the Union Speech he was going to ask Congress to extend his powers. Sadly most people missed it and that was likely the most telling thing he has said since taking office, which should have scared people. That should have been front page nationwide, but it was ignored by all but a few. I nearly swallowed my tongue when he said that. This Administration wants the power to Legislate; that much is clear. Can we all say "Dictator"

edit on 3/8/2012 by Blaine91555 because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 8 2012 @ 03:57 PM
link   
The pressure should be on Panetta now to get to the UN/NATO and see if he gets support or not, then see what happens. Either way the most important thing are the people of Syria so they need to get a move on. It's the nearby middle eastern states that are also to blame here. The Arab league have suspended Syria instead of helping their people, the whole thing is stupid. The UN needs to be changed in a big way if it's ever going to be useful too, (make all countries equal and remove veto power, majority vote rules.) it's a joke as usual.
edit on 8-3-2012 by robhines because: added



posted on Mar, 8 2012 @ 04:15 PM
link   
Good for Panetta!!!!!!!

Iran is a problem for the world -- we are not the worlds rent-a-cop if something happens with Iran the rest of the countries that have an interest in this need to agree and act together.

We had a cowboy who decided that he was going to have a vanity war -- I suppose you guys haven't noticed because the American public really didn't have any skin in the game (no draft lowered taxes the stupidest way to run a war since well the last war)

Tired of being Israels keeper - the keep hitting the hornets nest then come to use to solve the problems.



posted on Mar, 8 2012 @ 04:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by hawkiye
What you don't seem to understand is the war powers act only gives him that authority if the US is in immediate danger.
...
Get your facts straight.


Can you please cite where it is restricted to defensive or immediate danger? I would welcome learning something new.



posted on Mar, 8 2012 @ 05:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by spyder550
Good for Panetta!!!!!!!

Iran is a problem for the world -- we are not the worlds rent-a-cop if something happens with Iran the rest of the countries that have an interest in this need to agree and act together.

We had a cowboy who decided that he was going to have a vanity war -- I suppose you guys haven't noticed because the American public really didn't have any skin in the game (no draft lowered taxes the stupidest way to run a war since well the last war)

Tired of being Israels keeper - the keep hitting the hornets nest then come to use to solve the problems.


Well said! The whole situation seems to be made out like it's the US or Israel that has to attack when in reality it's the worlds problem, every country has equal responsibility. It's just being made out like this to cause more hassle I guess. And if Israel don't like Iran having nukes maybe they should negotiate with Iran instead of acting like it's all about religion. If they have nukes then they should either disarm or accept others have them.

Or maybe they all know this already. We have to wake up to these people because they're in no way representing us properly in any country, which is what they're all supposed to do. If we could pull it off the best thing we could probably do would be to have a worldwide revolution right now and hope our militaries sided with us. These people are a joke.
edit on 8-3-2012 by robhines because: typo



posted on Mar, 8 2012 @ 05:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by robhines

Originally posted by Danbones
reply to post by robhines
 


world health org
world bank
UN
interpol
world trade org
codex alimenarious
G20
G8
global corporations

etc

its all right there in the open and has been for a while.
one just has to look


I know, that's why I'm surprised that so many of you are surprised at what's happened today! None of us own our countries, it's an illusion. I just want them to get it over and done with, then we can see where we really stand.

Well, that's if we can avoid a WWIII in the process. There's probably a lot more treasures, cash and death to be had by dragging it out though I guess. We're really close to having to root these people out now if they're pushing for another world war. Whoever these white hats are that are supposedly out there, they need to do something.

I actually have to watch what I'm saying (mainly check my anger and attitude.) because I'm using my real name here and I know there's probably agents reading this thread, I shouldn't have to feel that way. Things are getting really oppressive.
edit on 8-3-2012 by robhines because: (no reason given)


they know who each and every one of is
real name or not



posted on Mar, 8 2012 @ 05:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by Wolf321

Originally posted by hawkiye
What you don't seem to understand is the war powers act only gives him that authority if the US is in immediate danger.
...
Get your facts straight.


Can you please cite where it is restricted to defensive or immediate danger? I would welcome learning something new.


I went over this in a previous post a few pages back to try and explain it for Milkyway2, but here are some links to Cornell Law School online as well as The Library of Congress. United States Code 50 Section 1541, which is part of the US Code that enforces and regulates the powers of the Warpowers Resolution, specifically states that there must be a national emergency or a situation where are our forces are facing imminent attack.

Cornell Law
Law Library of Congress

I hope this clears it up for you. People need to remember that our system is not designed so that the CiC has ultimate authority to declare war. Since he is the POTUS, if he had that power he would in effect be nothing more than a democratically elected dictator. This is the reason for the concept of "seperation of powers" that our founders instituted into our government. It is there to insure that no one branch or one person for that matter gains too much collective power, and to set forth a system of checks and balances.



posted on Mar, 8 2012 @ 05:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by Danbones
they know who each and every one of is
real name or not


Yeah agreed, was thinking the same thing after posting. They don't need laws for that stuff any more do they?



posted on Mar, 8 2012 @ 05:36 PM
link   
Alex Jones saying this is an act of war against America...

Alex, no it's not, it's just the same thing as the rest of us have to put up with. If we're to move on as a human race all nations are equal. I think it might dawn on him soon... I know it's the wrong way to have it happen to all you in America, but this is how it really should be and what most of us have to deal with. It should be the world as a whole that should decide this stuff, not one country.

How can it be an act of war against America? You just simply look at it like this to prove it wrong : it's an act of checking with the UN that would prevent war, it would prevent the USA attacking Syria.

The problem is the Syrian government attacking it's people and how the world stops it.
edit on 8-3-2012 by robhines because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 8 2012 @ 05:46 PM
link   
Haha, Alex Jones just said it! "It happens everywhere else."

Yup. The thing is, do you go with it or impeach a president that could allow someone else in that starts off WWIII? At least Obama doesn't seem as bad a Bush. Or is he? Either way it's still a world problem and more about the Syrian people.

Ah think it's a replay from earlier. Either way he got seriously wound up today!
edit on 8-3-2012 by robhines because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 8 2012 @ 06:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by OldCorp
Oh, HELL NO!

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

*Irony is sometimes a cruel mistress.




The problem with that OldCorp, is people like you and I whom truly love our nation and have no problem defending our constitution to our death stand no chance of ever being able to run for congress. That is the way that the elitists and tyrants we have running things have made it. Not the way it was designed when founded but the way that the progressive elites have warped and twisted things.

I talk with a lot of people about the state of our government and nation and specifically with the blatent corruption that has infiltrated our government and many of them tell me that I should run for office. However as I am just a regular Joe, working my but off to support my family and don't have access to the millions it costs to campaign/buy elections I know that I have no chance.

TPTB don't want people like us in office. We are stubborn, and stand our ground on what we believe in and that would be a wrench in the works of their plans.



posted on Mar, 8 2012 @ 06:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by Nucleardiver
United States Code 50 Section 1541, which is part of the US Code that enforces and regulates the powers of the Warpowers Resolution, specifically states that there must be a national emergency or a situation where are our forces are facing imminent attack.


Thank you for the links. I did learn a couple of new things.

However, what you have said does not match with the evidence you linked. No where in either link, does it say that there must be a national emergency or that our forces must be facing an imminent attack.

It states:


(c) Presidential executive power as Commander-in-Chief; limitation
The constitutional powers of the President as Commander-in-Chief to introduce United States Armed Forces into hostilities, or into situations where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances, are exercised only pursuant to
(1) a declaration of war,
(2) specific statutory authorization, or
(3) a national emergency created by attack upon the United States, its territories or possessions, or its armed forces.


This says that the President must either first have the declaration of war, a national emergency, or specific authorization. However, just after it says the following:


the President shall submit within 48 hours to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and to the President pro tempore of the Senate a report, in writing, setting forth—
(A) the circumstances necessitating the introduction of United States Armed Forces;
(B) the constitutional and legislative authority under which such introduction took place; and
(C) the estimated scope and duration of the hostilities or involvement.


So it seems that the President, actually has 48 hours to engage in any military act he chooses, but should quickly justify it to congress.

This could easily be done in our involvement in Libya and every other nation we have had military action in since WWII.

Bottom line, there are clearly loopholes that are being used, and politics plays a role in letting it all happen.

Having read the information you provided, I think that a the War Powers Resolution should be re-addressed to limit the Presidents authority on such matters to Defensive operations of the US and its territoris, counter offensive ops in the US and its territory, in fulfilling treaties dealing with military aid, or with direct authority from congress in regards to humanitarian or all other aspects.

I don't think the President should be authorizing forces, even with the UN, for reasons other than specified.



posted on Mar, 8 2012 @ 06:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by Danbones
reply to post by xstealth
 


hi X

Yes. Just recently Barack Obama was sworn in as Head of the U. N. Security Council. The security council has the only real voting power in the UN. At the inauguration Obama was addressed as "President of the World".

This office violates the US. Constitution Article 1. Section 9. In which a President cannot hold dual office and still maintain the Presidency of the United States of America.


wiki.answers.com...

is everyone getting down with the playbook yet?


I am really glad to see that someone else noticed this too. Obama should immediately be impeached for this. He is such a wise "Constitutional Scholar" so surely he is aware of the conflict here. The problem is that the no good POS doesn't care because he does want to be President of the World.

Article 1 Section 9
No Title of Nobility shall be granted by the United States: And no Person holding any Office of Profit or Trust under them, shall, without the Consent of the Congress, accept of any present, Emolument, Office, or Title, of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince or foreign State.

U.S. Constitution Article 1 Section 9



posted on Mar, 8 2012 @ 06:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by LittleBlackEagle

Originally posted by Xcathdra
reply to post by beezzer
 


If Obama and Panetta go down this road Congress should pass legislation that freezes the Pentagons budget and forces the Pentagon to seek congressional approval of funds for each and every action.

The President can then exercise his Constitutional Authority as commander in Chief and can issue all the orders he wants. Congress can exercise their Constitutional Authority by refusing to fund those orders.


looks like they are working on this issue.

www.abovetopsecret.com...


Its already on paper bia the constitution but I will go laong with the added law they are trying to introduce. I dont mind the bickering between the Executive and the Legislative when it comes to use of military force. Simply bypassing Congress though is problematic...

My concern now is just how serious Obama was a few years back when he stated he felt like going "rogue" and just bypassing congress to get things done.

Hes already bypassed the Senate when he made his appointment to the Business Bureau thing he created, after the Senate shot down the nominee.

Now this.... People thought engaging in a war was a bad idea going into an election. Who would have thought the administration would think they have the balls for a stunt like this.



posted on Mar, 8 2012 @ 06:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by Wolf321

Originally posted by Nucleardiver
United States Code 50 Section 1541, which is part of the US Code that enforces and regulates the powers of the Warpowers Resolution, specifically states that there must be a national emergency or a situation where are our forces are facing imminent attack.


It states:


(c) Presidential executive power as Commander-in-Chief; limitation
The constitutional powers of the President as Commander-in-Chief to introduce United States Armed Forces into hostilities, or into situations where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances, are exercised only pursuant to
(1) a declaration of war,
(2) specific statutory authorization, or
(3) a national emergency created by attack upon the United States, its territories or possessions, or its armed forces.



Okay, let me explain it.........the first requirement under (1) is a declaration of war made by congress, which if that is done there is no need for the enacting of WPR. The requirement under (2) is statutory or legal under US Code which would be for security purposes of one of our embassies or similar territory without a definative threat. (it is covered in US Code 50 as to what constitutes statutory requirement, but I don't remember the section and am posting from my phone right now). Requirement under (3) would be the threat of imminent attack to our territories, or armed forces directly.

You said that " No where in either link, does it say that there must be a national emergency or that our forces must be facing an imminent attack." However right there in front of you, # 3 reads "(3) a national emergency created by attack upon the United States, its territories or possessions, or its armed forces.". Now the way I read that is "national emergency" or "attack".

How do you read that?

None of these scenarios are currently taking place with the exception of possibly a threat to some of our covert forces that are currently working in Syria which still does not apply to the rule since technically our forces are in a hostile country illegally.

I usually do not try to sound arrogant when presenting the facts and please excuse me if I do, I really don't mean to. However I can assure you that I am sure of what I am saying. My father was a 36 yr veteran of the Navy, retired a Rear Admiral and spent the last 14 yrs of his service life working in the Judge Advocates office. When this same scheme was pulled with Clinton in Kosovo, my father about went friggin ballistic and believe me I heard everyday all about what constitutes a legel invoking of the War Powers Resolution.

I also served 14 years in the Navy and am well aware of when the POTUS can invoke WPR due to our forces being attacked. I know this because of some of the campaigns that I was involved in in which there would have been no way for the POTUS or SecNav to have invoked anything to get us out if things went bad on us.
edit on 8-3-2012 by Nucleardiver because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 8 2012 @ 06:34 PM
link   
reply to post by Nucleardiver
 


Every single President since Nixon has stated the War Powers Act is unconstitutional since it restricts the Presidents Authority to be commander in chief, which is a constitutional violation. As far as actions when our forces are attacked I was under the impression it was a given, both under Domestic and international law, that a nation has a right to defend itself (Chapter VII Article 51).

The President has the Constitutional right to send the militaryany where he wants. Congress has the Constitutional right to either approve funding for the action or to deny funding for the action.

To me there needs to be a resolve on what the term combat / war / engagement actually means. If we agree that the use of military personell / equipment against an entity that we are at odds with, should that be classified as combat / open hostilities?

Personally speaking I think we should have a resolution on that topic, which would then resolve all other issues we are looking at here now, from the war powers act to the H.C.R. 107.

Its like the President is to much of a coward to seek congressional approval for the use of military force and Congress is to much of a coward to tell the President no, we wont be giving you any money for the operation.

It results in a quivering mass of indecision for our government (all branches), which only serves the intrests of our enemies.
edit on 8-3-2012 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 8 2012 @ 06:59 PM
link   
reply to post by Nucleardiver
 


I agree with your assessment mostly, but I think the problem comes in regards to the following


The requirement under (2) is statutory or legal under US Code which would be for security purposes of one of our embassies or similar territory without a definative threat. (it is covered in US Code 50 as to what constitutes statutory requirement, but I don't remember the section and am posting from my phone right now).


From my understanding of it, this is where they get all the leeway, this and the 48 hour window I mentioned previously. I read all of section 33, which covers the WPR, and saw no specification for defensive purposes only. That, and in conjunction with our prior association with the UN, would allow the president, acting with the UN, or for other reasons he deems appropriate, the ability to engage in hostilities, for at least 48 hours before justifying it to congress. If considered justified, the president has the full 90 days thereafter to conclude hostilities, without further authorization by congress.

I hope that you don't mistake my argument on how it is justified in the minds of those in power, with agreeing with it. I too am a veteran. I didn't agree with action in Libya nor any other rumored actions now. I do fully understand how they use the confusion, vagueness and technicalities in law to do whatever they want. Whenever they make laws, they only ever intend it to control the people, or for political purposes. They always write them so they can get around them themselves.



posted on Mar, 8 2012 @ 07:08 PM
link   
This is ILLEGAL! IMPEACHMENT should be put in motion NOW! These TRAITORS should be EXCUTED for TREASON!



new topics

top topics



 
53
<< 2  3  4    6  7 >>

log in

join