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: 6
53
<< 3  4  5    7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 8 2012 @ 07:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by Corruptedstructure
This is ILLEGAL! IMPEACHMENT should be put in motion NOW! These TRAITORS should be EXCUTED for TREASON!


You have to break the law in order to be subject to its penalties.
edit on 8-3-2012 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)




posted on Mar, 8 2012 @ 07:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by Xcathdra
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)


We have had a resolution on this issue since 1778 when the US Constitution was first signed. It is right there in Article 1 Section 8 "Powers of Congress":

To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;


Article 1 Section 8

Articel 2 of the Constitution prescribes all powers of the legislative branch and therefore the POTUS and nowhere does it give power to the president to call forth the militia or declare war. It only prescribes him the power to be CiC once the militia has been called forth by Congress.



posted on Mar, 8 2012 @ 07:25 PM
link   
reply to post by Nucleardiver
 


Yeah and nowhere does it include the war powrers act.

The President is commander in Cheif, and as such can send the troops wherever he wants.
Congress holds the purse strings, and can either pay for those movements or not.

My point, that was apparently missed, is what constituttes a war?

Limited engagement? Missile strikes? Land / air invasion?

That is the issue we are seeing being played out between the President and Congress. The argument we are seeing is if there is no plans to put troops on the ground in an effort to seize land / occupy, then congressional authority is not needed.

Both branches are trying to side step that argument, and would rather blame each toher for the situation. If they set down specific language IE -

* any engagement / use of US military forces / Us Coast Guard with a foreign entity must be authorized by the US Congress prior to engagement unless its in self defense.

No one seems to want to define the term "war", which would in fact resove the bickering we are seeing.
edit on 8-3-2012 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 8 2012 @ 07:49 PM
link   
reply to post by Xcathdra
 



As former military let me answer your "what constitutes a war" question. It's pretty simple, when you hear bullets whizzing past your head, and you have your target in the crosshairs and squeeze off a round and know that you just took a life, or see your friend that you've trained with and been deployed with 3 or 4 times lose his arm, or leg, or life, you are at war.

That may sound simple and blunt but that is the reality of it. The politicians back home can call it what they want, Kenetic Military Action, Military Intervention, Peace keeping, helping innocent civilians, etc. When you are engaged in armed combat against another human being it is war plain and simple.

That is the problem with a lot of what politicians do, they try to sugar coat things with a play on words to make them sound better or like something they're not. But at the end of the day, regardless of the label given, it is what it is.



posted on Mar, 8 2012 @ 07:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by Xcathdra

Originally posted by Corruptedstructure
This is ILLEGAL! IMPEACHMENT should be put in motion NOW! These TRAITORS should be EXCUTED for TREASON!


You have to break the law in order to be subject to its penalties.
edit on 8-3-2012 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)


www.eutimes.net...



posted on Mar, 8 2012 @ 08:38 PM
link   
My jaw dropped when Panetta said the President has the authority and will use it, right after being reminded of the "legal basis" by which the US is supposed to engage in war.

Unfreakingbelievable. Panetta may as well have said "Yeah, whatever, dude. We're going to bomb Iran anyway. What you gonna do about it?"

When are we going to remove these monsters from power? WHEN?



posted on Mar, 8 2012 @ 08:46 PM
link   
Hold on....they are saying he was mistaken and that he meant international permission IN ADDITION TO congressional permission...

www.cnn.com...

But reading the quotes from Panetta's statement, i dont see how he COULDN'T have said exactly that...Theya sk him, point blank, if he will consult with congress. His reply?....


Panetta replied, "You know, our goal would be to seek international permission. And we would come to the Congress and inform you and determine how best to approach this, whether or not we would want to get permission from the Congress."
. (empasis mine)



posted on Mar, 8 2012 @ 08:50 PM
link   
reply to post by nunya13
 


Damage control. They haven't sought Congress' permission since what... WW2?



posted on Mar, 8 2012 @ 08:54 PM
link   
reply to post by AwakeinNM
 


You're right about damage control. How could he have been misunderstood? He CLEARLY says, whether or not will seek approval from Congress...AS IF HE HAS A CHOICE!?



posted on Mar, 8 2012 @ 10:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by nunya13
Hold on....they are saying he was mistaken and that he meant international permission IN ADDITION TO congressional permission...

www.cnn.com...

But reading the quotes from Panetta's statement, i dont see how he COULDN'T have said exactly that...Theya sk him, point blank, if he will consult with congress. His reply?....


Panetta replied, "You know, our goal would be to seek international permission. And we would come to the Congress and inform you and determine how best to approach this, whether or not we would want to get permission from the Congress."
. (empasis mine)




I was just getting ready to post that myself...and, I agree, it is a feeble attempt to do damage control. Panetta wasn't misinterpreted or misquoted. He clearly meant it the way he said it. They are so used to doing as they please that they don't even try to hide their nefarious activities anymore.



posted on Mar, 8 2012 @ 10:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by xstealth


This guy should be resigning immediately.

The Constitution clearly states what needs to be done, he swore in oath to uphold it; and he is breaking that oath.

This country is absolutely trashed by corruption, and they are so open about it now that it's arrogant.

I'd like to say, everyone write your legislative leaders and demand his resignation, but chances are; they trashed the Constitution long ago themselves.

www.breitbart.com
(visit the link for the full news article)


I hear you man.

People like him and obame have no scene of loyalty

to the office they hold.The only loyalty they have is

to make more money off the sweat of the American people.

They do not have enough backbone to have self respect to

them selves let alone uphold an oath.Just think of all

the great men who have held the title of President

of the United States Of America.And how some of the

other have stained that title.There was a time

when a man gave you his word and it meant something.

Now they could care less.And the only time they do

care is when they can make money out of the situation.

One day we as Americans will wake up and use our God

given voice and let the elite know that they have

over stepped the line. Then and only then will we

Put the united states back to the status it once

was.











edit on 8-3-2012 by grayghost because: spelling



posted on Mar, 8 2012 @ 11:10 PM
link   
The entire administration is a pack of traitors that should be hauled in front of court. Who's going to do that?

That pack of traitorous hyenas is supported by other packs of traitors waiving the Obamanation cult of personality symbols.

Unchange.



posted on Mar, 8 2012 @ 11:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by nunya13
Hold on....they are saying he was mistaken and that he meant international permission IN ADDITION TO congressional permission...


Panetta replied, "You know, our goal would be to seek international permission. And we would come to the Congress and inform you and determine how best to approach this, whether or not we would want to get permission from the Congress."
. (empasis mine)



I thought that too from the off and was wondering what the whole thing was about.

At the same time I think he's trying to say that no matter what the outcome of any UN/NATO request they're still going to decide whether or not to attack themselves, but for Panetta to have come out and said that would have basically said to the rest of the world "we'll ask for help by making it legal via the UN/NATO and for assistance, if they veto we might just go in anyway if we get congressional approval."

...and that wouldn't have sounded too good for the rest of the world basically.

We're not just talking about going into some country here for whatever problems you have, we're on about entering an area that's already got Israel and Iran at eachother and that could start off a world war if things aren't handled carefully, so it's reasonable to suggest that your government are keeping their cards close to their chests, so to speak.
edit on 8-3-2012 by robhines because: added



posted on Mar, 8 2012 @ 11:22 PM
link   
reply to post by xstealth
 


What this means is that the Obama admin is not and never was anti-war, they are just anti-Constitution.



posted on Mar, 8 2012 @ 11:24 PM
link   
reply to post by robhines
 


Asking for help and asking for "permission" are two different things. Do I need to make a point about reading comprehension?



posted on Mar, 8 2012 @ 11:53 PM
link   
fear not proud Americans,
the simple fact this has been exposed is a good thing,
there are unpublished checks and balances that swing into force when such things are uncovered,
they are investigated behind the scenes and away from the public spot light,

in the event of usurpation of the control of the military there is procedures that will be followed,
those calling for revolution are NOT looking at this in the correct way

let the process develop and you will see that now this is exposed,
the failsafe legislation will come into play,

investigations will follow,

our big brother America has taken the first step,
recognize that a problem exists,

the UN is NOT your superior in LAW,

this coup will be stopped as a matter of procedural LAW

you wont hear about it directly, but not a shot will be fired

piece and light my big brothers and sisters in America
i will put all my light behind a peaceful resolution
your humble baby brother in nz

xploder



posted on Mar, 8 2012 @ 11:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by ThirdEyeofHorus
reply to post by robhines
 


Asking for help and asking for "permission" are two different things. Do I need to make a point about reading comprehension?


Maybe it just kind of sounds more respectful to ask for permission from the UN, to the other countries, etc.



posted on Mar, 9 2012 @ 12:02 AM
link   
Cannot wait to hear what Congressman Paul has to say about this!



posted on Mar, 9 2012 @ 12:43 AM
link   
I just found all this out. I am in shock. I cannot, I honestly cannot believe this man is running for Presidency trying to pull this #. I quit smoking 3 months ago and haven't craved a smoke in months, now I'm dying for one.

God Bless.



posted on Mar, 9 2012 @ 12:44 AM
link   
Ha anyone else picked up on the irony of this?

All the whining and screaming about Bush and his illegal wars??

Bush had Congressional approval and never thought about asking big daddy UN for permission.

So who is the real threat to our constitution?

Panetta is basically saying.."We don't need no stinking congress...we answer to the UN!!" He is now the mouthpiece for the NWO.

Welcome to the change you voted for...the rest of us will be over here in the corner saying "told ya so"



new topics

top topics



 
53
<< 3  4  5    7 >>

log in

join