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.

 

Obama Admin Cites 'Int'l Permission,' Not Congress, As 'Legal Basis' For Action In Syria

page: 1
7
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 8 2012 @ 06:12 PM
link   
Who is in charge of our military?

I had a friend call me earlier today and tell me to turn on Alex Jones. I know most here dont like him as a source so here it is.

I am still shocked at what I am hearing. Did these guys say What I think they said?




March 7—Under question from Sen. Sessions at a Senate Armed Services Committee hearing today, Defense Secretary Leon Panetta and Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Gen. Martin Dempsey indicated that "international permission," rather than Congressional approval, provided a 'legal basis' for military action by the United States.


To sum it up roughly what I heard is that the UN or Nato order our military not congress.

Also: Congressman Jones introduces bill that would subject Panetta & Obama to impeachment

I don't know what else to say...

I am still in shock

edit on 8-3-2012 by SWCCFAN because: edit title to same as video.




posted on Mar, 8 2012 @ 06:15 PM
link   
This has me thinking... Do we already have a one world government in place?
I mean we are toppling countries that aren't on board like dominoes...
edit on 8-3-2012 by SWCCFAN because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 8 2012 @ 06:24 PM
link   
i think he's just reaffirming what's always been the case...military action doesn't require Congressional approval...only if they want a state of War...which is probably not going to be needed anyway...as only non-States seem to be the problem these days.

International approval will suffice...i think its the type of international approval that should be discussed.

i suspect, for example, if the UN decided that, lets say, the government of Bashir Assad is no longer recognized as the rulers of Syria and gave that recognition of his opponents, then approval for military action is implied and the President and military could launch an unrestrained attack against forces loyal to him...making Congress the guys in the room with their thumbs up their butts.

Technically, Gaddafi's Libya as a recognized and Lawful State had ceased to exist by the time outsiders got involved and all he was the day he died was an armed criminal hiding in a drainage ditch. Things sure did change fast last year.



posted on Mar, 8 2012 @ 06:31 PM
link   
reply to post by SWCCFAN
 


To sum it up roughly what I heard is that the UN or Nato order our military not congress.


Regardless of Policy and Procedure, this is just Fluff. Appeasing other nation/states has always been a protocol right before you stab them in the back...


Whether it's the Left or the Right, this country will take action whether the rest of the world likes it or not...


Badges, we don't need no stinkin' badges...





posted on Mar, 8 2012 @ 06:31 PM
link   
reply to post by michaelbrux
 


What gives them the right to not seek the authority of congress? I know about the war powers act but this is getting to the point where congress really needs to step in. No nation ( other than the US of course ) or group of nations should have the authority to send American Military members to attack another nation. What the heck are UN Peacekeeping forces for? UN member nations attach members of their countries military to UN peacekeeping duty all the time. Why not now?



posted on Mar, 8 2012 @ 06:31 PM
link   
WAR..USA has not WON a War since WW II

www.youtube.com...

a different point of view

Gerald Celente - political atheist

www.trendsresearch.com...



posted on Mar, 8 2012 @ 06:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by michaelbrux

i suspect, for example, if the UN decided that, lets say, the government of Bashir Assad is no longer recognized as the rulers of Syria and gave that recognition of his opponents, then approval for military action is implied and the President and military could launch an unrestrained attack against forces loyal to him...making Congress the guys in the room with their thumbs up their butts.




What if:

The UN decided that, lets say, the government of Barack Obama is no longer recognized as the rulers of the United States and gave that recognition of his opponents, then approval for military action is implied and the other UN nations' military could launch an unrestrained attack against forces loyal to him...

Would that be right?

I think not...



posted on Mar, 8 2012 @ 06:38 PM
link   
reply to post by Surfrat
 


I like Gerald Celente he is spot on 99.9% of the time.

Didn't the Nazis take part in preemptive war?

I think they did....



posted on Mar, 8 2012 @ 06:39 PM
link   
Well its a bit late to be in shock now.It was that way since before wwII. Germany was well out of range of the mainland. And I dont think Reagan had the backing of congress either when he went to Grenada.


Originally posted by SWCCFAN
reply to post by Surfrat
 


I like Gerald Celente he is spot on 99.9% of the time.

Didn't the Nazis take part in preemptive war?

I think they did....


On the western front, maybe. On the eastern front they said Poland shot first. Course turned out only later that the dead German soldiers were dead poles in Whermacht uniform.
edit on 8-3-2012 by Cassius666 because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 8 2012 @ 06:41 PM
link   
reply to post by michaelbrux
 


You are wrong! All wars must be declared by the Congress per the constitution. It's in Article 2.



posted on Mar, 8 2012 @ 06:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by SWCCFAN
reply to post by michaelbrux
 


What gives them the right to not seek the authority of congress? I know about the war powers act but this is getting to the point where congress really needs to step in. No nation ( other than the US of course ) or group of nations should have the authority to send American Military members to attack another nation. What the heck are UN Peacekeeping forces for? UN member nations attach members of their countries military to UN peacekeeping duty all the time. Why not now?


A declaration of war is a formal declaration issued by a national government indicating that a state of war exists between that nation and another. For the United States, Article One, Section Eight of the Constitution says "Congress shall have power to ... declare War".

Now that this has been made clear...what is meant by 'another nation'?

The United States recognizes nations that are recognized by the United Nations...if the United Nations doesn't recognize them, then, as far as the United States is concerned...it isn't a Nation and Congressional approval is not needed.

So...its not about seeking approval from the UN, but about removing getting the UN to cease to recognize the target, as was done with Libya.

I watched some of the interview of Assad and Barbara Walters (i think)...he said he doesn't consider the UN to be a credible institution...the UN is the only thing protecting him right now.



posted on Mar, 8 2012 @ 06:44 PM
link   
reply to post by supermanning
 


you are correct...but military action against criminal organizations doesn't require a state of war.



posted on Mar, 8 2012 @ 06:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by michaelbrux
i think he's just reaffirming what's always been the case...military action doesn't require Congressional approval...only if they want a state of War...which is probably not going to be needed anyway...as only non-States seem to be the problem these days.

International approval will suffice...i think its the type of international approval that should be discussed.

i suspect, for example, if the UN decided that, lets say, the government of Bashir Assad is no longer recognized as the rulers of Syria and gave that recognition of his opponents, then approval for military action is implied and the President and military could launch an unrestrained attack against forces loyal to him...making Congress the guys in the room with their thumbs up their butts.

Technically, Gaddafi's Libya as a recognized and Lawful State had ceased to exist by the time outsiders got involved and all he was the day he died was an armed criminal hiding in a drainage ditch. Things sure did change fast last year.



The US Constitution clearly states that the POTUS does not have the authority to commence military action. Call it what you want but any military action is war. The constitution also clearly states that no treay entered into with any foreign nation will have more authority than the US Constitution. So the UN, NATO or any other organization can call for US military action all they want, they do not have authority to engage our military into action.

The only exception to this is The War Powers Resolution, which congress has historically seen as an unconstitutional declaration of war. Even under the WPR, there are very specific and narrow requirements for the POTUS to take over authority to initiate military action. Even if those requirements are made the action can not take place for longer than 60 days without congressional approval. At the end of those 60 days if the POTUS continues his military campaign, it could be taken to be an impeachable offense.

War Powers Resolution

None of the requirements of the WPR are currently present in this scenario for the POTUS to engage in military actions.



posted on Mar, 8 2012 @ 06:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by SWCCFAN

Originally posted by michaelbrux

i suspect, for example, if the UN decided that, lets say, the government of Bashir Assad is no longer recognized as the rulers of Syria and gave that recognition of his opponents, then approval for military action is implied and the President and military could launch an unrestrained attack against forces loyal to him...making Congress the guys in the room with their thumbs up their butts.




What if:

The UN decided that, lets say, the government of Barack Obama is no longer recognized as the rulers of the United States and gave that recognition of his opponents, then approval for military action is implied and the other UN nations' military could launch an unrestrained attack against forces loyal to him...

Would that be right?

I think not...


Yes. it would be true and in fact achieving this is a goal of America's enemies.



posted on Mar, 8 2012 @ 06:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by SWCCFAN
This has me thinking... Do we already have a one world government in place?
I mean we are toppling countries that aren't on board like dominoes...
edit on 8-3-2012 by SWCCFAN because: (no reason given)


No not really. What you are seeing is a fight between the President and Congress for centuries now. While it is true only Congress can declare war, it doesn't change the fact that the President is Commander in Chief of our armed forces. And as such has the ability to order small scale operations that do not require a declaration of war. But he cannot do that without getting funding to do so, which only Congress can provide.

While on the surface it looks like he is saying it is more important to get international permission first, that is not the whole truth. It is a great deal more difficult to get the international community to back a military operation such as the one proposed in Syria than it typically would be to get Congress to pay for it. If the President wishes to do something in Syria he wouldn't be able to do much without Congress agreeing to do so without reorganizing the military budget to pay for it. Which may or may not be an impeachable offense depending on what money he uses to pay for what. Because if im not mistaken when Congress appropriates funds they must be used to pay for what it was slated for leaving him only being able to use funds intended for operational expenses.

Congress has all the oversight it could possibly want it just chooses not to do so.



posted on Mar, 8 2012 @ 06:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by Nucleardiver

Originally posted by michaelbrux
i think he's just reaffirming what's always been the case...military action doesn't require Congressional approval...only if they want a state of War...which is probably not going to be needed anyway...as only non-States seem to be the problem these days.

International approval will suffice...i think its the type of international approval that should be discussed.

i suspect, for example, if the UN decided that, lets say, the government of Bashir Assad is no longer recognized as the rulers of Syria and gave that recognition of his opponents, then approval for military action is implied and the President and military could launch an unrestrained attack against forces loyal to him...making Congress the guys in the room with their thumbs up their butts.

Technically, Gaddafi's Libya as a recognized and Lawful State had ceased to exist by the time outsiders got involved and all he was the day he died was an armed criminal hiding in a drainage ditch. Things sure did change fast last year.



The US Constitution clearly states that the POTUS does not have the authority to commence military action. Call it what you want but any military action is war. The constitution also clearly states that no treay entered into with any foreign nation will have more authority than the US Constitution. So the UN, NATO or any other organization can call for US military action all they want, they do not have authority to engage our military into action.

The only exception to this is The War Powers Resolution, which congress has historically seen as an unconstitutional declaration of war. Even under the WPR, there are very specific and narrow requirements for the POTUS to take over authority to initiate military action. Even if those requirements are made the action can not take place for longer than 60 days without congressional approval. At the end of those 60 days if the POTUS continues his military campaign, it could be taken to be an impeachable offense.

War Powers Resolution

None of the requirements of the WPR are currently present in this scenario for the POTUS to engage in military actions.


so...by your understanding...military activity in Mexico against drug traffickers is a state of war?



posted on Mar, 8 2012 @ 06:49 PM
link   
reply to post by michaelbrux
 


So if all of a sudden lets say Ron Paul gets elected nixes the federal reserve and boots the UN out of the United States then declares that we don't recognize the UN any longer, that would justify action against us?

Syria has people and they have done nothing to the US to warrant an attack.

It is not right.

We must only use war as a last resort.



posted on Mar, 8 2012 @ 06:52 PM
link   
I suppose a situation could arise where the UN stripped Syria or another regime of international recognition and Congress could say...'we still recognize the old regime as the legitimate rulers." and refuse to support the President in a military adventure.

that honestly doesn't seem plausible to me.



posted on Mar, 8 2012 @ 06:55 PM
link   
I guess I am not the first to post the video...

www.abovetopsecret.com...

mods.... do what thou will...



posted on Mar, 8 2012 @ 06:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by SWCCFAN
reply to post by michaelbrux
 


So if all of a sudden lets say Ron Paul gets elected nixes the federal reserve and boots the UN out of the United States then declares that we don't recognize the UN any longer, that would justify action against us?

Syria has people and they have done nothing to the US to warrant an attack.

It is not right.

We must only use war as a last resort.


first...its not about Syria, but the butcher of Damascus, Assad.

to answer your question..if Paul was able to pull this off...it seems you should probably expect attacks coming out of the cracks. every state on Earth would be attacking us for just about anything.



new topics

top topics



 
7
<<   2 >>

log in

join