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.
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.
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.
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....
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?
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.
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...
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)
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.
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.