PANETTA: International permission trumps Congressional permission for military actions.

Originally posted by LittleBlackEagle

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.

I know, I was just wondering if the inverse was also applicable.

Either way, it's disgusting and a slap in the face.

This is just yet another stab at this once great country. The illusion of freedom & liberty, being on the side of justice is getting more transparent everyday. Hopefully those with blinders on will be able to see reality soon. It seems everytime I read something about the US government, be it drones in the US, being the terrorist over seas, of bending over to big business/banks, I hear a Bob Dylan song. Just a real calm mellow " You must leave now, take what you need, you think you'll last.....Its all over now Baby Blue".

Anyone have a penny whistle and a snare drum?

reply to post by beezzer


ah, i missed the irony, sorry friend it's been a long day.

Originally posted by LittleBlackEagle
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.

The way I saw it was he was trying to get support from the UN and/or NATO first, then he'd go back and ask congress if they get support, so that isn't really breaking any rule is it? (and thanks kosmicjack.)

But I can finally see what you're all thinking now, that they'll just go ahead anyway if they get that support before asking congress. Just seems weird that so many of you assume that's what'll happen?

Originally posted by robhines

Originally posted by LittleBlackEagle
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.

The way I saw it was he was trying to get support from the UN and/or NATO first, then he'd go back and ask congress if they get support, so that isn't really breaking any rule is it? (and thanks kosmicjack.)

But I can finally see what you're all thinking now, that they'll just go ahead anyway if they get that support before asking congress. Just seems weird that so many of you assume that's what'll happen?

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

"Leon Panetta Says Obama Admin Will Seek "International Permission" To Attack Syria, not Congressional permission. And they will "inform" Congress what their plans are. "

i'm looking at it in the context that he doesn't need to ask congress first, kind of like giving them the middle finger on this issue, which he can do in this case. i normally wouldn't have a problem with that, if we lived in a utopian world and pigs could fly.

Originally posted by LittleBlackEagle
i'm looking at it in the context that he doesn't need to ask congress first, kind of like giving them the middle finger on this issue, which he can do in this case. i normally wouldn't have a problem with that, if we lived in a utopian world and pigs could fly.

Yeah I was just seeing it as he'd ask them after checking with UN/NATO first, which still gives congress all the powers it would have anyway.

As for people surprised thinking that's showing we're pretty much at a world government stage, well wahey! We've probably had that going for hundreds of years anyway, it's just finally coming out.

I guess they do not have a choice now looking back on the Libya fiasco. I have yet to see full authorization from Congress. I guess if we just send in drones and bomb from above, it's okay since there are no boots on the ground

Panetta is nuts.

We need to kick these bumbs out of office...

Screw the UN we do not cower and our military
is not the UN's water boys...

Who ever thinks we are going to be bound
by the UN has a few screw looses

This is just getting us closer to the
one world government they are trying
to implement.

Panetta is either being a Politically Correct moron
trying to look good* in front of the international community..
(I say screw them)

or He is a true
Treasonous commie pig.

I have never seen so many adversaries agree on one thread

Its about time

the fastest way to get rid of tyrants is to make them act like tyrants

Originally posted by Danbones
the fastest way to get rid of tyrants is to make them act like tyrants

That's kind of why I'm wanting them to get this one world government thing out in the open. Let them do it, then see what happens next. We'd have a one world government, but then if/when they go too far, it's them vs the world. Will be interesting.

(not that I want a them vs us situation, just that it'll be interesting to see how things are settled at that stage, because it's surely around the corner.)

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

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.

Originally posted by Wolf321
The problem isn't so much the War Powers Act, but the lack of true leadership by the persons empowered by the War Powers Act.

The war powers act was put in place because of Vietnam, and no President since it was passed has acknowledged it as being lawful, Democrat and Republic alike. The challenge on it comes from Congress attempting to place additional restrictions on the Commander in Chief, which violates (so the argument goes) the Constitution which spells out the authority of Congress and the Executive when it comes to the military and deployment / hostilities.

There was a time when this would be shocking.. and that time is now!

I want to point something out.
Danbones pointed out that everyone (friends and foes alike) are agreeing on this subject.

To my liberal friends/foes. . . . Right now Obama is wielding power, making these judgements.

Imagine Romney/Santorum/Gingrich/Paul/Palin with the same "authority".

There is a reason why we have a separation of powers. Regardless of who you want or like in office now, imagine someone you don't want, with the same powers.

Food for thought, folks.

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.

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.

We'd have to get one huge bake sale going to get the money so spines could be given to members (both sides) of congress first.

While holder is taking the fall for fast and furious, Panetta seems to be softening the blow by taking the fall for Libya. No way Panetta is this dumb, he could have just said 'of course congress comes first' this was an intentional move to show just how psychotic they are for power and their one world order.

reply to post by beezzer


To expensive to be honest... The starch in their shirts, which is the only thing holding them upright, is much cheaper.
I am curious if either Obama / Cabinet or Congress fails to act if the people would have a right to file a legal challenge to have people removed from office.

Originally posted by Lord Jules
While holder is taking the fall for fast and furious, Panetta seems to be softening the blow by taking the fall for Libya. No way Panetta is this dumb, he could have just said 'of course congress comes first' this was an intentional move to show just how psychotic they are for power and their one world order.

Well he was the head of the CIA so who knows.....

Originally posted by Xcathdra
reply to post by beezzer

 

To expensive to be honest... The starch in their shirts, which is the only thing holding them upright, is much cheaper.
I am curious if either Obama / Cabinet or Congress fails to act if the people would have a right to file a legal challenge to have people removed from office.

I think that the only option left to us is at the voting booth.

But by then, it'd be too late.

Obama will have set precident. Leaving the same options open to the next POTUS.

I'm really at a loss with this move. It has stunned me.