View Full Version : Panetta: "International Permission Trumps Congress for Military Action"
http://www.breitbart.com/Breitbart-TV/2012/03/07/Shocking%20Defense%20Secretary%20Says%20Internatio nal%20Permission%20Trumps%20Congressional%20Permis sion
I'm having a tough time digesting this.
For some reason, this-added to some of the other emanations from the administration- are making my hackles rise as if they're all leading up to some momentous announcement...
I will admit I am not a lawyer so some aspects of international law aren't clear to me, but I have seen a chain of command chart for the US Military a couple of times which it seems the Hon. Secretary has not.
Stargazer
03-08-2012, 11:34
I believe what I heard Panetta state is consistent with the attitude in which this administration has operated.
I am not a Constitutional expert, but I may become one by the time my research is complete. On the little I've come across, I disagree completely with this administration's stance. I interpret the President's ability to act without approval when defending direct threats as CIC only. Only Congress can commitment our armed forces into acts of "WAR" against foreign enemies/lands.
I know there are those on this site who have a great deal of knowledge in respect to the Constitution and law. I am interested to read their opinions of this administration's interpretation of executive power as stated by Secy. Panetta.
I believe what I heard Panetta state is consistent with the attitude in which this administration has operated.
I am not a Constitutional expert, but I may become one by the time my research is complete. On the little I've come across, I disagree completely with this administration's stance. I interpret the President's ability to act without approval when defending direct threats as CIC only. Only Congress can commitment our armed forces into acts of "WAR" against foreign enemies/lands.
I know there are those on this site who have a great deal of knowledge in respect to the Constitution and law. I am interested to read their opinions of this administration's interpretation of executive power as stated by Secy. Panetta.
Does it move us closer to or farther away from a one-world military mentality?
I personally have zero interest in the one world concept.
Or, am I being paranoid? And if so, am I being paranoid enough?
Does it move us closer to or farther away from a one-world military mentality?
I personally have zero interest in the one world concept.
Or, am I being paranoid? And if so, am I being paranoid enough?
At very least the Administration appears to endorse the idea that International Law usurps the US Constitution. But I lean towards they are pressing for a Open Society, Global, One World anything an everything or whatever you want to call it.
When it happens I am sure the world will be in peace and harmony.
I'd like to build a world a home and furnish it with love. Grow apple trees and honey bees and snow white turtle doves.
I'd like to teach the world to sing in perfect harmony. I'd like to hold it in my arms, and keep it company
I'd like to see the world for once all standing hand in hand. And hear them echo through the hills for peace throughout the land.
It's the real thing what the world wants today, That's the way it'll stay with the real thing.
I'd like to teach the world to sing in perfect harmony. A song of peace that echoes on and never goes away.
Put your hand in my hand let's begin today, With your hand in my hand help me find a way.
I'd like to see the world for once all standing hand in hand. And hear them echo through the hills for peace throughout the land.
I'd like to teach the world to sing, in perfect harmony. A song of peace that echos on, and never goes away.
greenberetTFS
03-08-2012, 14:25
Simply stated,I don't trust him or "O".............:mad: They will get us into a box which we may not be able to get ourselves out of............:eek: 4 more years with him could bring our nation to it's knees,he's going to have the power to do it,however we must not let it happen.........:( This coming election is very critical as we all know...........:mad:
Big Teddy
Badger52
03-08-2012, 14:30
After the hearing, Sen. Sessions told Security Clearance in an interview that Panetta's comments were "very revealing of the mindset" of the administration. Panetta "seemed so natural in expressing it as if he didn't understand this went against" the fundamentals of our government.I think Sen. Sessions captured it pretty clearly.
MOO, Sessions wasn't really listening to Panetta. And Panetta returned the favor by not really listening to Sessions. One was talking about the executive branch's war powers under the U.S. Constitution and the other was talking about the mechanics of coalition warfare.
Ideally, someone on Panetta's staff should have pointed out to the secretary of defense the points Sessions made. But then, since when have modern presidents from either party not tried to expand the executive branch's war powers?
If Republicans in Congress do decide to make an issue of the president's war powers, I think they need to make sure that the effort centers around institutional politics (checks and balances) and not party politics. If they make it about party politics, the Democrats will have a field day.
The president is successfully making the argument with his base that the Democratic Party is as good, if not better, as the GOP when it comes to foreign affairs <<LINK (http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-obama-foreign-policy-20120308,0,7710267.story)>>. IMO, a partisan debate over presidential war powers will only advance this narrative.
(If a senior official in a Republican administration offered the same POV, would the outcry be the same?)
.......(If a senior official in a Republican administration offered the same POV, would the outcry be the same?)
Was proved the last couple of times we did this - both left and right.
I think somebody is thinking "Hey, it worked in Libya - why not Syria?"
But I think in the last case and this coming one nobody is trying to make the case of "why" we should do it - other than "for the children". Just saying "We are fixin' to do it."
The Congress has the ulimate authority, does the expression "Cooper-Church" have any meaning to our young readers?
"No funds appropriated under this or any other provision of law shall be expended for military operations into or over the country of Syria."
Was proved the last couple of times we did this - both left and right.
I think somebody is thinking "Hey, it worked in Libya - why not Syria?"
But I think in the last case and this coming one nobody is trying to make the case of "why" we should do it - other than "for the children". Just saying "We are fixin' to do it."
The Congress has the ulimate authority, does the expression "Cooper-Church" have any meaning to our young readers?
"No funds appropriated under this or any other provision of law shall be expended for military operations into or over the country of Syria."I absolutely agree that the current administration is, again, demonstrating a profound amount of arrogance. And, like others, I have very little confidence in the president's ability to do the right thing for the right reasons--or even for the wrong ones. (IMO, the administration's rhetoric for intervention in Syria simply does not ring true.)
I agree that the ultimate authority over the armed services rests with Congress. I believe that a debate on and resolution of the state of presidential war powers is long over due. Regardless of the complexities of modern warfare, presidents need to do a better job at holding to the spirit of the Constitution.
My concern is that, in its haste to oppose the current president at every opportunity, coupled with the trend to use the blogosphere as the preferred means of discourse, the GOP is going to do something with profound unintentional consequences for a future president, who, regardless of party affiliation, "gets it."
YMMV.
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/50/chapter-33
The War Powers Resolution is pretty clear.
Go Devil
03-08-2012, 20:08
I call your debt profiteering and raise you with a "Battle of Athens"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Athens_(1946)
Who is manipulating this show? It is definately not the ass-hat residing in the White House; he is not capable of such micturations.
Streck-Fu
03-09-2012, 07:53
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/50/chapter-33
The War Powers Resolution is pretty clear.
Please forward to Mr. Panetta for review and action.
Surf n Turf
03-10-2012, 18:02
For some reason, this-added to some of the other emanations from the administration- are making my hackles rise as if they're all leading up to some momentous announcement...
Or, am I being paranoid? And if so, am I being paranoid enough?
Dusty,
I don’t believe most of the conspiracy theories articulated. by the “paranoid”, but I do notice a slow movement (or nudge) that assails our culture, traditions, and our guiding documents.
Bush gave us the “Patriot Act” that allows Indefinite Detention of Citizens, National Security Letters, surveillance of Citizens, and seizure of “things” without warrant.
Øbama has given us so much, much more: from requiring an American to buy a product under penalty, Government control of US Corporations, Executive Branch TZARS, drilling bans, TSA groping of old women & kids, NLRB rulings on where a Corporation may locate, Church dogma intrusions, “non”-recess appointments, Internet regulation, and the Government sanctioned killing of an American Citizen.
Sure looks like you should be paranoid to a greater degree, ‘cause this ain’t arrogance, this sounds like a plan.
SnT.
Killing a Citizen
http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/214231-holder-law-gives-clear-authority-to-kill-us-citizens-overseas
Øbama Administration Violations
http://www.rightsidenews.com/2012030715768/us/homeland-security/attorneys-general-join-forces-to-call-into-account-illegal-obama-administration-violations.html
Constitutional Violations
http://dailycaller.com/2011/12/04/president-obamas-top-10-constitutional-violations/#ixzz1ofWR16Fc
States sue Øbama
http://www.rightsidenews.com/2012030715768/us/homeland-security/attorneys-general-join-forces-to-call-into-account-illegal-obama-administration-violations.html
Dusty,
I don’t believe most of the conspiracy theories articulated. by the “paranoid”, but I do notice a slow movement (or nudge) that assails our culture, traditions, and our guiding documents.
Bush gave us the “Patriot Act” that allows Indefinite Detention of Citizens, National Security Letters, surveillance of Citizens, and seizure of “things” without warrant.
Øbama has given us so much, much more: from requiring an American to buy a product under penalty, Government control of US Corporations, Executive Branch TZARS, drilling bans, TSA groping of old women & kids, NLRB rulings on where a Corporation may locate, Church dogma intrusions, “non”-recess appointments, Internet regulation, and the Government sanctioned killing of an American Citizen.
Sure looks like you should be paranoid to a greater degree, ‘cause this ain’t arrogance, this sounds like a plan.
SnT.
Killing a Citizen
http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/214231-holder-law-gives-clear-authority-to-kill-us-citizens-overseas
Øbama Administration Violations
http://www.rightsidenews.com/2012030715768/us/homeland-security/attorneys-general-join-forces-to-call-into-account-illegal-obama-administration-violations.html
Constitutional Violations
http://dailycaller.com/2011/12/04/president-obamas-top-10-constitutional-violations/#ixzz1ofWR16Fc
States sue Øbama
http://www.rightsidenews.com/2012030715768/us/homeland-security/attorneys-general-join-forces-to-call-into-account-illegal-obama-administration-violations.html
Excellent post and points. I didn't realize there were that many violations.
Surf n Turf
03-11-2012, 11:05
This is a Constitutional crisis of the first order – do we “cling” to the founding documents, as a nation of laws, not of men --- or move into Øbama’s brave new world :mad:
SnT
Can the President kill you - Judge Andrew Napolitano
Can the president kill an American simply because the person is dangerous and his arrest would be impractical? Can the president be judge, jury and executioner of an American in a foreign country because he believes that would keep America safe? Can Congress authorize the president to do this?
Earlier this week, U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder attempted to justify presidential killing in a speech at Northwestern University law school. In it, he recognized the requirement of the Fifth Amendment for due process. He argued that the president may substitute the traditionally understood due process -- a public jury trial -- with the president's own novel version of it; that would be a secret deliberation about killing. Without mentioning the name of the American the president recently ordered killed, Holder suggested that the president's careful consideration of the case of New Mexico-born Anwar al-Awlaki constituted a substituted form of due process.
Holder argued that the act of reviewing al-Awlaki's alleged crimes, what he was doing in Yemen and the imminent danger he posed provided al-Awlaki with a substituted form of due process. He did not mention how this substitution applied to al-Awlaki's 16-year-old son and a family friend, who were also executed by CIA drones. And he did not address the utter absence of any support in the Constitution or Supreme Court case law for his novel theory.
The Fifth Amendment to the Constitution states that the government may not take the life, liberty or property of any person without due process. Due process has numerous components, too numerous to address here, but the essence of it is "substantive fairness" and a "settled fair procedure." Under due process, when the government wants your life, liberty or property, the government must show that it is entitled to what it seeks by articulating the law it says you have violated and then proving its case in public to a neutral jury. And you may enjoy all the constitutional protections to defend yourself. Without the requirement of due process, nothing would prevent the government from taking anything it coveted or killing anyone -- American or foreign -- it hated or feared.
The killing of al-Awlaki and the others was without any due process whatsoever, and that should terrify all Americans. The federal government has not claimed the lawful power to kill Americans without due process since the Civil War; even then, the power to kill was claimed only in actual combat. Al-Awlaki and his son were killed while they were driving in a car in the desert. The Supreme Court has consistently ruled that the Constitution applies in war and in peace. Even the Nazi soldiers and sailors who were arrested in Amagansett, N.Y., and in Ponte Vedra Beach, Fla., during World War II were entitled to a trial.
The legal authority in which Holder claimed to find support was the Authorization for the Use of Military Force (AUMF), which was enacted by Congress in the days following 9/11. That statute permits the president to use force to repel those who planned and plotted 9/11 and who continue to plan and plot the use of terror tactics to assault the United States. Holder argued in his speech that arresting al-Awlaki -- who has never been indicted or otherwise charged with a crime but who is believed to have encouraged terrorist attacks in the U.S. -- would have been impractical, that killing him was the only option available to prevent him from committing more harm, and that Congress must have contemplated that when it enacted the AUMF.
Even if Holder is correct -- that Congress contemplated presidential killing of Americans without due process when it enacted the AUMF -- such a delegation of power is not Congress' to give. Congress is governed by the same Constitution that restrains the president. It can no more authorize the president to avoid due process than it can authorize him to extend his term in office beyond four years.
Instead of presenting evidence of al-Awlaki's alleged crimes to a grand jury and seeking an indictment and an arrest and a trial, the president presented the evidence to a small group of unnamed advisers, and then he secretly decided that al-Awlaki was such an imminent threat to America 10,000 miles away that he had to be killed. This is logic more worthy of Joseph Stalin than Thomas Jefferson. It effectively says that the president is above the Constitution and the rule of law, and that he can reject his oath to uphold both.
If the president can kill an American in Yemen, can he do so in Peoria? Even the British king, from whose tyrannical grasp the American colonists seceded, did not claim such powers. And we fought a Revolution against him.
http://townhall.com/columnists/judgeandrewnapolitano/2012/03/08/can_the_president_kill_you
greenberetTFS
03-11-2012, 18:42
Simply stated,I don't trust him or "O"......
They will get us into a box which we may not be able to get ourselves out of............4 more years with him could bring our nation to it's knees,he's going to have the power to do it,however we must not let it happen.......This coming election is very critical as we all know...........
Big Teddy
It occured to me "O" if he gets 4 more years,he'l get to pick 2,maybe even 3 Supreme Court judges and that would affert us a hell more for the next 20,maybe even 30 years of liberal decisions.........:mad::mad::mad:
Big Teddy :munchin
It occured to me "O" if he gets 4 more years,he'l get to pick 2,maybe even 3 Supreme Court judges and that would affert us a hell more for the next 20,maybe even 30 years of liberal decisions.........:mad::mad::mad:
Big Teddy :munchin
Well, what we need is both sides, the POTUS, and Ginsberg to quit. Along with Chaz and the wise Latina.
And 1 meelion dollars.
I watched the 'grilling' and it seemed to me as if Senator Sessions, GEN "Wordsmith" Dempsey, and SecDef Panetta all failed to articulate their thoughts and positions very well.
As far as international agreements go, I thought it was - for us - a NATO commitment affair to provide limited support to the Libyan peoples in support of UNSCRs and to seal off the situation to prevent its interfering with our maritime LOC through the Med, and our 'point' on that one was HQs 17th AF out of Sembach, FRG, to assist in enforcing a "no fly zone."
http://www.nato.int/cps/en/SID-840EFF8B-C421C367/natolive/topics_71652.htm?
I am not up on the NATO agreement provisos currently in effect, but Congress has already ratified our NATO agreements which give approval for the NCA to allow our forces to act within certain parameters in support of NATO sanctioned operations - was this one of them? :confused:
http://www.nato.int/docu/review/2010/View-America/Post-Election/EN/index.htm
As for the politics of it all - and so it goes...
Richard :munchin
I watched the 'grilling' and it seemed to me as if Senator Sessions, GEN "Wordsmith" Dempsey, and SecDef Panetta all failed to articulate their thoughts and positions very well.
As far as international agreements go, I thought it was - for us - a NATO commitment affair to provide limited support to the Libyan peoples in support of UNSCRs and to seal off the situation to prevent its interfering with our maritime LOC through the Med, and our 'point' on that one was HQs 17th AF out of Sembach, FRG, to assist in enforcing a "no fly zone."
http://www.nato.int/cps/en/SID-840EFF8B-C421C367/natolive/topics_71652.htm?
I am not up on the NATO agreement provisos currently in effect, but Congress has already ratified our NATO agreements which give approval for the NCA to allow our forces to act within certain parameters in support of NATO sanctioned operations - was this one of them? :confused:
http://www.nato.int/docu/review/2010/View-America/Post-Election/EN/index.htm
As for the politics of it all - and so it goes...
Richard :munchin
Hopefully Panetta was merely failing to articulate his meaning as well.
When it comes to stuff like this anymore, I'm the guy at the 1:39 and 2:23 marks...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UUwpLyIDIJw&feature=related
Richard :munchin
So when does it become a matter of national security that the decisions, actions and direction this administration is moving in is a matter of national security that if not dealt with will destroy our country on multiple fronts? How much more must be done by them, to our country, for them to cross that line?
longrange1947
03-13-2012, 06:58
So when does it become a matter of national security that the decisions, actions and direction this administration is moving in is a matter of national security that if not dealt with will destroy our country on multiple fronts? How much more must be done by them, to our country, for them to cross that line?
That depends on your point of view. To me, he crossed it on day two of his Presidency with his initial Orders. For some, he has not gone far enough and they see absolutely nothing wrong with his actions. These dweebs I normally call useful idiots, but that is MOO. :munchin
To me, the test on whether or not something this administration implements is bad policy or not is this: If a Republican President was doing the same things as this adminisration, how would the Dems and the MSM be reacting?
If the answer is they wouldn't care, then maybe we don't have a problem. If the answer is they would be up in arms and screaming at the top of their lungs, then maybe the POTUS should think twice about implementing such policies, because a Republican President might just use them, and justify it with Obama's own words.
Bad policies are one thing. We all have lived with or survived bad policies in the past, on both sides of the fence. This administration is beyond that. Taking powers beyond what is granted to them by we the people and taking liberty to affect changes in every aspect of our lives to control us and manipulate what is left of the system in a whirlwhind of ever changing topics that fade to the back burner just as quickly as new changes annd errosions of freedoms come to the front
So many ram rodded down our throats, and they are not close to being done.
Checks and balances gone long ago. Do we even have this written document I have heard so much about? A constitution?
To me, though I have not participated in this type of operation, it would seem like a well detailed campaign for waging guerilla warfare on every front except that involving actual combat engagement thus far. All perpetuated by our own government on our country and on us.
Anyways...thanks for letting me vent a little and getting this off my chest
Hopefully Panetta was merely failing to articulate his meaning as well.
Oh, no he didn't. He's an international Communist----- no doubt....
In 1983 Leon Panetta placed a tribute to life long communists Hugh DeLacy and his wife Dorothy DeLacy in the Congressional Record celebrating them as "lifelong activists for social justice". It read in part "the causes to which they have dedicated their lives - peace, jobs, an end to race and sex discrimination, a halt to the costly and dangerous arms race, are causes for which we are still working today..."[15]
http://keywiki.org/index.php/Hugh_DeLacy
Back in 1983 he inserted a tribute into the Congressional Record, recognizing DeLacy and his wife Dorothy, another communist, for their commitment to “social justice” and resisting “the dark forces of McCarthyism.” The latter strongly indicates that Panetta was aware of their involvement in the communist cause and that not only did it not matter to him, it was evidence of their courage and bravery. …
Trevor Loudon writes, “The couple, Hugh DeLacy and his wife Dorothy Baskin DeLacy, both had long histories with the Communist Party USA and were very active in the Santa Cruz ‘progressive’ movement that had helped nurture Congressman Panetta’s career. Phrases like ‘social justice’ and ‘dark forces of McCarthyism’ rolled from Rep. Panetta’s pen, in a piece that would not have been out of place in the Communist Party’s Peoples Daily World.”
He adds, “The DeLacys were not merely Panetta’s constituents—they were close personal friends. Hugh DeLacy was also a longtime correspondent, with whom Panetta regularly discussed defense and foreign policy issues.”
In addition to this evidence, we have congressional hearings, information about a communist cell active in Santa Cruz, and Panetta’s own record as a member of Congress, where he fought during the 1980s to protect communist advances in such countries as Nicaragua and Grenada and worked feverishly to undermine President Reagan’s anti-communist foreign policy and military defense build-up. Incidentally, back then Panetta was a foe of CIA covert action to protect America’s vital interests, which makes Obama’s selection of him as CIA director even more interesting.
DeLacy was not only a prominent member of the Communist Party USA, but also a personal contact of identified Soviet spies Solomon Adler and Frank Coe and accused spy John Stewart Service.
http://rightwingnews.com/democrats/leon-panettas-communist-ties/
What on Earth Was Leon Panetta Doing Palling Around With a Spy-Linked Communist?
http://spectator.org/blog/2011/06/08/what-on-earth-was-leon-panetta