Panetta: "International Permission Trumps Congress for Military Action"

[Dusty]

http://www.breitbart.com/Breitbart-T...l%20Permission

[Dusty]

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...

[weberk]

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]

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.

[Dusty]

Originally Posted by Stargazer

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?

[Paslode]

Originally Posted by Dusty

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]

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

[Badger52]

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.

[Sigaba]

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>>. 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?)

[Pete]

Originally Posted by Sigaba

.......(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."

[CSB]

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."

[Sigaba]

Originally Posted by Pete

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."

Originally Posted by CSB

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.

[rdret1]

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/50/chapter-33

The War Powers Resolution is pretty clear.

[Go Devil]

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]

Originally Posted by rdret1

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.