'International Permission’ Trumps Congressional Permission For Military Actions

[jimnyc]

So says Leon Panetta...

<iframe width="420" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/5zNwOeyuG84" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

[jimnyc]

Note that Sessions himself states that we don't need Nato and/or UN resolutions to act in what we feel is the best interests and security of the United States....

[Gaffer]

I feel the same way Sessions did. Just WOW, did he really say that? He is saying that congress is irrelevant to decisions made involving war. Talk about real conspiracies.

[fj1200]

Panetta: "We will defend the country."

OK, how did Libya and how does Syria threaten the country?

[Gaffer]

Panetta: "We will defend the country."

OK, how did Libya and how does Syria threaten the country?

He just didn't mention what country.

That is an upsetting video. I didn't like panetta before, he has sunk to zero's level with me now.

[jimnyc]

Panetta: "We will defend the country."

OK, how did Libya and how does Syria threaten the country?

Noticed that too. Definitely stepped on his tongue with that one.

But I do note again, that Sessions stated we don't need UN or Nato permission to act in the Nation's best interest. That goes against what many others believe, that we should have permission from the UN and other authorities in order to act in our interests. I agree with Sessions on that matter.

[revelarts]

I've got almost no words here.

they are just coming out and saying it.
"The Prez will attack anyone we want and we'll let you congress folks know about it later."

"LIKE in Lybia", were we were an Agressor. never attacked but joined a foreign civil war.

the international permission he's looking for is to Attack not defend. he needs it becuase Attacking another nation is A war crime. plan and simple.
they have to collect enough other nations to gang up on a Non-aggressive nation, float an excuse and get a permission slip as legal cover from international prosecution and possible legitimate counter attack.

where Eisenhower when you need him:
Preventive war was an invention of Hitler. Frankly, I would not even listen to anyone seriously that came and talked about such a thing.
~Dwight D. Eisenhower

[ConHog]

I've got almost no words here.

they are just coming out and saying it.
"The Prez will attack anyone we want and we'll let you congress folks know about it later."

"LIKE in Lybia", were we were an Agressor. never attacked but joined a foreign civil war.

the international permission he's looking for is to Attack not defend. he needs it becuase Attacking another nation is A war crime. plan and simple.
they have to collect enough other nations to gang up on a Non-aggressive nation, float an excuse and get a permission slip as legal cover from international prosecution and possible legitimate counter attack.

where Eisenhower when you need him:
Preventive war was an invention of Hitler. Frankly, I would not even listen to anyone seriously that came and talked about such a thing.
~Dwight D. Eisenhower

I'm shocked that you're wrong again.

193 military actions in our history Rev, and FIVE of them have been declared wars. The rest unilateral actions taken by POTUS.

Feel free to disagree with the decisions made by the Commander in Chief, I certainly do, but don't try to pretend that he doesn't have the authority to do exactly what he is doing in this area.

At best it's a policy issue, have we agreed to consult with NATO or the UN before taking any military actions? If we have, we're stupid. If we haven't NATO and the UN can kiss our asses.

[jimnyc]

I'm shocked that you're wrong again.

193 military actions in our history Rev, and FIVE of them have been declared wars. The rest unilateral actions taken by POTUS.

Feel free to disagree with the decisions made by the Commander in Chief, I certainly do, but don't try to pretend that he doesn't have the authority to do exactly what he is doing in this area.

At best it's a policy issue, have we agreed to consult with NATO or the UN before taking any military actions? If we have, we're stupid. If we haven't NATO and the UN can kiss our asses.

I've corrected him on this before but it won't stop him and his ilk from whining. RARELY has congress ever declared war, like it or not.

And the link I've given previously, showing those 5, and a bunch of notable other "wars" that were never declared: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Declara..._United_States

[revelarts]

I'm shocked that you're wrong again.

193 military actions in our history Rev, and FIVE of them have been declared wars. The rest unilateral actions taken by POTUS.

Feel free to disagree with the decisions made by the Commander in Chief, I certainly do, but don't try to pretend that he doesn't have the authority to do exactly what he is doing in this area.

At best it's a policy issue, have we agreed to consult with NATO or the UN before taking any military actions? If we have, we're stupid. If we haven't NATO and the UN can kiss our asses.

I've corrected him on this before but it won't stop him and his ilk from whining. RARELY has congress ever declared war, like it or not.

And the link I've given previously, showing those 5, and a bunch of notable other "wars" that were never declared: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Declara..._United_States

you guys act like its a good thing, that should continue. when the Pesident is "breaking the law!".
He does not have the legal authority, like it or not.

[jimnyc]

you guys act like its a good thing, that should continue. when the Pesident is "breaking the law!".
He does not have the legal authority, like it or not.

Then why has congress voted to authorize the military to take action so many times? Why has no one from congress or past administrations been charged with crimes for going to war? According to you, the USA has committed "war crimes" nearly 200 times.

you guys act like its a good thing, that should continue. when the Pesident is "breaking the law!".
He does not have the legal authority, like it or not.

And he DOES, as 190x previously shows, whether you like it or not.

[ConHog]

you guys act like its a good thing, that should continue. when the Pesident is "breaking the law!".
He does not have the legal authority, like it or not.

Wrong again Revvers, it is YOU who is mad that the POTUS is within his constitutional authority to do so. YOU don't like the law. I may disagree with some of the decisions , but they ARE within the President's powers.

Stop trying to rewrite the COTUS.

[jimnyc]

Wrong again Revvers, it is YOU who is mad that the POTUS is within his constitutional authority to do so. YOU don't like the law. I may disagree with some of the decisions , but they ARE within the President's powers.

Stop trying to rewrite the COTUS.

Or more specifically, the war powers resolution. It would be "illegal" for a president to declare war without congress, but there is nothing wrong with the actions so long as they remain consistent with the resolution. If some don't like the resolution, they should fight to have it changed.

[logroller]

you guys act like its a good thing, that should continue. when the Pesident is "breaking the law!".
He does not have the legal authority, like it or not.

Why do you put that in quotes...usually that's done because it's someone else's quote or its an expression not to be taken literally.

[logroller]

Or more specifically, the war powers resolution. It would be "illegal" for a president to declare war without congress, but there is nothing wrong with the actions so long as they remain consistent with the resolution. If some don't like the resolution, they should fight to have it changed.

fair enough; but didn't Obama overstay the 60 days?