PANETTA: "International Permission" Trumps Congressional Permission

[FreeBorn]

                        

I am Speechless. Who does this man think he is? Who does this man represent? Who is it that Mr. Panetta speaks of when he says "we"? Seriously, this just absolutely blows my mind. Apparently "they" aren't even trying to hide it anymore.

Stunning seven minute video at Breitbart, IMHO the most alarming bit is from 3:26 to 3:58 but please do watch the whole thing. My God, how far down the slope have we slipped?

http://www.breitbart.com/Breitbart-TV/2012/03/07/Shocking%20Defense%20Secretary%20Says%20International%20Permission%20Trumps%20Congressional%20Permission

[thundley4]

Why should we be surprised by this?  After all, a couple of the liberal USSC judges have said that it is okay to consider foreign law when determining cases.

[FreeBorn]

Why should we be surprised by this?  After all, a couple of the liberal USSC judges have said that it is okay to consider foreign law when determining cases.

That is pure horseshit too. 

[GOP Congress]

Our Secretary of Defense may have committed an act of treason against the United States during his testimony to the US Senate. I don't know the exact specificity of a charge that can be leveled, but Panetta has advocated that an "international legal basis" OVERRIDES the US Congress on determining military operations around the world.

http://www.breitbart.com/Breitbart-TV/2012/03/07/Shocking%20Defense%20Secretary%20Says%20International%20Permission%20Trumps%20Congressional%20Permission

Folks, that in a nutshell is a BLATANT violation of his oath of office as the top defense leader. This is not political mishmash, gang, this is a DIRECT and ACTIONABLE violation of the US Constitution, and if any member of the military advocated and actually pursued such a policy, they would be seeing Leavenworth.

I am beyond seething. I realize this is not the big story of the day, but as an ex member of the 82nd Airborne, this has me frothing. Frankly, this statement is far more damning than ANYTHING the Obama videos will churn out. At least with the Obama videos, he's just doing stupid things like community organizing protesting, but what Panetta has done is beyond the pale.

[Bondai]

Rotten commie bastard, he should be removed from office just for uttering this bullshit.

[formerlurker]

You know I am trying here to be objective, however Panetta is stretching this past the point of being acceptable.

Does the CIC have absolute power to immediately defend this nation absent of the authority of Congress?  absolutely.   Does building coalitions, and seeking UN permission for military intervention fall under that very limited window under the CIC's absolute power?   Oh hell no.   

Bizarre to say the very least. 

[JohnnyReb]

A "what if" if you please.

There's a "hot spot" in the world somewhere. The world wants the U.S. to intervene militarily. The "hot spot" presents no danger to the U.S.. The president gets "international permission" and doesn't seek or have "congressional permission". The president orders the military to go kick some ASS.....the military refuses....now what?

I see refusing to follow his orders as correct and acceptable. What do you think?

Also see it as a bad president and a bad precedence.

[Airwolf]

I don't think you could build a clue bat large enough to smack him in the head with.

[hillneck]

This "Mother may I" crap is getting really old.  I guess it goes with they (this administration) thinks everyone in the world is going to love us.

[DefiantSix]

I don't think you could build a clue bat large enough to smack him in the head with.

He's just like the DUmp moonbats:  He couldn't acquire a clue if you stripped him nekkid, smeared gallons of clue musk all over him, and had him dance the clue mating dance in a secluded field full of horny clues at the peak of clue mating season.

[DumbAss Tanker]

A "what if" if you please.

There's a "hot spot" in the world somewhere. The world wants the U.S. to intervene militarily. The "hot spot" presents no danger to the U.S.. The president gets "international permission" and doesn't seek or have "congressional permission". The president orders the military to go kick some ASS.....the military refuses....now what?

I see refusing to follow his orders as correct and acceptable. What do you think?

Also see it as a bad president and a bad precedence.

I don't see that bolded part happening.  It is the nature of the military to implement the orders and stay out of any catfight between the Administration and the Congress.  Congress certainly has the power to reel the whole thing in by just cutting off the funds, if they have a veto-proof majority pissed off enough to play that card, but they are also reluctant to just throw the switch on the military once it's engaged because they know they will be accused of 'Putting the troops' lives in danger' by the President even though it was the President's own arbitrary decision to throw them into the fire in the first place.

[Eupher]

As I see it, this is the culmination of 65 years of playing grab-ass with the U.N. and NATO and other "international acronym-based ****tards looking for any old excuse to sit around a round table and tongue-**** each other".

Wilson wanted to fellate the world after WWI in the League of Nations and when that failed, FDR initiated the UN bowel movement and then Truman actually began the defecation process by resorting to the will of the U.N. vis a vis Korea, and it went south from there.

The US is overtly attacked in the form of 9/11 and Bush 43 feels he, in part, needs to form an international coalition to wage war on terrorism.

This is what happens when we don't have the balls to call our own shots and deal with threats to our national security.

War Powers Act, my ass. Barry actually showed us all that Congress doesn't have the 'nads to jerk the rug out from under his feet with that cute little Libyan stunt.

Panetta is merely playing the cards he was dealt by Barry. The real tragedy is, as a DUmmie, Panetta doesn't see it and in his pathetic little mind, is completely blind as to the losing hand he's holding.

[FreeBorn]

As I see it If say the Dreyfuss regime down in Parador is killing its own people in the streets, well that sucks but it is NOT a case of defending the United States to send American forces down there to intervene.

It seems that Mr. Panetta is more than a little annoyed with the notion that congress wants to stick its nose in and interfere with this effort to send American forces somewhere which has been decided by some mysterious body that Panetta never really identifies. Apparently his allegiance is to some unnamed world government and not to the U.S.