Obomination: Panetta: 'International Permission' Trumps Congressional Permission...

[TakeAStepBack]

:yawn:

We've got us a repeater....

 

[occupied]

:yawn:

We've got us a repeater....

Answer the question and save the snob act.

 

[BlindBoo]

I don't think you have the brain power to actually understand the act of 1973, why it was put in place and what you're blaming this supposed "international permission" nonsense on.

It has not a fucking thing to do with partisanship. Although, it is funny that the two big heros from the democrats in the last 40 years have broken the law. Then again, they are all about consolidating power into one messiah in chief...

Congrats.

How many times has Congress used the War Powers Act and halted a military operation of the CiC?

Why didn't they envoke it on Lybia?

 

[occupied]

I don't think you have the brain power to actually understand the act of 1973, why it was put in place and what you're blaming this supposed "international permission" nonsense on.

It has not a fucking thing to do with partisanship. Although, it is funny that the two big heros from the democrats in the last 40 years have broken the law. Then again, they are all about consolidating power into one messiah in chief...

Congrats.

How many times has Congress used the War Powers Act and halted a military operation of the CiC?

Why didn't they envoke it on Lybia?

That was the question I was working towards, if republicans refuse to enforce their temporary dislike of this executive privilege it is no different then their approval when they have a president in office and their outrage is nothing but a lie.

 

[007]

:yawn:

We've got us a repeater....

Answer the question and save the snob act.

YOU answer THIS question... http://www.usmessageboard.com/polit...mps-congressional-permission.html#post4929010

 

[007]

I don't think you have the brain power to actually understand the act of 1973, why it was put in place and what you're blaming this supposed "international permission" nonsense on.

It has not a fucking thing to do with partisanship. Although, it is funny that the two big heros from the democrats in the last 40 years have broken the law. Then again, they are all about consolidating power into one messiah in chief...

Congrats.

How many times has Congress used the War Powers Act and halted a military operation of the CiC?

Why didn't they envoke it on Lybia?

That was the question I was working towards, if republicans refuse to enforce their temporary dislike of this executive privilege it is no different then their approval when they have a president in office and their outrage is nothing but a lie.

You have completely distorted the issue, issue being that the UN can trump our nations constitution.

Now show us where in the our constitution that it says we give power to the UN to control our military.

 

[BlindBoo]

How many times has Congress used the War Powers Act and halted a military operation of the CiC?

Why didn't they envoke it on Lybia?

That was the question I was working towards, if republicans refuse to enforce their temporary dislike of this executive privilege it is no different then their approval when they have a president in office and their outrage is nothing but a lie.

You have completely distorted the issue, issue being that the UN can trump our nations constitution.

Now show us where in the our constitution that it says we give power to the UN to control our military.

snopes.com: Small Arms Treaty

 

[occupied]

How many times has Congress used the War Powers Act and halted a military operation of the CiC?

Why didn't they envoke it on Lybia?

That was the question I was working towards, if republicans refuse to enforce their temporary dislike of this executive privilege it is no different then their approval when they have a president in office and their outrage is nothing but a lie.

You have completely distorted the issue, issue being that the UN can trump our nations constitution.

Now show us where in the our constitution that it says we give power to the UN to control our military.

The UN does not control our military but all diplomatic matters are executive branch, dept of state, including the diplomatically correct method of waging a legal war. Add to that the power presidents have of 60 days of action and yes he is correct that security counsel votes and international treaties have much more force over when we act than congress does. There will be no more declared wars, Sessions knows this and his mock shock at this long standing state of affairs is nothing but theater, he would not change the way things are on his life.

 

[paulitician]

Our Constitution is our road-map for such matters. It would be nice if our Politicians started following it for a change.

 

[occupied]

Our Constitution is our road-map for such matters. It would be nice if our Politicians started following it for a change.

Our constitution was written when wars were more deliberate acts and before pushbutton annihilation became commonplace. Not sure it is such a bad thing to have a mechanism in place to deal with events that move much faster than our congress is able to collectively decide on.

 

[California Girl]

That was the question I was working towards, if republicans refuse to enforce their temporary dislike of this executive privilege it is no different then their approval when they have a president in office and their outrage is nothing but a lie.

You have completely distorted the issue, issue being that the UN can trump our nations constitution.

Now show us where in the our constitution that it says we give power to the UN to control our military.

snopes.com: Small Arms Treaty

Contrary to left wing beliefs... snopes.com is not the US Constitution. As both Pale and I have asked 'where is control of our military handed to international treaties in our Constitution'?

 

[occupied]

You have completely distorted the issue, issue being that the UN can trump our nations constitution.

Now show us where in the our constitution that it says we give power to the UN to control our military.

snopes.com: Small Arms Treaty

Contrary to left wing beliefs... snopes.com is not the US Constitution. As both Pale and I have asked 'where is control of our military handed to international treaties in our Constitution'?

Where it says the president is both commander in chief and chief diplomat of our country and that the president must act within the framework of ratified international treaty.

 

[ScreamingEagle]

That was the question I was working towards, if republicans refuse to enforce their temporary dislike of this executive privilege it is no different then their approval when they have a president in office and their outrage is nothing but a lie.

You have completely distorted the issue, issue being that the UN can trump our nations constitution.

Now show us where in the our constitution that it says we give power to the UN to control our military.

The UN does not control our military but all diplomatic matters are executive branch, dept of state, including the diplomatically correct method of waging a legal war. Add to that the power presidents have of 60 days of action and yes he is correct that security counsel votes and international treaties have much more force over when we act than congress does. There will be no more declared wars, Sessions knows this and his mock shock at this long standing state of affairs is nothing but theater, he would not change the way things are on his life.

evidently with BO the Arab League has more force over when we act than Congress....

 

[occupied]

You have completely distorted the issue, issue being that the UN can trump our nations constitution.

Now show us where in the our constitution that it says we give power to the UN to control our military.

The UN does not control our military but all diplomatic matters are executive branch, dept of state, including the diplomatically correct method of waging a legal war. Add to that the power presidents have of 60 days of action and yes he is correct that security counsel votes and international treaties have much more force over when we act than congress does. There will be no more declared wars, Sessions knows this and his mock shock at this long standing state of affairs is nothing but theater, he would not change the way things are on his life.

evidently with BO the Arab League has more force over when we act than Congress....

Yes it does, even you have to see the importance of making sure we can attack some people over there without getting every player in the region drawn into it? Keeping the fighting confined to the desired theater and level of involvement is key, careful diplomacy is the difference between a limited engagement and an escalating out of control conflict.

 

[Katzndogz]

Did anyone hear Panetta explaining that the United States Military is instructed by international consensus then comes and INFORMS congress what the Military has been ordered to do.

The president only needs to go to Congress for consent when it is ONLY national defense.

 

[Katzndogz]

snopes.com: Small Arms Treaty

Contrary to left wing beliefs... snopes.com is not the US Constitution. As both Pale and I have asked 'where is control of our military handed to international treaties in our Constitution'?

Where it says the president is both commander in chief and chief diplomat of our country and that the president must act within the framework of ratified international treaty.

The President is to act with the advice and consent of Congress. Yyou need to reread the Constitution.

 

[occupied]

Contrary to left wing beliefs... snopes.com is not the US Constitution. As both Pale and I have asked 'where is control of our military handed to international treaties in our Constitution'?

Where it says the president is both commander in chief and chief diplomat of our country and that the president must act within the framework of ratified international treaty.

The President is to act with the advice and consent of Congress. Yyou need to reread the Constitution.

In his role as commander in chief he does not, the only thing congress can do is refuse to fund continued military action.

 

[ScreamingEagle]

The UN does not control our military but all diplomatic matters are executive branch, dept of state, including the diplomatically correct method of waging a legal war. Add to that the power presidents have of 60 days of action and yes he is correct that security counsel votes and international treaties have much more force over when we act than congress does. There will be no more declared wars, Sessions knows this and his mock shock at this long standing state of affairs is nothing but theater, he would not change the way things are on his life.

evidently with BO the Arab League has more force over when we act than Congress....

Yes it does, even you have to see the importance of making sure we can attack some people over there without getting every player in the region drawn into it? Keeping the fighting confined to the desired theater and level of involvement is key, careful diplomacy is the difference between a limited engagement and an escalating out of control conflict.

next BO will be asking for "international permission" when to tie his shoelaces....

 

[chikenwing]

You may not like it but he is correct. The way our president may use our military is dependent more on international agreement than the consent of congress. Sessions knows it too and he is being an ass acting like this is something new or the fault of democrats.

Not now not ever the UN???!!!! I wouldn't let the UN run anything let alone our military!!

You are way wrong on this.

 

[Katzndogz]

Congress is not taking this at all well.