Getting the war puppets in order.

CIA Director Leon Panetta, who President Barack Obama has nominated to be secretary of Defense, told the Senate Armed Services Committee on Thursday that he believes the president can unilaterally use military force, without congressional authorization to “protect our national interests.”

Panetta’s claim of broad unilateral presidential power to initiate U.S. military action absent an attack or imminent threat to the United States came in response to a question from Sen. John McCain—who said he agreed with Panetta.

The U.S. is now involved militarily in Libya even though Congress has never authorized that involvement.

Link to source below.

Seems like Obama needs naother war or incident to validate himself as a "in the soup" President since he is still being hounded to produce photos of the Bin Laden body. This also is a dangerous decision on the behalf of Panetta who essentially saying troops can be used for any conflict, scenario or situation that the POTUS deems an interest of the United States. Without having to obtain approval from Congress.

SCENARIO:
The POTUS deems a situation in Yemen as vital to US interests but in reality is only a civil situation normally handled by local or state government(s). The insertion of US troops aggrevates locals and the situation in general and blows up into a full scale conflict requiring additional troops on the ground. But the problem is this will need to go thru Congress for that size of forces to be deployed along with the required equipment and support to handle the once small incident that now is a full scale war.

Just like what happened in Somalia in 1992 when the US sent in a stabilizing coalition to help with the government in transition there. We all know how that turned out.

Sounds as if Panetta is letting the annointed one know he is on board and ready to get the US into whatever the annointed one wishes to get involved with. Of course the pre-appointment meeting with Obama & Panetta for this position was just that, insurance that if Obama gave the nomination to Panetta that he (Panetta) would be playing ball with whatever the situation may be.

The bass-ackward thinking of Panetta, and I'm sure that Obama agrees with it for sure -

Panetta said it was “very important” for the president to consult with Congress after he takes military action, saying that “hopefully” Congress will agree that military action is necessary.

The focus above on the word "after" he takes action. No wonder our government is a joke and the leaders who are running it are the laughing stock of the world. God help us all.

Full article

reply to post by Humint1


Cry Havoc,and let slip the Dogs of War

The President has always had this authority and it's a main reason why Congress passed the War Powers resolution. Basically the President has 60 or 90 days to act in the nations interest after which time he needs to withdraw them or seek a declaration of war from Congress. Ford so far has been the only President to respect this resolution however and Congress has never held a President responsible for going against it.

As far as pre-emptive strikes this is now being taught as the Bush Doctine in university level history classes. It's the theory of taking action before the enemy strikes you first. Valid or not is debatable but that's the theory.

that act is all well and good until it gives power to a loose cannon...like it is being done here

Originally posted by Homedawg
that act is all well and good until it gives power to a loose cannon...like it is being done here

The Constitution gives the President this power as he is Commander and Chief of the armed forces and it's understood that there may be circumstances when immediate action is required without having time to consult Congress. This makes sense.

If a President is going out of bounds this is where Congress needs to step in and reign him in unfortunately our current Congress does not have what it takes to stand up to our President.

Congress has the tools just not the will.

The President has had the authority but limited to full out wars, incidents involving American citizens abroad including embassy personnel etc and not the authority to send in troops ONLY because doing so would be in the "best interetss" of the nation. The full Presidential Powers Act is lengthly and a good read for those who have an intrest in such reading. There are many contradictions that the lay person will read but those contradictions when interpreted by an attorney provide the loopholes for the President to act. They are inserted specifically for that purpose. It is cleverly written.

Originally posted by Humint1
The President has had the authority but limited to full out wars, incidents involving American citizens abroad including embassy personnel etc and not the authority to send in troops ONLY because doing so would be in the "best interetss" of the nation. The full Presidential Powers Act is lengthly and a good read for those who have an intrest in such reading. There are many contradictions that the lay person will read but those contradictions when interpreted by an attorney provide the loopholes for the President to act. They are inserted specifically for that purpose. It is cleverly written.

edit on 6/14/2011 by Humint1 because: clarify

I agree. The Presidents have kept pushing the bounds of what they can do going a little bit further every administration it seems like and Congress has allowed them to do this. 50 years ago you would never have seen the types of military actions our Presidents have taken recently.

Why Congress continually keeps giving away their power is beyond me.

reply to post by kro32

Actually I think we already know the answer to why congress does what they do. Almost every congressperson or senator is in someone's pocket. Someone other than the people they're supposed to represent. I believe that's one of the reasons most of us come to ATS: to determine the who, how, why, and wherefore of exactly this sort of thing....

"National Interests" is a BS excuse for war.

OIL in the ME is the ME's "National Interest" NOT the United States.

Countries have the right to protect their own 'National Interests".

And people wonder why other countries despise the US Govt.
Be a lot more peaceful without it.