PANETTA: International permission trumps Congressional permission for military actions.

The problem isn't so much the War Powers Act, but the lack of true leadership by the persons empowered by the War Powers Act.

A military leader, a commander-in-chief, needs to have some leeway in responding to attacks or using force when US personnel or facilities need to be freed. A true leader wouldn't go around picking fights, bullying weaker nations, or get involved with internal affairs of another nation militarily.

Considering this crisis of leadership, perhaps Congress does need to reexamine the War Powers Act, and put more restrictions on the circumstances on which the President may use the time provided for military action.

Originally posted by beezzer
Let me get this straight.

If Congress okays a military action, but the international community says no; then we DON'T go???

That's not what was said exactly, but yeah, that's a good question.

But what it does show, in the face of that questioning in the video, is that Congress is not in the loop anymore. Not really. They are going to be told after the fact, after it's all arranged and ready to go. Or maybe even after it went.

Legal authority means what the UN says and not what Congress says. Important video. Key moment. Flag.

reply to post by Wolf321


Lee Way is the edge that can easily be toppled by an in experienced person or perhaps a "very" experienced person. Lee Way will cause you problems.

One man should not have the ability to bring an entire nation to Total War. The War Powers Act will legally justify the president attacking a nation for 90 days. Problem is , attacking the wrong nation , could very well take that 90 days and spit on it and may the best man win ..

reply to post by milkyway12


And having to have command authority invested in a group of men, and requiring a vote, will get men killed and or a nation overrun.

Like I said, out problem isn't so much the law, but the leaders.

reply to post by Wolf321


You are thinking of Military command. Politicians sir , are not fighting men. They are politicians if you have forgotten. The military is not a democracy , sacrificing a country's sovereignty in its ability to lose a war , should be a democracy. America has not known the fear of losing a war and it costing you everything , we fight only wars we can win , which is good , but there is always a war that have odds against us and i think its going to be coming sooner than we think. I just dont want a fool , greedy , or ignorant man to make that decision. The officials elected by the American people should.

reply to post by milkyway12


Exactly. Politicians should not have the command authority that you suggested be taken from the President by not having leeway to act without a declaration of war.

So if China or Russia launched ICBMs at the US, you would rather that congress be called into session and a vote be taken to retaliate? We can't get a budget passed in months, you think they could pull that off in minutes?

reply to post by Wolf321


That is a lot different than attacking a nation. If you are attacked then War is upon you whether you like it or not. You changed the situation entirely from Libya to something so drastic its literally spells the end of the world and you are the defending force , and war has been declared already , through action on your nation. You dont have a choice.

The need for declaring war is not even needed in this situation , its upon you whether you want it or not.

reply to post by milkyway12


The reality of it may be war is on you, but diplomatically speaking, war must still be declared.

Japan attacked the US at Pearl Harbor, and the next day, the President asked the Congress to Declare War, which they did.

I could just as easily have used an example of an American embassy being under siege in some third world hell hole. It would not be an end of the world, but military action would be required. The President needs to have such leeway.

Our problems with such things are not so much the law, but the leaders.

Think of it like a budget. You can give a man a budget, but if he spends it all on business lunches in strip clubs, the problem wasn't the budget, but the idiot spending the money.

reply to post by Wolf321


What you mentioned was not War , it would be a Limited War or "Kinetic Action". Limited War is not total war. You have an objective. You get in , get out. This is not war.

Congress should be the only ones to declare War "Total War". Attacking a foreign nations military with a goal of defeating it (Libya) im sorry , is War. Going into a 3rd world "Hell Hole" to rescue and secure your embassy because they are caught in a cross fire is not a war. Unless of course the nation is attacking your military to kill them or embassy. Then that is war , and war has already been declared by the aggressive nation. So the President is simply reacting to the situation.

The President should not have the ability to declare war on North Korea , Iran , Iraq , Afghanistan , Russia , China , any nation without the approval of congress. Libya should have been approved by Congress.

The War Power Act also does the Congress a favor. Such as a Congressman does not have to vote against or for the action until the final 90 days , so he can decide by the end of the 90 days if he is for or against the action without looking bad to the American population. Congress has forfeited the right to declare war to the President.

Originally posted by milkyway12
What you mentioned was not War , it would be a Limited War or "Kinetic Action". Limited War is not total war. You have an objective. You get in , get out. This is not war.

Now you are playing politics with your semantics.

Congress should be the only ones to declare War "Total War". Attacking a foreign nations military with a goal of defeating it (Libya) im sorry , is War. Going into a 3rd world "Hell Hole" to rescue and secure your embassy because they are caught in a cross fire is not a war. Unless of course the nation is attacking your military to kill them or embassy. Then that is war , and war has already been declared by the aggressive nation.

First, we didn't go into Libya with the goal of defeating it. We merely assisted the rebel groups within the nation to have a fighting chance of conquering their oppressor. (See what I did there? I played it just like the administration did. You like that?)

Second, according to your idea, the president wouldn't even have the authority to rescue the embassy.

I didn't agree with the US involvement in Libya. Also, I agree that war, by definition, should be a battle to the end. Winner takes all. I think the War Powers Act should be updated to further specify the conditions for which the President can use his time as well as decrease the time allowed.

It was the attack on Pearl Harbor and the restriction by the Constitution to have Congress Declare war before actions can be take, that brought about the War Powers Act. It serves a purpose, but like many laws, can be bastardized by those using it.

reply to post by Wolf321


It only takes one bastard to bring down a nation.

Response to your late edit

Originally posted by milkyway12
The President should not have the ability to declare war on North Korea , Iran , Iraq , Afghanistan , Russia , China , any nation without the approval of congress. Libya should have been approved by Congress.

I agree 100%. And he doesn't have that authority. However, the War Powers Act does give him the ability to engage in acts of war for a limited time. When Congress doesn't demand actions cease after that time, and then they go on to fund operations, while not a technical declaration of war, is often legally viewed as approval.

The War Power Act also does the Congress a favor. Such as a Congressman does not have to vote against or for the action until the final 90 days , so he can decide by the end of the 90 days if he is for or against the action without looking bad to the American population. Congress has forfeited the right to declare war to the President.

I disagree that they have forfeited the right to declare war. But what you have stated proves my point. If they are waiting to support or oppose the action for fear of looking bad politically, then they are not leaders in the truest of senses.

And you know, certain military actions SHOULD require congressional legal authority. ESPECIALLY if they are preemptive. And ESPECIALLY if they are both preemptive AND being mandated by the UN. Any action against Syria or Iran is preemptive. And the key here is that somewhere along the line they took the power to go do it themselves, for God only knows WHAT interests. If after debate it was determined the military action was in the interests of congress and the people of the US, rather than rogue interests, then maybe they'd GET that authority.

The President's power for war should only be used without congressional legal authority in the event this country is attacked. I mean who the heck is going to question his authority if we are invaded by China, for example? No problem...kill them all. Now. Fire up the big guns.

But decisions by the rogue interests are continually leaving behind a path of horrific death, destruction, DU, and nations in ruin, in worse shape than they were before. Civil wars just itching to start everywhere. Damn straight congress should be mad. Problem is, those that are mad are likely only the 1%. The rest of the 99% in congress aren't the same 99% on the outside. They are the 99% of the 1% that keep perpetuating this crap.

reply to post by Wolf321

I agree 100%. And he doesn't have that authority. However, the War Powers Act does give him the ability to engage in acts of war for a limited time. When Congress doesn't demand actions cease after that time, and then they go on to fund operations, while not a technical declaration of war, is often legally viewed as approval.

What you don't seem to understand is the war powers act only gives him that authority if the US is in immediate danger. Libya was/is no threat to us therefore he had no authority. Congress pretended to call him on it and he flat out said he did not need their permission ever. Get your facts straight.

reply to post by xstealth


hi X

Yes. Just recently Barack Obama was sworn in as Head of the U. N. Security Council. The security council has the only real voting power in the UN. At the inauguration Obama was addressed as "President of the World".

This office violates the US. Constitution Article 1. Section 9. In which a President cannot hold dual office and still maintain the Presidency of the United States of America.

wiki.answers.com...

is everyone getting down with the playbook yet?

I'm not American, nor an expert in any way on your Congress, Constitution, or military structure but did the Secretary of Defence just give your army to the UN or NATO??

All I can say is the Pact and NDAA2012 are still on the books of law wonder why? Talk all you want but when no one listens then what is the use, by the time the US wakes up and smells the coffee it will be to late. for it might be to late now.

reply to post by xstealth


For those who cant understand the significance of his statements, he has just admitted in not so many words that a military coup has taken place in the United States of America.

Indeed, when they no longer need to seek approval according to the law of the USA to deploy military forces then that is a coup, period.

Maybe I'm the only person that doesn't see a problem with this?

Now, for the people being killed in Syria, I'll get back to that as that's clearly the main issue that should've already been dealt with, but :

I prefer it that they're trying to get UN or NATO permission to go in first, because I think that's the way it should be done. If you're getting attacked, fine, that's something else, but to go to war with a country half way around the world that isn't attacking the USA in any way? Getting UN permission or at least trying to get it first is the way it should be done. I don't know your consitution either btw, what part is he breaking by seeking UN permission?

Now back to the main point : this should've been dealt with last year in the UN, as a majority vote of all countries. But because we have a corrupt system from the outset China and Russia have been able to veto. That's utterly wrong and it should be the majority of nations that decides it. Syria should have already been dealt with by a majority vote of nations and the UN veto system should be abolished. If that'd been the case people wouldn't still be dying in Syria while China and Russia try to protect whatever interests they have while people are being killed day and night for them. A UN force would've been able to go in.

And if that sounds like I'm in favour of a one world goverment : well yeah, I am. Just one that's not corrupt. At least that way you don't get countries attacking others for oil and other interests.

So yeah, why are you all kicking off? What's so wrong with this? (to restate for anyone angry at what I'm saying : for me the wrong has already long since passed, this should've been dealt with last year, at a properly functioning UN.)

Nobody? I'm trying to work out whether or not I'm weird or you guys are weird.

This shouldn't even be an American issue! The countries surrounding are the ones to blame here as they stand by watching people die. They should be allied and in there now saving those people.

This world is ***ed.