| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
jaykimf
Joined: 24 Apr 2004
|
 Posted: Sun Mar 11, 2012 8:06 am Post subject: |
 |
|
| Kuros wrote: |
Yes, that's a good point.
Although constitutionally, I wonder if Congress could censure such a move if an investigation showed the President acted against U.S. interests. |
I would guess that they could censure him, but "actions against U.S. interests" is a rather vague accusation that is open to a considerable difference of opinion. I think it would have to be an extremely clear case to avoid looking like partisan politics at work again. On the other hand, I wonder if the action might rise to the level of being an impeachable offense. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
visitorq
Joined: 11 Jan 2008
|
| Posted: Sun Mar 11, 2012 10:23 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Steelrails wrote: |
| I find it more disturbing that a UN resolution is sufficient. War Powers are understandable on a limited scale, although in this digital age its inconceivable why anything would need longer than about 72 hours. I mean we managed to declare war on Japan like a day later. |
Yes, it's ridiculous. 60 days is now practically an eternity - with our supercarriers located around the world, the president could spend a trillion dollars bombing any country into complete rubble in like a week (remember 'Shock and Awe'). But I guess it's not a "war" anymore without boots on the ground? 
Mainly though, it's the notion that preemptive war of aggression now somehow equals "defending the homeland". All the liberals were foaming at the mouth over Bush doing it (since it is the ultimate war crime, as defined under the Geneva Convention), but under Obama it's all progressive and good.
| Quote: |
| As for NATO, as we're obligated by treaty and such, that's slightly less disturbing, more disturbing is that NATO is simply an obsolete dinosaur that has outlived its usefulness. |
Well apparently NATO is still very useful and relevant -- if your name is Leon Panetta. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
rollo
Joined: 10 May 2006
Location: China
|
| Posted: Mon Mar 12, 2012 4:01 am Post subject: |
|
|
| I think what Panetta is saying is legally questionable. Europe gave up on Nato, so the U.S has backed away. Asia is much more important to the U.S. and Europe seems to be on its way to being a backwater in the global scheme. I worry that Panetta/Obama are jockeying for a legal position that would validate a quick strike on Iran. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
jaykimf
Joined: 24 Apr 2004
|
| Posted: Mon Mar 12, 2012 8:46 am Post subject: |
|
|
I think that what Panetta said in that video is correct.
1. The President has the legal authority to initiate military action without prior congressional approval.
2. In some cases at least congressional approval is not required (actions lasting less than 60 days).
3. Panetta clearly states that if the President has initiated a military action, the administration will inform congress and discuss whether congressional authorization is necessary. Furthermore he says that the administration will seek whatever legal authorizations are necessary.
4. He does not say that a UN or Nato resolution can substitute for a required congressional authorization. Authorization by an international body is a separate issue that might be sought in addition to the U.S. authorization provided by either the president (in some cases) or by congress. It is Sen. Sessions who confuses the two issues.
5. I understand that the Obama administration has made claims about the necessity for congressional authorization in specific cases that might well be wrong. However none of those claims are being made in this particular video. If anyone would like to criticize Panetta or the administration for claims they have made elsewhere, feel free. However this particular video simply does not support the criticisms that are being made Of Panetta. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
visitorq
Joined: 11 Jan 2008
|
| Posted: Mon Mar 12, 2012 3:54 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| jaykimf wrote: |
| 1. The President has the legal authority to initiate military action without prior congressional approval. |
By what authority? Show us where it is enumerated in the constitution that the president has that power. You say "to initiate military action", but what you should have said is "to defend the nation after a sudden attack". If the US is directly attacked (like Pearl Harbor), then a state of war can be said to exist automatically (although congress still has to "declare" it within 60 days); however, that is in no way the same as launching (or "initiating") a preemptive war.
It is clearly enumerated in Article I, section 8 in the constitution that congress has the power to declare war. The president is not given that power.
| Quote: |
| 2. In some cases at least congressional approval is not required (actions lasting less than 60 days). |
See above.
| Quote: |
| 3. Panetta clearly states that if the President has initiated a military action, the administration will inform congress and discuss whether congressional authorization is necessary. Furthermore he says that the administration will seek whatever legal authorizations are necessary. |
There is nothing "clear" about it at all. Meeting to "discuss" the matter with congress suggests that it is up to the president's discretion. It's not.
| Quote: |
4. He does not say that a UN or Nato resolution can substitute for a required congressional authorization. Authorization by an international body is a separate issue that might be sought in addition to the U.S. authorization provided by either the president (in some cases) or by congress. It is Sen. Sessions who confuses the two issues.
5. I understand that the Obama administration has made claims about the necessity for congressional authorization in specific cases that might well be wrong. However none of those claims are being made in this particular video. If anyone would like to criticize Panetta or the administration for claims they have made elsewhere, feel free. However this particular video simply does not support the criticisms that are being made Of Panetta. |
Actually the Obama administration has said this. Your trying to separate that fact from the what Panetta was saying in that video is disingenuous. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
