PANETTA: 'INTERNATIONAL PERMISSION’ TRUMPS CONGRESSIONAL PERMISSION FOR MILITARY ACTIONS

The Constitution is dead. When that sinks in to enough people's minds, perhaps something can be done. Until then, it is the same old pile of doggy-doo. Turn off your TVs. They are programming your minds to accept slavery. The shows are called "programs" for a reason. JFK tried to speak a small part of the truth. He was killed for it. They use murder and threats to control all important areas of our lives. Some will scoff at this idea, but it is truth. It is time for people to wake up, refuse the "programming" and think for themselves. Yes, thinking takes work, but slavery is harder work.

Shorty Dawkins
 
As a veteran, I am disgusted that those Officers would even stand for this. It is clear that our Constitution is not taken seriously, nor has it been for awhile. Panetta's admitting that the U.S. Military gets its authority from the UN is Treason and all Americans should be concerned. I only wish someone in Congress would get the balls to stand up to this. I am afraid we are becoming the Rome of our time. Our Republic is at a cross roads right now. Follow the path of Freedom and the Constitution through the leadership of Ron Paul, or fade into history as a broken dictatorship run by globalist vampires who view our sovereignty as a pest.
 
None of those who are in position to try these people for treason dare to do it, for they know their career, and possibly their life, would be in danger. We, the people, must rise up and demand they be tried for treason. Regardless of party, regardless of religion, race, or ethnicity, actions such as these, (the bailouts are another), are pure treason. It is high time the issue is discussed, and our grievances be heard. We must not tire in our efforts. We must not lose hope. Many thousands have died in combat thinking they were protecting the freedom of their country, families and neighbors. The grand deception is being exposed. It is we who must stand for something besides our toys. I will not give up. What about you?

Shorty Dawkins
 
Anti Federalist said:
51zHdt052FL._BO2,204,203,200_PIsitb-sticker-arrow-click,TopRight,35,-76_AA300_SH20_OU01_.jpg
Click to expand...


Where are you going to go? Libya? There is nothing free left.

This isn't nato taking over the US... panetta's statement is just another face of global-legalism taking over the world.
 
Last edited:
It does make sense that if you have a military undertaking composed of an international coalition that you would seek international permission.

The problem I see is that the people in the video basically said that the US refusing to abide by international law is illegal and that international organizations should be consulted first before deciding whether an action should be done with or without Congressional support. This is basically tantamount to the US military being under the rule of the UN and NATO, rather than to elected officials of the actual US. This is very troubling.

If I'm wrong, tell me.
 
All political office holders, members of the military and many bureaucrats swear an Oath to the Constitution. Breaking that Oath is treason, pure and simple. They can try to hide behind the facade of expediency, as they usually do, but the fact is that they have broken their Oath.

Shorty Dawkins
 
Treason is punishable by a $250.00 fine, and can be appealed.

oops...sorry. thats only if you are in the Presidents cabinet....its in the small print.
 
Last edited:
Shorty Dawkins said:
The Constitution is dead. When that sinks in to enough people's minds, perhaps something can be done. Until then, it is the same old pile of doggy-doo. Turn off your TVs. They are programming your minds to accept slavery. The shows are called "programs" for a reason. JFK tried to speak a small part of the truth. He was killed for it. They use murder and threats to control all important areas of our lives. Some will scoff at this idea, but it is truth. It is time for people to wake up, refuse the "programming" and think for themselves. Yes, thinking takes work, but slavery is harder work.

Shorty Dawkins
Click to expand...

Yeah, he was so very much for national sovereignty. That is why he wanted to disarm our country in favor of a UN Army. :rolleyes:

On September 25, 1961, President Kennedy unveiled at the United Nations a plan which was subsequently printed as State Department Publication 7277, entitled Freedom From War: The United States Program for General and Complete Disarmament in a Peaceful World. The plan called for the “disbanding of all national armed forces … other than those required to preserve internal order and for contributions to a United Nations Peace Force,” and the “elimination from national arsenals of all armaments … other than those required for a United Nations Peace Force and for maintaining internal order.” According to the plan, once implemented, “no state [including the U.S.] would have the military power to challenge the progressively strengthened U.N. Peace Force.”
Click to expand...

http://www.worldinbalance.net/pdf/1961-freedomfromwar.pdf
 
Last edited:
Long-term Goal of a United Nations Standing Army Behind the Syria Solution

Art Thompson discusses Council on Foreign Relations manipulation of Egypt; the long-term goal of a United Nations standing army behind the Syria solution; and how Herbert Hoover confirmed FDR's complicity in forcing the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor.
Click to expand...

 
Is it just me, or does this fellow linked to in the OP questioning Panetta, with the name "Sessions" in front of him, actually not sound or look quite like the Pete Sessions in the video here:

 
One of my problems with this was that the Congressman never really asked the right question as far as I am concerned. It sounded like there was a bit of a disconnect. Assuming that the U.S. Congress has declared a war, it still seems reasonable to follow international law if the U.S. wants a coalition of nations to participate with us. I couldn't help but think that Panetta, in his apparent deceitful and deflective denial, kept answering the latter half of this question, but without explicitly accepting the constitutional precondition. I think if you listen carefully, the Congressman never actually asks Panetta if the U.S. can go to war with soley international approval. I found it maddening that the Congressman couldn't pose this question explicitly. Panetta was being evasive and needed to be pinned down better. And I wish the Congressman would have asked how Libya posed an imminent threat to U.S. national security. Maybe he asked all of these things and it just wasn't in this video.
 
Last edited:
Monk said:
I think some are blowing Panetta's statements out of proportion. Irregardless of whether interventions are right or wrong, you want to have international support in cases of non-national security matters. There is nothing strange about this.
Click to expand...

1. Panetta was clearly dismissing the Constitutional authority, which is the sole provider of authority for war. He wasn't clarifying an "international support" issue. He was talking about actually getting permission and authorization from the UN and NATO. That is clearly against the Constitution.
2. There is no such word as "irregardless." Please learn the English language.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

PAF
Selling War: How Raytheon and Boeing Fund the Push for NATO’s Nuclear Expansion
Replies
1
Views
445
PAF
PAF
PAF
Trump’s Record on Foreign Policy: Lost Wars, New Conflicts, and Broken Promises
Replies
2
Views
726
PAF
PAF
PAF
For the Love of God, Stop Saying Trump Was an Antiwar President
2 3 4
Replies
78
Views
6K
jmdrake
jmdrake
Occam's Banana
Trump Attacked Me. Then Musk Did. It Wasn’t an Accident.
Replies
2
Views
659
unknown
unknown
PAF
A Rothbardian Dissection of Javier Milei
Replies
2
Views
2K
PAF
PAF
Back
Top