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

[eduardo89]

Maybe that Don Quixote guy was right!

In before Danke's "never trust a spaniard" comment.

[Shorty Dawkins]

[QUOTE=LibertyEagle;4264268]Yeah, he was so very much for national sovereignty. That is why he wanted to disarm our country in favor of a UN Army.

Notice I said "part of the truth". Kennedy was no great savior, but he did want to do certain things, like have the Treasury create money. He was not one of the "gang". He bucked the power of the CIA, Federal Reserve and Mafia, and lost.

Shorty

[dancjm]

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.

Irregardless:

Some people mistakenly use irregardless when they mean “regardless.” Regardless means “regard less,” “without regard,” or despite something. For example, Squiggly will eat chocolate regardless of the consequences.

The prefix ir- (i-r) is a negative prefix, so if you add the prefix ir to a word that's already negative like regardless, you're making a double-negative word that literally means “without without regard.”

Language experts speculate that irregardless comes from a combination of the words regardless and irrespective and that another reason people might say "irregardless" is that they are following the pattern of words like irregular and irreplaceable. But regardless already has the -less suffix on the end, so it's not like those other words.

[Athan]

Can we get him arrested with the NDAA? This sounds more like a case of treason. Congress just had a coup of their power over the US military forces and equipment.

[Diurdi]

At first I thought this was just a sensationalist topic, and was almost confirmed of it while listening to that first General Demspey speak. He merely indicated that they would also seek support from international organizations, but that their refusal would not have any legal effect on the actions of the US. That international "permission" would just be an added extra to support the US military and to sort of figure out what others thought about it.

But then Panetta.... just wow. Seek international permission first, then debate whether to seek permission from congress or just go to war without it.

[LibertyEagle]

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

Notice I said "part of the truth". Kennedy was no great savior, but he did want to do certain things, like have the Treasury create money. He was not one of the "gang". He bucked the power of the CIA, Federal Reserve and Mafia, and lost.

Shorty

Sorry, that is not true.

http://liberty911.us/html/the_jfk_myth.html