The American Spectator

home
ADVERTISEMENT
Print Email
Text Size

Loose Canons

Leon Panetta: Clueless or Brazen?

By on 3.12.12 @ 6:10AM

If not for Sen. Jeff Sessions, who would protect our Constitution from assault by Obama, Panetta & Co.?

President Obama and his congressional cohorts have never paid much attention to our Constitution. Nancy Pelosi laughed off the idea of considering it when Obamacare was debated.

Much the same is true whether Obama is implementing Obamacare or brushing aside other constitutional limits on his powers. Remember the “concession” he made on requiring religious institutions to pay for contraception? He just amended the regulations to require the insurance companies to pay for it, without anyone paying them back. That, my friends, is what we call a “Fifth Amendment taking” for which the government — by seizing something belonging to a private citizen — is responsible to pay the damaged party, even if it is an insurance company.

Such constitutional abuses are commonplace these days, but last Thursday the Obama regime took a far more sweeping and dark turn in a Senate Armed Services Committee hearing. Defense Secretary Leon Panetta was testifying on possible military action against Syria. Under questioning by Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-Ala), Panetta said some things that need to be set out clearly before I analyze or characterize them.

The issue is Congress’s power to declare war. Under our Constitution, only Congress has the power to declare war (Article 1, Section 8, Clause 11) and this power is co-extensive with the power of the president as commander in chief. They — Congress and the president — are the only authorities named directly or indirectly as having a constitutional role in that decision.

When Sessions said that we are not dependent on a NATO or UN resolution to execute policies in defense of the nation, Panetta replied:

When it comes to the kind of military action where we want to build a coalition and work with our international partners then obviously we would like to have some kind of legal basis to do it as we did in Libya.

And then it got worse.

SESSIONS: “Do you think you can act without Congress and initiate a no-fly zone in Syria without congressional approval?”

PANETTA: You know, again — our goal would be to seek international permission. And we would — we would come to the Congress and inform you and determine how best to approach this, whether or not we would want to get permission from the Congress. I think those are issues we would have to discuss as we decide what to do here.

SESSIONS: Well I am almost breathless about that because what I heard you say is, “we’re going to seek international approval and we’ll come and tell the Congress what we might do, and we might seek congressional approval.”… Wouldn’t you agree that would be pretty breathtaking to the average American?

PANETTA: If we are working with an international coalition or NATO we would want to be able to get appropriate permissions in order to be able to do that. All of these countries would want to have some kind of legal basis on which to act.

SESSIONS: What “legal basis” are you looking for? What entity?

PANETTA: If NATO made the decision to go in, that would be one. If we developed an international coalition beyond NATO then obviously some kind of U.N. security resolution would be the basis for that.

SESSIONS: So you are saying NATO would give you a “legal basis”? And an ad hoc coalition of nations would provide a “legal basis”?

PANETTA: We would seek whatever legal basis we would need in order to make that justified. We can’t just pull them all together without getting the legal basis on which to act.

Page: 1 2  

About the Author

Jed Babbin served as a Deputy Undersecretary of Defense under George H.W. Bush. He is the author of several bestselling books including Inside the Asylum and In the Words of Our Enemies. You can follow him on Twitter @jedbabbin.

Letter to the Editor View all comments (113) |

jppc| 3.12.12 @ 6:28AM

When will Obama be held accountable for losing Afghanistan? A big reason why Bush did not commit many focces there is precisely because there is nothing to win there.

The Prophet Obama was the one who declared many times in in '08 campaign that we need to boldter forces there. For what? To get bin Laden? A good thing but a minor thing in the big scheme of things.

We oppose radical, militant Islam - bin Laden was one piece of it but it lives on after his demise.

General Field Marshall Barry is the sucker for getting us deeper into Afghanistan. He needs to held accountable.

Jack in Wi.| 3.12.12 @ 7:47AM

I am stunned too. Babbin and Sessions are actually souding like Ron Paul. Well good for them, if they mean it. The automatic wars of our alliances are a problem. That is why George Washington said no to entanglimg alliances. These alliance treaties are long overdue for cancellation. What the hell due we need NATO for anyhow? The reason for that alliance disappeared 20 years ago. Let every question of war or peace be decided after open debate in Congress and a declation of war, unless there is a question of imminent attack.

Nick099| 3.12.12 @ 8:14AM

Really???? Can you possibly be that naive???? The danger has not disappeared as you claim...it merely morphed into something else. Much of our intelligence comes from our cooperation and alliances with other nations in no-so-great parts of the world. You think alliances are a problem??? Over-simplification is just as dangerous.

You can quote Washington all you wish...he was right on many counts...but he also needed France to save our bacon at the end...or did you forget to read that part of the history book????? Had it not been for that alliance we would not be here now.
Had it not been for many foreigners coming to fight by our side from all parts of the world we would not be here now. It was a mysterious Prussian who was the first miltary trainer of our regulars. It was a French Marquis who pledged his life and fortune to our cause, and it was a French King who committed ships and troops to help defeat the English. It is not so simple as you suggest.

It is easy to appear as Ron Paul, when all he does is say "No." So when someone else raises opposition, the zealot states "He sounds like Ron Paul!" Sorry that just is only superficially true.

Jack in Wi.| 3.12.12 @ 8:45AM

France was out ally during our Revolution. It was a stupid move on the part of the French. The money they spent on that war helped lead to their bankruptcy, which led to the French revolution. The Revolutionaries also got a lot of their radical ideas from us. Washington when he talked about entangling alliances was mainly taking about France. Some people wanted us to back France in some of their wars. Washington would have none of that. He wanted our new country to stay out of other peoples business. He also warned of undue attachments to other countries. He believed other foreign powers would cause trouble in this country. I can think of a couple countries who have set up extensive propagada systems in this country to suck us into their wars. I mean, of course, England and Israel. I can not think of any alliance that we have had that has been of much benefit to this country. We have carried the burden better carried by the other members of these alliances. There has nver been much reason to leave these borders and shores. Let the world defend itself.

Ryan| 3.12.12 @ 9:14AM

To a point I - and many other conservatives - agree. However, militant Islamists always look to expand, and they will always attack even commercial interests we have abroad, and seek to attack us on our shores, with even imagined provocation.

We cannot ignore that issue. They have a history of seeking expansion. If we removed all funding from Israel, withdrew every troop from the Middle East, and said we would leave them alone, they would still seek to find ways to conquer the West - by violence if necessary.

I don't believe that we would see some mass invasion, but we WOULD see pockets of militant Islamists here like in England, where they would seek to impose their will in an area via Sharia apart from the Constitution; and they would seek to be offended by the smallest imagined slight. We see it in Europe, and are starting to see it here.

loulou| 3.12.12 @ 10:50AM

Meanwhile, the Muslims/Islamists/Jihadis are establishing themselves HERE.

Muslims at Homeland Security, the FBI, CIA, and the Republican Party. WTF?? Watch for the megamosque in your neighborhood--it's coming.

aware| 3.12.12 @ 6:37AM

I'm stunned.....I didn't know our constitution was being "protected". And by the party of Fatherland Security and the Orwellian "Patriot Act" no less!

Timothy L. Pennell| 3.12.12 @ 6:54AM

No, you're stupid.

Unless, among the Orwellian Left's New Speak, "Stunned" means "Stupid", now.

Then I would agree. You're stunned.

You're really, really, Stunned.

aware| 3.12.12 @ 4:42PM

I'd rather be "stupid" than a neocon, neocon. Shove your Garrison/Security State up your ass.

You'll make an excellent minion when the call for guards at the Camps.

vtwin| 3.12.12 @ 8:01AM

The Republican Party ever so concerned about the Constitution whenever there's a Democrat in the Oval Office.

Nancy in NC| 3.12.12 @ 8:25AM

And some of us are concerned at all times.

Obama hated the Patriot Act until he got into office. Many of us hated it under Bush. Don't speak for all Republicans.

vtwin| 3.12.12 @ 9:16AM

Only 10 U.S. Senator voted against either the "Patriot Act" or the Reauthorizing Act all Democrats.

Akaka (D-HI)
Bingaman (D-NM)
Byrd (D-WV)
Feingold (D-WI)
Harkin (D-IA)
Jeffords (I-VT)
Leahy (D-VT)
Levin (D-MI)
Murray (D-WA)
Wyden (D-OR)

Obama voted in favor of The Patriot Act Reauthorizing Act of 2006.

PaulyD| 3.12.12 @ 8:44AM

vtwin is right.

The Republicans are only paying lip service to these Constitutional issues. The real crisis is they refuse to take any action to enforce THEIR oaths to the Constitution by challenging these issues in the courts.

Andrew Coevilla was right. It is all part of the Ruling Class. The reason the Republicans aren't really challenging the Democrats is because they want to do the same thing when they are in power.

Von Mises Jr.| 3.12.12 @ 3:14PM

In New Jersey, Governor Christie (R) is implementing Agenda21 through s new state plan that clarly states on page 38 of the 41 draft that "Property Rights" decisions will be made at levels above the state. That could only mean that the federal government or the U.N. through Agenda21 will decide where you will live.

Codevilla's essay on the Ruling Class v Country Class is illuminated for all with eyes to see as Christie is about to implement an unconstitutional, non-elected and unaccountable board through Executive Order allowing the federal government and/or One World Government United Nations bureaucrats to destroy Americans property rights and violate the Fifth Amendment "Takings Clause."
George H. W. Bush was a Agenda21 elitist ruling class statist just like Christie. And I fear Romney is another RINO ruling class statist as well.

aware| 3.13.12 @ 6:00AM

And yet many "conservatives" here want Christie to be president. Of course Romney is a Statist. So is Scamtorum and the Newt. So is 7/8s of the Republican Party and 100% of the Dems.

Statism is the disease that is killing liberty and wealth.

Nick099| 3.12.12 @ 8:19AM

The Patriot Act is legal and withstood legal challenege...or have you not noticed????

The "Fatherland" reference is for Democrats as that would be referencing the Nazi's???? Which of course were the right wing of the Marxist family tree ( i.e. they were socialists). While there may be some big-government RINO's in the Republican Party, I challenge you to find a single Marxist. The Republican Party is made up of about 60% Conservative. If you want to look for admirers of socialism take a gander at the Democrats: there you will find many groups in love with Marx including 76 members of the Congressional Progressive Caucus.

Jack in Wi.| 3.12.12 @ 8:48AM

The Patriot Act, the Dept of Homeland Security, and the TSA is a disgrace to idea of a free and Constitutional Republic. This pemanent establishment is shredding what little remains of our constitutional system.

aware| 3.12.12 @ 4:47PM

Keep thinking the Republicans are your friends. The Party of the State has 2 wings, the left wing commie Democrats and the right wing fascist Republicans.

With either one you get the Savior State.

John Daniel| 3.12.12 @ 6:55AM

You ask where are the rest of the Republicans. They're the ones who never heard President Eisenhower's warnings about the military-industrial complex....

logan| 3.12.12 @ 7:29AM

What industry do we have left libtard? Duh.

BTW, how do you feel about the Democrat Party-MSM "complex"?

Checkmate.

Mike W| 3.12.12 @ 8:58AM

Wow, you are clever. You really told that guy, especially with that highly original insult "libtard". You must write for a living.

Kenny| 3.12.12 @ 6:57AM

Democrtats are internationalists to their rotton core

Maddox| 3.12.12 @ 10:06AM

Yes, this isn't clueless, it is brazen treason. Remove him.

Clint| 3.12.12 @ 7:05AM

Our American Warriors Are Not To Be Used As Cannon Fodder And Our National Treasure Is Not To Be Pissed Away Policing The Globe For The Chickenhawk In Chief, Obooboo.

loulou| 3.12.12 @ 10:52AM

Good post, Clint. Seriously.

Dick Nome| 3.12.12 @ 10:55AM

Cannon fodder??? Didn't know the Taliban were using any artillery.

Ted| 3.12.12 @ 1:45PM

Clint is right on this one... Whether you are killed by a 7.62x39mm from an AK-47 or by a 105mm you are still dead.

Al Adab| 3.12.12 @ 3:31PM

Clint, and the isolationists get it right much of the time. Sadly the world is not a one size fits all place and military action is sometimes necessary. In this instant matter of Syria, it is not.

Clint| 3.12.12 @ 5:59PM

" Nonintervention or non-interventionism is a foreign policy which holds that political rulers should avoid alliances with other nations, but still retain diplomacy, and avoid all wars not related to direct self-defense. This is based on the grounds that a state should not interfere in the internal politics of another state, based upon the principles of state sovereignty and self-determination. A similar phrase is "strategic independence".Historical examples of supporters of non-interventionism are US Presidents George Washington and Thomas Jefferson, who both favored nonintervention in European Wars while maintaining free trade. Other proponents include United States Senator Robert Taft and United States Congressman Ron Paul.

Nonintervention is distinct from, and often confused with isolationism, the latter featuring economic nationalism (protectionism) and restrictive immigration. Proponents of non-interventionism distinguish their policies from isolationism through their advocacy of more open national relations, to include diplomacy and free trade."

al222| 3.12.12 @ 7:25AM

this latest assault on the Constitution is nothing new. it only serves to further illuminate this administration's modus operandi: do whatever we want, and dare the opposition to stop us.

C Bowen | 3.12.12 @ 7:34AM

Too funny to see Jeb "Iraq violated UN Resolutions" Babbin discussing war, Congress, and the Constitution. Do these liberal Republicans really think we have such short memories?

Paul Kotik| 3.12.12 @ 7:54AM

It's "Jed". Not "Jeb". Your memory doesn't seem to last from the article body down to the Comments window!

C Bowen | 3.12.12 @ 4:51PM

Jeb Bush, Jed Babbin--these liberal Republicans all run together in my mind--appreciate the country.

Nevertheless, both agreed that a trillion-plus dollar should be spent to enforce UN resolutions in Iraq.

Hippies.

martin j smith| 3.12.12 @ 7:46AM

When will Republican Leadershit call out Obama's crappy phoney foreign and national insecurity policies ? When ?

loulou| 3.12.12 @ 10:54AM

Republican Leadershit not much different from the Democrats.

A sidenote: Our leadershits Boehner and Cantor voted AGAINST e-verify. Why?

Nick099| 3.12.12 @ 7:53AM

Panetta has been laundered by the Media. He was, and apparently still is, an ultra-Leftist ( read: Marxist). He started his Congressional career that way. No surprise here except those who care not to study history.But what do you expect when there are 76 members to the Congressional Progressive Caucus whose #1 stated goal is: "Fighting for Economic Justice and Security in the U.S. and Global Economies."

Reading further into the stated goals, these folks are not excited about being American Citizens but citizens of the world.

Paul Kotik| 3.12.12 @ 7:54AM

Panetta appears to have crossed the Rubicon with those remarks.

So if the United Nations authorizes peacekeeping troops to supervise US elections, will Panetta deploy the 101st Airborne around polling places?

boogalie| 3.12.12 @ 10:20AM

Your example is relevant. People on this thread have taken their 'eye off the ball'. The singular issue here is as follows: Panetta/Dempsey's remarks, astoundingly in front of the Senate Armed Services Committee point to real confusion on the part of the defense decision makers on how to procees with action in the international community. Congress (both House AND Senate) must exercise leadership here in order to more clearly identify how America authorizes military action within that community. In my opinion, it goes back to our founding document (Constitution). I am contacting my representatives and asking that they view the video of this shocking exchange. The MUST take the leadership role here, before this continues to deteriorate. I do not want my sons nor daughters to be involved service that will be operating under the auspices of some foreign source without my input no matter how small it may be. Semper Fi.

irish19| 3.12.12 @ 11:41AM

And I note that in the news today, Al Sharpton, the NAACP, and (IIRC) the ACLU are appealing to the UN for help in opposing laws requiring photo IDs in order to vote.

Paul Kotik| 3.12.12 @ 1:37PM

...and I thought I was making up an extreme hypothetical to illustrate my point. Reality outran me.

tsd| 3.12.12 @ 3:35PM

This is just one more move closer to taking control by the elitist on both side of the fence... the ruling class wants to step away from being a representative government and just rule. Look at the blur between police and army, so far so fast! And now will we go to war on orders from the UN ???

Nite| 3.12.12 @ 8:45PM

I agree with you. Panetta, Obama and his minions are trashing the Constitution on a regular basis. Hopefully, Obama and his radicals will be tossed.

Mac| 3.12.12 @ 3:27PM

No but maybe the UN will deploy non-US NATO troops to supervise the polling places!

Paul Kotik| 3.12.12 @ 10:12PM

Or maybe Fijans, like in UNIFIL in Lebanon. That might be kind of fun, actually. Maybe they'd serve up some kava kava to voters, neutralizing their Obamecstasy and allowing them to vote with their brains.

SGT Baker (native Coloradoan)| 3.13.12 @ 5:16AM

I do not think they have the balls to try that one yet, enough of us in the Military would not obey such an order.

Paul Kotik| 3.13.12 @ 11:35PM

I hope not. I'm less confident about that now than I was 10 years ago.

Over time, all professional organizations become primarily loyal to their paymasters. That would be the US Treasury in the case of the military. The Treasury reports to the President.

vtwin| 3.12.12 @ 8:19AM

Breaking News: The Pope citing the first amendment of the American Constitution said today "the Catholic Church in addition to the contraceptive requirements will also be seeking exemptions from child molestation laws."

vtwin| 3.12.12 @ 9:29AM

Note to RCV: meant as hyperbole not as fact.

Loadmaster| 3.12.12 @ 8:23AM

From the candidates the only thing I've seen is Newt calling on Leon to resign. I agree with Newt.

This current GOP leadership (both houses) are shameful for not stopping this BS.

SpiralArchitect| 3.12.12 @ 6:28PM

Eric Holder (another Marxist) is never going to resign nor any of our Leninist's POTUS' appointments.

Clint| 3.12.12 @ 8:26AM

Obamacare Molests The Constitution, ObamaBoy.

Intelligent Design| 3.12.12 @ 8:26AM

Panetta's brain is standard equipment for liberals. It's mush combined with ignorance and arrogance.

Ed| 3.12.12 @ 8:33AM

And not one of our generals, also sworn to uphold the Constitution, utter a peep in protest. Sorry but we have the worst military leadership in the history of this country.

mac| 3.12.12 @ 3:30PM

Does that mean we are just a few steps away from "I was just following orders" ?

Dr. X| 3.12.12 @ 8:37AM

This country is in mortal danger.

mac| 3.12.12 @ 3:33PM

What comes after "mortal danger" because I personally think we are on the precipice.

SpiralArchitect| 3.12.12 @ 6:29PM

Google FEMA camps.

How about the POTUS's brown shirts?

PineKnot| 3.12.12 @ 9:10AM

Another reason the President, Attorney General, and now, the Secretary of Defense, should all be impeached.

SpiralArchitect| 3.12.12 @ 6:28PM

+1

benny havens| 3.12.12 @ 9:22AM

To answer your question- Clueless.

Mimi| 3.12.12 @ 9:28AM

Obama and his minions have been ignoring there even is a Constitution...In their MIND they are the SUPREME power...Their Brazeness has been given a pass by Congress. ..It is high time they spoke in defense of the law of the land
Jeff Sessions is a Patriot.... The Courage among those remaining 534 must openly and loudly be displayed...They all took the OATH!

SpiralArchitect| 3.12.12 @ 6:30PM

Vote Totalitarian
0bama '12

W| 3.12.12 @ 9:33AM

Panetta is just saying the Obama/Dem line that they can do whatever they want, shut down drillling, impose regulations on Catholic institutions, etc.
At least Bush 1 and Bush 2 obtained congressional authorization for the Iraq wars. Clinton bombed Serbia, Obama bombed Libya, Obama sent soldiers to Uganda, LBJ went to war in Vietnam (Gulf of Tonkin resolution was not authorization for a war), Truman went to war in Korea with UN approval, all acted unilaterally without congressional authorization.

Al Adab| 3.12.12 @ 11:34AM

W:
It is simply another example of The Left trying to make facts fit their paradigm rather than seeing the world as it truely is.

W| 3.12.12 @ 12:11PM

Al Adab
It also further illustrates the Left's totalitarian mindset for power and control to ignore the constitution.

W| 3.12.12 @ 12:11PM

Al Adab
It also further illustrates the Left's totalitarian mindset for power and control to ignore the constitution.

vtwin| 3.12.12 @ 12:01PM

Reagan bombed Libya, sent troops to Lebanon, and invaded Grenada all without Congressional or UN approval.

W| 3.12.12 @ 12:19PM

Reagan's bombing of Libya was a one time emergency to try to kill Ghadafi for the bombing of the Germany night club that killed US soldiers.
The president does have power to use the military for emergency matters to defend US interests. Grenada was to rescue US citizens, students. Both of these required prompt action that you cannot advertise with a congressional debate. Both of these involved direct US interests and protecting Americans. Obama's bombing of Libya and placing troops in Uganda has no direct US interests.

Putting the Marines in Lebanon was a mistake and should have been debated in Congress.

Can you defend each Dem unilateral action that I cited on its own merit rather than pointing to some Rep action with different facts? Do you think Korea and Vietnam are the same as Grenada and bombing Ghadafi?

Al Adab| 3.12.12 @ 2:23PM

vtwin:
No sovereign nation needs UN approval for its actions. The UN through the Security Council can act against agressors should it so choose ala Korea 1950.

Louis Jenkins| 3.12.12 @ 10:08AM

Since when does the US government pay attention to the Constitution? Obama certainly doesn't declare or ask Congressional approval when he wants to bomb a country. The Constitution only serves as a map, and most often is ignored by our "leaders." If the government stuck to the Constitution for approval of its many programs, well, 2/3s of them wouldn't exist. Want to form a militia? Who is in charge of it? The president. Obama and Panetta are doing as our leaders have always done. They're using the Constitution only if it is expedient. They've got their own agenda (Homeland Security, PSA, FEMA, NorthCom) and it ain't pretty.

Bill| 3.12.12 @ 10:42AM

Panetta is in denial.

loulou| 3.12.12 @ 10:56AM

Pannetta is doing what he's told.

Bill| 3.12.12 @ 12:23PM

like a dog.

SpiralArchitect| 3.12.12 @ 6:31PM

+1

Ohiolad| 3.12.12 @ 10:43AM

Don't look now, but Obama is crossing the Rubicon and plans to rule not so much as dictator, but as stooge of the UN. You would never know it from the silence in Washington and the MSM over the weekend. Maybe something is stirring behind the scenes, but so far one might think that Panetta's testimony before a Senate committee was just business as usual when he clearly stated that the UN, not the US Congress, will from now on determine when and where our military will be deployed. This is treason against the Republic, and Panetta and the generals behind him should have been arrested on the spot. We'll see how Congress responds, but if they pretend that nothing has happened it will mean that things are far worse than we ever imagined.

Al Adab| 3.12.12 @ 11:32AM

Panetta used the word "permission" in discussing consultation with other nations regarding Syria. The US has no need to involve itself in Syria even though our often beratted humanitarianism suffers when we watch these events anywhere.

Panetta is neither clueless nor brazen; the word that best fits is perhaps duplicitous or disingenuous. In either case it is a matter of The Left making facts fit their paradigm rather than adjusting to matters in the real world.

W| 3.12.12 @ 1:44PM

Al Adab
Some want us to be the world's policeman to intervene in the internal affairs of every country. There are repressive regimes, like Syria, but where do you draw the line? McCain wants us to bomb Syria, Dole pushed Clinton to bomb Serbia.
It seems that every problem in the world must be answered by the US, just like every problem in the US must be answered by the federal government. It is almost an automatic response : What will the US do about this?

Al Adab| 3.12.12 @ 2:29PM

W:
They hate us until they need us. Both The Left and the interventionists (either Wilsonians or Neos) seem to want us to act every time there are humanitarian issues anywhere. That can be good as in the case of the Indonesian Tsunami, but not every national revolution needs American power.

What I find so interesting is The Left always opposes war (no war for oil/ Haliburton) unless they are in power then they seem to want to go everywhere while at the same time they fail to understand the difference between a war and a police mission or nation building effort. The last two are unwise.

POST American| 3.12.12 @ 10:58AM

"American better watch it or
in a couple of decades we're
going to be a minstrel show
---for RED China."
-Gore Vidal
1985

POST CFR front op Bush Sr ----and the 3 Caligulas
---Clinton ---Bush Jr -----and 'BAR--Rockefeller'
Obama, and where are we now?

And this on top of 4 decades of long
engineered, systematic and deliberate handover
----and 'make way' for the 'MUST BE' of
capstone 'Agenda 21' ----and TOTAL EUGENICS.

'DE---'IN---DUST'--REALISM'

'PAN--NET---US' is but the beta testing
of the FINAL unfold of the Globalist Trojan Horse.

Scarcely a week after the 'natural' death
of GENUINE Breitbart ---NO TIME to
equivocate. 'PAN--NET--us' is clearly
beta testing.

NO more ----and surely NO LESS.

SURELY

---------------------------------Had enough?

---------------HUAC/ Nuremberg 2012----------------

SpiralArchitect| 3.12.12 @ 6:33PM

Not designed for easy reading :/

albert constantine jr.| 3.12.12 @ 11:16AM

All of the debate about the Constitution is invigorating, but upon viewing this article and accompanying photo, a different question occurred to me: when did Orrin Hatch join the US Army, and why is he wearing the uniform of a General with a name tage that appears to say "Dempsey"?

Evan| 3.12.12 @ 12:08PM

Sessions voted for Holder. Nice one.

Al Adab| 3.12.12 @ 2:34PM

Republicans still play by the old gentlemanly rules of civility even while The Left abandoned them years ago. They Bork; GOP approves.

One hand tied behind the back?

SpiralArchitect| 3.12.12 @ 6:34PM

...and sitting on the other one.

Oldefarte| 3.12.12 @ 12:13PM

Most all of you are typically ignoring the central issue of Jed's article in that CONGRESS AND THE PRESIDENT CO-EQUALLY/JOINTLY HAVE THE ONLY CONSTITUTIONAL POWER TO DECLARE WAR. A president must go before congress and obtain their declared permission in order to initiate a war, and that was also Jeff Session's point of argument against Penatta [who conveniently ignored and failed to truthfully answer Session's asked questions regarding same]!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Chris| 3.12.12 @ 12:28PM

What I am wondering is; where is the left? Where is Bill Ayers? They rioted in the streets about Vietnam. They ran LBJ out of the race. What is the difference? Two things; look at who is fighting the war (volunteers or idiots in the eyes of the left); and a propaganda machine more powerful than any in history. Thank God there is at least one Congressman who will mention it.

W| 3.12.12 @ 12:53PM

Nixon was correct in stating that eliminating the draft would eliminate most of the anti war protests.

RJ| 3.12.12 @ 12:36PM

Senator Sessions is to be commended, but the Obama Administration's violation of Constitutional limits on his war-making powers was on full-display last year regarding the Libyan involvement. Disappointingly, there was little public outcry at the time of this outrage. Nonetheless, seeing a senior official of the Obama administration pay deference to international associations (Nato and UN) regarding the desire for obtaining their approval while simultaneously showing contempt for Congress is shocking.

I recognize that there is insufficient public support for impeachment and conviction of Obama over his dictatorial use of the American military, but his actions justify it. There is no power more significant in government than the deployment of military force. Libya posed no direct, imminent, threat to the United States, yet Obama joined the fight without Congressional consent. Such are the actions of a dictator, not a president of a republic. America is crossing the Rubicon towards being a corrupt dictatorship. This conduct must be stopped.

JJ| 3.12.12 @ 12:47PM

It is an admission that the US in no longer a sovereign nation. If the UN (which includes Russia and China) can tell the President what to do, then we are subservient to the UN. Its also setting up the use of US forces against its own citizens.

The sooner true conservatives recognize that its a war, the better are chances to win it.

albert constantine jr.| 3.12.12 @ 12:56PM

Another thing that bears mentioning in this debate is who voted for the War Powers Act of 1973. I seem to recall that one of the votes in favor of this legislation and the veto override was a young Senator from Delaware in the first year of his first term. What was his name….?

He wound up marrying a woman he met who was married to someone else when they started dating (and the ex-husband wound up serving state and federal prison time).

He had some trouble in the 80s remembering that his grandfather was a mining engineer, not a coal miner, and plagiarized speeches from Neil Kinnock and his biography, as he had been caught for cheating in law school.

He also was frequently confused about history, thinking FDR was President during the Stock Market Crash of 1929, and went on television (an invention in its infancy in the laboratory at the time) to tell people there was nothing to fear but fear itself.

Like the POTUS, he also has been touted as a constitutional scholar, even teaching the subject at Widener University Law School, though he has demonstrated confusion about it in debate.

What was that name of a name who saw fit to foist this legislation onto the Executive Branch, but like almost everyone other member of the Left, doesn’t feel obliged to follow the laws he brought into existence (something like Bite me, Slidin’, Chidin’)?

W| 3.12.12 @ 1:47PM

Who else but Joey Biden!!
He graduated near the bottom of his class in law school. He copied a law review article for a term paper, should have been bounced out of school for that, and for being so stupid that he copied the article verbatim.

Al Adab| 3.12.12 @ 2:32PM

Yeah but the guy who finishes last in his med school class is still called Dr. LOL :

W| 3.12.12 @ 3:11PM

Albert and Al,
Judge Bork in his book about his confirmation hearings shows how Biden is truly stupid. Biden hired constitutional lawyers to teach him the constitution and write questions for him to put to Bork. Problem was Joey never had a follow up after Bork answered.
In law school the guy who finishes last or near last is called Senator, Vice-President.

albert constantine jr.| 3.12.12 @ 4:47PM

To paraphrase Sen. Hruska from the Carswell nomination fiasco, aren't liars, plagiarists and morons entitled to representation, too. In the case of the VPOTUS, they get all in one.

John| 3.12.12 @ 1:25PM

Babbins would do better to amend his last paragraph to read "This is an issue that demands unity and a concerted counterattack by all AMERICANS", as this isn't a BS partisan issue.

martin j smith| 3.12.12 @ 1:57PM

This is all about Obama of course. So the question really is this: Will a Republican such as Romney do enough to change course in our foreign as well as domestic policies or as I believe likely will Romney represent the candidate that bridges the Socialists and the Republican Elite Country Club Set ? My focus then is this: Romeny is oddly or perhaps not the candidate that represents the Washington Elite which combines Republican Leadershits and the Socialists. Thus assuring perhaps minor changes but the essential situation will not change. That is where the mood of the electorate can become enraged seeing this. Thus this can become an impetus for a rebellion against this Washington Eliteism.

Smaj| 3.12.12 @ 3:05PM

That guy sitting next to Panetta, General Martin Dempsey, is supposed to protect & defend the Constitution. He is failing epically.

Ken (Old Texican)| 3.12.12 @ 3:12PM

Jed,
thank you for the reminder.

A couple of thoughts: One, why don't any of your columns say..."therefore go and do thusly!"

Why whine to us without a clear alternative?

Do you want us to shoot Panetta?

Do you want us to fire all the Generals, and if so how?
...No, I understand your points...and there will be a day when we patriots hunker down and refuse to comply with UN BS...probably small arms legislation.
How well are you armed?

cicero| 3.12.12 @ 5:12PM

Did I read correctly? Is the author suggesting that the existence of a mutual protection treaty is sufficient for the United States to go to war without the concurrence of Congress? I don't think so. At present, it seems that whomever resides in the White House has gotten the impression that he/she can use the Unites States Military as his/her personal toy. It is time that the Congress took back the responsibility that was placed upon it by the Constitution. I know that will not be as much fun as just playing games, and stripping the citizenry of its hard earned wealth. But maybe they would regain some of the respect they have frittered away over the past 60 years or so.

Arch| 3.12.12 @ 6:05PM

Obama has no respect for the rule of law, much less the U. S. Constitution. he has demonstrated his arrogance many times. Here are a few examples.

While I do not believe the War Powers Act is constitutional, Congress should declare war when it is necessary. If the President acts without their authority, the could, as they did in Vietnam, prohibit funding.

In his "structured bankruptcy" he looted GM of assets and moved them to the UAW company instead of enforcing the bond holders' rights.

He believes in Critical Race Theory - basically Black power - which is why he purged the civil rights department at Justice and refused to prosecute the New Black Panthers. Voting rights only apply to minorities.

He refuses to enforce the borders or allow the states to do so. Whole swathes of the Southwest are under the control of Drug Cartels. The President has the Constitutional obligation to defend this country

The TSA has no legal authority to conduct highly intrusive searches under the Patriot Act without probable cause or a court order. This mass search policy is forbidden under the Fourth Amendment.

The IRS is using their considerable power to revoke tax exempt status of Tea Party groups. This use of authority to intimidate political opponents is illegal and violates the First Amendment.

Unable to get Cap & Trade through Congress, he ordered EPA to impose the system by executive order. EPA has no legislative authority to restrict or tax Carbon.

When a Virginia court ruled ObamaCare mandate unconstitutional, he continued "apace."

The recent confrontation of Catholicism is a violation of the First Amendment.

When a Federal Judge ordered Interior to lift their ban on drilling in the Gulf, he refused to obey.

With the Supreme Court rulings on the Second Amendment, Obama realized that the Congress would be unable to ban guns, so he cooked up Fast & Furious so he could use a treaty with Mexico to restrict our rights.

The assassination of Anwar al Awlaki, an American citizen, was carried out without due process.

Congress needs to remind Obama that he is President, not King.

emasee duh| 3.12.12 @ 6:19PM

Republicans are internationalists too, i challenge you to look up Reagan, Bush 1, and Bush 2 all 3 talk about NWO... In fact Bush 2 states on camera and in front of congress that, "we will have new world order, weather people like it or not". Its an establishment thing not Republican or Democrat. Look up the statements if you dont believe me... have fun

TeaPartyPatriot4ever| 3.12.12 @ 10:40PM

You're missing the point, as usual.. The point is not about the President, the point is about adherence to the US Constitution, regarding the authorization, the laws granting only Congress the right to declare war, and the President, whoever it may be- Republican or Democrat, must abide the the laws of the US Constitution in that regard.

Any whoever violates that rule and law, must be held accountable, regardless of party affiliation, past or present.

Reagan was held to that statute when he engaged in the Iran-Contra scandal, thus paid the price for it.

And Bush 43 should never have gone into Iraq either, but was subsequently allowed to, due to the UN resolutions that stated such actions could be taken against Iraq, as well as the US Congressional war powers authority granted to Bush after 911..

emasee duh| 3.13.12 @ 3:38PM

I understand this but everyone is only calling out obama and his admin, but it is not JUST obama.. Yes this man should be impeached for his unconstitutional behavior, but the fact is that it has been like this for a long time.... we need change and the only way to do that is to all stand together and fight for our liberties....

OregonBuzz| 3.12.12 @ 7:55PM

It is well known that Panetta, if not a fellow traveler, is at the very least a Communist sympathizer just like his boss. We should not be surprised at anything this worm does. He is a traitor inside the gate. Believe it.

TeaPartyPatriot4ever| 3.12.12 @ 10:28PM

Quote- "Rep. Walter B. Jones Jr., R-N.C., has introduced a resolution declaring that should the president use offensive military force without authorization of an act of Congress, “it is the sense of Congress” that such an act would be “an impeachable high crime and misdemeanor.”

Specifically, Article I, Section 8, of the Constitution reserves for Congress alone the power to declare war, a restriction that has been sorely tested in recent years, including Obama’s authorization of military force in Libya.

In an exclusive WND column, former U.S. Rep. Tom Tancredo claims that Jones introduced his House Concurrent Resolution 107 in response to startling recent comments from Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta." -unquote

All Americans applaud Rep Jones, and Obama and all of his crony henchmen, and women, must all be thrown out of office and power, period

POST American| 3.12.12 @ 11:32PM

----------------------FINAL WORD----------------------

Early contender for BEST video of 2012,
the yesterday released:

'ARREST Angelina Jolie for War Crimes'
-InfoWars

"The UN is the most murderous, vicious
and EVIL force ---EVER! --and Jolie's a
MONSTER! ---a MONSTER!"
-ALEX JONES
(NOW second most viewed
in the world!)

--------------------DEVASTATING---------------------

---TIME TO MOVE BOYS!

Burlington| 3.13.12 @ 12:14AM

Look at Trevor Loudin has found in his investigation of Leon Panetta and his connection to Hugh Delacey, a Communist. Why can a man with his background and connections be confirmed to these positions?
These Reds would destroy the Constitution as would Prof. Bell if they could.

POST American| 3.13.12 @ 5:13AM

----ENOUGH with the laid on Tavistock
generated sock puppet posts.

---Time to drop the capstone invented
teminologies.

-----TIME to go for the head of the octypus.

The London Wall Stret coup d'etat
of 1917

The Bolshevik 'Reign of Terror' (1918---)

The Ukranian genocide (1922-24)

The funding of the Kaiser Wilhelm 'Race
Purity' Institute (1927)

The empowerment of Joseph Stalin (1927---52)

AND----in 1935

"Her modern dwellings, great planetariums,
gymnasiums, swiming pools, fine public highways,
PERFECT factories. ALL this was done on OUR
money. ALL this was done by the Federal Reserve
Board. The Federal Reserve has pumped so many
BILLIONS into [--NAZI--] Germany that they
dare NOT name the total."
-Rep. Charles McFadden
(1935)

AND ---NOW ----POST the MAOist
Halocaust ---Rockefeller-CFR 'Nick's ON'
sellout
----CONSIDER our present predicament
-------------------------------------------------DEEPLY.

Richard Baker| 3.13.12 @ 7:19AM

The Generals/Admirals are the Perfumed Princes of whom COL Hackworth spoke. Gutless, political hacks wearing stars/braid. Not one of them has the backbone to speak out as Jack Singlaub did regarding Carter and their silence is acquiesence. If they had guts then they'd speak out and retire as did Singlaub. Maybe these 4-stars are hoping that the 5-star rank will return, who knows.

Ed| 3.13.12 @ 1:24PM

Absolutely correct. Anyone who touts our armed forces, knowing the utter lack of character of its generals/admirals/etc., is playing a fool's game. We can have great soldiers but our generals are terrible cowards.

St. Thor| 3.13.12 @ 11:02AM

clueless.

Mike| 3.13.12 @ 11:13AM

DUDE! His declaring to be eligible for the Presidency was a clear Constitutional violation. All previous POTUS have both parents as US Citizens, except BO whose Father was a Brit subject from Kenya, plus his stepdaddy who was a Muslim Indonesian.

POST American| 3.14.12 @ 12:29AM

------------------BOTTOMLESS LINE-------------------

------------THE REPUBLIC HAS FALLEN-------------

Globalist USURY and EUGENICS are
not only at large ---but TAX FREE and
reaching for FINAL 'CON-solid--ation'.

"When your time comes
--------WHAT WILL YOU DO?

'IKIRU's released in 1952, the year we
were saving --some-- of little Korea from
the Globalist installed and empowered
-----------RED Chinese Halocaust------------.

"NOW, in 2012, China's NOT resembling
so much the communist thing ---but with
its corporate fascist structure and its
fierce EUGENICS policy and management
--its become, well, a functional and somewhat
domesticated version of NAZI Germany."
-Joseph P. Farrell
(radio interview)

In this, the 11th hour of the CFR-RED
China handover, sellout, TREASON and
FINAL EUGENICS OP

From the bloody Pusan Perimeter

--to the GLORY of Inchon

--to the Battle of the Chosun resevoir

-------to the frozen wastes of the Yalu River

-----------to the FINAL push ---and definitive betrayals

--------------the the GHASTLY forced repatriations

---------------to the 5500 American 'disappeared'

------------------to the 55000 Americans and
MILLIONS of others who sacrificed

on this, the staggeringly relevant 60th Anniversary
of the
--------------------KOREAN WAR------------------------

-----------------WHAT WILL WE DO?------------------
---------------------for LOST AMERICA?

More Articles by Jed Babbin

More Articles From Loose Canons

Obama’s Thin Red Line

April 29, 2013 | Jed Babbin

Why Has No One Taken Credit?

April 22, 2013 | Jed Babbin

Dusty Springfield’s Pentagon Budget

April 15, 2013 | Jed Babbin

Guns Responsible for Global Warming

April 8, 2013 | Jed Babbin

When Blackmail Fails

April 1, 2013 | Jed Babbin

http://spectator.org/archives/2012/03/12/leon-panetta-clueless-or-braze

ADVERTISEMENT

Latest Headlines

The Inoperative Jay Carney

Jeffrey Lord|31 comments

Lerner’s Plea

Ray V. Hartwell, III|27 comments

Eugenic Abortion 2.0

Daniel Allott|11 comments

Holding AWOL Obama Accountable

Betsy McCaughey|9 comments

What Are the Risks of Syria Involvement?

Christopher Orlet|8 comments

Obama’s Imbroglios

R. Emmett Tyrrell, Jr.|18 comments

Obama’s Drone War

Jed Babbin|7 comments

Catholic Culture In America

G. Tracy Mehan, III|5 comments

The Spectacle Blog

I Agree With Andy McCarthy: No Special Counsel

Ross Kaminsky | 9:16AM

Sorry, You Can’t Delegate Responsibility

Ray V. Hartwell, III | 9:10AM

Issa Recovers

Ross Kaminsky | 5.22.13

The Religion of Peace Strikes London Again

Aaron Goldstein | 5.22.13

Not Just the Media: First Amendment Under Attack

Quin Hillyer | 5.22.13

House Judiciary: Constitutional Rights Vital in Wartime

Luca Gattoni-Celli | 5.22.13

U.S. Admits 4 Americans Killed by Drones

Luca Gattoni-Celli | 5.22.13

Colorado Governor Gives “Reprieve” to Murderer

Ross Kaminsky | 5.22.13

SPONSORED LINKS

FLASHBACK TO: 1995

Clip of the Day

ADVERTISEMENT

Home |About |Contributors |Advertise |Donate |Privacy Policy |Contact

The American Spectator Foundation is the 501(c)(3) organization responsible for publishing The American Spectator magazine and training aspiring journalists who espouse traditional American values. Your contributions are tax deductible to the extent permitted by law. Each donor receives a year-end summary of their giving for tax purposes.

Copyright 2013, The American Spectator. All rights reserved.