What we need, according to the Dems, is a kind of global test — a “legal basis” tied to “international permission” that would determine when our military can be used.
Because let’s face it: deciding on our own — that is, through the Congress, using a Constitutional test — how and when to use our own military for our own purposes is imperialistic, while letting other countries determine when we can act is far more fair and democratic.
And honestly: who needs Congress when you can get the Arab League on board?
A transcript of the exchange with Leon Panetta:
SESSIONS: “Do you think you can act without Congress and initiate a no-fly zone in Syria without congressional approval?”
PANETTA: “Our goal would be to seek international permission… 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.”
SESSIONS: “I’m all for having international support, but I’m really baffled by the idea that somehow an international assembly provides a legal basis for the United States military to be deployed in combat. I don’t think it’s close to being correct. They provide no legal authority. The only legal authority that’s required to deploy the U.S. military is the Congress and the president and the law in the Constitution.”
(thanks to JD, Diana, and Jeff Sessions)
I wish I possessed the sort of imperviousness required to publicly embarrass myself with such conviction. Can you imagine the possibilities; the things you could do if you really, truly didn’t give a shit what the world thought of you?
Yet nobody will call for Panetta’s ouster…except us bitterclingers, thereby instantly nullifying such a call.
Convenient! And QED.
It’s almost like we’re not fifty States ourselves.
Oh.
Consider the when here for the fine contextual look into the soul of this man.
He thought the radical New Left which had only recently seized power in the Democratic Party to be closer to the center of the American polity than the moderate Republican Nixon.
He looked at the pro-communist left to be the true center of America. And then he went on for all these years wearing the mask of “liberal Democrat”, as they all did, till with Obama they felt no need for masks anymore.
PANETTA: Well, NATO is like a big club, and when you’re as untouchable and powerful as my administration is, you get to decide what the club does, and this law thing you keep talking about, dude… I mean, are you serious? Are you serious?
SESSIONS: …
PANETTA: Hey, Jeff, are you gonna drink that club soda? ‘Cause I’m parched. Talk, talk, talk. Let’s bust some heads.
Maybe someone can put me some knowledge. Was Sessions one of those senators who said anything regarding the administration’s Libya intervention? Seems to me the current administration already pissed on Congress with regards to war powers. Kind of late in the game to start asking these guys what they think of legal basis, seeing as we already know.
My Aghast-Meter just pegged out. Anyone got a spare?
Sears Poncho, so, you’re asking for some information about Sessions’ history on the question, and at the same time suggesting that somehow it’s “late in the game to start asking these guys” [an aside: “start asking?” I thought you were wondering whether Sessions had asked or made the point back when the Libya incursion was in train? So which is it? It’s possible they did ask already or they’re just now beginning to ask?], when you’re own question about Sessions’ history suggests we might reasonably forget the circumstances of past actions and therefore be in some need of a reminder now, when the absurd policy is being invoked once again by the administration still in power, which Sessions seems to be helpfully providing, and of which we have therefore taken notice!
correction — that’s: your, not “you’re own question”
I hope the Ghost of Dwight Eisenhower haunts Panetta for the rest of his life…
Were I Sessions, I would have asked when Sec. Panetta was turning in his resignation and putting himself up for NATO Sec. General.
PDF on hearing over Libya resolution of use of force.
It’s with some amazement that I see our president move to grab as much power as possible while simultaneously denying all responsibility.
That’s one of those lies so big it tends of its own weight to disappear into the background (is the theory, I think), Blake.
Truly, sdferr, a breathtakingly huge lie is difficult to challenge.
I’m reminded of the old saying that nations don’t have freinds, only interests. And whose interests are being served by seeking international approval rather than constitutional defined approval?