Obama Admin Coup Cites Intl Permission, Not Congress, As Legal Basis For Action In Syria [VIDEO]By Dave Orts, on March 10th, 2012What Americans are witnessing, well the ones who are paying attention is Coup D’état, we are in the midst of our Pentagon & Obama Declaring the Congress which is We The People rendered ceremonial:we pose this question, how does international assembly preempt the citizens of our Great United States of America through We the People, aka Congress to the lower levels of Dantes Inferno.
General Dempsey listed three criteria: the United States would be "invited in" by a government under attack, would be acting in self defense or would be operating "with some kind of international legal basis; an UNSCR [United Nations Security Resolution].
The only legal authority that’s required to deploy the United States military is of the Congress and the president and the law and the Constitution.
Shall we re affirm“The use of offensive military force by a President without prior and clear authorization of an Act of Congress constitutes an impeachable high crime and misdemeanor under article II, section 4 of the Constitution,” Republican Congressman Walter Jones has introduced a resolution in the House of Representatives.
Charter itself states, “Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self defence if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations.. The founding governments of the U.N. understood that no reasonable nation would stand to cede determination of what constitutes an act of self defense, which in the modern context contemplates preemptive action, to any international body or foreign nation. That determination must be based on the decision of a sovereign government in analyzing the situation, assessing the relatively benefits and ramifications of military action, and going through the proper processes for approving whatever action is undertaken. As Senator Sessions correctly points out, in the US that process is vested in the Presidency and the Congress, not an international organization.. The potential objections, resistance, or approval of other nations is built into that process. Getting international support for the operation is often very useful, but it should never be dispositive.. You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <we> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>. Comments are subject to approval and moderation. We remind everyone that The Heritage Foundation promotes a civil society where ideas and debate flourish. Please be respectful of each other and the subjects of any criticism. While we may not always agree on policy, we should all agree that being appropriately informed is everyone’s intention visiting this site. Profanity, lewdness, personal attacks, and other forms of incivility will not be tolerated. Please keep your thoughts brief and avoid ALL CAPS. While we respect your first amendment rights, we are obligated to our readers to maintain these standards. Thanks for joining the conversation.. In the Super Tuesday primary, the economy was the number one issue on voters minds, be they in Massachusetts, Georgia, Ohio, or Virginia. And that wasnt because they were happy about high unemployment and slow wage growth. Yet according to President Barack Obama, the economy is getting stronger, and the recovery is speeding up. Of course, these things are relative. A disappointing recovery is underway. It just hasnt touched the millions of Americans who remain out of work, the millions more whose wages cant keep up with inflation, and it … More. Delegates unanimously passed a motion recognising an international legal basis for the right of an independent Scotland to remove the Trident nuclear deterrent.. The motion read: “Conference believes that an independent Scotland will have the right to decide that the Scottish people’s regularly and frequently reiterated view that Trident nuclear submarines, missiles and warheads should be removed from our land and waters in the soonest possible timescale is based on the international law of the right of national self determination.”. The party pointed to a report issued earlier this week from Centreforum, an independent liberal think tank, which pressed the UK Government to drop its policy of replacing Trident.. Bill Kidd, SNP MSP for Glasgow Anniesland, said: “A key advantage of independence is that it is the only constitutional option which gives Scotland the powers to have Trident removed from Scottish waters, and we believe that the Westminster Government will wish to act on this and withdraw Trident as quickly as possible in these welcome circumstances.. “Majority Scottish opinion, our churches, the Scottish Trade Union Congress and Civic Society, all oppose Trident – and the Scottish Parliament has voted against its replacement – yet the UK Government wants to use Scottish taxpayers’ money to pay for these weapons of mass destruction while cutting conventional defence.. “As the this week’s Centreforum report underlines, from being a supposed deterrence during the Cold War, Trident has itself now become one of the biggest defence risks we face with the cost of replacement threatening the future of conventional forces and bases.. “While conventional forces have been cut, run down and overstretched, with 10,500 defence job losses in Scotland and a £5.6bn underspend over the last decade, Trident has been treated as some sacred cow by the UK Government.. “It is appalling that, whilst the Westminster government is forging ahead with cuts to basing and personnel, they can find the money for a nuclear weapons system that offers no meaningful defence to the threats we face in the 21st century. The UK government has its priorities all wrong when our conventional, front line forces face redundancy, while the Trident nuclear weapons system gets renewal.. “Any way you look at it – on moral, financial, or defence grounds – renewal of Trident is completely untenable in the face of these redundancies. A normal country with the power to decide its own defence and security policy would never be pushed into this crazy situation. Scotland must have independence to determine its own priorities, rather than have somebody elses imposed on it.”. China’s authoritarian government is restricting the police’s power to secretly detain people, at least on paper, announcing stricter revisions to a key criminal law Thursday after a wave of public complaints.. Scholars welcomed the changes, saying they will offer better protection of suspects and reflect increasing awareness in China of the need for stronger detainee rights.. The formal introduction of the revised criminal procedure law to the national legislature ends a half year of speculation and debate about whether the government would give police the legal authority to do something they have long done extra legally: disappear people for months at a time without telling their families.. Police have increasingly used the tactic over the past year to detain activist lawyers, democracy campaigners, and even internationally acclaimed artist Ai Weiwei, amid government worries about whether the popular uprisings of the Arab Spring might spread to China.. The congress, which is controlled by the ruling Communist Party, is all but certain to approve the changes when the session ends Wednesday.. While legal reformers have cheered the revisions, enforcement of most laws in China is spotty. Police and prosecutors have routinely ignored current legal provisions protecting suspects’ rights and have frequently used charges of endangering national security against dissidents.. There are two relevant articles in the law that deal with notifying families, one in regular criminal cases and the other involving a type of detention known as residential surveillance. Both have been revised to better protect detainees, though they don’t do away completely with secret detentions, scholars said.. In the case of residential surveillance, a sort of house arrest that can happen in a fixed location that is chosen by police, a detainee’s family must be notified within 24 hours unless they can’t be reached. Dissidents detained under this kind of residential surveillance are often put in suburban hotels or apartments, and many have reported being tortured by police.. “It’s not a picnic; it’s not fun,” said Joshua Rosenzweig, a human rights researcher based in Hong Kong who has documented detainee accounts of residential surveillance. “It involves serious psychological and physical abuse.
Whereas the cornerstone of the Republic is honoring Congress’s exclusive power to declare war under article we, section8, clause 11 of the Constitution: Now, therefore, be it Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate concurring),That it is the sense of Congress that, except in response to an actual or imminent attack against the territory of theUnited States, the use of offensive military force by a President without prior and clear authorization of an Act ofCongress violates Congress’s exclusive power to declare war under article we, section 8, clause 11 of the Constitutionand therefore constitutes an impeachable high crime and misdemeanor under article II, section 4 of the Constitution.
Panettas response suggests the President can unilaterally commit the nation to war, even in the in the absence of an actual or imminent attack upon the United States.
Mark Jones is a business journalist based in Melbourne, Australia. Mark has a passion for financial markets and breaking news stories and loves writing about business news, stock market, and economic opinions that matters most to its audience. Mark spends a lot of time discovering and researching latest financial markets and industry news stories in order to make sure the latest and greatest stories are brought to you first on BigBoardNews.com.