Let’s just be real about a few things. The “international coalition” model for justifying armed conflict around the globe has brought us here. Spineless twits feeling the need to justify or legitimize US action is the reason we’re having this discussion. The idea that two or three nations joining our side somehow makes a mission acceptable, just, or legitimate is why Panetta could feel so comfortably saying that his analysis would have been acceptable even under Republican administrations.
What Senator Sessions was (albeit slowly and painfully) getting to here was the fact that Congress has seemingly been taken out of the equation for “going to war”; and folks like Panetta and those that share his view are now taking the next step by ignoring altogether the Constitution as a rational basis for said action. Perhaps, because said action wouldn’t pass constitutional muster?
We will save the War Powers Act discussion for another day. I will, however, say that I’m certain Congressman Paul will be all over this. Frankly, it’s one of the few areas where I believe he and I are close to being on the same page. While I wholeheartedly support, under the WPA, the President’s right as Commander-in-Chief to take action for a limited time without Congressional approval; police actions, quasi-wars, and war-wars that go on for years without action from the Legislative Branch are completely unacceptable. Secretary Panetta apparently disagrees.
this guy said it best ^^
civil, ok
Here is the fundamental problem people flat out ignore. The debate about use of force is not in anyway shape or form a new revelation in US domestic politics or in the evolution of international law. The two examples I will use are the actions against the Barbary pirates in the late 1700s and early 1800s, the US Civil War, and World War 1.
Now with the Barbary pirates were a loose conglomeration of pirates employed by nations of north Africa to harass shipping in and around the Mediterranean and West Africa. Piracy and tribute were their national incomes. They were powerful enough that the US, UK, and France could not marginalize them. Many European nations chose to appease them with tribute so they would stop attacking trade. The US couldn't afford to pay the tribute due to taxation issues and production issues. The only real course the US had was to build a fleet almost specifically for protecting trade. (another reason why I chuckle at the people who bitch about the Mil. Indst. Complex) The debate about the building and use of the fleet was very heated in the Jefferson Presidency. People even called for Jefferson's impeachment because he did not consult congress for a declaration of war.
One of the biggest reason why the US was drawn into the First World War was the use of unrestricted submarine warfare. The Germans were engaging in illegal warfare by many accounts. With the sinking of the Lusitania the US acted because of the violation of attacking a "civilian" ship that supposedly did not have war contraband. The use of this international norm was not new. The Germans had stopped their use of unrestricted submarine warfare because the US had complained so much. It wasn't until the war turned desperate that the Germans acted so harshly to strangle trade to Britain.
Another example of the US employing international law in warfare is the US civil war. Due to the international community viewing the war as a rebellion in progress instead of belligerent nations that prohibited various types of European trade into the South. Even though a few smugglers acted, most Brits and French boats refused to run the blockade of Southern ports and respected the US use of international law.
Why do I point to these 3 examples? All show the willingness of the US to use international law and custom to use its military in various forms. The use of international law as a justification is NOT a new occurrence under a globalist agenda. To say otherwise shows a complete and absurd lack of historical knowledge. Perspective is lost in many of these debates. The US should act within the frame work of the UN when convenient to our uses. Working within frame works and organs of international law provides legitimacy to act, shares the burden to others, and at the heart of the matter, a legitimate action is not one that can be questioned or retaliated against later. If an action is sanctioned by the community it prevents the community from later acting against the original actor.
