See, unfortunately, the thing is, the title is not very sensationalist. Throughout the course of his Senate testimony, Secretary of Defense Panetta very clearly establishes that:
1) The President and the US military specifically do not "take orders" from the American people via their elected members of Congress.
2) They merely "inform" the Congress of any wars they participate in.
3) But before doing so, they seek "permission" from international bodies like the UN and NATO.
4) The UN, NATO or an "ad-hoc coalition of nations" gives the US military the "legal basis" to attack third parties.
So, the obvious questions here are:
1) Who does Obama "take orders" from?
and
2) If UN "permission" provides Obama the "legal basis" to attack anyone, why not the US?
1) The President and the US military specifically do not "take orders" from the American people via their elected members of Congress.
2) They merely "inform" the Congress of any wars they participate in.
3) But before doing so, they seek "permission" from international bodies like the UN and NATO.
4) The UN, NATO or an "ad-hoc coalition of nations" gives the US military the "legal basis" to attack third parties.
So, the obvious questions here are:
1) Who does Obama "take orders" from?
and
2) If UN "permission" provides Obama the "legal basis" to attack anyone, why not the US?
You know, for a while there I felt bad about describing your posts as paranoid. I feel much better now. Thanks.
The US President doesn't take orders from anyone. The office has virtually unlimited war making capacity provided that there is not an actual declaration of war. So right now there are US fighters in Somalia, Uganda, Yemen and umpteen other countries and nothing much to be done about it unless Congress objects.
In other words, its the fear of political pain is the restraint, not some legal document.
