# Policy Reversal..& N.Korea is gona test their nukes.



## Creek (Aug 29, 2003)

..watched the news for once....It hit me by surprise.

Creek..will think on this.


----------



## janeeng (Aug 29, 2003)

I read this on Yahoo that NK is going to test Nukes, Christ, hope they don't test them on us!


----------



## jimnyc (Aug 29, 2003)

I say we test one on them slimy bastards!


----------



## janeeng (Aug 29, 2003)

ahhahahaha! yeah, but if we missed, you would have a bunch a japs in retaliation, and I think we would be doomed then!!!! just hope they never piss off CHINA,!!!!!


----------



## NightTrain (Aug 29, 2003)

They just may test a nuke... really hard to say what Kim Jong Il Gook will do.   They won't 'test' it on another country though; that would mean retaliation from Uncle Sam.  

They'll collapse fairly quick though, they don't have the USSR to prop them up anymore, and China is certainly not an economic powerhouse either.


----------



## Creek (Aug 29, 2003)

Not trying to be a dooms day advocate,but history repeats itself...a 3rd world war is not far off.......or some other terrible war just as deadly......Nobody can stop it...it just comes into play....Those take sides,and off it goes...........

More coffee....

I really would like a world free of weapons of mass destruction...but that will NEVER happen...so we have no choice..but to play the game.....


----------



## janeeng (Aug 29, 2003)

I guess that's good to hear! I read in one of those scam papers that on 9/11 we are doomed this year!!!!!


----------



## Creek (Aug 29, 2003)

Also the NK tested missles that flew over Japan........that's a hell of a way to get attention.......They know their days are #...I just hope they don't get to outa hands...I know they don't want their Nukes to fall in anyone elses hands....


----------



## NightTrain (Aug 29, 2003)

Yeah, but that missile was a 3-stage unit.  The first & second stages appeared to work, but the 3rd stage malfunctioned and of course gravity took care of the rest.

They wanted it to get much closer to the West Coast of the USA... to make a threat.  Instead it came unglued over the Pacific, not too far from Japan.  Too bad their engineers are commies & they don't have the benefit of competition.


----------



## Creek (Aug 29, 2003)

Ok....Kinda like that glue on giligans island..that tree sap/syrup...LOL!!!

They sure are little bastards...Here the world would of bent over backwards for them,to bring their economic..and living conditions better....but they go this route...Stupid moves...bad decissions.....I'd consider that test missle aimed for us...as an act of war...It'll be interesting how this unfolds....


----------



## jxxxmy (Sep 2, 2003)

Yeah that Kim Jong Il is a crazy and dangerous fucker.  I would argue he is more dangerous than Saddam.  Saddam was cruel.  But this guy is very unpredictable.  And he actually really has weapons of mass destruction.

The world would be a much better place without him.

Why is assasination illegal according to international law?  And what is wrong with it?  If the death of one crazy lunatic saves millions of lives.


----------



## LAkid75 (Nov 13, 2003)

Guys guys guys, 

Not to worry...the Kim Jong Il has been doing this for years now.  Everytime he disagrees on something with the rest of the world, he take out his aggression by shooting taepodong 2 missiles out of his ass.


----------



## 5stringJeff (Nov 13, 2003)

jxxxmy,

Assassination is not illegal according to international law (at least none that I've seen).  But there was an executive order, issued by either Ford or Carter, stating that the US would not assassinate heads of state.  It's a very touchy issue - yes, Kim Jong Il is a wacko, and the world would be better off without him, but then, millions of Muslims would say the same about Bush or Clinton.


----------



## Aquarian (Nov 13, 2003)

Assassination of leaders is generally frowned upon due to the can of worms it would open.  If it were generally acceptable it would happen more often, or at least more attempts would be made, security would become more and more of an issue etc.  At least that was always my take on why it did not happen more often.  Kinda like professional courtesy between sharks and lawyers


----------



## Annie (Dec 5, 2003)

On the topic of assassination it begins with Ford:

An executive order approved by President Ford in the mid-1970s and affirmed by President in 1981, states: "No person employed by or acting on behalf of the United States government shall engage in, or conspire to engage in, assassination." Ford issued the order after extensive hearings that exposed CIA assassination plots. 

Then was endorsed by Carter and modified somewhat with 9/11:

Does Bush's intelligence "finding" effectively authorize political assassination?




Executive Orders

How have U.S. presidents used executive orders to address the issue of political assassination?

In 1976, President Gerald R. Ford issued  Executive Order 11905 to clarify U.S. foreign-intelligence activities.  In a section of the order labeled "Restrictions on Intelligence Activities," Ford concisely but explicitly outlawed political assassination:

                            5(g) Prohibition on Assassination. No employee of the United States Government shall                   engage in, or conspire to engage in, political assassination.

Since 1976, every U.S. president has upheld Fords prohibition on assassinations. In 1978, President Jimmy Carter issued an executive order with the chief purpose of reshaping the intelligence structure. In Section 2-305 of that order, Carter reaffirmed the U.S. prohibition on assassination: 

In 1981, President Reagan, through Executive Order 12333, reiterated the assassination prohibition:

2.11 No person employed by or acting on behalf of the United States Government shall engage in, or conspire to engage in, assassination.

Reagan was the last president to address the topic of political assassination. Because no subsequent executive order or piece of legislation has repealed the prohibition, it remains in effect.



Legislation 

At the beginning of 2001, however, U.S. Representative Bob Barr, a Georgia Republican, introduced a bill called the "Terrorist Elimination Act of 2001." The act asserts that the assassination prohibitions "limit the swift, sure and precise action needed by the United States to protect our national security." Furthermore, the act says, "present strategy allows the military forces to bomb large targets hoping to eliminate a terrorist leader, but prevents our country from designing a limited action which would specifically accomplish that purpose." Barrs bill also notes that "on several occasions the military has been ordered to use a military strike hoping, in most cases unsuccessfully, to remove a terrorist leader who committed crimes against the United States." 

To remedy these perceived flaws, the bill would repeal the assassination ban laid out in Fords, Carters and Reagans executive orders. (Click here: Complete text of H.R. 19).

The last action taken with the bill was on January 3, 2001, when it was referred to the House Committee on International Relations.

It is critical to note that before September 11, Barr was unable to find a cosponsor for his Terrorist Elimination Act. During the period from September 12 through October 5, however, 14 representatives signed on as cosponsors. (To view a complete list of cosponsors, please click here: Cosponsors of H.R. 19).

Legalizing assassination, whether through the passage of H.R. 19 or through some other means, is gaining favor. For example, in a September 12 Los Angles Times editorial, George Washington University law professor Jonathan Turley suggested it is time to revisit the idea of limited use of assassination to save lives and combat terrorism. Professor Turley believes the ban on assassination actually encourages the use of military strikes, which don't simply kill the targeted individual but also cause collateral damage. He offers as an example of this phenomenon the killing of Moammar Kadafis 3-year-old adopted daughter in a 1986 bombing raid.  



Intelligence "Finding"

While the future of the Terrorist Elimination Act remains uncertain, President George W. Bush has already taken a separate action that again raises the question of the legality of U.S. government agents targeting individuals.

According to an October 21 Washington Post story by Bob Woodward, President Bush in September signed an intelligence "finding" instructing the CIA to engage in "lethal covert operations" to destroy Osama bin Laden and his al Qaeda organization. White House and CIA lawyers believe that the Intelligence "Finding" is Constitutional because the ban on political assassination does not apply to wartime. They also contend that the United States can defend itself against terrorists. 

Will the Terrorist Elimination Act of 2001 (H.R. 19) move to the forefront as a result of the September 11 attacks?

Will President Bush rescind the executive orders banning political assassination?

Or does Bush view his confidential intelligence finding as a more effective tool against terrorism?

These and other questions will be explored in upcoming Briefs


----------



## dijetlo (Dec 10, 2003)

Excellent post Kathianne. For my 2 cents, if they can find OBL it would be worth the effort to apprehend him (or at least recover his remains) instead of dropping a large bomb on him. Given my druthers I'd like to see him face a trial and have the law deliver justice.


----------



## Annie (Dec 11, 2003)

Given my druthers, I like the idea of him being an ugly smear on the wall of a cave-with the vilest of criminals only death prevents him from harming others. 

Saddam is a bit of a different monster though. He had the benefits of 'legitamacy' thus it's most beneficial for him to stand trial, I don't think the people of Iraq will make a martyr over a Saddam on trial.


----------



## PMZ (Sep 16, 2013)

Creek said:


> ..watched the news for once....It hit me by surprise.
> 
> Creek..will think on this.



You can start your education anywhere on the attached list. You'll notice that college lectures are a little more challenging than the GSE lectures that you're used to,  but,  give it a try.

http://forecast.uchicago.edu/lectures.html


----------

