Posted on 09/24/2006 2:07:59 PM PDT by blogblogginaway
Thought it would be a good idea to discuss the upcoming interview where we already know Clinton loses it with Wallacae here. I for one am anxious to see it.
This is the morning live thread, if anyone is interested - over 600 replies.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1707296/posts?page=541
Clinton is paranoid. The neocons, FNC and Rupert Murdock, and ABC are all out to get him.
He's Hillary in drag. The vast rightwing conspiracy is out to get them both.
Oh, and he had the nerve to say Chris Wallace has a smirk? LOLOLOLOL
Did he actually slap Chris on the leg??
Interview Quote"I authorized the CIA to get groups together to try to kill him."
Trialbriefs.com
Political Assassination
********************
November 18,2001
The London Times reports that Bin Laden is "run to ground." Allied special forces from America and Britain have cornered Osama Bin Laden in a hilly 30 square mile area in Southeastern Afghanistan. From the outset the mission has been to deny bin Laden space so that he could not run and he could not hide.
The question now looms large on the global political landscape: Will the United States execute the "Intelligence Finding" which President Bush signed in the wake of September 11? Will bin Laden be the target of a political assassination because the ban does not apply to wartime and defense against terrorism?
The events of September 11 almost instantly gave rise to debate about what distinguishes a criminal act to be dealt with in the courtroom from an act of war on the battlefield. A similar discussion revolves around the question of when killing a perceived enemy of the United States is a "political assassination," which is illegal, and when such a killing is allowed as part of a larger-scale war effort. To explore this distinction, it is first necessary to examine the United States’ policy toward political assassination, a policy which is usually addressed through two types of directives: executive orders promulgated by the president and legislation by Congress. However, in the aftermath of September 11, President Bush utilized an intelligence "finding" authorizing the CIA and military to take "lethal covert action" aimed at destroying Osama bin Laden and his al Qaeda network.
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.
He sounded drunk when he said this--of course, NO one I've heard EVER said he was obsessed/fixated on OBL--it's always been about MONICA. D'oh. Does he think the average American is reaaaaaaaaalllly that stupid?! >:-(
I remember thinking that it's a real conincidence that he set those missiles aimlessly ablaze just as Monica was making the news. Rented Wag the Dog about that time too. But despite that criticism mostly every Republican agreed with him about the seriousness of his threat.
Clinton about lost his mind. I thought his eyes were gonna pop out of his head. I watched it on YouTube. He knows he did not do every thing that he could have done and had he acted properly 3000 people would be alive today, not to mention countless service members and the civilians that are caught up in UBL's mess.
Aw double fudge!!! Comcast cable here in the Atlanta area has been breaking up all day!! Called them and OFCOURSE they claim THEY aren't having any problems. Looks like we'll be missing the show. Damn, damn, double-damn....AW SHI...................................... :^(
Idea for a new ABC series:
Desperate Legacies. A series about former failed politicians who are seeking to rebuild a legacy.
It would even be a reality series with a contender getting voted off each week. At the conclusion of the series, the winner gets to rewrite his/her legacy and get America to vote 'yea' or 'nay'.
I nominate Bill, Jimmah, Newt and Trent for starters. George A might get a spot too, at the rate he's falling from grace.
He repeatedly poked Chris on the leg with his finger. My boss does that kind of thing. She's never touched me, just jabs at the air. Jab after angry jab after jab. A sign of an unstable personality, IMO.
Go on-line and you can see the entire interview.
You know what gets me the most? It's when perfectly rational people make the statement that clintoon was the greatest communicator in history. Blech, barf! He has always talked like a high school nerd. "I worked harder on that than anything I ever did." I wish someone who knows how to search better than I do, would seek out some of his speeches and compare what he said about some of the issues and compare them to Bush's words on the same issues. Bush talks like a grownup, even if he does mangle his words sometimes. His words have intelligence as a componant. clintoon never said anything of substance, just empty chatter with no meaning. We all remember the trouble he had with word meanings.
I think that Republicans wanted him to do more although I don't believe that they wanted him to be able to look good doing it. Someone posted some old threads from that time (post pulled and account suspended and I have no idea why) and there were more than a few Freepers who were accusing Bill of starting wars to cover his scandals much like leftists accused W of starting wars for ulterior motives.
Clinton clearly could have done more during his term to get OBL and put the fear of God into Muslim countries to show them we will not be uckfayed with.
Gee, the warm & articulate guy that the press always fawns over didn't seem very articulate when he was confronted by a member of the press who didn't practically shower him with kisses like the majority of the MSM did. At one point, I think he was almost spitting - he looked like a sputtering lunatic. Compare this to the way President Bush handles an almost invariably hostile press. (Discounting the time he was overheard referring to the NYT's writer as being an a**hole.) George manages to stay charming and on-track without looking like he is about ready to attack - like ol' Smoothie did! It's obvious that Clintoon isn't used to being challenged - of course back then if he had been challenged he had the power to send the IRS after you!
do a shot of sumthin with every Clinton lie.
You won't make it past the first break.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.