NationStates Jolt Archive

Hmm. Technically, during Clinton's tenure, it was illegal to order the assassination of a foreign national. Period.

Executive Order 11905, signed Feb. 18, 1976, by President Gerald Ford in response to the Church Committee. Section 5(g) of that order states "no employee of the United States Government shall engage in, or conspire to engage in, political assassination."

Section 2-305 of Executive Order 12036, signed by President Jimmy Carter on Jan. 24, 1978, broadens the prohibition from "political assassination" to "assassination" generally.

Executive Order 12333, signed by President Ronald Reagan on Dec. 4, 1981, specifies that assassination is against the law and contrary to U.S. policy. Section 2.11 of the order, which is labeled "Prohibition on Assassination," says "no person employed by or acting on behalf of the United States Government shall engage in, or conspire to engage in, assassination." The next section (Section 2.12) states "no agency of the Intelligence Community shall participate in or request any person to undertake activities forbidden by this Order."

Hmm. So I guess Clinton admitted to violating the law on national television. And I don't mean playing with an intern.

"I worked hard to try to kill him. I authorized a finding for the CIA to kill him. We contracted with people to kill him. I got closer to killing him than anybody has gotten since."
—Former President Bill Clinton, Sept. 24, 2006

Laws later rescinded immediately after 9/11. But fully in force when Clinton was President.

Ironic, no?

Well, I do not think that Osama is a political figure per se.

since when have (rich) politicians not been above the law?

oh wait this is Clinton :D

This just in: DK is stuck on Clinton. Bush moral superiority implied.

A) Executive Orders are not laws.

B) When dealing with an armed and dangerous criminal who is resisting arrest, do the police hesitate to kill them? Is that assassination?

Hmm. Technically, during Clinton's tenure, it was illegal to order the assassination of a foreign national. Period.

Executive Order 11905, signed Feb. 18, 1976, by President Gerald Ford in response to the Church Committee. Section 5(g) of that order states "no employee of the United States Government shall engage in, or conspire to engage in, political assassination."

Section 2-305 of Executive Order 12036, signed by President Jimmy Carter on Jan. 24, 1978, broadens the prohibition from "political assassination" to "assassination" generally.

Executive Order 12333, signed by President Ronald Reagan on Dec. 4, 1981, specifies that assassination is against the law and contrary to U.S. policy. Section 2.11 of the order, which is labeled "Prohibition on Assassination," says "no person employed by or acting on behalf of the United States Government shall engage in, or conspire to engage in, assassination." The next section (Section 2.12) states "no agency of the Intelligence Community shall participate in or request any person to undertake activities forbidden by this Order."

Hmm. So I guess Clinton admitted to violating the law on national television. And I don't mean playing with an intern.



Laws later rescinded immediately after 9/11. But fully in force when Clinton was President.

Ironic, no?

no, everyone knows government agencies operate outwith the law. you never read a spy thriller? and clinton wasn't a signatory to any of those thingymabobs.

edit: KSp - 2; DK - 0

So when does Abu Gonzales arrest Clinton for these alleged crimes? When will there be a full investigation?

Or maybe DK's just pulling Freeper talking points over to this board again. Wish fulfillment fantasy and all that good stuff.

A) Executive Orders are not laws.

B) When dealing with an armed and dangerous criminal who is resisting arrest, do the police hesitate to kill them? Is that assassination?

A) The legal basis for Executive Orders are cited for and are found in each order.

B) If a person is not actively resisting, i.e., just standing there eating his lunch, the police may NEVER gun him down. Assassination implies ambush, surprise, bomb under the car seat, sniper outside your house kinds of stuff - completely illegal for the police to do unless you're an active shooter.

The United States carries out assasinations and terrorist acts all of the time.

The United States carries out assasinations and terrorist acts all of the time.

Really?

A good book on the legal power of Executive Orders.
http://www.pupress.princeton.edu/titles/7095.html

DK! just thought you ought to see this thread (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=501509).

I vote this thread be closed on pretense of trolling.

Is the President a 'person employed by or acting on behalf of the United States Government'?

I vote this thread be closed on pretense of trolling.

yeh, unless dk can think of a point for the thread cuz i'm just itching for a flamebaiting and i'd rather not be banned.

DK, why don't you make another Muslim bashing thread? Clinton bashing is so yesterday. Oh, but you're into "realpolitick" of course... you certainly aren't a partisan hack. You just look, sound and talk like one.

I vote this thread be closed on pretense of trolling.

I sincerely doubt that my posts in this thread constitute trolling. Unless somehow, accusing a former President of admitting to a crime on national television (most vehemently he did), is trolling.

The point of the thread is that he publicly admitted to breaking the law. Executive orders are regulations promulgated by the Executive branch, and have the force of law (they are based on regulations formed with the backing of laws).

At the time of his Presidency, it was completely illegal to order the assassination of a foreign national. It was also illegal to ask the CIA to do it, or to contract to have it done.

Just because you hate it when I'm right, doesn't mean it's trolling.

If you have a problem with this, I suggest you post in Moderation immediately.

DK, why don't you make another Muslim bashing thread? Clinton bashing is so yesterday. Oh, but you're into "realpolitick" of course... you certainly aren't a partisan hack. You just look, sound and talk like one.

Pot. Kettle. Black.

A) The legal basis for Executive Orders are cited for and are found in each order.

B) If a person is not actively resisting, i.e., just standing there eating his lunch, the police may NEVER gun him down. Assassination implies ambush, surprise, bomb under the car seat, sniper outside your house kinds of stuff - completely illegal for the police to do unless you're an active shooter.

Clinton said kill, not assassinate. Do you beleive for a minute that Osama would not have resisted? Of course he would have. Therefore, no matter what prety words you use, he would have been killed while resisting arrest.

I sincerely doubt that my posts in this thread constitute trolling. Unless somehow, accusing a former President of admitting to a crime on national television (most vehemently he did), is trolling.

The point of the thread is that he publicly admitted to breaking the law. Executive orders are regulations promulgated by the Executive branch, and have the force of law (they are based on regulations formed with the backing of laws).

At the time of his Presidency, it was completely illegal to order the assassination of a foreign national. It was also illegal to ask the CIA to do it, or to contract to have it done.

Just because you hate it when I'm right, doesn't mean it's trolling.

If you have a problem with this, I suggest you post in Moderation immediately.

but you haven't given any commentary, you've just posted a piece of info which surprises no-one and are expecting all us liberals who apparently think the sun shines out of clintons butt plug to capitulate to your republican agenda. or something, whatever, you're being a dick.

Pot. Kettle. Black.

That would be an incredibly well-timed and accurate response if only it was at all relevant. Like if I claimed to be into 'realpolitik,' for example, or if I made threads bashing one party or another and laying blame along party lines. Sadly, neither of those are true, so your snarkiness is little more than trendy internet cliche meaning absolutely nothing other than "duh, i know u r but what am i?"

Really?

Really. Generally the population doesn't care though, because so long as at least 1 'terrorist' dies they will forgive the deaths of 20 or so civilians.

A car is driving through Yemen, where the United States has no active military operations, carrying "high ranking terrorists," (and maybe a U.S. citizen) -- all of a sudden a CIA-controlled drone fires a missile into it, straight out of the blue. No warning whatsoever, no war in Yemen. What makes this different from assasinating a general, or high ranking U.S. person involved in the war?
http://archives.cnn.com/2002/WORLD/meast/11/04/yemen.blast/index.html
http://www.wsws.org/articles/2002/nov2002/yem-n12.shtml

A few terrorists are supposedly hiding in a village in Pakistan. A CIA-controlled drone drops a bomb, out of no where, into the village killing 18 civilians and 1 terrorist. No warning whatsoever, no war against Pakistan. Why isn't this worse than al-Qaida killing 19 soldiers on a war-boat we call the U.S.S. Cole?
http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200601/s1547408.htm

As long as one person is labelled a "terrorist," people don't really care enough to get too upset, and they don't call it an assasination / terrorism. But it's essentially the same thing. They're (the terrorists) waging war because they "hate our freedom," or something like that - and we're waging war because of their Islamic extremism. But to the un-suspecting civilians who were just victim to a bomb / plane falling out of the sky, they might as well have been the victim of the same thing.

but you haven't given any commentary, you've just posted a piece of info which surprises no-one and are expecting all us liberals who apparently think the sun shines out of clintons butt plug to capitulate to your republican agenda. or something, whatever, you're being a dick.

My commentary was posted. I am saying that he broke the law.

I've even posted another link to a book on the nature of executive power.

Your lying about the nature of my posting isn't helping you at all.

Really. Generally the population doesn't care though, because so long as at least 1 'terrorist' dies they will forgive the deaths of 20 or so civilians.

A car is driving through Yemen, where the United States has no active military operations, carrying "high ranking terrorists," (and maybe a U.S. citizen) -- all of a sudden a CIA-controlled drone fires a missile into it, straight out of the blue. No warning whatsoever, no war in Yemen. What makes this different from assasinating a general, or high ranking U.S. person involved in the war?
http://archives.cnn.com/2002/WORLD/meast/11/04/yemen.blast/index.html
http://www.wsws.org/articles/2002/nov2002/yem-n12.shtml

A few terrorists are supposedly hiding in a village in Pakistan. A CIA-controlled drone drops a bomb, out of no where, into the village killing 18 civilians and 1 terrorist. No warning whatsoever, no war against Pakistan. Why isn't this worse than al-Qaida killing 19 soldiers on a war-boat we call the U.S.S. Cole?
http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200601/s1547408.htm

As long as one person is labelled a "terrorist," people don't really care enough to get too upset.

Ah. Those were after the law was changed in 2001 to allow for assassination of foreign nationals. Maybe you should read up on when we change the laws.

That would be an incredibly well-timed and accurate response if only it was at all relevant. Like if I claimed to be into 'realpolitik,' for example, or if I made threads bashing one party or another and laying blame along party lines. Sadly, neither of those are true, so your snarkiness is little more than trendy internet cliche meaning absolutely nothing other than "duh, i know u r but what am i?"

You're a hack. Maybe you don't read your own posts.

You're a hack. Maybe you don't read your own posts.

Or maybe you like to call others partisan hacks because you've finally accepted your own status as one and can't believe that anyone else just says what they think.

So here's a question for you, DK. Are you saying Bush followed the law by not trying to go after Bin Laden before 9/11? Or if his administration was aggressive, as Condi Rice says it was, then are they equally guilty?

Do you really want to argue that the Bush administration held back from going after Bin Laden because it was against the law for them to do so, and that 3,000 Americans died as a result? You go ahead and make that argument--I'll sit back and laugh in the meantime.

Ah. Those were after the law was changed in 2001 to allow for assassination of foreign nationals. Maybe you should read up on when we change the laws.

the law wasn't changed to allow the slaughter of civilians in allied countries so that a single enemy combatant can be eliminated. if that tactic was used against US officials or military leaders it would be called terrorism and the country of origin of the perpetrators, or at least locality, would be wiped of the map

So here's a question for you, DK. Are you saying Bush followed the law by not trying to go after Bin Laden before 9/11? Or if his administration was aggressive, as Condi Rice says it was, then are they equally guilty?

Do you really want to argue that the Bush administration held back from going after Bin Laden because it was against the law for them to do so, and that 3,000 Americans died as a result? You go ahead and make that argument--I'll sit back and laugh in the meantime.

No, I would presume, that since we've actually assassinated people who were members of al-Q since then (as pointed out by other hostile posters), we're covered by the change in the assassination edict in 2001. Making it legal.

Clinton didn't bother to make it legal - he just violated the law.

Try laughing about that.

No, I would presume, that since we've actually assassinated people who were members of al-Q since then (as pointed out by other hostile posters), we're covered by the change in the assassination edict in 2001. Making it legal.

Clinton didn't bother to make it legal - he just violated the law.

Try laughing about that.
And who did Clinton assassinate?

No, I would presume, that since we've actually assassinated people who were members of al-Q since then (as pointed out by other hostile posters), we're covered by the change in the assassination edict in 2001. Making it legal.

Clinton didn't bother to make it legal - he just violated the law.

Try laughing about that.

Not talking about "since 9/11." I'm talking about the 8 months before 9/11 when, depending on who you ask, Bush either did nothing or acted aggressively. If he acted aggressively, then he may well have violated the same law you accuse Clinton of violating. If he didn't, then he sat on his hands and waited for Bin Laden to actually attack before doing something. Neither is a particularly tenable position to hold.

Really, DK, you ought to look at the larger picture before you repost Freeper talking points around here. They make sense to Freepers caught in their own little worlds, but they don't get the rigorous treatment that people who disagree will bring to bear on them.

the law wasn't changed to allow the slaughter of civilians in allied countries so that a single enemy combatant can be eliminated. if that tactic was used against US officials or military leaders it would be called terrorism and the country of origin of the perpetrators, or at least locality, would be wiped of the map


thank you. nuff said.

Not talking about "since 9/11." I'm talking about the 8 months before 9/11 when, depending on who you ask, Bush either did nothing or acted aggressively. If he acted aggressively, then he may well have violated the same law you accuse Clinton of violating. If he didn't, then he sat on his hands and waited for Bin Laden to actually attack before doing something. Neither is a particularly tenable position to hold.

Really, DK, you ought to look at the larger picture before you repost Freeper talking points around here. They make sense to Freepers caught in their own little worlds, but they don't get the rigorous treatment that people who disagree will bring to bear on them.

Sorry, I'm not reposting Freeper talking points. Your primary defense seems to be to cast everything as a "talking point". It's weak at best, and considering your intellect, quite shameful for you to even mention it.

I'm not defending Bush's action or inaction prior to 9/11. I'm talking about when a President actually gives a direct order to violate the law.

Stop trying to red herring your way out of this.

You know, I'm not entirely convinced that launching a cruise missile at Osama's tent in his Afghanistan training camp counts as an 'assassination'.

If it does, then what did Reagan try to do to Gaddafi in the eighties?

:)

Sorry, I'm not reposting Freeper talking points. Your primary defense seems to be to cast everything as a "talking point". It's weak at best, and considering your intellect, quite shameful for you to even mention it.Oh, I'm so hurt that you don't like the way I'm arguing. However shall I live with myself, knowing the damage to my reputation since you have defeated me so completely with this statement? :rolleyes:

I'm not defending Bush's action or inaction prior to 9/11. I'm talking about when a President actually gives a direct order to violate the law.

Stop trying to red herring your way out of this.

Of course you are, in a roundabout way. The problem is that by setting up such a premise, you opened up Bush to this criticism. I'm not red herring-ing anything here. I'm showing the logical implications of your argument on real world situations. You have, unwittingly, I presume, opened Bush up to far greater charges than you could have ever done on Clinton for one simple reason--9/11 happened on Bush's watch. Don't like it? Tough titty. Not my problem.

You know, I'm not entirely convinced that launching a cruise missile at Osama's tent in his Afghanistan training camp counts as an 'assassination'.

If it does, then what did Reagan try to do to Gaddafi in the eighties?

:)

Excellent question.

Of course you are, in a roundabout way. The problem is that by setting up such a premise, you opened up Bush to this criticism.

I don't care if you criticize Bush for his inaction (however proven or unproven) prior to 9/11.

I'm talking about the legality of Presidential orders. And you're trying to steer the topic away from that.

I don't defend Bush in a "roundabout way". I'm merely pointing out that it appears that Bush was of a mind to be legal (it's not illegal to not assassinate people as you insist he refrained from doing prior to 9/11). It's pretty obvious that Osama was alive and kicking at 9/11.

You can certainly raise the inaction as a political issue, but it's not remotely illegal.

Ordering people to assassinate someone when it is illegal is certainly something you can charge someone with.

You know, I'm not entirely convinced that launching a cruise missile at Osama's tent in his Afghanistan training camp counts as an 'assassination'.

If it does, then what did Reagan try to do to Gaddafi in the eighties?

:)
Damn those skeletons in the closet!! They keep rattling their bones at the most inappropriate times!! :D

I don't get it. I thought the assassination ban is for heads of state. Or maybe any government official. Osama bin Laden is hardly either.

Clinton did come closer to bin Laden anyway. I can't see how that can be denied. Instead of sending forces in pursuit of him, Bush went into Iraq. Seems he didn't find him that much of a priority after all...

Damn those skeletons in the closet!! They keep rattling their bones at the most inappropriate times!! :D

Ah, but you can't prosecute a dead President. :D

Ah, but you can't prosecute a dead President. :D
And they won't prosecute Clinton either.

Just like they won't prosecute Bush for ordering an illegal invasion of Iraq that has killed tens of thousands of innocent Iraqis.

Just like they won't prosecute Bush for illegal wire tapping.

Just like they won't prosecute Bush for war crimes in regards to treatment of prisoners at Gitmo and Abu Gharib.

You just hate the fact that Clinton was correct in that he was closer to getting Bin Laden than Bush?

You have advocated the extermination of ALL Muslims. If anything you would think that you would certainly not raise a topic as weak as this one is, unless it was only for self serving purposes......

I dub thee hypocrite. :p

Just like they won't prosecute Bush for ordering an illegal invasion of Iraq that has killed tens of thousands of innocent Iraqis.

Oh, come on. The number has to be way higher than that.

i got something to top all of ya all off
(i hope it didnt get said)
bush is stupid
and a hippiecrit

i got something to top all of ya all off
(i hope it didnt get said)
bush is stupid
and a hippiecrit

Apparently, someone's parental controls need adjusting. :)

So your saying Clinton shouldn't have tried to kill bin Laden? Oh yeah, and you claim you want to stop terrorism, I think you just want to kill Muslims.

i got something to top all of ya all off
(i hope it didnt get said)
bush is stupid
and a hippiecrit

Don't worry, someday you'll be tall enough to see the keyboard from daddy's chair. And then you can use grammar like a big boy. And make useful, intellegent comments. And spell properly.

And spell properly.

And make useful, intellegent comments.

;)

I wouldn't have commented, but for the irony.

So your saying Clinton shouldn't have tried to kill bin Laden? Oh yeah, and you claim you want to stop terrorism, I think you just want to kill Muslims.

DK once said, "Killing Muslims is better than sex."

;)

I wouldn't have commented, but for the irony.

I'm glad someone noticed. ;)

DK, are you so thick to believe that Bush didn't do the exact same thing during the time he was president before the executive order was changed?

Because if he wasn't sitting on his ass letting America be plotted against, he was doing the exact same thing during those months before September 11th that Clinton had been doing previously: trying to eliminate Bin Laden.

So when does Abu Gonzales arrest Clinton for these alleged crimes? When will there be a full investigation?


As soon as a 14 year Afghan goat herder who seems to have problems sitting down names Clinton as the one who bombed his village.

DK once said, "Killing Muslims is better than sex."

I'm sure he did. However he would have to have knowledge of both, and I doubt if its either.

DK once said, "Killing Muslims is better than sex."

By an amazing twist, I once said, "Sex with Muslims is better than killing." :D

By an amazing twist, I once said, "Sex with Muslims is better than killing." :D

How about killing a Muslim while having sex with that same Muslim?

Pot. Kettle. Black.
I wouldn't call Trostia/Santa Barbara one of the "staunch Democrats" of the forum.

I'm talking about the legality of Presidential orders. And you're trying to steer the topic away from that.

I don't defend Bush in a "roundabout way". I'm merely pointing out that it appears that Bush was of a mind to be legal (it's not illegal to not assassinate people as you insist he refrained from doing prior to 9/11). It's pretty obvious that Osama was alive and kicking at 9/11.
You've defended Bush's spying programmes, even when admitting that they were illegal.

So, in summary, this "law" may not apply to Bin Laden, was not broken per se if it did, and would equally apply to Bush due to policies he claims to have carried forward from Clinton.

I guess the real question is, will DK try to patch up the argument and see if it still floats? "Argument" may be too kind a word - given the repetition involved, it likely is just a talking point, a parrotted idea.

How about killing a Muslim while having sex with that same Muslim?

Then you're stuck making breakfast. :(

Then you're stuck making breakfast. :(

Mmmmm pancakes and sausage.

More blowhard trolling, save me jesus.

"There was little question at either the NSC or the CIA that under American law it was entirely permissible to kill OBL and his top aids, at least after evidence showed they were responsible for the Africa attacks."

"The ban on assassinations contained in EO 12333 did not apply to military targets, the Office of Legal Counsel in Clinton's Justice Department had previously ruled in classified opinions." [some initialisms mine]


Coll, Steve. Ghost Wars, Penguin, 2004 p. 437.