Bill Clinton speaking in London

[TheZenMan]

Where?

And on "this one" what do you mean? I'm not a fan of chavez or even like him really. But he is correct in my opinion on those quotes I posted.


Ah, that's pretty much what I gathered from your post.

But I thought I better ask.

Honestly, I don't think you agree with him, I think he's parroting you.

Not you personally, the collective you.
I think he's absolutely full of shit and simply knows not only his audience, but exactly what they want to hear.

That's my opinion.

[TheZenMan]

By the way, did anyone notice this:

Clinton: "I authorized the CIA to get groups together to try to kill him."

Clinton: "What did I do? I worked hard to try and 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. And if I were still President, we’d have more than 20,000 troops there trying to kill him."

Since when does the USA assassinate other leaders?

[TheZenMan]

What did I do? I worked hard to try and 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. And if I were still President, we’d have more than 20,000 troops there trying to kill him.

Executive Order 11905 : http://128.83.78.237/library/speeches/760110e.htm

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

Executive Order 12333 : https://www.cia.gov/cia/information/eo12333.html

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

Section 2.12 Indirect Participation. No agency of the Intelligence Community shall participate in or request any person to undertake activities forbidden by this Order.

Fascinating.

[Söy]

presidential findings overrule executive orders, since naturally, executive orders are given by the president anyways... soooo if he really did do all that stuff, it would have been legal for him to do so anyways.

[Söy]

By the way, did anyone notice this:

Clinton: "I authorized the CIA to get groups together to try to kill him."

Clinton: "What did I do? I worked hard to try and 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. And if I were still President, we’d have more than 20,000 troops there trying to kill him."

Since when does the USA assassinate other leaders?


it used to be done up until Carter (or was it Ford?) issued his moratorium of cease and desist about said practice...

[TheZenMan]

presidential findings overrule executive orders, since naturally, executive orders are given by the president anyways... soooo if he really did do all that stuff, it would have been legal for him to do so anyways.

Bullshit.

Show me.

[TheZenMan]

it used to be done up until Carter (or was it Ford?) issued his moratorium of cease and desist about said practice...


It was Ford.

Then Careter broadened it to assassination, not just political assassination.

[Söy]

http://www.fas.org/irp/crs/98-611.pdf


it's in there.

if you want to read 19 pages of it...

edit

not all 19 pages are about findings; it covers every type of presidential decree


edit x2

most presidential findings are related to intelligence or military actions, and as such, are not often published or reported to the necessary in a verbal form... merely the signature of the president authorizing an action is needed.

[TheZenMan]

http://www.fas.org/irp/crs/98-611.pdf


it's in there.

if you want to read 19 pages of it...

edit

not all 19 pages are about findings; it covers every type of presidential decree


edit x2

most presidential findings are related to intelligence or military actions, and as such, are not often published or reported to the necessary in a verbal form... merely the signature of the president authorizing an action is needed.


Executive Orders
Executive orders are one of the oldest types of presidential directive, an early
model appearing in June 1789, when President Washington directed the acting
holdover officers of the Confederation government to prepare for him a report “to
impress me with a full, precise, and distinct general idea of the affairs of the United
States” handled by each official. Like most executive orders, it was directed to, and
governed actions by, executive officials and agencies. However, some executive
orders, such as perhaps those concerning emergency situations and relying upon the
President’s constitutional authority or powers statutorily delegated to him by
Congress to respond to exigencies, were of a more profound character.


Okay, I see where you were coming from, but it's not nearly as etched in stone as you made it sound.

[Söy]

nope but findings are "special circumstances" for the most part; they are not general directives; for that you would need another executive order countermanding the prior.

[TheZenMan]

nope but findings are "special circumstances" for the most part; they are not general directives; for that you would need another executive order countermanding the prior.

The top of the document also says : Updated January 7, 2005

[Söy]

e.g. youd need an order stating that the moratorium on assassinations was repealed.

[TheZenMan]

e.g. youd need an order stating that the moratorium on assassinations was repealed.


Bummer.

[TheZenMan]

I guess that makes sense though, I mean if he didn't feel we had a reason to hold him here in the states, and his pleas for the Saudis to take him fell on deaf ears....why not authorize his assassination.

He was truly a brilliant leader.

[outsider]

So you act like Al Qaeda is such a big threat and defend Bush when thousands of American's have been killed in Iraq and many more injured not to mention to casualties in Iraq and you are trying to condemn Clinton for wanting to kill Osame Bin Laden? Weren't you also insinuating otherwise that Clinton in fact did not do enough to prevent what had happened?

So which is it?