Clinton admits to breaking laws!

Bill Clinton, in his bitter tirade to Chris Mathews, has admitted to breaking both Federal and International Laws by ordering the assassination of Usama Bin Laden! Whereas this is not terribly suprising that he broke the law, it is suprising that he has admitted as much in his sorry attempt to rewrite history on his handling of terrorism under his watch.

Consider the following:
— 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."

When the Rev. Pat Roberts called for the elimination of dictator Hugo Chavez, the response was deafening from the Democracts who demanded hearings and accountability for his comments. Yet they fail to understand that Rev. Roberts does NOT have the power nor the authority to authorize or order such an act, whereas former President Clinton did and had done so. Let us see if they hold their own to the same standard.

Finally, covert actions undertaken by the CIA are classified and are NOT for public consumption. Clinton's mere mention of these orders violates his oath to hold such information as classified until such time that an executive order declassifies them; this has not happened. Certainly such revelations by a former head of state will prove much more damaging to this great nation that the Plame-gate affair - which the Democrats pursued with much zeal. Their response to this recent leak has been deafening silence.

Is it any wonder then that the American people don't take the Democrat's claims of national security seriously? They have demonstrated hypocrisy repeatedly in the face of politics. Such tirades by a former President will certainly weaken America's position of moral authority throughout the entire world and give the Jihadists more ammunition to continue their assualt our fewwdoms and our liberty.

Moreover, the "Analysis" offered by our national media has been anemic at best regarding this issue. The talking heads have addressed this latest revelation as if it were a prize fight between Fox news anchor Chris Mathews and the former President, positing who "won" the exchange without evaluating any of it in context. No suprise really, considering the left-leaning tendencies of said media. They shouldn't be shocked as their ratings and circulation plummet as true Americans, like myself, begin to seek more careful and honest analysis of the daily events which affect our lives.

The continued effort of the left to rewrite history and absolve themselves from any responsibility with respect to 9/11 and the current war in which we are engaged is tantamount to treason and should be prosecuted as such. Let us see if the Democrats will hold accountable those amongst them who are guilty of much more agregious crimes than those they so vigorously pursue in political opposition; this will be testimony to their continued hypocrisy and proof of their desire to preserve party over country.

Good day!

Sure, first lure him out, slander him, ask for an interview under false pretences and then slam him for defending himself.

The propaganda machine, disinformation and slander goes on! Good luck with it.

Originally posted by thematrix
Sure, first lure him out, slander him, ask for an interview under false pretences and then slam him for defending himself.

The propaganda machine, disinformation and slander goes on! Good luck with it.

That was clever. You managed to disparage my post without acknowledging one single aspect of it - not one! I will give you and opportunity to "put your money where your mouth is." First of all, please describe in detail how he was "Lured out." Quote for me the "Slander" that you refer to. Show me how Fox News asked him for "an interview under false pretenses".

Clinton agreed to the interview as long as 1/2 of the 15 minute time allotted focused on his recent philanthropy and the other 1/2 could be "About anything" according to his publicist. Soooo... political hack lately? Please address the content of my post. Thank you.

How is it different from what your doing?

First your crowd says Clinton didn't do anything against Al-Quada, when he sais he did and proves it, you pick up on a technicality to slander him some more.

And then they called Kerry a Flip Flopper.

Do you even know what the definition of "Slander" is? If what I am WRITING is a known lie about Bill Clinton, I am committing LIBEL, not slander. In furtherance, what I am WRITING is in fact a truth directly from the mouth of Mr. Clinton relative to KNOWN LAWS that are on the books. So, sir, how is it that I am slandering Mr. Clinton?

Finally, no one finds irony in the fact only now, 5 years after the 9/11 attacks and a decade after the ex-president's election to his second term, that he comes out and publicly makes a stand against terrorism? Sir, this smacks of revisionism at it's best - given Mr. Clinton's record on reporting the truth (think of his finger wagging while stating vehemently "I did NOT have sexual relations with that woman, Miss Lewinsky") reason would dictate that this is also another Clinton falsehood.

And to wit, you still have not addressed the crux of my post - the ordering of an assissination by a sitting President is ILLEGAL - PERIOD!

"the ordering of an assissination by a sitting President is ILLEGAL - PERIOD!"

Does that mean the decapitation strike against Saddam was illegal too?

[edit on 29-9-2006 by rockieboy]

Exective Order 12333 changed the way that the military was to approach the topic. In rewriting the US Army Field Manual 27-10, The Law of War - "Memorandum of Law E.O. 12333 and Assassination" was prepared to delve into such a topic and clarifications were made and distrinctions warranted. The results yielded the difference between "political" targets during times of peace and "military" targets during aggressions of war. More can be read here: www.fas.org...=%22Presidential%20orders%20on%20assassination%20and%20war%22

Suffice it to say, there are clear moral and legal distinctions between "Decapitation strikes" aimed at heads-of-state during war aggressions versus "political assassinations" of political leaders or citizens of foreign nations. Other mechanisms are provided for in dealing with rogue persons under the Hague Conventions.

This is ridiculous.

When the Rev. Pat Roberts called for the elimination of dictator Hugo Chavez, the response was deafening from the Democracts who demanded hearings and accountability for his comments. Yet they fail to understand that Rev. Roberts does NOT have the power nor the authority to authorize or order such an act, whereas former President Clinton did and had done so. Let us see if they hold their own to the same standard.

It was already public knowledge that Clinton tried to eliminate Bin Laden. Look at the polls. Besides, while Bin Laden might be a political figure hes not tied to any Nation-State in the way Chavez is.

Face it, Clinton didn't come out and try to rewrite history. Clinton was called out because of everyone bashing him instead of bashing the current president, who has taken his eye off the ball with this debacle in Iraq! Clinton has been upfront about mistakes he and his administration have made. Has Bush ever done that? Not really. Because all Bush and his administration do is try and play whatever card is psychologically advantageous. I realize most politicians do this... tell you what you want to hear instead of what you need to hear... but Bush has taken it to a new level. Clinton has come out and defended himself and democrats. He has gone into specifics of the situation, while C. Rice has offered nothing but more psychological babble.

Had 911 happened on Clinton's watch, I'm sure he would have pursued Bin Laden with much more intensity. The truth is you can't really point the finger at any one person for 911. If you are going to point, then point at your own buerocratic crappy system of an FBI and CIA which couldn't even put their egos aside to collaborate and catch a bunch of Muslims after they took 747 flying lessons.

You want to talk about illegal and beat up on Clinton after the guy hasn't been in office for over 6 years?? C'mon kozmo.... our current president is even worst. He is at the moment engaged in an illegal war (preemptive strike as he likes to call it).

Illegal War.

And The World's Most Authoritative Answer Is ... Among the world's foremost experts in the field of international law, the overwhelming jurisprudential consensus is that the Anglo-American invasion, conquest, and occupation of Iraq constitute three phases of one illegal war of aggression. [3]

www.informationclearinghouse.info...

[edit on 29-9-2006 by Scramjet76]

This is truly amazing. First he didn't do enough to kill OBL, then when he did try, he is accused of wagging the dog, now you say it is illegal that he tried. In your world that is called a no win situation. Keep drinking the kool-aid, you will feel better soon.

Finally, covert actions undertaken by the CIA are classified and are NOT for public consumption. Clinton's mere mention of these orders violates his oath to hold such information as classified until such time that an executive order declassifies them; this has not happened. Certainly such revelations by a former head of state will prove much more damaging to this great nation that the Plame-gate affair - which the Democrats pursued with much zeal. Their response to this recent leak has been deafening silence.

Question, Who are the CIA answerable to?

Is it not the President of the US they are answerable too. I watched the interview with Clinton last night. Both the CIA and the FBI were at fault. Isnt the President the commander in cheif?

Btw that reporter who interviewd Clinton, had his backside handed to him on a plate. Nice trie to slag or turn the interview on clinton, it backfired bigtime. Was funny to say the least.

So much for clinton not doing anything to try and catch Bin Laden Eh

Im Curious, How many laws has Bush broken since he has been in office? Anyone wanna answer me this one. Wait I'll look for myself.



[edit on 3-10-2006 by spencerjohnstone]