Guess who ?

As things stand right now, assassination while in peaceful relations with another nation is prohibited regardless of perceived justification. President Reagan's 1981 Executive Order 12333 concerning intelligence banded this activity and is still binding.

This ban was put in place to prohibit our intelligence agencies from participating in assassinations during peacetime which were deemed to be too close to murder for comfort.

This ban, however, does not apply to military actions in time of war wherein heads of state, especially if also commander-in-chief of military forces, could be legally targeted although with some limitations. The limitations preclude the use of a bounty or of "treachery" and maybe some other conditions I don't recall at the moment. The killing, in essence, would have to be based upon a military verses political need and be carried out as a true act of war against a enemy with whom we were at war.

Never the less, it could still be viewed negatively by many third parties, could rally enemy combatants and non-combatants, and might be counter productive to the whole war effort. There are politics involving even in the business of war.

 

You missed my point - it's up to the person making the allegation to provide a credible source; it's not about "satisfying" anyone. If you don't want to "go out of [your] way" to back up your own contention, then it's fair for us to dismiss it for being without credible evidence. </font>[/QUOTE]It'll be a while before I let you be the sole judge of what is "credible" and what is not.

 

I don't know. I can't tell from a partial, edited quote.

I don't think he didn't say it, but I don't know what the context was, what else he said or how he said it.

My impression of Stephanopoulos is vaguely favorable, so I suppose my first impulse would be to look for stuff to bolster my existing opinion. But if the facts are such that I can no longer be either vague or favorable, then no, I would not stick up for him on that point.

Please note that I haven't actually stuck up for him yet; all I've said is we can't condemn him on a partial quote. I have not condemned Pat Robertson either.


----------------------------------------------

I should think never.

Just follow the generally accepted standards. Say yes to original sources; say no to edited quotations taken out of context.

 

The Context was 1993 and the attempted assassination of and ex President George H. Bush
really bad comparison Robertson vs.Stephanopoulos.
So I can understand all options are put on the
table.

Hugo Chavez is not even close to that and what
Pat Robertson said.


Newsmax is just running cover for Robertson.

Another thing:

Stephanopoulos is not a man of God. my focus however is on the fact that a PREACHER is actively soliciting murder. How about the fact that pat DENIED making the suggestion, then he said he was misinterpreted. after all his deflection attempts failed, he finally apologized for making the statement that he denied ever saying. so he is a liar with murderous desires, and a hypocrite.

Newsmax is part of the spin machine for Pat..
the so called damage control over a insane
statement ..that unfortunately the world sees
represents Christianity in this country(sad).

Its the classic how can we divert eyes from
a preachers whose donations will dry up if we
don't do damage control.imho

Pats people are the ones that buy 5 hannity books
for a dollar.

 

This ban was put in place to prohibit our intelligence agencies from participating in assassinations during peacetime which were deemed to be too close to murder for comfort.

This ban, however, does not apply to military actions in time of war wherein heads of state, especially if also commander-in-chief of military forces, could be legally targeted although with some limitations. The limitations preclude the use of a bounty or of "treachery" and maybe some other conditions I don't recall at the moment. The killing, in essence, would have to be based upon a military verses political need and be carried out as a true act of war against a enemy with whom we were at war.

Never the less, it could still be viewed negatively by many third parties, could rally enemy combatants and non-combatants, and might be counter productive to the whole war effort. There are politics involving even in the business of war. </font>[/QUOTE]It doesn't matter what Pat Robertson thinks should be done because he's not our President right now and isn't speaking for any one we've elected to an executive or legislative office.

Unless we go to war with Venezuela we have no business contemplating assassination of Hugo Chavez despite his being a despicable tyrant.

Such a course of action would be illegal by President Reagan's executive order which is still in force. We've been down this road before which is why President Ford, previous to President Reagan, first issued such an order.