I stand with my opinion about the rationale behind the Mueller investigation. — raza

Your opinion on the matter has never been the problem. Your inability to engage arguments and to produce evidence is. The fact you confuse people pointing out your inabilities with an irrational attack on your opinion is what is playing the victim is all about (I'm different and everybody hates me for it. Sob. Whine.). So we're wasting our time on trollish behaviour obviously as you've demonstrated not to be interested in substantive argument and that's why I don't like you and am less interested in taking your delicate sensibilities into account and will say that considering Mueller as the head of a Statist cult is more paranoia again.

Edit: correction. That was still too considerate. That statement was straight out of the playbook for ramblings of a mad man.

you're not coherent enough to make anyone here feel insecure. It's just boorish talking to someone who doesn't have the capacity for self reflection. You'd be wise to stop the trolling unless you want to self destruct.

Waste of your time.

One has to be particularly naive to not realize the game. The naivety factor is the companion of juvenile states of consciousness. — raza

Please lecture me on the finer points of politics, oh infallible wise one.

You do like to play the victim too as evidenced by about half of your posts, of which this is just another example.

Even those people are allowed mistakes and it's precisely because of that possibility that the law has remedies for it. A conspiracy or isn't.

Can't point to where I am wrong?

A true statement indeed.

Also, if Mueller's tactic was merely some technical error then he can hardly be trusted as to his competence.

One requires due process to also protect from the dangers of incompetence. — raza

Yes, because you don't make sense most of the time as your brain seems to go into paranoia-overdrive. And the complaint as if people aren't allowed to make mistakes is pathetically elitist and divorced from reality. You've been often pointed out your mistakes, lack of evidence and absence of logic in this thread - I don't need to repeat it here. So you can hardly be trusted as to your competence. Is that it?

Therefore, what you are effectively saying, is that following the law is not necessary as a way of getting to the truth as to whether any laws were broken, — raza

That's not what I said at all. I said indictments of persons related to an ongoing investigation can interfere with that investigation due to the possibility of discovery procedures. So it's a tactical error to indict to early when there are still aspects of your investigation that you want to keep hidden until the investigation is finished.

For instance, if an undercover agent manages to collect information allowing the investigation to progress, then indicting persons too early could reveal the use of an undercover agent through discovery procedures (not directly but it can usually be inferred). Revealing his existence could make that method of investigation useless. So it's tactically unsound and seems to be the reason Müller's team is trying to delay the court case.

and that what IS necessary is the employment of "tactics" toward getting a result of an impression someone is guilty of something.

A verdict without DUE process seems to be the goal of these tactics. — raza

This is just baseless conjecture. In fact, it's so incomprehensible to get from the article you linked to this, I don't even know where to point where you're going wrong.

It seems you've decided Trump is not guilty of consorting with the Russians and that anything suggesting the opposite is political manoeuvring. Even if the Müller investigation was politically motivated, that doesn't change the fact Trump could be guilty. Think about it, starting something that has no merit whatsoever for purely political reasons will backfire. It doesn't make political sense to investigate if there isn't a reasonable ground to start doing so. And given the consensus the Russians did meddle in the elections, it is important to get to the bottom of it and it is logical to start looking in the parties that - assuming the meddling was successful - benefitted from that meddling. That's not to say they are guilty. I think it's quite possible the Russians decided they'd rather have Trump than Clinton and acted independently or at least didn't collude with Trump directly.

And even if there were collusion we also need to ask ourselves to what extent it's illegal? I mean, if I hire a bunch of whizzkids to influence people through advertisements, stories and (fake) news, I'm not doing anything illegal. Replacing "whizzkids" with "KGB" doesn't make it prima facie illegal, it just doesn't play well with patriotic Americans if this were the case I suppose.

In the meantime, the Müller investigation has already uncovered illegal acts by several people that surround Trump and this certainly reflects badly on him. So that's a win by itself regardless of whether this eventually leads to Trump or not. And we shouldn't be enticed by this to think Trump is guilty by association either.

What other facts Müller will unearth remains to be seen and we'll see how his cases will hold up in court. So really, the only sensible thing to say with regard to the Müller investigation is: wait and see. And that goes for both sides of the aisle.

I don't think anyone ever argued that being the case though, which would make your post uninteresting. Fortunately, there was something interesting there that made me agree that it was a tactical error to indict these parties due to opening up the possibility for discovery procedures that could interfere with ongoing investigations.

Nevertheless, there's consensus within the US intelligence community and GCHQ that the Russians interfered in the US elections. Since we're not privy to the details, we have to decide whether to trust that narrative. Considering the FBI, CIA, DHS, ODNI and the (Republican controlled) Senate that checks them all agree that Russia did meddle the likelihood of a conspiracy spanning all these different organisations becomes too small to seriously maintain.

That's not to say that there aren't a lot of open questions left as to who did what and why.

So what do you conclude from that?

I mentioned it for completeness sake but it's not applied very regularly. The anticipatory interpretation takes into account laws that haven't yet been passed but are under consideration with Parliament. Only rarely is the interpretation method leading but it has happened in the Netherlands where rulings referred verbatim to upcoming legislation and set aside existing law. There's obviously a lot to be said about whether that's really a good idea. Where it does work very wel if when current law is unclear or incomplete and the upcoming legislation can fill in those gaps are clarify.

Your argument only becomes coherent if there's some way of establishing what the "best" interpretation is. Without that it's just another opinion.

The Netherlands like the USA doesn't have a constitutional court but it's highest court will hear any appeal provided the appeal concerns a question of law and not fact. What it cannot do, is rule on whether other national laws or signed treaties are in accordance with the Dutch constitution or not but it can give its opinion on a specific interpretation of the constitution. So in the Dutch system it's Parliament's prerogative to interpret the constitution in relation to the laws it passes. Technically it is possible that they pass laws contrary to the Dutch constitution without any possibility to litigate against it, except for the fact that a lot of the norms are also codified in international treaties, which they can check national laws against.

That said, you are probably right that the US supreme Court has more power than, for instance, the Dutch Hoge Raad and that this is cause for concern. However, your conclusion that limiting interpretative techniques limits their power is false. It only results in an exercise of that power in a certain way, it doesn't limit it. Even if it would limit it, it isn't a given that the best interpretation is one that limits the power of the judges employing it. We don't know what "best" is here. Your words seem to suggest it is something procedural or constitutive to you (by which I mean it's relationship to other official institutions empowered through the constitution). But what if in the pursuit of meeting such norms a clearly unjust result for either party comes about, which is entirely possible in that case as "best" is then not related to any result? It seems to me that although a judge would do well to realise his or her position within the constitutive framework, he is ultimately tasked with ruling between the parties and not on its own positron in the constitutional order If another interpretative technique results in a just outcome then he has every reason to employ the other techniques. The dictates of public consciousness tempered by the wisdom of tradition decide what is just and therefore "best" and interpretative techniques are tools to reach those ideals. Hardly measurable of course but then judging usually isn't.

As to interpretation. As far as I'm aware there's the following possibilities to interpret laws.

1. Grammatical interpretation
2. Law systematic interpretation
3. Legislative historic intent interpretation
4. Historical interpretation (broader than the above, taking social circumstances into account as well)
5. Teleological interpretation
6. Anticipatory interpretation

The tradition in the USA is a strong emphasis on 1 and 3 but there's no good argument as to why this should be the case. Indeed, I find the literal approach in civil law to grossly overestimate lawyers' ability to correctly represent the intent of parties in written form and judges' ability to interpret language that's hardly as exact as they pretend it is.

Exactly. So there's an inference to be made from my comment.

It likely excludes cat ownership and includes consensual vaginal intercourse between a husband and wife. — Michael

Cats are property, so your right to holding them is protected like all other property.

Trump didn't say "Fuck De Niro" though. His comments have been less than that. — Hanover

Less in what sense? Less intelligent? If you think Trump has been less egregious than De Niro, I really don't think our standards are similar enough to have common ground on this. Trump has called on supporters to "knock the crap" out of a protester; which is just incitement to violence. He has a history of making claims that belie his racism/xenophobia; claims about that Mexican judge, the birther thing, the mother of a dead muslim US soldier wasn't allowed to speak, both sides at fault in Charlotsville, suggesting most Mexicans being bad people. Grabbing them by the pussy.

Let's not get into his Twitter.

So no, where De Niro expressed a clear dislike of Trump in a pathetic way, Trump expresses xenophobia and racism as President of the USA and continually demonstrates continually not to represent the interests of all US citizens (which is fine during campaign time).

What about what Maher said? — Hanover

That was a racist comment. Not sure what the point is. Maher is a comedian, not the president. Different standards.

I never thought the birther movement was racist. I thought it was stupid, but I'd have expected the same had Hillary's birthplace been suspect for some reason. — Hanover

Really? So after providing evidence it was still questioned. His birthplace wasn't suspect at all moving from 2011 onward. How long did it last though and why? Because some whiteys couldn't handle a black president; one of them being Trump, who's a racist and simply based on that fact alone doesn't really deserve any political support.

So if you support rejecting customers who have different political positions to the restaurant staff and/or owner do you therefore support a right for a Christian baker not to bake a gay wedding cake? — raza

While I agree that people should not be rejected as customers based on their political ideology, it's not clear that Sanders was refused for being a Republican or holding conservative views, or something similar, in this case. It seems she was refused resulting from her personal choice to work for the Trump administration and help carry out and defend what many perceive as unjust and illegal policies. This is on a different basis entirely than discriminating based on a person's sexual orientation.

It's not this phantom "whataboutism". The material causes of misery among blacks, poor whites, hispanics, native Americans, et al grossly overwhelm the harm caused by someone saying "cotton picking". People get poor, stay poor, and sink deeper into poverty and suffering as a result of deliberate material arrangements kept in place for the convenience and benefit of the few. — Bitter Crank

If someone is deeply offended by "cotton picking" then that's a real harm, however much they might have material causes of misery. It's like saying to a poor man, "Don't complain about me calling you're a poor stupid piece of shit because you've got more important things to worry about." That just doesn't make sense. So yes, it is whataboutism because you're telling people not to care or not to act on issues important to them because you think there are more important things. It's the same line of reasoning when Trump is confronted with "But Putin kills journalists"... and he replies "Well, we kill a lot of people too". Or let's not worry about human rights abuses in China because things are worse in Saudi-Arabia. It's nonsense.

And moving from racism to crassness and anti-intellectualism, Trump says all the nonsense he says and the left is outraged, yet De Niro hijacks an awards show and says "Fuck Trump" and receives a standing ovation. How about if someone said "Fuck Obama" at the country music awards and everyone stood up and cheered? No big deal? — Hanover

As to the first part, should we hold the President to the same standard as an actor? I think the answer is no. As a civil servant I'm held by a different standard as well. In particular, working for the ministry of finance, I cannot say or do just anything. I also receive additional checks on my tax returns to make sure they are correct to avoid the perception of a dual standard. All sorts of roles bring different standards of conduct.

Second, there's a qualitative difference between racist and mysogynistic comments Trump has made and the sort of crassness De Niro showed.

I do agree however that it's entirely likely the reactions to a Fuck Obama would have been different. On the other hand, no white president is going to get shit about his birth certificate either. So it seems the Left and the Right throw different types of insults at each other.

I wanted to reply as well but simply couldn't figure out where to start.

A lot of people are "primed to be outraged" about any expression or gesture that can be interpreted as racist, sexist, and various other "...ists". It's a complete and total waste of outrage on extraordinarily trivial causes. What people should be outraged about are the highly unsatisfactory material conditions which a good share of the population are forced to endure for the benefit of a small minority. — Bitter Crank

I beg to differ that being outraged at a perceived racist comment is a trivial thing in the current political climate in the USA. Even if it were trivial, then the fact that you perceive other things as more important is an example of "whataboutism". We can be outraged by both and still differentiate between the two as being more or less important.

It seems pretty outrageous to me. I don't think the comparison with "smart ass white men" works. White men don't have a history of slavery, discrimination affecting them negatively and oppression. In that context to then refer to a typical slave activity of the past seems inconsiderate at best and downright racist at worst.

It also makes me wonder how likely it would be for this person to refer to another white man, latino or asian as being "out of his cotton picking mind". I suspect the likelihood is pretty close to zero.

Is it really that important which year? It seems to me there was good progress prior to 1890 possibly 1870 and that got overturned either starting in 1870 and/or culminating in 1890.

I thought some of these vids were funny...

It's the bigness...

I think Raza's comparison between illegal immigrants and rapists was not well thought through but I don't read any necessary racism in it.

The processes of vetting adults and children who are caught crossing illegally by temporarily separating them in order to do this have not changed. Remember? This has been the supposed issue the media and opposition have been attacking — raza

The zero-tolerance show did change things; illegal border crossers were prosecuted under criminal law, whereas previously this was dealt with under civil law. Minors cannot be criminally prosecuted, so the separation caused them to end up in different departments that don't communicate with each other (children with HHS).

ICE, responsible for the civil law approach, as a rule did not separate families with very young children due to the children's dependency on their parents. Now, children younger than five years old were separated from their parents some of them even unable to talk, that suggests ages below 3 and if my daughter is anything to go by: below 2 years old. I find it incredibly difficult to wrap my head around how people consider this morally acceptable; treating babies and toddlers as a means to deter illegal immigration.

Even if it were morally acceptable, there's no evidence criminal prosecution is effective. In fact, it was standard practise to follow the civil law route as it was more effective than criminal prosecution (which has a much higher burden of proof). The whole criminal court system was swamped as a result of the new policy, further underlining the change in policy was ill considered.

My only thought is, poor education and too much exposure to television. — Wayfarer

That's too simple and dismissive. Koch brothers and their ilk voted Conservative because of the tax benefits, some voted because they've always voted Republican, some voted because the racism appeals to them, some voted because of their dislike of Hillary, etc. etc. And yes, some voted because they're stupid.

In the end, the American political system doesn't offer real political choices due to its effective two-party system, extensive lobby apparatus, lack of political accountability and minimal differences between Democrats and Republicans to begin with. Voting for the Dems is just more of the same. The amount of "fighting" between Democrats and Republicans in that respect is rather hilarious from my point of view, where I'm used to an election sporting 23 different parties of which 13 ended up in parliament, ranging from a xenophobic, conservative party to a socialist party.

So when will it ever be a post - post 9.11 world? Even children grow up and stop hiding under the blankets some day.

"Where appropriate and consistent with the law and available resources" is fairly in-determinate language, providing wiggle room for the administration to separate families for vague, unclear reasons. — Maw

Separating children from their parents if those parents are criminally prosecuted is within the law. So basically nothing needs to change based on that language.

how about this. Until 60 years ago, borders were not patrolled and there was no such thing as an illegal immigrant. The problem is the idea of national borders in the first place. I mean, nowadays it's easier to move a company from one country to the next than move as a person. Interesting priorities no?

Those aren't real conservatists. Tssk. Edmund Burke on the other hand...

Also, as to everything going on in the world and what Trump's doing: just wait and see.

That's the defence of every Conservative in denial of the facts on the ground: that Trump will somehow be vindicated by a) peace with NK or b) anything else of the zillion things he claimed at some point in time. I'm sure that if you bully enough countries, one of those 192 will cave at some point on something. And that will make him a winner in the eyes of his supporters as they blithely ignore the destruction of civil society.

cages — Jeremiah

They're not cages you whiney, left-wing, tree-hugging hippie. They're chain-link fence enclosures. :rofl:

Whether it’s by crossing the U.S. border with a "coyote" or buying a fake U.S. passport, a foreign national who enters the U.S. illegally can be both convicted of a crime and held responsible for a civil violation under the U.S. immigration laws. Illegal entry also carries consequences for anyone who might later attempt to apply for a green card or other immigration benefit.

You're right, I wasn't aware that entering illegally could be prosecuted. However, it doesn't really make sense. You want to have them leave the country and instead put them in jail. In jail, they don't add to the economy and our only a drain on resources. And while it's true that the children cannot be criminally prosecuted, the civil penalty can be levied against them. Since, the civil penalty of deportation would suffice to reach the goal of removing illegal immigrants from US soil, there is no objective reason to elect the prosecutorial route. Also note that per the link you sent me only fines or imprisonment are possible punishment, not deportation.

The prosecution of the parents and the children ending up (presumably) with ICE, means it's difficult if not impossible for them to keep into contact, to be separately deported or imprisoned from each other and basically be unable to find each other even after they are released (in the case of parents) or deported (in the case of children).

Second, there is no objective reason why you'd separate children and parents while held to be deported. In practice, ICE normally does not take parents with very young children into custody but it is possible. Which is I think is an appropriate proportional decision in most cases. So if you want to be strict, you can take families into custody together under the civil procedure.

It's quite obvious to me that "zero tolerance" has been elected not for its effectiveness but for scare tactics. They have chosen to be cruel to children and parent in order to reach an abstract goal (less illegal border crossings). Aside from the ethical question whether that's necessary and proportional (I don't think it is), it isn't even proved that the goal will be reached through these means.

Quite frankly, I'm surprised you're defending this. It might be legally permissible to pursue illegal entry like this it's neither economical nor ethical and I'm suprised the latter does not already convince you this is wrong.

Let me try to explain this as simple as it is Monday:

If asylum seekers, present themselves at a port of entry, they are not breaking any USA law. They, parents and children, will be kept together until they have seen the judge and have been permitted or declined political asylum, at which time they will be moved through the USA channels of placement or turned back to return to their own country. Full stop.

If asylum seekers, travel over the USA/Mexico border, NOT at a port of entry and they are caught, they have broken the law. IF they are traveling with children, whose parents have broken the law, the children will be separated from their parent who is charged with breaking the law. Until the parent sees a judge, the children are not allowed to stay where their parents are being held, in a correction facility.

Children in America get taken away from their parents, when their parents have been convicted of a crime or are in a detention center waiting to see the judge about their crime.

Why would we treat a non US citizen breaking the law, any differently than we would a citizen breaking the law? — ArguingWAristotleTiff

Simply being in the US without the appropriate documentation is not a crime, it's considered a civil matter under US law. Deportation is a civil penalty, not a criminal punishment. As a result, the separation of parents and their children is illegal under the treaties the US has signed up to.

It's in fact in breach of the ICPCR treaty that the USA signed up to:

Article 23

1. The family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society and is entitled to protection by society and the State.

2. The right of men and women of marriageable age to marry and to found a family shall be recognized.

3. No marriage shall be entered into without the free and full consent of the intending spouses.

4. States Parties to the present Covenant shall take appropriate steps to ensure equality of rights and responsibilities of spouses as to marriage, during marriage and at its dissolution. In the case of dissolution, provision shall be made for the necessary protection of any children.

Article 24

1. Every child shall have, without any discrimination as to race, colour, sex, language, religion, national or social origin, property or birth, the right to such measures of protection as are required by his status as a minor, on the part of his family, society and the State.

2. Every child shall be registered immediately after birth and shall have a name.

3. Every child has the right to acquire a nationality. — ICPCR

While they said that, they did this (from Wikipedia):

Phase I
1956: The Soviet Union begins training North Korean scientists and engineers, giving them "basic knowledge" to initiate a nuclear program.
1959: North Korea and the USSR sign a nuclear cooperation agreement.
1962: The Yongbyon Nuclear Scientific Research Center opens.
1965: The Yongbyon IRT-2000 research reactor reaches a power rating of 2 MW.
1974: The Yongbyon IRT-2000 research reactor reaches a power rating of 4 MW.

Between the late 1970s and early 1980s North Korea begins uranium mining operations at various locations near Sunchon and Pyongsan.

Phase II
1980–1985: North Korea builds a factory at Yongbyon to refine yellowcake and produce fuel for reactors.
1984: The DPRK completes construction of a "Radiochemical laboratory", which is actually a reprocessing plant used to separate plutonium from spent nuclear fuel at the Yongbyon site.
1984–1986: North Korea completes construction on a 5 MWe gas-cooled, graphite-moderated nuclear reactor for plutonium production. North Korea also commences with the construction of a second 50 MWe nuclear reactor.
1987: The Yongbyon IRT-2000 research reactor reaches a power rating of 8 MW.

Through satellite photos, the U.S. learns of new construction at a nuclear complex near the North Korean town of Yongbyon. U.S. intelligence analysts suspect that North Korea, which had signed the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) in 1985 but had not yet allowed inspections of its nuclear facilities, is in the early stages of building a nuclear bomb.

In response, the U.S. pursues a strategy in which North Korea's full compliance with the NPT would lead to progress on other diplomatic issues, such as the normalization of relations.

December 1990: North Korea conducts 70–80 high-explosives tests at its Yongbyon facility.
1992: In May, for the first time, North Korea allows a team from the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). The Agency inspection finds inconsistencies with North Korea declarations. Hans Blix, head of the IAEA, and the U.S. suspect that North Korea is secretly using its five-megawatt reactor and reprocessing facility at Yongbyon to turn spent fuel into weapons-grade plutonium. Before leaving, Blix arranges for fully equipped inspection teams to follow.

The inspections do not go well. Over the next several months, the North Koreans repeatedly block inspectors from visiting two of Yongbyon's suspected nuclear waste sites, and IAEA inspectors find evidence that the country is not revealing the full extent of its plutonium production.

1993: In March, North Korea threatens to withdraw from the NPT. Facing heavy domestic pressure from Republicans who oppose negotiations with North Korea, President Bill Clinton appoints Robert Gallucci to start a new round of negotiations. After 89 days, North Korea announces it has suspended its withdrawal. (The NPT requires three months notice before a country can withdraw.)

In December, IAEA Director-General Blix announces that the agency can no longer provide "any meaningful assurances" that North Korea is not producing nuclear weapons.

12 October 1994: the United States and North Korea signed the "Agreed Framework": North Korea agreed to freeze its plutonium production program in exchange for fuel oil, economic cooperation, and the construction of two modern light-water nuclear power plants. Eventually, North Korea's existing nuclear facilities were to be dismantled, and the spent reactor fuel taken out of the country.

26 October 1994: IAEA Chairman Hans Blix tells the British House of Commons' Foreign Affairs Select Committee the IAEA is "not very happy" with the Agreed Framework because it gives North Korea too much time to begin complying with the inspections regime.

Phase III
18 March 1996: Hans Blix tells the IAEA's Board of Governors North Korea has still not made its initial declaration of the amount of plutonium they possess, as required under the Agreed Framework, and warned that without the declaration IAEA would lose the ability to verify North Korea was not using its plutonium to develop weapons.
October 1997: spent nuclear fuel rods were encased in steel containers, under IAEA inspection.
31 August 1998: North Korea launched a Paektusan-1 space launch vehicle in a launch attempt of its Kwangmyŏngsŏng-1 satellite. U.S. military analysts suspect satellite launch is a ruse for the testing of an ICBM. This missile flew over Japan causing the Japanese government to retract 1 billion in aid for two civilian light-water reactors.

2002
3–5 October: On a visit to the North Korean capital Pyongyang, US Assistant Secretary of State James Kelly presses the North on suspicions that it is continuing to pursue a nuclear energy and missiles programme. Mr Kelly says he has evidence of a secret uranium-enriching program carried out in defiance of the 1994 Agreed Framework. Under this deal, North Korea agreed to forsake nuclear ambitions in return for the construction of two safer light water nuclear power reactors and oil shipments from the US.
16 October: The US announces that North Korea admitted in their talks to a "clandestine nuclear-weapons" program.
17 October: Initially the North appears conciliatory. Leader Kim Jong-il says he will allow international weapons inspectors to check that nuclear facilities are out of use.
20 October: North-South Korea talks in Pyongyang are undermined by the North's nuclear program "admission". US Secretary of State Colin Powell says further US aid to North Korea is now in doubt. The North adopts a mercurial stance, at one moment defiantly defending its "right" to weapons development and at the next offering to halt nuclear program in return for aid and the signing of a non-aggression pact with the US. It argues that the US has not kept to its side of the Agreed Framework, as the construction of the light water reactors—due to be completed in 2003—is now years behind schedule.
14 November: US President George W Bush declares November oil shipments to the North will be the last if the North does not agree to put a halt to its weapons ambitions.
18 November: Confusion clouds a statement by North Korea in which it initially appears to acknowledge having nuclear weapons. A key Korean phrase understood to mean the North does have nuclear weapons could have been mistaken for the phrase "entitled to have", Seoul says.
4 December: The North rejects a call to open its nuclear facilities to inspection.
12 December: The North pledges to reactivate nuclear facilities for energy generation, saying the Americans' decision to halt oil shipments leaves it with no choice. It claims the US wrecked the 1994 pact.
13 December: North Korea asks the UN's International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) to remove seals and surveillance equipment – the IAEA's "eyes and ears" on the North's nuclear status—from its Yongbyon power plant.
22 December: The North begins removing monitoring devices from the Yongbyon plant.
24 December: North Korea begins repairs at the Yongbyon plant. North-South Korea talks over reopening road and rail border links, which have been struggling on despite the increased tension, finally stall.
25 December: It emerges that North Korea had begun shipping fuel rods to the Yongbyon plant which could be used to produce plutonium.
26 December: The IAEA expresses concern in the light of UN confirmation that 1,000 fuel rods have been moved to the Yongbyon reactor.
27 December: North Korea says it is expelling the two IAEA nuclear inspectors from the country. It also says it is planning to reopen a reprocessing plant, which could start producing weapons grade plutonium within months.

Phase IV
2003
10 January: North Korea announces it will withdraw from the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.
5 February: North Korea says it has reactivated its nuclear facilities and their operations are now going ahead "on a normal footing".
12 February: The IAEA finds North Korea in breach of nuclear safeguards and refers the matter to the UN security council.
24 February: North Korea fires a missile into the sea between South Korea and Japan.
10 March: North Korea fires a second missile into the sea between South Korea and Japan in as many weeks.
12 April: In a surprise move, North Korea signals it may be ready to end its insistence on direct talks with the US, announcing that "if the US is ready to make a bold switchover in its Korea policy for a settlement of the nuclear issue, [North Korea] will not stick to any particular dialogue format".
18 April: North Korea announces that it has started reprocessing its spent fuel rods. The statement is later amended to read that Pyongyang has been "successfully going forward to reprocess" the rods.
24 April: American officials say Pyongyang has told them that it now has nuclear weapons, after the first direct talks for months between the US and North Korea in Beijing end a day early.
28 April: US Secretary of State Colin Powell says North Korea made an offer to US officials, during the talks in Beijing, to scrap its nuclear programme in exchange for major concessions from the United States. He does not specify what those concessions are, but reports say that Pyongyang wants normalised relations with the US and economic assistance. Mr Powell says Washington is studying the offer.
5 May: North Korea demands the US respond to what it terms the "bold proposal" it made during the Beijing talks. sound familiar?
12 May: North Korea says it is scrapping a 1992 agreement with the South to keep the peninsula free from nuclear weapons – Pyongyang's last remaining international agreement on non-proliferation.
9 June: North Korea says publicly that it will build a nuclear deterrent, "unless the US gives up its hostile policy".
13 June: South Korea's Yonhap News Agency says North Korean officials told the US on 30 June that it had completed reprocessing the fuel rods.
18 June: North Korea says it will "put further spurs to increasing its nuclear deterrent force for self-defence".
9 July: South Korea's spy agency says North Korea has started reprocessing a "small number" of the 8,000 spent nuclear fuel rods at Yongbyon.
2 October: North Korea announces publicly it has reprocessed the spent fuel rods.
16 October: North Korea says it will "physically display" its nuclear deterrent.
9 December: North Korea offers to "freeze" its nuclear programme in return for a list of concessions from the US. It says that unless Washington agrees, it will not take part in further talks. The US rejects North Korea's offer. President George W Bush says Pyongyang must dismantle the programme altogether.

2004
2 January: South Korea confirms that the North has agreed to allow a group of US experts, including a top nuclear scientist, visit Yongbyon nuclear facility.
10 January: The unofficial US team visits the North's "nuclear deterrent" facility at Yongbyon.
22 January: US nuclear scientist Siegfried Hecker tells Congress that the delegates visiting Yongbyon were shown what appeared to be weapons-grade plutonium, but he did not see any evidence of a nuclear bomb.
3 February: North Korea reports that the next round of six-party talks on the nuclear crisis will be held on 25 February.
25 February: Second round of six nation talks end without breakthrough in Beijing.
23 May: The UN atomic agency is reported to be investigating allegations that North Korea secretly sent uranium to Libya when Tripoli was trying to develop nuclear weapons.
23 June: Third round of six nation talks held in Beijing, with the US making a new offer to allow North Korea fuel aid if it freezes then dismantles its nuclear programmes.
2 July: US Secretary of State Colin Powell meets the North Korean Foreign Minister, Paek Nam-sun, in the highest-level talks between the two countries since the crisis erupted.
24 July: North Korea rejects US suggestions that it follow Libya's lead and give up its nuclear ambitions, calling the US proposal a daydream.
3 August: North Korea is in the process of developing a new missile system for ships or submarines, according to a report in Jane's Defence Weekly.
23 August: North Korea describes US President George W Bush as an "imbecile" and a "tyrant that puts Hitler in the shade", in response to comments President Bush made describing the North's Kim Jong-il as a "tyrant".
12 September: Clinton Former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright admits North Korean "cheating" on the Agreed Framework occurred during the "Clinton Watch."
28 September: North Korea says it has turned plutonium from 8,000 spent fuel rods into nuclear weapons. Speaking at the UN General Assembly, Vice Foreign Minister Choe Su-hon said the weapons were needed for "self-defence" against "US nuclear threat".
2005
14 January: North Korea says it is willing to restart stalled talks on its nuclear programme, according to the official KCNA news agency. The statement says North Korea "would not stand against the US but respect and treat it as a friend unless the latter slanders the former's system and interferes in its internal affairs".
19 January: Condoleezza Rice, President George W Bush's nominee as secretary of state, identifies North Korea as one of six "outposts of tyranny" where the US must help bring freedom.
10 February: North Korea says it is suspending its participation in the talks over its nuclear programme for an "indefinite period", blaming the Bush administration's intention to "antagonise, isolate and stifle it at any cost". The statement also repeats North Korea's assertion to have built nuclear weapons for self-defence.
18 April: South Korea says North Korea has shut down its Yongbyon reactor, a move which could allow it to extract more fuel for nuclear weapons.
1 May: North Korea fires a short-range missile into the Sea of Japan (East Sea of Korea), on the eve of a meeting of members of the international Non-Proliferation Treaty.
11 May: North Korea says it has completed extraction of spent fuel rods from Yongbyon, as part of plans to "increase its nuclear arsenal".
16 May: North and South Korea hold their first talks in 10 months, with the North seeking fertilizer for its troubled agriculture sector.
25 May: The US suspends efforts to recover the remains of missing US servicemen in North Korea, saying restrictions placed on its work were too great.
7 June: China's envoy to the UN says he expects North Korea to rejoin the six-nation talks "in the next few weeks".
22 June: North Korea requests more food aid from the South during ministerial talks in Seoul, the first for a year.
9 July: North Korea says it will rejoin nuclear talks, as US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice begins a tour of the region.
12 July: South Korea offers the North huge amounts of electricity as an incentive to end its nuclear weapons programme.
25 July: Fourth round of six-nation talks begins in Beijing.
7 August: The talks reach deadlock and a recess is called.
13 September: Talks resume. North Korea requests the building of the light-water reactors promised in the Agreed Framework, but the U.S. refuses, prompting warnings of a "standoff" between the parties.
19 September: In what is initially hailed as an historic joint statement, North Korea agrees to give up all its nuclear activities and rejoin the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, while the US says it had no intention of attacking.
20 September: North Korea says it will not scrap its nuclear programme until it is given a civilian nuclear reactor, undermining the joint statement and throwing further talks into doubt.
7 December: A senior US diplomat brands North Korea a "criminal regime" involved in arms sales, drug trafficking and currency forgery.
20 December: North Korea says it intends to resume building nuclear reactors, because the US had pulled out of a key deal to build it two new reactors.
2006
Main article: 2006 North Korean nuclear test
12 April: A two-day meeting aimed at persuading North Korea to return to talks on its nuclear program fails to resolve the deadlock.
26 June: A report by the Institute for Science and International Security estimates that current North Korea plutonium stockpiles is sufficient for four to thirteen nuclear weapons.
3 July: Washington dismisses a threat by North Korea that it will launch a nuclear strike against the US in the event of an American attack, as a White House spokesman described the threat as "deeply hypothetical".
4 July: North Korea test-fires at least six missiles, including a long-range Taepodong-2, despite repeated warnings from the international community.
5 July: North Korea test-fires a seventh missile, despite international condemnation of its earlier launches.
6 July: North Korea announces it would continue to launch missiles, as well as "stronger steps", if other countries were to apply additional pressure as a result of the latest missile launches, claiming it to be their sovereign right to carry out these tests. A US television network also reports that they have quoted intelligence sources in saying that North Korea is readying another Taepodong-2 long-range missile for launch.
3 October: North Korea announces plans to test a nuclear weapon in the future, blaming "hostile US policy". Their full text can be read at BBC News.
5 October: A US envoy directly threatens North Korea as to the upcoming test, stating "It (North Korea) can have a future or it can have these (nuclear) weapons, it cannot have them both." The envoy also mentions that any attempt to test a nuclear device would be seen as a "highly provocative act".
6 October: The United Nations Security Council issues a statement declaring, "The Security Council urges the DPRK not to undertake such a test and to refrain from any action that might aggravate tension, to work on the resolution of non-proliferation concerns and to facilitate a peaceful and comprehensive solution through political and diplomatic efforts. Later in the day, there are unconfirmed reports of the North Korean government successfully testing a nuclear bomb."
9 October: North Korea announces that it has performed its first-ever nuclear weapon test. The country's official Korean Central News Agency said the test was performed successfully, and there was no radioactive leakage from the site. South Korea's Yonhap news agency said the test was conducted at 10:36 a.m. (01:36 GMT) in Hwaderi near Kilju city, citing defense officials. The USGS detected an earthquake with a preliminary estimated magnitude of 4.2 at 41.311°N, 129.114°E . The USGS coordinate indicates that the location in much north of Hwaderi, near the upper stream of Oran-chon, 17 km NNW of Punggye-Yok, according to analysts reports. In an interview on The Daily Show with Jon Stewart, former Secretary of State James Baker let it slip that North Korea “... had a rudimentary nuclear weapon way back in the days when I was Secretary of State, but now this is a more advanced one evidently.” He was Secretary of State between 1989 and 1992.
10 October: Some western scientists had doubts as to whether the nuclear weapon test that took place on 9 October 2006 was in fact successful. The scientists cite that the measurements recorded only showed an explosion equivalent to 500 metric tons of TNT, as compared to the 1998 nuclear tests that India and Pakistan conducted which were 24–50 times more powerful. This could indicate that the test resulted in a fizzle. Some also speculated that the test may be a ruse using conventional explosives and nuclear material.
14 October: The United Nations Security Council passed U.N. Resolution 1718, imposing sanctions on North Korea for its announced nuclear test on 9 October 2006 that include largely symbolic steps to hit the North Korea's nuclear and missile programs, a reiteration of financial sanctions that were already in place, as well as keeping luxury goods away from its leaders, for example French wines and spirits or jet skis. However, the sanctions do not have the full support of China and Russia. The resolution was pushed in large part by the administration of George W. Bush, whose party at the time was engaged in an important mid-term election.
27 October: Japanese Chief Cabinet Secretary Yasuhisa Shiozaki, based upon U.S. intelligence, announces, "We reached the conclusion that the probability that North Korea conducted a nuclear test is extremely high." He continued on to admit that Japanese aircraft could not confirm the U.S. and South Korean reports.
18 December: The six-party talks resume in what is known as the fifth round, second phase. After a week of negotiations, the parties managed to reaffirm the 19 September declaration, as well as reiterate their parties' stances. For more information, see six-party talks.
2007
13 January: North Korean official Song Il-ho was reported to have told his Japanese counterpart Taku Yamasaki that whether the North Koreans conduct a second nuclear test depends on "US actions in the future".
16 January: In-between-round talks between North Korea and the US are held in Berlin, Germany. Certain areas of agreement have been reached, as confirmed by both sides. North Korea claims these were bilateral negotiations; the US claims these "set the groundwork for the next round of six-party talks".
26 January: On 26 January 2007, Russian chief negotiator Alexander Losyukov told reporters that the third phase was most likely to take place in late January or early February 2007, most likely 5–8 February 2007, before the Lunar New Year.
10 February: Reports emanating from Washington suggest that the CIA reports in 2002 that North Korea was developing uranium enrichment technology overstated or misread the intelligence. U.S. officials are no longer making this a major issue in the six-party talks.
13 February: The fifth round of the six-party talks conclude with an agreement. Pyongyang promises to shut down the Yongbyon reactor in exchange for 50,000 metric tons of fuel aid, with more to follow upon verification that the site has been permanently disabled. IAEA inspectors will be re-admitted, and the United States will begin the process of normalizing relations with North Korea.
19 March: The sixth round of six-party talks commences in Beijing.
25 June: North Korea announces resolution of the banking dispute regarding US$25 million in DPRK assets in Macau's Banco Delta Asia.
14 July: North Korea announces it is shutting down the Yongbyon reactor after receiving 6,200 tons in South Korean fuel oil aid.
17 July: A 10-person team of IAEA inspectors confirms that North Korea has shut down its Yongbyon reactor, a step IAEA Director Mohamed ElBaradei said was "a good step in the right direction". On the same day, a second shipment of 7,500 tons of oil aid was dispatched from South Korea for the North Korea city of Nampo, part of the 50,000 tons North Korea is due to receive in exchange for shutting down the reactor, according to the February 13 agreement.
11–13 September: Inspectors from the United States, China and Russia conduct a site visit at Yongbyon reactor to determine ways to permanently disable the reactor. U.S. delegation leader, Sung Kim, declared they "saw everything they had asked to see," State Department spokesman Sean McCormack said.[56]
2008
25 February: CNN chief international correspondent Christiane Amanpour toured North Korea's nuclear plant. CNN was one of only two U.S. news organizations at the facility.
10 May: Sung Kim, the U.S. State Department's top Korea specialist, returned to South Korea by land across the heavily fortified border after collecting approximately 18,000 secret papers of Yongbyon nuclear reactor activities during a three-day visit to Pyongyang.
26 June: North Korea hands over 60 pages of documents detailing its capabilities in nuclear power and nuclear weapons
27 June: North Korea destroys a cooling tower at Yongbyon's main atomic reactor.
11 October: The US removes North Korea from its State Sponsors of Terrorism list.
2009
5 April: North Korea's launch of its Kwangmyŏngsŏng-2 satellite, intended to broadcast "immortal revolutionary songs," ends in failure.
14 April: Following a UN resolution denouncing its missile launch, North Korea says that it "will never again take part in such [six party] talks and will not be bound by any agreement reached at the talks." North Korea expelled nuclear inspectors from the country and also informed the IAEA that they would resume their nuclear weapons program.
25 April: North Korea says it has reactivated its nuclear facilities.
25 May: North Korea tests its second nuclear device.
2012
April: North Korea prepares to test its third nuclear device.
13 April: North Korea's launch of its Kwangmyŏngsŏng-3 satellite which fails shortly after launch. It is intended to mark the centenary of Kim Il Sung's 100th birthday and the satellite will estimate crop yields and collect weather data as well as assess the country's forest coverage and natural resources.
12 December: North Korea's launch of its Kwangmyŏngsŏng-3 Unit 2 satellite that is meant to replace the failed Kwangmyŏngsŏng-3 satellite, and became the 10th space power that is capable of putting satellites in orbit using its own launch vehicles. The launch came during the period when the DPRK was commemorating the first anniversary of the death of former leader Kim Jong-il and just before the first South Korean domestic launch of a satellite and the South Korean presidential election on 19 December 2012.
2013
5 February: South Korea's President warned that North Korea could be planning "multiple nuclear tests at two places or more".
12 February: North Korea tests its third nuclear device.
March–April: North Korea crisis (2013)
2015
20 May: North Korea claims to have nuclear weapons capable of hitting the United States.
December: In early December, North Korea leader Kim Jong-un claimed that the country was prepared to detonate a hydrogen bomb, however significant doubts surround the claim.
2016
6 January: North Korea conducts its fourth nuclear test. Although the government claims it to be its first hydrogen bomb, the claim was met with significant skepticism.
6 July: A high-level DPRK Government spokesman’s statement was made defining a more precise meaning of "denuclearization", as covering the whole Korean peninsula and its vicinity, signalling a willingness to continue negotiations on the topic.
9 September: North Korea conducts its fifth underground nuclear test. With an estimate yield of over 10kt, it would make it the most powerful North Korean nuclear test thus far.
26 October: United States Director of National Intelligence James Clapper said during a speech that persuading North Korea to abandon its program is "probably a lost cause" since, to North Korea, it was "their ticket to survival" and any discussions about ending their nuclear ambitions would be a "non-starter".
2017
6 March: North Korea launched four ballistic missiles, three of which landed 200 miles off Japan’s coastline. Supreme leader Kim Jong-un promised that the country will eventually have nuclear-armed, intercontinental ballistic missiles that can reach the continental United States, thus challenging the Trump Administration of the United States to review its policy options, including preemptive strikes or further isolation of the North Korean economy.
15 April: at the yearly major public holiday Day of the Sun, North Korea staged a massive military parade to commemorate the 105th birth anniversary of Kim Il-sung, the country’s founder and grandfather of current leader, Kim Jong-un. The parade took place amid hot speculation in the United States, Japan, and South Korea that the country would look to also potentially test a sixth nuclear device, which it did not do.
3 September: At 3:31 AM UTC, the United States Geological Survey reported that it had detected a magnitude 6.3 earthquake in North Korea near the Punggye-ri test site.[82] Given the shallow depth of the quake and its proximity to North Korea's primary nuclear weapons testing facility, experts concluded that the country had conducted a sixth nuclear weapon test (2017 North Korean nuclear test). North Korea claimed that they had tested a hydrogen bomb capable of being mounted on an ICBM. The independent seismic monitoring agency NORSAR initially estimated that the blast had a yield of around 120 kilotons but subsequently revised to 250 kilotons of TNT (1,000 TJ) based on a tremor of 6.1M

Yeah, on the basis of that we can all rescind on the UN Charter and any human rights agreements out there. Sunset clause for the win!

For what it's worth, I do hope the summit in Singapore will lower regional tensions.

Well, I've been living in Europe for the past four years. But that's immaterial because the rise of right wing authoritarian thought and practice is a global problem. — John Doe

While I agree that right wing xenophobic parties have been more widely accepted in Europe, it's more of a polarisation here. Former centric parties moved to the right (mostly) to keep a voter base at the same time socialist or social democratic parties have seen explosive growth as well.

thanks. Pretty nuts.