U.N.believable
Hyperlink. I know that Executive Order 12333 prohibits any agent of the U.S. Government from conducting assassinations or participating in assassination conspiracies, but the first Bush Administration reinterpretted the rule to give the green light to assassinating terrorists and their benefactors. Is there any way we can view Mark Malloch Brown as a terrorist benefactor? Here's how it works: Khartoum used to provide aid and shelter to al Qaeda. Now that same government supports to janjaweed death squads in Darfur. The death squads, with active involvement from the Sudanese air force, are perpetrating genocide against the non-Muslim Sudanese of Darfur. Therefore the Sudanese government is actively engaged in a terrorist action. There is a UN Resolution that would allow the formation of a UN peacekeeping force for Darfur (even though the peacekeepers' mandate wouldn't have the teeth to stop the bloodshed). The only things stopping the peacekeeping force from entering Sudan is the intransigence of Khartoum. Mr. Malloch Brown, Kofi Annan's chief henchman, has said that Khartoum is right to block the UN force since it is afraid of being "the victims of the next crusade after Iraq and Afghanistan." Ergo, Malloch Brown is actively shielding the Sudanese government which is actively conducting a terrorist enterprise; A=B, B=C, A=C, Mark Malloch Brown supports the terrorist campaign in Darfur. So, can we assassinate him now?

The British Empire
September 29 was a good day for the building of the British Empire: on this day in 1725, Clive of India was born; he would do more than any other single individual to found and expand the British Raj, often in explicit contradiction of the orders of his superiors. On this day in 1758, Lord Horatio Nelson was born; Britain is an island nation and in all her history Nelson is Britannia's greatest naval hero. Upstaging Sir Francis Drake is no small feat.

Dieu et mon droit.