• SUPPORT CATO
• FOR STUDENTS
• FOR MEDIA
• FREE NEWSLETTERS

• HOME

• ABOUT

• BLOG

• BOOKSTORE

• EVENTS

• EXPERTS

• MULTIMEDIA

• PUBLICATIONS

Books

Reviews & Journals

Public Filings

Policy Studies

Opinion & Commentary

• RESEARCH AREAS

• SPEAKERS BUREAU

• SUPPORT CATO

• CATO UNBOUND

• ELCATO.ORG

• FREETRADE.ORG

Cato Daily Dispatch for February 13, 2003

Subscribe to the Daily Dispatch via email

(Links to outside sources were active as of the date of this dispatch; however, not all news sources maintain links to current stories indefinitely. Some links also may require registration.)

CIA Warns North Korean Missiles Could Reach U.S.

According to Fox News, "The U.S. government has reported since 2001 that if successful, a North Korean three-stage rocket could reach a distance of 9,300 miles -- far enough to hit all of North America -- with several hundred pounds of weapons payload on it."

Charles Peņa, Cato Institute director of defense policy studies, disputes the administration's conclusion that North Korea may pose an imminent threat to the United States. Says Peņa:

"In 1998, North Korea flight tested a Taepo Dong-2 missile that demonstrated they had the technical know-how to build a three-stage rocket that would have the capability to fly intercontinental distances. But the North Koreans did not actually fly the third stage and have not conducted any further flight tests. Thus, they have not demonstrated a military operational capability. As such, the North Koreans would not have any real confidence that a launched missile would fly the requisite distance or reach its intended target. And, most importantly, the North Koreans have not deployed a functional and operational military system.

"Finally, the Taepo Dong-2 missile is believed to consist of four No Dong engines clustered together as the first stage, and a single No Dong as the second stage. Not only is such a missile at least five times more likely to fail than a single-stage No Dong missile (itself far from reliable), but also sounds more like something the Wile E. Coyote cartoon character would think up in his ever-futile quest to catch the Roadrunner."

Group to File Suit Challenging Bush's Authority to Declare War

The Associated Press reports,"President Bush does not have the authority to launch a military invasion of Iraq without a congressional declaration of war, according to a lawsuit expected to be filed in federal court in Boston on Thursday. Six members of Congress, three U.S. servicemen and the parents of other U.S. military personnel said on Wednesday they would file the lawsuit that claims any U.S. invasion of Iraq without congressional authority would be unconstitutional."

The Cato Handbook for Congress chapter, Reclaiming the War Power, states, "No constitutional principle is more important than the principle that the war power belongs to Congress. In affairs of state, no more momentous decision can be made than the decision to go to war. For that reason, in a democratic republic it is essential that that decision be made by the most broadly representative body: the legislature."

Cigarette Ads Stomped Out

The BBC reports, "Tobacco advertising is to be stubbed out across the UK in just a few hours. The government's long-awaited Tobacco Advertising and Promotion Act comes into effect on Friday 14 February. The Act outlaws ads in magazines, newspapers and on billboards. A ban on direct marketing and in-pack promotion schemes comes into effect on 14 May."

At a recent Cato Policy Forum, "Ads for Reduced-Risk Tobacco: Public Scourge or Protected Speech?" representatives from such varied organizations as The Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids, The American Enterprise Institute and the Federalist Society debated the justification for a ban on tobacco advertising.

The battle for banning cigarette advertising in the United States is still going strong. Robert A. Levy, senior fellow in constitutional studies at Cato, laid out the legal framework at the Policy Forum. "In 1980, the Supreme Court held that non-deceptive commercial speech about a lawful activity can be regulated but only if, first, the government has a substantial interest in doing so; second, the regulation directly and materially serves that interest; and third, the regulation is no more extensive than necessary," Levy said.

Also at the Policy Forum, Erik Jaffe of the Federalist Society argued, "The government has no interest, and I don't mean a little and I don't mean some. I mean no interest whatsoever in suppressing truthful information about a lawful product. Zero. And that's true whether or not that product kills you. If it kills you more or it kills you less, it doesn't make a difference, because as long as the government lets it be sold.... Having not banned it, the government doesn't have an interest in stopping its use...."

Wyatt Dubois, editor, wdubois@cato.org