The final will be run on Friday at BSP Stadium. Boino ran the fastest finals qualifying time this morning, clocking 53.36 seconds in his heat, which is 2.54s faster than his nearest rival.Running in lane one, Boino used his experience to advantage by making up metres and sticking with the inside lane runners at the start before making his move in the final 200m bend.Using the benefit of the inside lane, Boino overtook the runners in the last 150m with his quick turn and smooth jumps over the hurdles to make a comfortable finish.The defending Pacific Games 400m hurdles champion is a man on a mission as he attempts to finish his illustrious career on home soil with another gold medal as he has been dominating the event in the last 15 years.Meanwhile, in the second heat, PNG rising hurdler Wala Gime finished ahead of the pack stopping the clock at 55.90 seconds.Gime has been Boino’s understudy over the years and the Daru man will certainly give his older comrade a run for his money in the finals.The results of this morning’s heats in the order of finish, in heat one, Boino (PNG, 53.36s), Peniel Joshua (PNG, 54.46s), Siologa Valiamu Sepa (Samoa, 56.52s), Larry Steven Slunga (Tonga, 57.12s) and Vilison Rarasea Sailosi (Fiji, 57.51s).In heat two, Wala Gime (PNG, 53.36s), Alifeleti Tuiono (Tonga, 56.76s), Namataiki Tevenino (Northern Marianas, 66.15s).
BEIJING – The United States and North Korea have resolved a dispute about $25million in frozen North Korean funds in a Macau bank that had threatened to hold up nuclear disarmament negotiations, a top U.S. official said today. Deputy Assistant Treasury Secretary Daniel Glaser said the funds would be transferred to a Bank of China account in Beijing to be used for education and humanitarian purposes in North Korea. The North Korean deposits have been frozen in the Banco Delta Asia since Washington blacklisted the tiny, privately run Macau-based bank 19 months ago on suspicion the funds were connected to money-laundering or counterfeiting. Washington promised to resolve the issue by mid-March as part of an agreement last month on North Korea’s nuclear disarmament. On Saturday, North Korea’s nuclear envoy said Pyongyang would not shut down its main nuclear reactor until the funds were released. “We believe this resolves the issue of the DPRK-related frozen funds,” Glaser said, using the acronym for North Korea’s formal name, the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea. “North Korea has pledged … that these funds will be used solely for the betterment of the North Korean people,” he added. The U.S. nuclear envoy, Christopher Hill, said the six-party talks – which are scheduled to resume today – could now “move on to the next problem of which there are many.”
AD Quality Auto 360p 720p 1080p Top articles1/5READ MOREGame Center: Chargers at Kansas City Chiefs, Sunday, 10 a.m.It reflects conclusions reached by the War Powers Initiative of the Constitution Project. That nonpartisan organization’s 2005 study notes that Congress’ appropriation power augments the requirement of advance authorization by Congress before the nation goes to war. It enables Congress to stop the use of force by cutting off its funding. That check is augmented by the Anti-Deficiency Act, which prohibits any expenditure or obligation of funds not appropriated by Congress, and by legislation that criminalizes violations of the act. All this refutes Rudy Giuliani’s recent suggestion that the president might have “the inherent authority to support the troops” even if funding were cut off. Besides, American history is replete with examples of Congress restraining executive warmaking. (See “Congress at War,” a book by Charles A. Stevenson.) Congress has forbidden: Sending draftees outside this hemisphere (1940-41); introduction of combat troops into Laos or Thailand (1969); reintroduction of troops into Cambodia (1970); combat operations in Southeast Asia (1973); military operations in Angola (1976); use of force in Lebanon other than for self-defense (1983); military activities in Nicaragua (1980s). Americans are wondering, with the lassitude of uninvolved spectators, whether the president will initiate a war with Iran. Some Democratic presidential candidates worry, or purport to, that he might claim an authorization for war in a Senate resolution labeling an Iranian Revolutionary Guard unit a terrorist organization. Some Democratic representatives oppose the president’s request for $88 million to equip B-2 stealth bombers to carry huge “bunker-buster” bombs, hoping to thereby impede a presidential decision to attack Iran’s hardened nuclear facilities. While legislators try to leash a president by tinkering with a weapon, they’re ignoring a sufficient leash – the Constitution. They are derelict in their sworn duty to uphold it. Regarding the most momentous thing government does, make war, the constitutional system of checks and balances is broken. Congress can, however, put the Constitution’s bridle back on the presidency. Congress can end unfettered executive warmaking by deciding to. That might not require, but would be facilitated by, enacting the Constitutional War Powers Resolution. Introduced last week by Rep. Walter Jones, a North Carolina Republican, it technically amends, but essentially would supplant, the existing War Powers Resolution, which has been a nullity ever since it was passed in 1973 over President Nixon’s veto. Jones’ measure is designed to ensure that deciding to go to war is, as the Founders insisted it be, a “collective judgment.” It would prohibit presidents from initiating military actions except to repel or retaliate for sudden attacks on America or American troops abroad, or to protect and evacuate U.S. citizens abroad. It would provide for expedited judicial review to enforce compliance with the resolution, and permit the use of federal funds only for military actions taken in compliance with the resolution. For today’s Democrats, resistance to unilateral presidential warmaking reflects not principled constitutionalism but petulance about the current president. Unless and until Congress stops prattling about presidential “usurpation” of power and asserts its own, it will remain derelict regarding its duty of mutual participation in warmaking. And it will merit its current marginalization. George Will is a Washington Post columnist (send e-mail to email@example.com).160Want local news?Sign up for the Localist and stay informed Something went wrong. Please try again.subscribeCongratulations! You’re all set!