I remember watching the men coming home from Korea. I was just a kid and we had a black/white TV. I also remember the long lists of the names of dead rolling down the screen.

Now I wonder if I'll see the end of that war before I die.

This ought to be good...almost as entertaining as Clinton's visit.
So quickly we forget the image of Clinton looking over the DMZ with binoculars...
that had the lens caps on.

But isn't that how the Dems operate anyhow...operating with blinders...oblivious to the damage they do...

I remember that lens cap photo, that was an old, oh whatta you call those kolidascope things, you know where you put a picture slid in to view. That was slide's of 1950's pinup girl photo's rigged to look like binoculars. Bill found in a bunker over there, I think he still has it but told big 0 he left it there, that's why he's on his third trip, still looking for it!

so obama plans a trip to the dmz .... hmmmm, interesting....countless times he's been asked to visit the border here in az and he's never interested

OBAMA APPEASED NORTH KOREA AND NOW THEY PLAN TO VIOLATE THAT ALREADY WITH MISSLE LAUNCH. God damn obama u making us look so damn weak when u appease these nations. what our benefit in feeding this horrible nation in first place stop trying to score one international victory when ur appeasement to this type of nation only makes it worst just like your appeasement to russia didnt make things better they just say no to us better and they threaten us even more and make more demands. This is all appeasement does for some nations something about needs to learn real quick cause the man is weak plain and simple

Perhaps Obama will see how to keep illegals from crossing a border. It has worked in Korea for 60 years, no reason it won't work on the US/Mexico border.

The only reason Obama is going there is to try to convince the DMZs to vote for him in Nov.

Please tell the unpredictable North Koreans on the other side to keep their fingers off the triggers because this will be little more than a "photo shoot" for the coming campaign.

Well it is good to see the Commander-in-Chief of the United States military visit the troops on the front line of duty in DMZ on the Korean Peninsula. It is the writer's hope the long standing Sino-US relationship will bring to bear on the Chinese administration of the need to put pressure on North Korea to abandon its nuclear program, save for peaceful purposes. I wish to call on the North Korean government to economically empower her people and bring them out of perennial famine. I wish to take the opportunity to wish the US-South Korea military cooperation and exercise continued success. May the world become a safer place of the nuclear summit!

If the Chinese government is so concerned about North Korea why don't they send them the FOOD AID instead of the USA? Afterall, their feeding 1 billion people already, whats couple hundred more million going to hurt. ..... Obama wants to give away millions of dollars in food aid to NK so they can feed their people, who are 90% all soldiers or children becoming soldiers, while NK spends tons of money to build missiles, satellites, and nuclear weapons??????

North Korea will never completely abandon their nuclear program as they would no longer have the leverage to extort other nations into giving them food and money.

Obama, the Prince of Pond Scum goes to the DMZ. Should really scare the N. Koreans just like the 2,000 Marines he is putting in Australia has China shaking. Piss away some more money on jet fuel for Air Obama.

DPRK has little to trade with, which makes them paranoid and dangerous. and they are naturally suspicous. If they worked on a healthier economy they would be less paranoid.

Let's count the number of times Obama bows on this trip.

Burn that jet fuel (ALWAYS in the big 747 AF1 too), so we can go dither about on the DMZ and have lots of grinning mug photo ops!

Obama to the North Koreans: "I'll borrow more money from China and give you free stuff if you don't launch your rocket. I'll even let Americans pick up the tab"

Odumbass doubles down on stupid yet again.

So in 5 years, possibly less, NK will be able to launch nukes at our shores, Iran will have nuclear weapons and they have, simultaneously, been working on delivery systems and Mr. Obama will have US over $21 trillion in debt. And those are just a small sample of the problems that are growing under Mr. Obama's watch. Can any one really say, with a straight face, that Mr. Obama's presidency has been good for America?

What he going there for to apologize to north korea now

The vitriol coming from the right isn't suprising. They don't have answers and are frustrated by the lack of any viable candidates.

It's called diplomacy something Bush couldn't even spell. It's a tough situation no doubt. What would santorum do take away their condoms?

Here is an example of the kinds of strong arm tactics the EPA is using under the Obama administration. Attempting to fine and punish people without due process of law. Notably, the Obama administrationt fully backed the EPA'as efforts and forced these poor people to go all the way to the US Supreme Court to get the first round of relief. Do we really want 4 more years of this overreaching and trampling of people's rights? Notice that it was a unanimous decision. Obama couldn't even get Ginsburg to agree with his EPA.

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES No. 10–1062 CHANTELL SACKETT, ET VIR, PETITIONERS v. ENVI- RONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY, ET AL. ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT [March 21, 2012] JUSTICE SCALIA delivered the opinion of the Court. We consider whether Michael and Chantell Sackett may bring a civil action under the Administrative ProcedureAct, 5 U. S. C. §500 et seq., to challenge the issuance bythe Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) of an admin­istrative compliance order under §309 of the Clean Water Act, 33 U. S. C. §1319. The order asserts that the Sack­etts’ property is subject to the Act, and that they haveviolated its provisions by placing fill material on the prop­erty; and on this basis it directs them immediately to restore the property pursuant to an EPA work plan. I The Clean Water Act prohibits, among other things, “thedischarge of any pollutant by any person,” §1311, without a permit, into the “navigable waters,” §1344—which the Act defines as “the waters of the United States,” §1362(7). If the EPA determines that any person is in violation of this restriction, the Act directs the agency either to issuea compliance order or to initiate a civil enforcement action. §1319(a)(3). When the EPA prevails in a civil action, the Act provides for “a civil penalty not to exceed [$37,500] per 2 SACKETT v. EPA Opinion of the Court day for each violation.”1 §1319(d). And according to theGovernment, when the EPA prevails against any personwho has been issued a compliance order but has failed to comply, that amount is increased to $75,000—up to$37,500 for the statutory violation and up to an additional $37,500 for violating the compliance order.The particulars of this case flow from a dispute aboutthe scope of “the navigable waters” subject to this en­forcement regime. Today we consider only whether the dispute may be brought to court by challenging the com­pliance order—we do not resolve the dispute on the merits. The reader will be curious, however, to know what all the fuss is about. In United States v. Riverside Bayview Homes, Inc., 474 U. S. 121 (1985), we upheld a regulation that construed “the navigable waters” to include “freshwa­ter wetlands,” id., at 124, themselves not actually naviga­ble, that were adjacent to navigable-in-fact waters. Later, in Solid Waste Agency of Northern Cook Cty. v. Army Corps of Engineers, 531 U. S. 159 (2001), we held that an abandoned sand and gravel pit, which “seasonally ponded” but which was not adjacent to open water, id., at 164, was not part of the navigable waters. Then most recently, in Rapanos v. United States, 547 U. S. 715 (2006), we consid­ered whether a wetland not adjacent to navigable-in-fact waters fell within the scope of the Act. Our answer was no, but no one rationale commanded a majority of the Court. In his separate opinion, THE CHIEF JUSTICE ex­pressed the concern that interested parties would lack —————— 1The original statute set a penalty cap of $25,000 per violation per day. The Federal Civil Penalties Inflation Adjustment Act of 1990, 104Stat. 890, note following 28 U. S. C. §2461, as amended by the DebtCollection Improvement Act of 1996, §3720E, 110 Stat. 1321–373, notefollowing 28 U. S. C. §2461, p. 1315 (Amendment), authorizes the EPA to adjust that maximum penalty for inflation. On the basis of that authority, the agency has raised the cap to $37,500. See 74 Fed. Reg. 626, 627 (2009). Cite as: 566 U. S. ___— (2012) 3 Opinion of the Court guidance “on precisely how to read Congress’ limits on thereach of the Clean Water Act” and would be left “to feel their way on a case-by-case basis.” Id., at 758 (concurring opinion).The Sacketts are interested parties feeling their way.They own a 2⁄3-acre residential lot in Bonner County, Idaho. Their property lies just north of Priest Lake, but isseparated from the lake by several lots containing perma­nent structures. In preparation for constructing a house,the Sacketts filled in part of their lot with dirt and rock. Some months later, they received from the EPA a compli­ance order. The order contained a number of “Findings and Conclusions,” including the following: “1.4 [The Sacketts’ property] contains wetlands with­in the meaning of 33 C. F. R. §328.4(8)(b); the wet­lands meet the criteria for jurisdictional wetlands in the 1987 ‘Federal Manual for Identifying and Deline­ating Jurisdictional Wetlands.’“1.5 The Site’s wetlands are adjacent to Priest Lake within the meaning of 33 C. F. R. §328.4(8)(c). Priest Lake is a ‘navigable water’ within the meaning of sec­tion 502(7) of the Act, 33 U. S. C. §1362(7), and ‘wa­ters of the United States’ within the meaning of 40 C. F. R. §232.2.“1.6 In April and May, 2007, at times more fully known to [the Sacketts, they] and/or persons acting on their behalf discharged fill material into wetlands at the Site. [They] filled approximately one half acre. . . . . . “1.9 By causing such fill material to enter waters of the United States, [the Sacketts] have engaged, and are continuing to engage, in the ‘discharge of pollu­tants’ from a point source within the meaning of sec­tions 301 and 502(12) of the Act, 33 U. S. C. §§1311 and 1362(12). . . . . . 4 SACKETT v. EPA Opinion of the Court “1.11 [The Sacketts’] discharge of pollutants into wa­ters of the United States at the Site without [a] per­mit constitutes a violation of section 301 of the Act, 33 U. S. C. §1311.” App. 19–20. On the basis of these findings and conclusions, the order directs the Sacketts, among other things, “immediately[to] undertake activities to restore the Site in accordancewith [an EPA-created] Restoration Work Plan” and to “pro- vide and/or obtain access to the Site . . . [and] access to all records and documentation related to the conditions at the Site . . . to EPA employees and/or their designated representatives.” Id., at 21–22, ¶¶2.1, 2.7.The Sacketts, who do not believe that their property issubject to the Act, asked the EPA for a hearing, but thatrequest was denied. They then brought this action in theUnited States District Court for the District of Idaho, seeking declaratory and injunctive relief. Their complaintcontended that the EPA’s issuance of the compliance order was “arbitrary [and] capricious” under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), 5 U. S. C. §706(2)(A), and that itdeprived them of “life, liberty, or property, without dueprocess of law,” in violation of the Fifth Amendment. The District Court dismissed the claims for want of subject­matter jurisdiction, and the United States Court of Ap­peals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed, 622 F. 3d 1139(2010). It concluded that the Act “preclude[s] pre­enforcement judicial review of compliance orders,” id., at 1144, and that such preclusion does not violate the FifthAmendment’s due process guarantee, id., at 1147. We granted certiorari. 564 U. S. __— (2011). II The Sacketts brought suit under Chapter 7 of the APA,which provides for judicial review of “final agency actionfor which there is no other adequate remedy in a court.” 5 U. S. C. §704. We consider first whether the compliance Cite as: 566 U. S. ___— (2012) 5 Opinion of the Court order is final agency action. There is no doubt it is agency action, which the APA defines as including even a “failure to act.” §§551(13), 701(b)(2). But is it final? It has all of the hallmarks of APA finality that our opinions establish. Through the order, the EPA “ ‘determined’ ” “ ‘rights or ob­ligations.’ ” Bennett v. Spear, 520 U. S. 154, 178 (1997) (quoting Port of Boston Marine Terminal Assn. v. Re- deriaktiebolaget Transatlantic, 400 U. S. 62, 71 (1970)).By reason of the order, the Sacketts have the legal obliga­tion to “restore” their property according to an agency­approved Restoration Work Plan, and must give the EPA access to their property and to “records and documentationrelated to the conditions at the Site.” App. 22, ¶2.7. Also, “ ‘legal consequences . . . flow’ ” from issuance of the order. Bennett, supra, at 178 (quoting Marine Terminal, supra,at 71). For one, according to the Government’s currentlitigating position, the order exposes the Sacketts to dou­ble penalties in a future enforcement proceeding.2 It also severely limits the Sacketts’ ability to obtain a permit for their fill from the Army Corps of Engineers, see 33 U. S. C.§1344. The Corps’ regulations provide that, once the EPA has issued a compliance order with respect to certain property, the Corps will not process a permit application for that property unless doing so “is clearly appropriate.”33 CFR §326.3(e)(1)(iv) (2011).3 The issuance of the compliance order also marks the “ ‘consummation’ ” of the agency’s decisionmaking process. —————— 2 We do not decide today that the Government’s position is correct, but assume the consequences of the order to be what the Government asserts. 3The regulation provides this consequence for “enforcement litigationthat has been initiated by other Federal . . . regulatory agencies.” 33 CFR §326.3(e)(1)(iv) (2011). The Government acknowledges, however,that EPA’s issuance of a compliance order is considered by the Corps to fall within the provision. Brief for Respondents 31. Here again, wetake the Government at its word without affirming that it represents a proper interpretation of the regulation. 6 SACKETT v. EPA Opinion of the Court Bennett, supra, at 178 (quoting Chicago & Southern Air Lines, Inc. v. Waterman S. S. Corp., 333 U. S. 103, 113 (1948)). As the Sacketts learned when they unsuccessfully sought a hearing, the “Findings and Conclusions” that the compliance order contained were not subject to furtheragency review. The Government resists this conclusion, pointing to a portion of the order that invited the Sackettsto “engage in informal discussion of the terms and re­quirements” of the order with the EPA and to inform the agency of “any allegations [t]herein which [they] believe[d]to be inaccurate.” App. 22–23, ¶2.11. But that confers no entitlement to further agency review. The mere possibil­ity that an agency might reconsider in light of “informal discussion” and invited contentions of inaccuracy does notsuffice to make an otherwise final agency action nonfinal.The APA’s judicial review provision also requires that the person seeking APA review of final agency action have“no other adequate remedy in a court,” 5 U. S. C. §704. In Clean Water Act enforcement cases, judicial review ordi­narily comes by way of a civil action brought by the EPA under 33 U. S. C. §1319. But the Sacketts cannot initiate that process, and each day they wait for the agency to dropthe hammer, they accrue, by the Government’s telling, an additional $75,000 in potential liability. The other possi­ble route to judicial review—applying to the Corps ofEngineers for a permit and then filing suit under the APA if a permit is denied—will not serve either. The remedyfor denial of action that might be sought from one agency does not ordinarily provide an “adequate remedy” for ac- tion already taken by another agency. The Government, to its credit, does not seriously contend that other availa­ble remedies alone foreclose review under §704. Instead, the Government relies on §701(a)(1) of the APA, which excludes APA review “to the extent that [other] statutes preclude judicial review.” The Clean Water Act, it says, is such a statute. Cite as: 566 U. S. ___— (2012) 7 Opinion of the Court III Nothing in the Clean Water Act expressly precludesjudicial review under the APA or otherwise. But in de­termining “[w]hether and to what extent a particularstatute precludes judicial review,” we do not look “only [to]its express language.” Block v. Community Nutrition Institute, 467 U. S. 340, 345 (1984). The APA, we have said, creates a “presumption favoring judicial review ofadministrative action,” but as with most presumptions, this one “may be overcome by inferences of intent drawnfrom the statutory scheme as a whole.” Id., at 349. The Government offers several reasons why the statutoryscheme of the Clean Water Act precludes review.The Government first points to 33 U. S. C. §1319(a)(3),which provides that, when the EPA “finds that any personis in violation” of certain portions of the Act, the agency“shall issue an order requiring such person to complywith [the Act], or . . . shall bring a civil action [to enforce the Act].” The Government argues that, because Congressgave the EPA the choice between a judicial proceeding and an administrative action, it would undermine the Act to allow judicial review of the latter. But that argumentrests on the question-begging premise that the relevant difference between a compliance order and an enforcement proceeding is that only the latter is subject to judicialreview. There are eminently sound reasons other than insulation from judicial review why compliance orders are useful. The Government itself suggests that they“provid[e] a means of notifying recipients of potential vio­lations and quickly resolving the issues through volun- tary compliance.” Brief for Respondents 39. It is entirely consistent with this function to allow judicial review whenthe recipient does not choose “voluntary compliance.” The Act does not guarantee the EPA that issuing a compliance order will always be the most effective choice. The Government also notes that compliance orders are 8 SACKETT v. EPA Opinion of the Court not self-executing, but must be enforced by the agency ina plenary judicial action. It suggests that Congress there­fore viewed a compliance order “as a step in the delibera­tive process[,] . . . rather than as a coercive sanction that itself must be subject to judicial review.” Id., at 38. But the APA provides for judicial review of all final agency actions, not just those that impose a self-executing sanc­tion. And it is hard for the Government to defend its claim that the issuance of the compliance order was just “a step in the deliberative process” when the agency rejected theSacketts’ attempt to obtain a hearing and when the next step will either be taken by the Sacketts (if they comply with the order) or will involve judicial, not administrative,deliberation (if the EPA brings an enforcement action). As the text (and indeed the very name) of the complianceorder makes clear, the EPA’s “deliberation” over whether the Sacketts are in violation of the Act is at an end; the agency may still have to deliberate over whether it isconfident enough about this conclusion to initiate litiga­tion, but that is a separate subject. The Government further urges us to consider that Con­gress expressly provided for prompt judicial review, on theadministrative record, when the EPA assesses administra­tive penalties after a hearing, see §1319(g)(8), but did not expressly provide for review of compliance orders. But if the express provision of judicial review in one section of a long and complicated statute were alone enough to over- come the APA’s presumption of reviewability for all finalagency action, it would not be much of a presumption at all. The cases on which the Government relies simply arenot analogous. In Block v. Community Nutrition Institute, supra, we held that the Agricultural Marketing Agree­ment Act of 1937, which expressly allowed milk handlersto obtain judicial review of milk market orders, precluded review of milk market orders in suits brought by milk Cite as: 566 U. S. ___— (2012) 9 Opinion of the Court consumers. 467 U. S., at 345–348. Where a statute pro­vides that particular agency action is reviewable at theinstance of one party, who must first exhaust administra­tive remedies, the inference that it is not reviewable at the instance of other parties, who are not subject to the admin­istrative process, is strong. In United States v. Erika, Inc., 456 U. S. 201 (1982), we held that the Medicare statute, which expressly provided for judicial review of awardsunder Part A, precluded review of awards under Part B. Id., at 206–208. The strong parallel between the award provisions in Part A and Part B of the Medicare statute does not exist between the issuance of a compliance order and the assessment of administrative penalties under the Clean Water Act. And in United States v. Fausto, 484 U. S. 439 (1988), we held that the Civil Service ReformAct, which expressly excluded certain “nonpreference”employees from the statute’s review scheme, precluded review at the instance of those employees in a separateClaims Court action. Id., at 448–449. Here, there is no suggestion that Congress has sought to exclude compli­ance-order recipients from the Act’s review scheme; quite to the contrary, the Government’s case is premised on the notion that the Act’s primary review mechanisms are open to the Sacketts. Finally, the Government notes that Congress passed theClean Water Act in large part to respond to the inefficien­cy of then-existing remedies for water pollution. Compli­ance orders, as noted above, can obtain quick remediationthrough voluntary compliance. The Government warns that the EPA is less likely to use the orders if they are subject to judicial review. That may be true—but it will betrue for all agency actions subjected to judicial review. The APA’s presumption of judicial review is a repudiation of the principle that efficiency of regulation conquers all.And there is no reason to think that the Clean Water Act was uniquely designed to enable the strong-arming of 10 SACKETT v. EPA Opinion of the Court regulated parties into “voluntary compliance” without the opportunity for judicial review—even judicial review of thequestion whether the regulated party is within the EPA’sjurisdiction. Compliance orders will remain an effective means of securing prompt voluntary compliance in those many cases where there is no substantial basis to questiontheir validity. * * * We conclude that the compliance order in this case is final agency action for which there is no adequate remedyother than APA review, and that the Clean Water Act does not preclude that review. We therefore reverse the judg­ment of the Court of Appeals and remand the case for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. It is so ordered.

Right, over-reaching government like the legislation passed in Arizona where a doctor can lie to a patient to prevent an abortion.

But we are supposed to be talking about North Korea.

Wow, I just skimmed some of the hateful comments here - many of you should just go to FOX and stay there. Please. I happen to be supporting President Obama's Korean visit and feel that he will do an incredible job there. For you haters out there, come on and admit that we have one very fine President to represent even people like you. Obama 2012!!

Since 9/11 was not a lesson for all of you haters of the President of the United States, then keep on disrespecting your world leader like you did President Bill Clinton, then President George Bush and you will give this nations enemies the resolve to attack this country again like 9/11, or even worst if North Korea, Iran, and many other enemies of this nation listen to some of you on this vine, then they will try something just to satisfy your hate for your own President, and the belief that the other American leaders think like you fools and want give a dam in support of the present sitting President. And if he is not re-elected then I want be surprised to here you trashing the next fool that thinks he can lead this country of thankless buttock holes. I don't think anyone from any political party can satisfy you bunch of low life, inbreed, denigrating, racist, bigoted, everything hating fools.

""BUNCH OF DUMB ASS AMERICA DIVIDING FOOLS""WAR FIGHTER OUT""HOOAHhhhhhhh""""""""""""""