Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
Welcome to The New Coffee Room. We hope you enjoy your visit.


You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free.


Join our community!


If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features:

Username:   Password:
Add Reply
Get Terror Trials Out of Civilian Court
Topic Started: Jan 29 2010, 03:53 PM (1,416 Views)
Frank_W
Member Avatar
Resident Misanthrope
I agree with that too, Jeff.
Anatomy Prof: "The human body has about 20 sq. meters of skin."
Me: "Man, that's a lot of lampshades!"
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
QuirtEvans
Member Avatar
I Owe It All To John D'Oh
Jeff
Jan 30 2010, 09:07 AM
The policy seems to have been motivated by a desire for fame and glory in the Justice Dept, ("I was the lawyer who put KSM away!!") rather than any actual rational policy analysis. It is not just hyper-liberal ideology, a lust for fame and glory and power also seems to have played a role here.
I think that's the biggest pile of crap I've ever heard. Honestly, I'm surprised you can manage to say such things without giggling at your own silliness.
It would be unwise to underestimate what large groups of ill-informed people acting together can achieve. -- John D'Oh, January 14, 2010.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ivorythumper
Member Avatar
I am so adjective that I verb nouns!
JBryan
Jan 30 2010, 07:57 AM
When Holder came out and said in effect, "Yeah, he'll get the death penalty in the end" he moved the process from fair trial to show trial. That can't be a good thing for our court system.
So much for presumption of innocence.

And can you imagine the sh!tstorm if the government failed its case in criminal court and KSM was found not guilty, or some judge released him on a technicality????

Holder is an idiot beyond the normal definition of idiot.
The dogma lives loudly within me.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Jeff
Senior Carp
QuirtEvans
Jan 30 2010, 10:02 AM
Jeff
Jan 30 2010, 09:07 AM
The policy seems to have been motivated by a desire for fame and glory in the Justice Dept, ("I was the lawyer who put KSM away!!") rather than any actual rational policy analysis. It is not just hyper-liberal ideology, a lust for fame and glory and power also seems to have played a role here.
I think that's the biggest pile of crap I've ever heard. Honestly, I'm surprised you can manage to say such things without giggling at your own silliness.
Perhaps they also desired a big book contract at the end, as in the OJ trial, so they can cash in on their fame and glory and lust for power.

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Jeff
Senior Carp
ivorythumper
Jan 30 2010, 12:04 PM


And can you imagine the sh!tstorm if the government failed its case in criminal court and KSM was found not guilty, or some judge released him on a technicality????
Voir dire rights, jury of his peers (whatever that might mean), right to confront the jury personally, presumption of innocence.

Maybe they can get some 9-11 truthers on the jury to keep it fair.

This is an administration rapidly losing contact with empirical reality, and the feedback loop is getting real thin.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Phlebas
Member Avatar
Bull-Carp
QuirtEvans
Jan 30 2010, 04:14 AM
I never said they were ANTI-liberal. I said they weren't liberal. Which is absolutely true. I recognize that you have to create a strawman, and misinterpret my argument, because otherwise you'd look foolish in claiming the Daily News is a liberal paper, but those are the facts.

Is the Post farther right than the Daily News? Of course. Doesn't change the point, though.

And again, you're trying to change the subject, to ignore the foolish point you made and got called on.

Quirt is right. The Daily News is not liberal.
Random FML: Today, I was fired by my boss in front of my coworkers. It would have been nice if I could have left the building before they started celebrating. FML

The founding of the bulk of the world's nation states post 1914 is based on self-defined nationalisms. The bulk of those national movements involve territory that was ethnically mixed. The foundation of many of those nation states involved population movements in the aftermath. When the only one that is repeatedly held up as unjust and unjustifiable is the Zionist project, the term anti-semitism may very well be appropriate. - P*D


Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Jeff
Senior Carp
I checked MapQuest. I count at least 6 elementary schools within a brisk 10 minute walk of the Federal criminal courthouse in lower Manhattan, mostly for the children of Chinese immigrants. Playgrounds, hopscotch, pigtails, backpacks.

Insanity.
Edited by Jeff, Jan 30 2010, 02:41 PM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
John Galt
Fulla-Carp
I thought Mayor Bloomberg initially was for the trial being in New York. I remember seeing him at a press conference when it was announced and he sounded 100 percent in favor.

While I understand that he has also changed his mind on this (because of the cost of security), why isn't he getting the same heat that Holder is? Or is he?

I don't read the NY papers much (liberal, conservative or otherwise), so I'm not up on this.
Let us begin anew, remembering on both sides that civility is not a sign of weakness.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Jeff
Senior Carp
QuirtEvans
Jan 29 2010, 08:41 PM

Quote:
 
The teachers union played a more destructive role than previously understood in all but certainly scuttling New York's shot at as much as $700 million in federal education funding. Surprise. Surprise.


http://www.nydailynews.com/opinions/2010/01/28/2010-01-28_a_study_in_sabotage.html#ixzz0eA4zdVCS

Hmm, that one's not very liberal either.
We agree the NYT is liberal, right?

Well, they agree with the "blue-collar but not liberal" NYDN on the issue of the teachers' union destructive obstruction of charter schools being promoted by the Obama administration (which I guess isn't liberal on this point, either). More big words, but same conclusion: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/30/nyregion/30charter.html?hpw

Being pro-education is not only a conservative position. Heck, even Obama is for improving schools.
Edited by Jeff, Jan 30 2010, 03:40 PM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
QuirtEvans
Member Avatar
I Owe It All To John D'Oh
Jeff
Jan 30 2010, 02:36 PM
I checked MapQuest. I count at least 6 elementary schools within a brisk 10 minute walk of the Federal criminal courthouse in lower Manhattan, mostly for the children of Chinese immigrants. Playgrounds, hopscotch, pigtails, backpacks.

Insanity.
Your analysis in this thread has managed to muddle three distinct issues.

1. Should they be given a trial at all, or should they simply be held at Gitmo indefinitely?

http://s10.zetaboards.com/The_New_Coffee_Room/single/?p=8461683&t=7221436

2. If they are to be given a trial at all, should it be in a criminal court or instead in front of a military tribunal?

http://s10.zetaboards.com/The_New_Coffee_Room/single/?p=8461475&t=7221436

3. If they are to be given a trial in criminal court, where should that trial be held?

http://s10.zetaboards.com/The_New_Coffee_Room/single/?p=8461313&t=7221436

Since the thread started with the third topic, and since you're the one who started the thread, why don't we see if we can focus on THAT one?

As to whether the trial should be held in New York, I'm agnostic on that. You make some decent arguments against holding the trial in New York. However, notwithstanding the sheer level of emotion of your response, there are some rational reasons to hold the trial in New York. Putting KSM on trial in the very city that he attacked ... trying and sentencing him in front of the very community that he harmed ... and trying him in the most famous city in the world, in the heart of the media industry ... has some very positive aspects. Presumably, that's why Mayor Bloomberg was originally in favor of trying him in New York. So, even though you feel the need to bathe in hyberbole, it wasn't an irrational decision. It's also not an irrational decision to change the venue, once the logistical costs have been better understood and once the Mayor changes his position.
It would be unwise to underestimate what large groups of ill-informed people acting together can achieve. -- John D'Oh, January 14, 2010.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ivorythumper
Member Avatar
I am so adjective that I verb nouns!
Jeff
Jan 30 2010, 03:36 PM
Being pro-education is not only a conservative position. Heck, even Obama is for improving schools.
Race to the Top, huh?
The dogma lives loudly within me.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Frank_W
Member Avatar
Resident Misanthrope
If I had my way, terrorists would face quiet, discreet military tribunals without any fanfare whatsoever, and their sentences would be carried out in precisely the same fashion.
Anatomy Prof: "The human body has about 20 sq. meters of skin."
Me: "Man, that's a lot of lampshades!"
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
QuirtEvans
Member Avatar
I Owe It All To John D'Oh
Frank_W
Jan 30 2010, 04:02 PM
If I had my way, terrorists would face quiet, discreet military tribunals without any fanfare whatsoever, and their sentences would be carried out in precisely the same fashion.
Define "terrorist".

Some people think that someone who allows their dog to pee on your rosebush is a terrorist.

I'm assuming those people aren't sent to a quiet, discreet military tribunal.

So, where's the line?
It would be unwise to underestimate what large groups of ill-informed people acting together can achieve. -- John D'Oh, January 14, 2010.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ivorythumper
Member Avatar
I am so adjective that I verb nouns!
QuirtEvans
Jan 30 2010, 04:04 PM
Frank_W
Jan 30 2010, 04:02 PM
If I had my way, terrorists would face quiet, discreet military tribunals without any fanfare whatsoever, and their sentences would be carried out in precisely the same fashion.
Define "terrorist".

Some people think that someone who allows their dog to pee on your rosebush is a terrorist.

I'm assuming those people aren't sent to a quiet, discreet military tribunal.

So, where's the line?
Wow.
The dogma lives loudly within me.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Frank_W
Member Avatar
Resident Misanthrope
If you take up arms against the United States or her allies, with the intention of indiscriminately killing random civilians, or engage in military hostilities against the United States or her allies, without being a part of an official military power that is actively at war with the United States or her allies, then you are a terrorist.

For example, the Iraqi soldiers, under Saddam Hussein, who fought against the United States would prisoners of war. They may face military tribunals, or they may simply be held until the end of active hostilities and then released to their nation's (new) government.

Into the terrorist category, I also include Timothy McVeigh, John Muhammad Malvo, the Unabomber, the Major (his name escapes me) that went on the rampage at Fort Hood, and each of the individuals responsible for plotting, planning, and executing the tragedy of 9/11. I also include the subhuman piece of crap that was indiscriminately mailing weapons-grade arsenic all over the nation, in the weeks following 9/11.
Anatomy Prof: "The human body has about 20 sq. meters of skin."
Me: "Man, that's a lot of lampshades!"
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Jeff
Senior Carp
QuirtEvans
Jan 30 2010, 03:45 PM
Jeff
Jan 30 2010, 02:36 PM
I checked MapQuest. I count at least 6 elementary schools within a brisk 10 minute walk of the Federal criminal courthouse in lower Manhattan, mostly for the children of Chinese immigrants. Playgrounds, hopscotch, pigtails, backpacks.

Insanity.
Your analysis in this thread has managed to muddle three distinct issues.

1. Should they be given a trial at all, or should they simply be held at Gitmo indefinitely?

http://s10.zetaboards.com/The_New_Coffee_Room/single/?p=8461683&t=7221436

2. If they are to be given a trial at all, should it be in a criminal court or instead in front of a military tribunal?

http://s10.zetaboards.com/The_New_Coffee_Room/single/?p=8461475&t=7221436

3. If they are to be given a trial in criminal court, where should that trial be held?

http://s10.zetaboards.com/The_New_Coffee_Room/single/?p=8461313&t=7221436

Since the thread started with the third topic, and since you're the one who started the thread, why don't we see if we can focus on THAT one?

As to whether the trial should be held in New York, I'm agnostic on that. You make some decent arguments against holding the trial in New York. However, notwithstanding the sheer level of emotion of your response, there are some rational reasons to hold the trial in New York. Putting KSM on trial in the very city that he attacked ... trying and sentencing him in front of the very community that he harmed ... and trying him in the most famous city in the world, in the heart of the media industry ... has some very positive aspects. Presumably, that's why Mayor Bloomberg was originally in favor of trying him in New York. So, even though you feel the need to bathe in hyberbole, it wasn't an irrational decision. It's also not an irrational decision to change the venue, once the logistical costs have been better understood and once the Mayor changes his position.
I am not conflating. There are degrees of badness. I think the best choice is to maintain Gitmo as is with no trials at all. As a pragmatic person, I realize this will not happen. Obama campaigned on closing Gitmo (as did McCain), and some sensible experienced people think the PR liability of Gitmo is such that it is in the national interest to close it. I do not agree, but I am willing to accept that some rational sane people disagree with me and think Gitmo is a bad enough PR symbol that closing it is in the national interest all things considered.

Whether Gitmo is closed or not over time, I accept that there may be reasons to give military trials to certain detainees to finalize their legal status - either at Gitmo or some similarly secure prison location. A secret military trial, where no information harmful to the US interest and safety of US citizens and the methods of terrorist tracking and the like are revealed to the public, is a reasonable position. It is not my position, esp. for high information individuals like KSM, who can provide information and background for years to come, but I accept that some people may wish for finality in this, and may chose a military, secret trial wherein our CIA networks, data, methods and so forth are kept private. I do not agree with the military trial strategy, but it would be a minor disagreement in the big picture of things.

Under no circumstances whatsoever should civilian trials be used for any of the 5 individuals in question. The jury cannot be made safe, and the information made public will compromise intelligence operations currently in force, and the jury system with voir dire and assumed innocent etc. is simply not designed for this situation in any way. To propose this is ideological insanity, esp. after the experience of the 1993 trials which harmed intelligence operations in force at the time. The jury system is a way to protect citizens from overarching governmental police power. These people are not citizens.

To add to this ideologically driven insanity ("whatever Bush did we will do the opposite"), is the additional practical insanity of having the trial near 6 elementary schools and 40,000 full-time residents in the busy commercial district of lower Manhattan, which indicates a mental separation from reality itself.

So to move a civilian trial from lower Manhattan to another location makes the action less bad, in that it is insane and destructive to American civilians only in one way, and not two ways, and at lower cost.

Edited by Jeff, Jan 30 2010, 04:39 PM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
George K
Member Avatar
Finally
Jeff
Jan 30 2010, 04:32 PM
I am not conflating. There are degrees of badness. I think the best choice is to maintain Gitmo as is with no trials at all. As a pragmatic person, I realize this will not happen.
You're mistaken, Jeffrey. For some, it will happen exactly that way. They cannot be tried because of national security reasons, and are deemed to dangerous to let go.

So, where's the line?
A guide to GKSR: Click

"Now look here, you Baltic gas passer... "
- Mik, 6/14/08


Nothing is as effective as homeopathy.

I'd rather listen to an hour of Abba than an hour of The Beatles.
- Klaus, 4/29/18
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
John Galt
Fulla-Carp
Slightly derailing this thread....

Welsh reporter Phil Rees, who works for the BBC, wrote a book called Dining with Terrorists. Controversial and definitely thought provoking. The chapter on the folks in Afghanistan is fascinating. He started his quest to define the term "terrorist" after experiencing both sides of the IRA issue in Britain.

Meanwhile, back to your discussion....
Let us begin anew, remembering on both sides that civility is not a sign of weakness.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Frank_W
Member Avatar
Resident Misanthrope
The Guantanamo Bay situation is too complicated for me to have any idea of what the best course of action would be.
Anatomy Prof: "The human body has about 20 sq. meters of skin."
Me: "Man, that's a lot of lampshades!"
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
George K
Member Avatar
Finally
Frank_W
Jan 30 2010, 04:41 PM
The Guantanamo Bay situation is too complicated for me to have any idea of what the best course of action would be.
Above your pay grade, eh buddy?
A guide to GKSR: Click

"Now look here, you Baltic gas passer... "
- Mik, 6/14/08


Nothing is as effective as homeopathy.

I'd rather listen to an hour of Abba than an hour of The Beatles.
- Klaus, 4/29/18
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Jeff
Senior Carp
George K
Jan 30 2010, 04:38 PM
Jeff
Jan 30 2010, 04:32 PM
I am not conflating. There are degrees of badness. I think the best choice is to maintain Gitmo as is with no trials at all. As a pragmatic person, I realize this will not happen.
You're mistaken, Jeffrey. For some, it will happen exactly that way. They cannot be tried because of national security reasons, and are deemed to dangerous to let go.

So, where's the line?
I have no idea. I think the balance of factors lean towards leaving Gitmo exactly as it was, except that Bush let too many people out who returned to terrorist activities upon release.

The whole thing seems like an Obama PR stunt to me ("see, world, we are not like mean Bush"), even if the original proposal endangered kids on playgrounds. The PR stunt was more important to them.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Frank_W
Member Avatar
Resident Misanthrope
George K
Jan 30 2010, 04:42 PM
Frank_W
Jan 30 2010, 04:41 PM
The Guantanamo Bay situation is too complicated for me to have any idea of what the best course of action would be.
Above your pay grade, eh buddy?
Thankfully, yes. ;)
Anatomy Prof: "The human body has about 20 sq. meters of skin."
Me: "Man, that's a lot of lampshades!"
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Beacon Chris
Member Avatar
Junior Carp
Jeff
Jan 30 2010, 04:32 PM

Whether Gitmo is closed or not over time, I accept that there may be reasons to give military trials to certain detainees to finalize their legal status - either at Gitmo or some similarly secure prison location. A secret military trial, where no information harmful to the US interest and safety of US citizens and the methods of terrorist tracking and the like are revealed to the public, is a reasonable position. It is not my position, esp. for high information individuals like KSM, who can provide information and background for years to come, but I accept that some people may wish for finality in this, and may chose a military, secret trial wherein our CIA networks, data, methods and so forth are kept private. I do not agree with the military trial strategy, but it would be a minor disagreement in the big picture of things.

Under no circumstances whatsoever should civilian trials be used for any of the 5 individuals in question. The jury cannot be made safe, and the information made public will compromise intelligence operations currently in force, and the jury system with voir dire and assumed innocent etc. is simply not designed for this situation in any way. To propose this is ideological insanity, esp. after the experience of the 1993 trials which harmed intelligence operations in force at the time. The jury system is a way to protect citizens from overarching governmental police power. These people are not citizens.

To add to this ideologically driven insanity ("whatever Bush did we will do the opposite"), is the additional practical insanity of having the trial near 6 elementary schools and 40,000 full-time residents in the busy commercial district of lower Manhattan, which indicates a mental separation from reality itself.

So to move a civilian trial from lower Manhattan to another location makes the action less bad, in that it is insane and destructive to American civilians only in one way, and not two ways, and at lower cost.

Bingo.

This is it, Jeff - you nailed it. As for myself and fellow countrymen, I can't imagine being "agnostic" about this at all...

How you durrin?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Jeff
Senior Carp
Moving the location could be the beginning of stopping civilian trials altogether. Not every Democrat wants to lose their seat in November over this issue: http://www.propublica.org/feature/why-obamas-plans-for-ny-terror-trials-appear-to-be-unraveling-0129


Why Obama’s Plans for NY Terror Trials Appear to Be Unraveling
by Dafna Linzer, ProPublica - January 29, 2010 4:36 pm EST

U.S. President Barack Obama signs an executive order to close down the detention center at Guantanamo Bay Cuba at the White House on January 22, 2009 in Washington, DC. (Photo by Mark Wilson/Getty Images)

For anyone wondering how one of President Obama’s signature pledges seemed to unravel between Monday and Friday, here’s a look at the week that was.

Savvy readers of The New York Times may have noticed a letter to the editor in Tuesday’s edition, co-signed by three city council members including the speaker, the chairman of the Public Safety Committee and the chairwoman of the Lower Manhattan Redevelopment Committee. One month after the Christmas Day terror plot aboard a Detroit-bound flight, all three city officials came out against trials for five alleged Sept. 11 conspirators in Manhattan. The officials’ letter was in response to a speculative article, which ran a week earlier, about possibilities for moving the trial 800 yards out of Manhattan, to nearby Governors Island.

On Wednesday, Mayor Michael Bloomberg publicly reversed his earlier support for the administration’s trial plan and -- backing the city council members -- also called for the trials to be moved out of Manhattan. It’s hard to overstate the damage that Bloomberg’s position has inflicted on the White House’s efforts to put Khalid Sheikh Mohammed on trial in New York, as the Justice Department announced last November that it planned to do.

It’s also hard to overstate how damaging this is to the president’s efforts to close Guantanamo and bring the perpetrators of the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks to justice in a manner that he believes is consistent with his values and promises. Not because New York is the only place where the trials could occur, but because a change of heart from a powerful mayor, who supports Obama, just gave cover to key Democrats to look tough on terror by joining his push for a new trial location.

There was little reaction on Capitol Hill when New York’s unpopular governor, David Paterson, came out against the planned trials when they were announced by Attorney General Eric Holder at a Washington, D.C., news conference in November.

But Bloomberg is not Paterson.

Today, Spencer Ackerman, at The Washington Independent, posted a letter from Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., the chairwoman of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, to Obama calling for a venue change. It will be hard for the White House to push back on the very public warnings and concerns she voices in the letter, especially in light of the Christmas Day terror plot.

Hours after the letter surfaced, administration officials said they would continue to push for federal court trials but appeared to be abandoning the New York option.

And that, in turn, could fuel efforts by Republicans and others who oppose civilian trials altogether.

A telling tidbit appears at the very end of a Politico story today noting that Scott Brown, the newly elected Republican senator from Massachusetts campaigned, in part, against civilian trials for terror suspects. Here’s the kicker: Brown's pollsters said the issue polled better for him than even his opposition to health reform.

Since his inauguration, the president has repeatedly taken positions regarding Guantanamo and detention that surprised his supporters on the left.

As a candidate in August 2008, Obama said: "It's time to better protect the American people and our values by bringing swift and sure justice to terrorists through our courts and our Uniform Code of Military Justice."

As president, his advisers stressed that Obama was focused on prosecutions, unlike his predecessor. No Guantanamo detainees were convicted in federal courts during the Bush administration. Three prisoners were convicted in military commissions -- a system that Obama derided as illegitimate.

Last May, in a speech at the National Archives, Obama again pushed for prosecutions in federal court. But he also embraced reformed military commissions and said some suspects would be held indefinitely.

“There may be a number of people,” he said, who could be held without charge or trial after Guantanamo closes. Last week, his task force recommended holding 50 detainees, roughly a quarter of the remaining prisoners at Guantanamo, and two administration officials said the number could be higher.

No more than 35 detainees of the 240 who were in the prison when Obama took office are likely to face charges anywhere. So far, the administration has charged just one detainee in federal court. Five others, including the alleged Sept. 11 conspirators, are likely to face charges. And five other detainees will be charged before military commissions.

The White House knew months ago that it would not be able to meet a one-year deadline for closing Guantanamo. The White House is still trying to figure out a way to move detainees from Guantanamo to a prison facility in Thomson, Ill. Now it is likely that it will also be searching for new trial venues.

Obama did not mention Guantanamo in his State of the Union speech Wednesday night, and the White House has set no new deadline for closing the facility.

Edited by Jeff, Jan 30 2010, 06:21 PM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Jeff
Senior Carp
Jeff
Jan 30 2010, 06:15 PM


Today, Spencer Ackerman, at The Washington Independent, posted a letter from Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., the chairwoman of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, to Obama calling for a venue change. It will be hard for the White House to push back on the very public warnings and concerns she voices in the letter, especially in light of the Christmas Day terror plot.

Hours after the letter surfaced, administration officials said they would continue to push for federal court trials but appeared to be abandoning the New York option.

And that, in turn, could fuel efforts by Republicans and others who oppose civilian trials altogether.

A telling tidbit appears at the very end of a Politico story today noting that Scott Brown, the newly elected Republican senator from Massachusetts campaigned, in part, against civilian trials for terror suspects. Here’s the kicker: Brown's pollsters said the issue polled better for him than even his opposition to health reform.
Quirt has told me that Scott Brown's commonsense position on terrorism (interrogations not juries, a position supported by over 70% of Americans), wasn't all that meaningful in the Mass election.

I hope the Dem pollsters don't pick up on this point by November, either. This issue alone could turn deep blue New York Congressional districts into the RINO column.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · The New Coffee Room · Next Topic »
Add Reply