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 (1,415 Views)
Jeff
Senior Carp
QuirtEvans
Jan 30 2010, 03:45 PM
muddle three distinct issues
Actually, the issues are closely related.

The total lack of analysis, consultation or feedback that went into the choice of location bodes poorly for the notion that Holder and company have really thought through and analyzed the process and implications of a civilian jury trial. These do not seem like well-prepared street-savvy lawyers who have war gamed the whole scenario and know what they are doing. They seem like overconfident buffoons caught in a self-referential information loop.

The question the Dems have to ask themselves right now is 'do they feel lucky'? Are they really willing to bet the prospects of their entire party for a generation on the effectiveness of Holder's legal team at bat with 70% of the American public opposed?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
QuirtEvans
Member Avatar
I Owe It All To John D'Oh
Jeff
Jan 30 2010, 04:32 PM
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.

You have managed to ignore the point that Mayor Bloomberg was originally in favor of holding the trials in New York. Is he insane too?

Failing to recognize or even acknowledge the potential upsides to holding the trial in New York is ... what's the word you used? Oh, yeah ... insanity. That doesn't mean it's the best choice, under the circumstances. But there are certainly positive aspects to that choice.
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
 
Beacon Chris
Member Avatar
Junior Carp
Now the mayor of Newburgh wants to hold the trials in my backyard for the 200M bribe. Nice... :help:


http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=MDQyMTYxMWViYzNjZDg0OTJlN2Y3NjIxNDAzYTgzNDg=
Edited by Beacon Chris, Jan 31 2010, 05:45 AM.
How you durrin?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Mikhailoh
Member Avatar
If you want trouble, find yourself a redhead
ivorythumper
Jan 30 2010, 03:53 PM
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?
Arguably the worst slogan ever to come out of government. :no:
Once in his life, every man is entitled to fall madly in love with a gorgeous redhead - Lucille Ball
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Jeff
Senior Carp
QuirtEvans
Jan 31 2010, 04:27 AM
You have managed to ignore the point that Mayor Bloomberg was originally in favor of holding the trials in New York.
The decision was sprung on him with three hours notice (as per the NYT article above, you still regard them as a legit source, right?), and I guess he chose not to directly attack a powerful and delusional national administration whose financial help he would need. Prudence being the better part of valor when in a senior and responsible position. Patterson said it was nuts from day one, since he is on the outs with the Obama admin anyway, and could speak the obvious truth right away. Once Bloomberg could marshal his contacts and evidence, he struck back properly and effectively.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
QuirtEvans
Member Avatar
I Owe It All To John D'Oh
Jeff
Jan 31 2010, 07:26 AM
QuirtEvans
Jan 31 2010, 04:27 AM
You have managed to ignore the point that Mayor Bloomberg was originally in favor of holding the trials in New York.
The decision was sprung on him with three hours notice (as per the NYT article above, you still regard them as a legit source, right?), and I guess he chose not to directly attack a powerful and delusional national administration whose financial help he would need. Prudence being the better part of valor when in a senior and responsible position. Patterson said it was nuts from day one, since he is on the outs with the Obama admin anyway, and could speak the obvious truth right away. Once Bloomberg could marshal his contacts and evidence, he struck back properly and effectively.
Again, it's wonderful that you manage to bathe in the warm glow of vitriol, but it's nowhere near as clearcut as you'd wish it to be. There are positives to holding the trial in New York, and I know rational New Yorkers ... even those who oppose the trials being held there, even New Yorkers who worked and still work in the financial district ... who are willing to acknowledge that. You've just gone hysterical on the issue, and have lost the capacity for rational thought. Fair enough, for you, like others, 9/11 was highly personal. But don't pretend that there's anything rational about your position, or anything insane about someone who sees both sides of the argument. The only insanity on the subject ... understandable insanity, but insanity nonetheless ... is yours.
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
 
Jeff
Senior Carp
QuirtEvans
Jan 31 2010, 07:35 AM
Jeff
Jan 31 2010, 07:26 AM
QuirtEvans
Jan 31 2010, 04:27 AM
You have managed to ignore the point that Mayor Bloomberg was originally in favor of holding the trials in New York.
The decision was sprung on him with three hours notice (as per the NYT article above, you still regard them as a legit source, right?), and I guess he chose not to directly attack a powerful and delusional national administration whose financial help he would need. Prudence being the better part of valor when in a senior and responsible position. Patterson said it was nuts from day one, since he is on the outs with the Obama admin anyway, and could speak the obvious truth right away. Once Bloomberg could marshal his contacts and evidence, he struck back properly and effectively.
Again, it's wonderful that you manage to bathe in the warm glow of vitriol, but it's nowhere near as clearcut as you'd wish it to be. There are positives to holding the trial in New York, and I know rational New Yorkers ... even those who oppose the trials being held there, even New Yorkers who worked and still work in the financial district ... who are willing to acknowledge that. You've just gone hysterical on the issue, and have lost the capacity for rational thought. Fair enough, for you, like others, 9/11 was highly personal. But don't pretend that there's anything rational about your position, or anything insane about someone who sees both sides of the argument. The only insanity on the subject ... understandable insanity, but insanity nonetheless ... is yours.
Quirt - The far left also has Obama's number on this one. You can't call for a civilian jury trial with the presumption of innocence, and then tell the world that KSM will be executed at the end of it. Civilian trials are not show trials in Stalinist Russia, remember? The whole strategy is incoherent from *any* angle. The FDL leftist objection is valid; jurys are a bulwark against governmental police power, and so the state does not get to tell us what the conclusion of a jury of peers will be.

http://firedoglake.com/2010/01/31/gibbs-khalid-sheikh-mohammed-likely-to-be-executed-why-even-have-a-trial/




Gibbs: Khalid Sheikh Mohammed Likely to be Executed — Why Even Have a Trial?
By: Cynthia Kouril Sunday January 31, 2010 8:30 am

More STUPID, STUPID, STUPID

White House press spokesman Robert Gibbs just said that Khalid Sheikh Mohammed (KSM) would likely be executed after trial and conviction. WTF?!?

Am I the only person left who still remembers a legal concept called presumption of innocence? Am I the only one who remembers that the whole point of a trial is that the outcome is not certain?

Listen Gibbs, do NOT insult the prosecutors who are about to work their asses off trying to put together a winning criminal case. Do NOT insult the hardworking defense counsel who are going to put thousands of hours into making sure that KSM gets due process. Do NOT insult the excellent federal judges of SDNY by suggesting that any one of them would preside over a kangaroo court. Do NOT insult our entire criminal justice system.

In a real trial, the outcome is not known before the trial occurs. Further, much of the information in the hands of the government which will be used at trial against KSM should currently be Grand Jury Material, subject to secrecy under Rule 6e. Which means that you, Robert Gibbs, cannot legally know exactly what that evidence might be. So, how could you possibly know if KSM is going to be convicted? How do you know that?

You don’t. So stop shooting you mouth off and calling our system of justice and the dedicated professionals of both bench and bar in the Southern District of New York into disrepute.

Listen, the White House needs to back off and let the professionals handle this trial. USAO SDNY and the judges of SDNY are pros at this. David Axelrod is not. Robert Gibbs is not. People who have no clue what they are talking about, need to back out of this loop, now.

Let the AG, the US Attorney and the Chief Judge handle it. You guys go back to doing the stuff that you are good at.
Edited by Jeff, Jan 31 2010, 02:22 PM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ivorythumper
Member Avatar
I am so adjective that I verb nouns!
It looks like The Obamateur Hour has been renewed for another season, even as ratings drop.
The dogma lives loudly within me.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
QuirtEvans
Member Avatar
I Owe It All To John D'Oh
OK, now you've switched to issue #4 ... whether the President is allowed to declare his opinion on a suspect's guilt or innocence prior to the trial.

If the prosecutor said, "We expect the defendant to be tried, convicted, and sentenced to the maximum punishment," there'd be nothing wrong with that. It happens every day. It's part of the prosecution's opening statement.

Who do the DoJ prosecutors report to? The AG. And who does the AG report to again?

There is nothing wrong with the prosecutorial arm expressing its belief in the defendant's guilt. Prosecutors are supposed to believe the defendant is guilty and that they'll win at trial, or else they shouldn't be having a trial at all. (Which goes back to yet another one of your muddled arguments.)

So, back to the real issue ... if it's insanity to try KSM in NY, why are there New Yorkers ... New Yorkers who work in the financial district, and worked there at the time of 9/11 ... who would like to see KSM tried in NY? Or at least, thought it was a good idea before all the logistical problems were more clearly understood?

Or maybe your hyperbole is misplaced, could that be it?
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
 
Free Rider
Member Avatar
Fulla-Carp
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?
:lol2:


:lol:
Edited by Free Rider, Jan 31 2010, 02:43 PM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ivorythumper
Member Avatar
I am so adjective that I verb nouns!
QuirtEvans
Jan 31 2010, 02:41 PM

So, back to the real issue ... if it's insanity to try KSM in NY, why are there New Yorkers ... New Yorkers who work in the financial district, and worked there at the time of 9/11 ... who would like to see KSM tried in NY? Or at least, thought it was a good idea before all the logistical problems were more clearly understood?

Or maybe your hyperbole is misplaced, could that be it?
What a bizarre argument. Simply because some of X think something is a good idea, and the upon further reflection some of X determined it really wasn't a good idea, then opposing it is insanity? Wow. Talk about misplaced hyperbole.
The dogma lives loudly within me.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
QuirtEvans
Member Avatar
I Owe It All To John D'Oh
ivorythumper
Jan 31 2010, 03:09 PM
QuirtEvans
Jan 31 2010, 02:41 PM

So, back to the real issue ... if it's insanity to try KSM in NY, why are there New Yorkers ... New Yorkers who work in the financial district, and worked there at the time of 9/11 ... who would like to see KSM tried in NY? Or at least, thought it was a good idea before all the logistical problems were more clearly understood?

Or maybe your hyperbole is misplaced, could that be it?
What a bizarre argument. Simply because some of X think something is a good idea, and the upon further reflection some of X determined it really wasn't a good idea, then opposing it is insanity? Wow. Talk about misplaced hyperbole.
Posted Image
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!
Even more misplaced hyperbole.
The dogma lives loudly within me.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
JBryan
Member Avatar
I am the grey one
QuirtEvans
Jan 31 2010, 02:41 PM
If the prosecutor said, "We expect the defendant to be tried, convicted, and sentenced to the maximum punishment," there'd be nothing wrong with that. It happens every day. It's part of the prosecution's opening statement.
Except that is not what Eric Holder said. Eric Holder went out of his way to assure the American people that KSM would be convicted in order to deflect criticism about the possibility that he might be found not guilty. That is far beyond a mere expectation.
"Any man who would make an X rated movie should be forced to take his daughter to see it". - John Wayne


There is a line we cross when we go from "I will believe it when I see it" to "I will see it when I believe it".


Henry II: I marvel at you after all these years. Still like a democratic drawbridge: going down for everybody.

Eleanor: At my age there's not much traffic anymore.

From The Lion in Winter.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
QuirtEvans
Member Avatar
I Owe It All To John D'Oh
JBryan
Feb 1 2010, 04:40 AM
QuirtEvans
Jan 31 2010, 02:41 PM
If the prosecutor said, "We expect the defendant to be tried, convicted, and sentenced to the maximum punishment," there'd be nothing wrong with that. It happens every day. It's part of the prosecution's opening statement.
Except that is not what Eric Holder said. Eric Holder went out of his way to assure the American people that KSM would be convicted in order to deflect criticism about the possibility that he might be found not guilty. That is far beyond a mere expectation.
You've never heard a prosecutor say something like that? I sure have.
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
 
JBryan
Member Avatar
I am the grey one
Really? Please cite.
"Any man who would make an X rated movie should be forced to take his daughter to see it". - John Wayne


There is a line we cross when we go from "I will believe it when I see it" to "I will see it when I believe it".


Henry II: I marvel at you after all these years. Still like a democratic drawbridge: going down for everybody.

Eleanor: At my age there's not much traffic anymore.

From The Lion in Winter.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
QuirtEvans
Member Avatar
I Owe It All To John D'Oh
JBryan
Feb 1 2010, 05:16 AM
Really? Please cite.
Cite to things I've heard, live? Really?

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
 
JBryan
Member Avatar
I am the grey one
Then I guess you are asking me to take your word for the fact that you have heard a prosecutor (let alone an Attorney General) say in effect, "Don't worry folks, there is no possibility that he will be found not guilty and released".
"Any man who would make an X rated movie should be forced to take his daughter to see it". - John Wayne


There is a line we cross when we go from "I will believe it when I see it" to "I will see it when I believe it".


Henry II: I marvel at you after all these years. Still like a democratic drawbridge: going down for everybody.

Eleanor: At my age there's not much traffic anymore.

From The Lion in Winter.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
QuirtEvans
Member Avatar
I Owe It All To John D'Oh
JBryan
Feb 1 2010, 05:36 AM
Then I guess you are asking me to take your word for the fact that you have heard a prosecutor (let alone an Attorney General) say in effect, "Don't worry folks, there is no possibility that he will be found not guilty and released".
When you talk about your bird, or places you've been, do I ask for citations?

Either you trust my word, or you don't. That's completely up to you.

As for what I've heard, I have never heard those exact words. I have heard prosecutors say "He will be convicted, and he will go to jail for the rest of his life." It's basically a statement of confidence in their case and in the justice of their 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
 
QuirtEvans
Member Avatar
I Owe It All To John D'Oh
By the way, whether you believe me or not, you've yet to establish that there's anything wrong with the prosecutor saying such things. The prosecutor is supposed to believe that the defendant is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, or he shouldn't be bringing the case to court. If he believes it, why shouldn't he say he believes it, and why shouldn't he have confidence that he's going to be able to persuade a jury of his position? It in no way disadvantages the defendant. Everyone already knows the prosecutor believes the defendant is guilty. And, AGAIN, the prosecutors in the DoJ report, ultimately, to the President, who is thus part of the prosecuting arm, not part of the judicial branch deciding the case.

The fact that you find it unexpected, or poor form, does not in any way say that such behavior is wrong or illegal or somehow prejudices the defendant's rights.
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
 
JBryan
Member Avatar
I am the grey one
It still seems to me there is a difference between stating a belief that a defendant will be found guilty and assuring the American public that they have nothing to fear because it is a certainty. Granted, the DoJ is not in a position to speak for the judiciary but it is a remarkable statement for the US AG to make especially when the stated purpose of prosecution in a civilian court is to assure the world that we have an abiding interest in fair trials for these guys.
"Any man who would make an X rated movie should be forced to take his daughter to see it". - John Wayne


There is a line we cross when we go from "I will believe it when I see it" to "I will see it when I believe it".


Henry II: I marvel at you after all these years. Still like a democratic drawbridge: going down for everybody.

Eleanor: At my age there's not much traffic anymore.

From The Lion in Winter.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
JBryan
Member Avatar
I am the grey one
QuirtEvans
Feb 1 2010, 05:47 AM
JBryan
Feb 1 2010, 05:36 AM
Then I guess you are asking me to take your word for the fact that you have heard a prosecutor (let alone an Attorney General) say in effect, "Don't worry folks, there is no possibility that he will be found not guilty and released".
When you talk about your bird, or places you've been, do I ask for citations?

Either you trust my word, or you don't. That's completely up to you.
When I am talking about my bird or places I have been there is nothing at stake for you in believing what I say. I will take your word that you heard exactly what you say you have but asking me to do so in a debate is a bit much.
"Any man who would make an X rated movie should be forced to take his daughter to see it". - John Wayne


There is a line we cross when we go from "I will believe it when I see it" to "I will see it when I believe it".


Henry II: I marvel at you after all these years. Still like a democratic drawbridge: going down for everybody.

Eleanor: At my age there's not much traffic anymore.

From The Lion in Winter.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
QuirtEvans
Member Avatar
I Owe It All To John D'Oh
JBryan
Feb 1 2010, 06:04 AM
It still seems to me there is a difference between stating a belief that a defendant will be found guilty and assuring the American public that they have nothing to fear because it is a certainty.
Definitionally, there's a difference. The question is, does that difference have any significance? You have not made the case that it does.

Quote:
 
Granted, the DoJ is not in a position to speak for the judiciary


Well, at least we agree on something.

Quote:
 
but it is a remarkable statement for the US AG to make especially when the stated purpose of prosecution in a civilian court is to assure the world that we have an abiding interest in fair trials for these guys.


Again, what this boils down to is your belief that it's poor form. What should he have said instead? "He'll get a fair trial, and a jury will decide whether he's innocent or guilty?" Yeah, that would have played well in Peoria and Queens.

So, since you don't like his syntax, and we both know he couldn't have said the alternative that I've laid out above, what should he have said? I have very little doubt that, even if you come up with wording you like and the AG had said it, most conservatives would have attacked him for that, too. Either he expresses it with certainty ... in which case you attack him ... or he expresses some level less than complete certainty, in which case he gets attacked for bringing a criminal case when he isn't sure of the outcome. Congratulations, you've created a no-lose situation for conservatives. Whatever he does, you can attack him for it.
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
 
JBryan
Member Avatar
I am the grey one
Actually, due to the fact that trying these guys in civilian courts is a really dumb idea to begin with, I don't know what he could have said that would "play in Peoria" and sound like we were conducting anything like a fair trial.
"Any man who would make an X rated movie should be forced to take his daughter to see it". - John Wayne


There is a line we cross when we go from "I will believe it when I see it" to "I will see it when I believe it".


Henry II: I marvel at you after all these years. Still like a democratic drawbridge: going down for everybody.

Eleanor: At my age there's not much traffic anymore.

From The Lion in Winter.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
QuirtEvans
Member Avatar
I Owe It All To John D'Oh
JBryan
Feb 1 2010, 06:49 AM
Actually, due to the fact that trying these guys in civilian courts is a really dumb idea to begin with, I don't know what he could have said that would "play in Peoria" and sound like we were conducting anything like a fair trial.
Dumb or not, I believe it's Constitutionally required. You can't lock people up forever without proving your case somehow.

Any other reading shreds the language of the Constitution and makes a host of other "re-interpretations" of the plain language possible.
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
 
ZetaBoards - Free Forum Hosting
Free Forums with no limits on posts or members.
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · The New Coffee Room · Next Topic »
Add Reply