Page 4 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast
Results 46 to 60 of 64

Thread: Breaking! Federal judge ORDERS Obama admin to immediately halt DADT discharges

  1. #46
    Elite Member NicoleWasHere's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    kcmo
    Posts
    14,469

    Default


  2. #47
    Elite Member celeb_2006's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    13,467

    Default

    Pentagon's task: Change culture to allow gays - Yahoo! News

    SAN DIEGO – Beyond the courtroom arguments about "disrupting the troops" and "unit cohesion" are the nitty gritty details behind the Pentagon's fight to go slow on allowing openly gay troops.

    Will straight and gay troops have to shower next to one another? Will the military have to provide benefits to gay partners, and can it afford to? And the biggest question of all: Will gays be harassed or intimidated?

    It comes down to changing the culture, and top brass say they need more time. The military has been long resistant and, at times, hostile to gays, and it draws much of its 2.4 million members from socially conservative parts of the country.

    "The real issues will be not what happens on the battlefield, but what happens on posts," said David R. Segal, a sociologist at the University of Maryland who has written extensively on the military's personnel policies and recruiting.

    For many troops, "they don't mind suspecting their colleagues are gay, but they don't want to know for sure," he said.

    Gay rights advocates say the government's efforts to overturn a federal judge's order halting the enforcement of "don't ask, don't tell" are unnecessary. They contend there were no huge eruptions of violence with the integration of women and blacks, even though the military had to contend with race riots among the ranks during the Vietnam War era.

    Opponents of repeal point out that women have never been integrated into combat units. Women are still banned from many front-line units like infantry and special operations.

    Advocates acknowledge that harassment will likely happen, just as it continues today with those groups. They say another aspect of military culture — following orders — will override any temptation to intimidate gays.

    "If your commander-in-chief says this is the new law, then that's the way we follow it and we make it work," said David Hall, a former Air Force staff sergeant who was discharged under the 1993 Clinton-era policy.

    The fate of the law remained in doubt Wednesday, as a federal appeals court temporarily granted the government's request for a freeze of U.S. District Judge Virginia Phillip's order.

    The court instructed lawyers for the Log Cabin Republicans, the gay rights group that brought the lawsuit successfully challenging the policy, to file arguments in response by Monday. The judges would then decide whether to extend the temporary stay while it considers the government's appeal of Phillips' ruling that the policy was unconstitutional.

    It was unclear what effect the temporary freeze would have on the Pentagon, which has already informed recruiters to accept openly gay recruits and has suspended discharge proceedings for gay service members.

    Cynthia Smith, a Pentagon spokeswoman, declined to say whether the Defense Department would roll back its guidance to military lawyers and recruiters that they must abide by last week's injunction from Phillips.

    It has been assumed, however, that the Pentagon would revert to its previous policy if a stay were to be granted.

    Seeking to suspend or overturn Phillips' ruling leaves the Obama administration arguing against its own policy goals of repeal and against the majority opinion among the Democratic base most likely to turn out for midterm elections next month.

    Allowing the courts to steer the lifting of the ban leaves military leaders feeling rushed and misled.

    Nervous about forcing the change with so much opposition at the senior uniformed ranks of the Pentagon, Mullen and Defense Secretary Robert Gates devised a plan: They would back President Barack Obama's repeal plan but move slowly.

    They ordered a yearlong study on how to repeal the law without hurting the military's ability to fight. Top military officials thought they had bought time to prepare the uniformed forces, spouses, families and veterans for openly gay service.

    Officials who spoke on condition of anonymity because the administration's path is still uncertain said the administration have never fully acknowledged that while a majority of Americans may want repeal, a majority of the uniformed military might not.

    Still, gays already serve in the military, many with the knowledge of colleagues who promise to protect their secret.

    It was this fact that led the top uniformed officer, Adm. Mike Mullen, to tell a stunned Senate hearing room last February that the "don't ask, don't tell" law should be repealed.

    "No matter how I look at this issue, I cannot escape being troubled by the fact that we have in place a policy which forces young men and women to lie about who they are in order to defend their fellow citizens," Mullen said. "For me personally, it comes down to integrity — theirs as individuals and ours as an institution."

    But even as Mullen made his case before Congress, his fellow service chiefs, including the Army's Gen. George Casey and Marine Corps Commandant Gen. James Conway, were opposed to making any changes when the military is fighting large, protracted wars with its all-volunteer force.

    Underlying their concern was the military's culture.

    Unlike most Americans who support allowing openly gay troops, the rank-and-file are suspected by their leaders to be considerably less permissive.

    The men and women serving in the armed forces today represent less than 1 percent of the country's total population, and come heavily from rural, conservative areas in the South and the mountain West.

    Among their concerns was how to effectively implement new policies for sharing close quarters and living facilities.

    Military officials say privately that the service chiefs worry most about a cultural backlash and displays of intolerance that would make the military look as if it had lost control of its troops.

    If the military lifts the ban suddenly, would there be attacks on gays? Would religious parents, coaches and teachers who oppose gay rights persuade young recruits not to enlist? If a platoon member says he is gay, would his comrades still support him, or would there be infighting?

    Conway, the Marine Corps commandant, claims, by his own informal survey of the force, some 90 to 95 percent oppose letting gays serve openly.

    "We recruit a certain type of young American, pretty macho guy or gal, that is willing to go fight and perhaps die for their country," he said.

    The experience in militaries of Britain, Canada and Israel showed that allowing openly gay service members was a "non-issue, non-event," said Lawrence Korb, a former assistant defense secretary who oversaw military manpower and reserve affairs during the Reagan era.

    "Britain dropped the policy within a month," said Korb, now a senior fellow with the liberal Center for American Progress. "I can't believe that people, that Obama let himself fall into this idea that we got to do a study. Just do it!"

    Korb said the Uniform Code of Military Justice also outlines how people should treat each other.

    According to Segal, the sociologist, the true impact of Phillips' ruling that the policy was unconstitutional depends upon how many gay troops speak out about their sexuality and how military leaders respond to any dissent within the ranks.

    Segal said he expects the cultural change will happen much like it did following President Harry Truman's 1948 executive order for military racial equality.


    The first test of that notion didn't come until a couple of years later during the Korean War, when the U.S. was short on troops and all-black units were proving less capable. As a remedy, the Army fielded integrated units that eventually performed on par with all-white ones.

    Still, the military grappled with racial violence.

    According to a 1993 RAND study, the military enjoyed a certain level of racial harmony following that war. But the "veneer of racial harmony was shattered" in the late 1960s with the rise in racial tensions throughout the country. Race riots broke out in all four services.

    "We will still have to deal with hate crimes," Segal said. "Fifty years from now, we'll have to deal with hate crimes. . . . It's going to take doing it (changing the law) and good leaders who are committed to making it work.

    "Once the top level says 'This is where we go,' people are going to move in that direction."

  3. #48
    Elite Member celeb_2006's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    13,467

    Default Why US lawyers fight for law on gays Obama opposes


    In this July 30, 1981, file photo, Attorney General William French Smith is seen as he presents President Ronald Reagan's immigration package to a Joint House-Senate Judiciary Sub-committee on Immigration in Washington. President Barack Obama opposes the Pentagon's 'don't ask, don't tell' policy on gays in the military, but there is a long tradition that the Justice Department defends laws adopted by Congress and signed by a president, regardless of whether the president in office likes them. Smith once said that defending congressional action that extended the ratification period for the proposed Equal Rights Amendment for women caused far and away his most uncomfortable moments in four years in office because of the irate calls he got from administration supporters — who staunchly opposed the ERA.

    Why US lawyers fight for law on gays Obama opposes - Yahoo! News

    WASHINGTON – President Barack Obama opposes the Pentagon's "don't ask, don't tell" policy on gays in the military, so why are Obama administration lawyers in court fighting to save it?

    The answer is one that perhaps only a lawyer could love: There is a long tradition that the Justice Department defends laws adopted by Congress and signed by a president, regardless of whether the president in office likes them.

    This practice cuts across party lines. And it has caused serious heartburn for more than one attorney general.

    The tradition flows directly from the president's constitutional duty to take care that the laws are faithfully executed, says Paul Clement, who served four years in President George W. Bush's administration as solicitor general, the executive branch's top lawyer at the Supreme Court.

    Otherwise, Clement says, the nation would be subjected to "the spectacle of the executive branch defending only laws it likes, with Congress intervening to defend others."

    That is why solicitors general not only serve the president who nominated them but also have a special duty to Congress, "most notably, the vigorous defense of the statutes of this country against constitutional attack," Justice Elena Kagan testified to Congress in 2009 after Obama nominated her to be solicitor general. She joined the Supreme Court a year later.

    On occasion, the Justice Department will even defend a law it knows is likely to be judged unconstitutional, said Seth Waxman, who served as President Bill Clinton's solicitor general.

    Six federal judges had ruled against the Communications Decency Act, a 1996 law that made it a crime to make available to minors on the Internet material that was "indecent" or "patently offensive." Nevertheless, Waxman backed the law in an appeal to the Supreme Court. He lost there, but felt good about serving "our adversarial system of constitutional adjudication."

    William French Smith, President Ronald Reagan's first attorney general, once said that defending congressional action that extended the ratification period for the proposed Equal Rights Amendment for women caused far and away his most uncomfortable moments in four years in office because of the irate calls he got from administration supporters — who staunchly opposed the ERA.

    Obama's supporters have similarly criticized the administration for its legal efforts on behalf of "don't ask, don't tell," the law that bars gays from serving openly in the military, even after U.S. District Judge Virginia Phillips in Riverside, Calif., ordered the military to immediately suspend and discontinue any investigation or other proceeding to dismiss gay service members under the law.

    Indeed, Justice lawyers delayed their response to Phillips because the White House weighed in on the matter, according to a government official with knowledge of the situation. A couple of White House lawyers did not want to seek a court order that would temporarily suspend the judge's ruling, this person said, speaking on condition of anonymity to discuss the administration's internal deliberations. Failing to challenge the ruling would have had the effect of ending the policy.

    Obama says he supports repeal of "don't ask, don't tell" but only after careful review and an act of Congress.

    Ultimately, the government did ask Phillips to suspend her ruling pending the government's appeal.

    After Phillips refused, the administration asked the federal appeals court in San Francisco to freeze her ruling temporarily, which it did late Wednesday. Justice lawyers argued that while appeals were pending, abruptly ending "don't ask, don't tell" and immediately allowing openly gay service members could harm troop morale and unit cohesion when the military is fighting two wars.

    On rare occasions, Justice officials conclude there is no reasonable argument that can be made in defense of a federal law.

    Clement recalled two instances during his tenure. One posed free speech problems, because it sought to prevent recipients of federal transportation money from running ads favoring legalization of some drugs. The other was an obscure 1800s statute dealing with licensing of salvage operations.

    When George H.W. Bush was president, he vetoed the Cable Television Act of 1992 in the belief that certain provisions were unconstitutional. The bill became law when Congress overrode Bush's veto.

    Cable operators challenged the law in court, and Bush's Justice Department said it would not defend what the president had vetoed.

    But then Clinton was elected. He reversed course and sent Justice lawyers into court on behalf of the law. The Supreme Court eventually upheld it.

  4. #49
    Elite Member Grimmlok's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    In WhoreLand fucking your MOM
    Posts
    55,359

    Default

    ^ total crock. all of it. debunked.
    I am from the American CIA and I have a radio in my head. I am going to kill you.

  5. #50
    Elite Member witchcurlgirl's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Acerbia
    Posts
    34,697

    Default

    Why fight it?

    Obama says he opposes 'don't ask, don't tell.' So why is his administration appealing a court ruling that has invalidated the military policy on gays?


    The Obama administration is acting hypocritically with regard to a federal court's invalidation of the military's "don't ask, don't tell" policy.

    President Obama continues to state that he opposes the policy and seeks its end. Just last week, he told a town hall meeting in Washington that no one should have to "lie about who they are in order to serve." At the same time, Secretary of Defense Robert M. Gates asserts that there will be "enormous consequences" to the military if gays and lesbians are immediately allowed to serve openly.

    The administration has a simple way to end this offensive and harmful policy: don't appeal a recent federal court ruling that declared it unconstitutional and enjoined its enforcement.


    Nothing in the Constitution or any other law requires the U.S. government to defend a law in court or to appeal an adverse ruling. Executive officials at all levels of government have discretion as to how, if at all, to proceed in court. All government officials take an oath to uphold the Constitution, and it would be inconsistent with that oath to require them to defend a law that they believe is unconstitutional.

    U.S. District Judge Virginia A. Phillips presided over a trial in her Riverside courtroom in which both sides had the opportunity to present evidence concerning "don't ask, don't tell." The government offered no evidence whatsoever that allowing openly gay and lesbian individuals to serve in the military causes any harm. Phillips reviewed every study done on the subject and the testimony of several witnesses. In the end, she concluded that an immediate end to "don't ask, don't tell" would not cause any problems.

    Phillips found that "don't ask, don't tell" is an unconstitutional restriction of freedom of speech. The most basic principle concerning the 1st Amendment is that the government generally cannot punish speech based on the content of the message, allowing some messages but not others. Phillips explained that "don't ask, don't tell" does exactly this, precluding some service members from discussing aspects of their lives that others are allowed to talk about freely. By its very terms this is a content-based restriction on speech.

    Moreover, "don't ask, don't tell" is discrimination based on sexual orientation. From 1993 to 2009, 13,000 gay and lesbian service members were dismissed based on this policy.

    Now, however, a high-level Obama administration official, Clifford L. Stanley, who is undersecretary of Defense for personnel and military readiness, has filed a declaration asserting that ending "don't ask, don't tell" would "irreparably harm our military and the national security of the United States." But he offers no evidence for this conclusion, and none was presented in Phillips' courtroom. It is inexplicable why an administration committed to ending "don't ask, don't tell" would file such a statement in federal court.

    It also is inexplicable why the administration sought to stay Phillips' ruling (which was granted on Wednesday), and is appealing it. The judge's nationwide injunction, if allowed to stand, would have ended "don't ask, don't tell" once and for all.

    Gates says that it is better to have the policy ended by Congress than by the federal courts. But ending the policy through congressional action is at best uncertain because Senate Republicans have successfully filibustered an attempt to do this. There is no reason to believe that Democrats would be more successful in ending a filibuster in December, or after January, when there are likely to be even fewer Democratic senators.

    By contrast, not appealing Phillips' nationwide injunction would have provided a certain end to the policy. In fact, allowing the ruling to stand might have provided the political cover necessary for Congress to repeal this law because it would be doing no more than changing the law in compliance with a federal court order.

    Last week, Obama promised again that he would instruct the Defense Department to stop issuing apocalyptic statements about how ending the policy will cause irreparable harm to national security.

    The exclusion of gays and lesbians from the military is wrong, and the president should have the courage to stand behind his rhetoric and finally end a long and tragic history of discrimination.



    Why is the Obama administration fighting to save 'don't ask, don't tell'? - latimes.com



    All of God's children are not beautiful. Most of God's children are, in fact, barely presentable.


    If I wanted the government in my womb I'd fuck a Senator

  6. #51
    Elite Member witchcurlgirl's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Acerbia
    Posts
    34,697

    Default Ted Olsen: Obama Doesn't Need to Appeal DADT Injunction

    Does the Justice Department really need to appeal the recent decision that found "Don't Ask Don't Tell" unconstitutional, under its duty to defend existing federal law? Eh, not really, says ex-solicitor general Ted Olson, of Prop 8 trial fame.

    Olson, the longtime conservative lawyer and George W. Bush's first solicitor general, has become slightly less evil in the past year as he and David Boies — his former opponent in Bush v. Gore — got California's gay marriage ban struck down on constitutional grounds.

    And now here he is, kissing up to the gays again when asked about the Justice Department's rather awkward appeal of the recently shot-down "Don't Ask Don't Tell" law (via Think Progress):
    "It happens every once in awhile at the federal level when the solicitor general, on behalf of the U.S., will confess error or decline to defend a law," said former George W. Bush administration solicitor general Ted Olson, who is leading the legal challenge of California's ban on same-sex marriage. Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger and the state attorney general have both declined to defend the law in court.

    "I don't know what is going through the [Obama] administration's thought process on ‘don't ask, don't tell,'" Olson said. "It would be appropriate for them to say ‘the law has been deemed unconstitutional, we are not going to seek further review of that.'"
    What we don't know why the the Justice Department is filing this appeal so quickly, before Democrats and some moderate Republicans take their last shot at repealing it legislatively during the post-election lame duck session. Still — and while it's hard to be optimistic about Congress doing much of anything in this environment — the chances do seem pretty good that they'll finally repeal this at the end of the year when they take up the defense authorization bill again. The Defense Department's rubber-stamp implementation report will come out on Dec. 1, the election will be over, and now the law's been deemed unconstitutional, so the five or so Senate Republicans who want to vote in favor of repeal should have enough cover to do so. And then the Justice Department can drop its appeal.

    Or this will just continue being a stupid nightmare issue for the next 500 years.

    Prop 8 Lawyer Ted Olson: Obama Doesn't Need to Appeal DADT Injunction



    All of God's children are not beautiful. Most of God's children are, in fact, barely presentable.


    If I wanted the government in my womb I'd fuck a Senator

  7. #52
    Elite Member *DIVA!'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    15,762

    Default

    Can you guys start putting President Obama, or Barack Obama in the thread titles..


    I don''t know if she really fucked the board though. Maybe just put the tip in. -Mrs. Dark

  8. #53
    Elite Member Grimmlok's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    In WhoreLand fucking your MOM
    Posts
    55,359

    Default

    Is there another Obama running the US government that we're not aware of? lol
    I am from the American CIA and I have a radio in my head. I am going to kill you.

  9. #54
    Elite Member *DIVA!'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    15,762

    Default

    No, there's just the one.. lol


    I don''t know if she really fucked the board though. Maybe just put the tip in. -Mrs. Dark

  10. #55
    Gold Member BigBen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    1,452

    Default

    Well, that's a valid point. Ol' Tucker J. Obama keeps getting all this hate mail about DADT when he's not even in office! By hate mail I mean people just writing notes on napkins and leaving them on the tables he buses... Ol' Tucker J, gettin' all the flack.
    "Not only do we embrace it, we take it out for drinks, get it absolutely steaming drunk, leg hump it and then leave it covered in shaving foam and a stolen Chuck E Cheese outfit in its own bath with no recollection of how it got there." -Kittylady on the sad and pathetic and strange.

  11. #56
    Elite Member celeb_2006's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    13,467

    Default

    Oh wellz

    Appeals court extends life of gay military policy - Yahoo! News

    SAN FRANCISCO – A federal appeals court on Monday indefinitely extended its freeze on a judge's order halting enforcement of the military's "don't ask, don't tell" policy, heightening pressure on the Obama administration to persuade the U.S. Senate to repeal the law before a new Congress is sworn in.

    A divided three-judge panel of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals granted the U.S. government's request for a stay while it challenges the trial court's ruling that the ban on openly gay service members is unconstitutional.

    The same panel, composed of two judges appointed by President Ronald Reagan and one appointed by President Bill Clinton, on Oct. 20 imposed a temporary hold keeping "don't ask, don't tell" in place.

    Monday's decision means gay Americans who disclose their sexual orientations still can't enlist in the armed forces and can be investigated and ultimately discharged if they already are serving.

    "We continue to warn service members that it is unsafe to come out as long as this law remains on the books," said Aubrey Sarvis, executive director of the Servicemembers Legal Defense Network.

    In an eight-page order, two judges said they were persuaded by the Department of Justice's argument that U.S. District Court Judge Virginia Phillips' worldwide injunction against the policy "will seriously disrupt ongoing and determined efforts by the Administration to devise an orderly change."

    "The public interest in enduring orderly change of this magnitude in the military — if that is what is to happen — strongly militates in favor of a stay," Judges Diarmuid F. O'Scannlain and Stephen S. Trott wrote in their majority order. "Furthermore, if the administration is successful in persuading Congress to eliminate (the policy), this case and controversy will become moot."

    Another reason they gave for imposing the freeze was decisions by four other federal appeals courts that cast doubt on whether Phillips exceeded her authority and ignored existing legal precedents when she concluded gays could not serve in the military without having their First Amendment rights breached.

    Judge William Fletcher entered a partial dissent, saying he would have preferred the panel had heard oral arguments before granting the stay. Fletcher said he thinks "don't tell, don't tell" should not be used to discharge any existing service members while the case was on appeal.

    "Defendants would not be required during the pendency of the appeal to change their recruiting practices, to change their personnel manuals, or, subject only to the requirement that they not actually discharge anyone, otherwise to change their practices," Fletcher said.

    President Barack Obama repeatedly has said he opposes "don't ask, don't tell" but favors ending it legislatively instead of through the courts. Over the summer, he worked with Democrats to write a bill that would have lifted the ban, pending completion of a Defense Department review due Dec. 1. The legislation passed the House but was blocked in the Senate.


    Interactive map: 2010 race snapshot


    Ask America


    Election forum


    The Fast Fix


    Map snapshot

    The president has pledged to push for another vote during Congress' lame duck session after Tuesday's elections.

    "The president claims to want to see 'don't ask, don't tell' ended. It is time that he stop talking and start working to make a real difference for gay and lesbian Americans by pushing for repeal when Congress returns," said R. Clarke Cooper, executive director of Log Cabin Republicans, the gay rights group that sued to overturn "don't ask, don't tell" in Phillips' court,

    The court ordered the government to submit its brief in its broader appeal by Jan. 24 and gave Log Cabin Republicans until Feb. 22 to reply. It did not schedule oral arguments in the case.

    "For the reasons stated in the government's submission to the appellate court, we believe the stay is appropriate," Pentagon spokesman Bryan Whitman said.

  12. #57
    Elite Member Just Kill Me's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    sucking on a blow pop and playing with electrodes
    Posts
    15,548

    Default

    Houston Riot (1917) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    http://www.mmbolding.com/Porter/Bud_..._Riot_1917.htm

    http://www.hmdb.org/marker.asp?marker=14103

    Maybe there will be mutiny. Just kidding, it's a bad idea to send soldiers off to die but then treat them differently at home and at war.
    KILLING ME WON'T BRING BACK YOUR GOD DAMNED HONEY!!!!!!!!!!

    Come on, let's have lots of drinks.

    Fuck you all, I'm going viral.

  13. #58
    Elite Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    Antartica.
    Posts
    1,695

    Default

    I'm really tired of him even being referred to as a constitutional scholar.

    His ass probably couldn't spell it unless it was written on a script for him to say.

    Quote Originally Posted by *DIVA! View Post
    Can you guys start putting President Obama, or Barack Obama in the thread titles..
    Why?

    It's a fuckin message board.
    Last edited by Tati; November 2nd, 2010 at 01:08 PM.

  14. #59
    Elite Member Just Kill Me's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    sucking on a blow pop and playing with electrodes
    Posts
    15,548

    Default

    You are retarTed.
    Posted from my iPhone

  15. #60
    Super Moderator Tati's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Your Pocket
    Posts
    18,348

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by *DIVA! View Post
    Can you guys start putting President Obama, or Barack Obama in the thread titles..
    Quote Originally Posted by joebob View Post
    Why?

    It's a fuckin message board.
    Yes, well:

    http://www.gossiprocks.com/forum/lat...ull-names.html

    It's actually in the fuckin rules, so. You know.
    If you reveal your secrets to the wind you should not blame the wind for revealing them to the trees.

    - Kahlil Gibran

Page 4 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 2
    Last Post: September 11th, 2010, 06:15 AM
  2. Obama dumped DADT repeal back in Februrary - breaking news
    By Grimmlok in forum U.S. Politics and Issues
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: April 23rd, 2010, 08:11 AM
  3. Obama admin plans to defend DADT in district court system
    By Grimmlok in forum U.S. Politics and Issues
    Replies: 28
    Last Post: May 19th, 2009, 02:01 PM
  4. Replies: 9
    Last Post: February 22nd, 2009, 07:01 PM
  5. US Judge gives admin green light to torture
    By Grimmlok in forum U.S. Politics and Issues
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: February 28th, 2006, 11:55 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •