What A REAL Gulag Is!!

[Gem]

From Dennis Pragar, on Townhall.com

Sorry if someone posted this already...I'm in the middle of a move and life is crazy...I'm on an absolutely terrible dial-up connection so I can only read a little bit of conversation before I go mad and have to disconnect!

So, for the record, here are some comparisons between the Gulag and Guantanamo, courtesy of David Bosco and published in The New Republic:

Individuals detained: Gulag -- 20 million. Guantanamo -- 750 total.

Number of camps: Gulag -- 476 separate camp complexes comprising thousands of individual camps. Guantanamo -- five small camps on the U.S. military base in Cuba.

Reasons for Imprisonment: Gulag -- Hiding grain; owning too many cows; need for slave labor; being Jewish; being Finnish; being religious; being middle class; having had contact with foreigners; refusing to sleep with the head of Soviet counterintelligence; telling a joke about Stalin. Guantanamo -- Fighting for the Taliban in Afghanistan; being suspected of links to Al Qaeda and other terrorist groups.

Red Cross Visits: Gulag -- none that Bosco could find. Guantanamo -- regular visits since January 2002.

Deaths as a Result of Poor Treatment: Gulag -- at least two to three million (Bosco understates). Guantanamo -- no reports of prisoner deaths.

 

[IControlThePast]

I'm only following the law with respect to your own linked supreme court rulings. Which explicitely state that the current military tribunals are not sufficient for habeus corpus, and that the prisoner should be returned to the general Gitmo detainee population immediately. You presume somehow that this same Supreme Court ruling said that this prisoner must then be immediately reinstated to a trial with full US citizen rights. Which is absolute fantasy.

At the time, the tribunals weren't ruled to be sufficient, so they court said competent tribunals were needed, and then things would be fine.

Per Se. Meaning in this particular case. Which was a poor choice on your part to quote as an example of a case which required a legal trial.

www.m-w.com Webster's Definition
Per se: by, of, or in itself or oneself or themselves : as such : INTRINSICALLY

Apparently not this one. Next petitioner, please.

What part of "the government must convene a competent tribunal...and seek a specific determination as to Hamdan's status under the Geneva Conventions" (18) did you not understand?

You were arguing that based on International and U.S. law, a trial should be granted to Gitmo detainee. You used a link which explicitely stated a ruling to the contrary. You're far beyond the point of backtracking this to personal opinon at this point. Please prove your assertation based on links to Geneva or U.S.A. code, as you insisted earlier. Or else leave your own feelings out of it.

There is no legal ruling as of yet that there must be a trial. A minimum of a competent tribunal must be granted, but I'm arguing that using the Judicial Branch would be a more competent tribunal, and therefore an even better solution. There is no legal case for this, but you're allowed to argue outside of these cases, take something like this to the Supreme Court for a new ruling. For that to happen, the defense must provide contrary arguments, which you still haven't done.

Yes, he MAY be tried. That is, per the choice of the government, who wishes to remove his rights or punish him per the military code of justice.

Or he may be held indefinately until the resolution of conflict.

Right?

RIGHT?

No, he must be tried. "The government MUST convene a competent tribunal...and seek a specific determination as to Hamdan's status under the Geneva Conventions." (18)

We have no such mandatory tribunals. Or else I assume you can link to such law in either International or U.S. law.

The court ruled that Common Article 3 of the Geneva Convention applied. This article can supposedly be found in all the conventions, but my source is the Third:

http://www.icrc.org/IHL.nsf/0/6fef854a3517b75ac125641e004a9e68?OpenDocument

"Art 3. In the case of armed conflict not of an international character occurring in the territory of one of the High Contracting Parties, each Party to the conflict shall be bound to apply, as a minimum, the following
provisions:

(1) Persons taking no active part in the hostilities, including members of armed forces who have laid down their arms and those placed hors de combat by sickness, wounds, detention, or any other cause, shall in all circumstances be treated humanely, without any adverse distinction founded on race, colour, religion or faith, sex, birth or wealth, or any other similar criteria. To this end the following acts are and shall remain prohibited at any time and in any place whatsoever with respect to the above-mentioned persons:
(a) violence to life and person, in particular murder of all kinds, mutilation, cruel treatment and torture;
(b) taking of hostages;
(c) outrages upon personal dignity, in particular, humiliating and degrading treatment;
(d) the passing of sentences and the carrying out of executions without previous judgment pronounced by a regularly constituted court affording all the judicial guarantees which are recognized as indispensable by civilized peoples."

then there is also this:

"Art 103. Judicial investigations relating to a prisoner of war shall be conducted as rapidly as circumstances permit and so that his trial shall take place as soon as possible. A prisoner of war shall not be confined while awaiting trial unless a member of the armed forces of the Detaining Power would be so confined if he were accused of a similar offence, or if it is essential to do so in the interests of national security. In no circumstances shall this confinement exceed three months."

But he is afforded humanitarian treatement, and therefore remains in legal limbo, in line with both International and U.S. law. Contrary to what you insistently state otherwise.

http://www.au.af.mil/au/awc/awcgate/ucmj.htm#SUBCHAPTER II. APPREHENSION AND RESTRAINT

Uniform Code of Military Justice

"ART. 10. RESTRAINT OF PERSONS CHARGED WITH OFFENSES
Any person subject to this chapter charged with an offense under this chapter shall be ordered into arrest or confinement, as circumstances may require; but when charged only with an offense normally tried by a summary court-martial, he shall not ordinarily be placed in confinement. When any person subject to this chapter is placed in arrest or confinement prior to trial, immediate steps shall be taken to inform him of the specific wrong of which he is accused and to try him or to dismiss the charges and release him."

"ART. 13 PUNISHMENT PROHIBITED BEFORE TRIAL
No person, while being held for trial, may be subjected to punishment or penalty other than arrest or confinement upon the charges pending against him, nor shall the arrest or confinement imposed upon him be any more rigorous than the circumstances required to insure his presence, but he may be subjected to minor punishment during that period for infractions of discipline. "

Now, from the court case:
"Article 10 of the UCMJ provides a speedy trial right...Article 13 states the pre-trial detention should not be more rigorous than required" (28-9).

And therefore he won't be tried, and left in captivity, accorded to both International and U.S. law, unles you can link to and prove otherwise.

"The government must convene a competent tribunal...and seek a specific determination as to Hamdan's status under the Geneva Conventions." (18)

Or no trial at all, which is accorded per both International and U.S. law, despite your insistence to the contrary, despite your inability to link to such text and prove otherwise. This is getting old. Can you quote Geneva yet?

You know, I figured you were smarter than this. In the court case, the government doesn't argue that the length of the pre-trial detention is in violation with the Geneva Conventions, as was ruled in this case, which is why the government must convene a tribunal. The government knew it would lose that case. They argued that the courts didn't have the jurisdiction to make a ruling on this.

 

[ThomasPaine]

absolutely, full, of American hating lefties, and horeshit. It insults our detetion of these people, which is legal and humane, and demeans the people who actually suffered through the USSR's ACTUAL GULAG. Amnesty International has exposed itself as a now useless, politically left, organization that has forgone it's purpose; to truly act as a watchdog over those illegally, or politically, detained. If we knew the extent to which the immoral left, both here and abroad, would attempt to crucify the United States for detaining these willing, insane, hatefilled, combatants then we should have had the CIA and special forces interrogate them for information and kill them on the spot!!! Now we have to stomach the BITCHING of the incessantly anti-American global left about a situation that is both legal and humane. REMEMBER THEIR TREATMENT OF OUR PEOPLE? Toppled, burning, buildings filled with innocent, women, children, and men. The bellyaching of the left has so marginalized their arguments that I, for one, would like to toss their asses in OUR GULAG as well. As an old fellow I once knew used to paraphrase it "Fuck'em, feed em' fishheads"

 

[Comrade]

At the time, the tribunals weren't ruled to be sufficient, so they court said competent tribunals were needed, and then things would be fine.

And yet the court also allows for NO TRIAL, as long as POW rights are maintained.

www.m-w.com Webster's Definition
Per se: by, of, or in itself or oneself or themselves : as such : INTRINSICALLY

'In this case' applies specifically.

What part of "the government must convene a competent tribunal...and seek a specific determination as to Hamdan's status under the Geneva Conventions" (18) did you not understand?

Followed immediately by:

"Until or unless such a tribunal decides otherwise, Hamdan has, and must be accorded, the full protections of a prisoner-of-war."

Which specifically allows for him to be held as a POW at the Gitmo facility indefinately. Rememer, the motion for habeous corpus (petition for release) was granted only in part.

There is no legal ruling as of yet that there must be a trial.

Thank you for finally agreeing with what I said all along.

A minimum of a competent tribunal must be granted, but I'm arguing that using the Judicial Branch would be a more competent tribunal, and therefore an even better solution.

And this is where you continue to be wrong, see below.

There is no legal case for this, but you're allowed to argue outside of these cases, take something like this to the Supreme Court for a new ruling. For that to happen, the defense must provide contrary arguments, which you still haven't done.

The petitioner is the one who can take this to a ruling, not me. And this boy was shut down, as well as the government attempt to try him. So back to Gitmo he goes, indefinately. Now, if another petitioner comes forward with a better case, then maybe. But for now, the ruling precludes the trial and denies to enforce a tribunal to determine his status. However, if anything BUT POW status is granted at this point, he must receive a tribunal.

No, he must be tried. "The government MUST convene a competent tribunal...and seek a specific determination as to Hamdan's status under the Geneva Conventions." (18)

This is in the context of the President attempting to label Gitmo detainees devoid of POW status. If a tribunal to determine his status was specifically ordered to resolve this question, then it would be in the conclusion. However, since the main reason for doing this was to hold the illegal trial, which was tossed out, there is no longer any need to determine his status in preperation for such a trial. It may be hard to understand this but its clear from the whole text. Here is the part I'm referring to:

The government’s legal position is that the CSRT
determination that Hamdan was a member of or affiliated with al
Qaeda is also determinative of Hamdan’s prisoner-of-war status,
since the President has already determined that detained al Qaeda
members are not prisoners-of-war under the Geneva Conventions,
see 10/25/04 Tr. at 37. The President is not a “tribunal,”
however. The government must convene a competent tribunal (or
address a competent tribunal already convened) and seek a
specific determination as to Hamdan’s status under the Geneva
Conventions. Until or unless such a tribunal decides otherwise, Hamdan has, and must be accorded, the full protections of a prisoner-of-war.

Do you understand now? I suppose your no lawyer. But this means as long as he's treated like a POW (which he now currently is), then no tribunal is necessary.

And then there is THIS:

I further conclude that it is at least a matter of some doubt as to
whether or not Hamdan is entitled to the protections of the Third
Geneva Convention as a prisoner of war and that accordingly he
must be given those protections unless and until the “competent
tribunal” referred to in Article 5 concludes otherwise

And by no means DEMANDS a tribunal to determine his status.

And most of all, THIS:

These concerns were more urgent before Hamdan was
transferred out of Camp Echo and back to Camp Delta and before
the Supreme Court made it clear, in Hamdi, that, whether or not
Hamdan has been charged with a crime, he may be detained for the
duration of the hostilities in Afghanistan if he has been
appropriately determined to be an enemy combatant.(18)

(18) Hamdan does not currently challenge his detention as an 18
enemy combatant in proceedings before this Court.

So you see, you are simply WRONG about your insistence of there being a necessity for any kind of trial or or a commission to determine his POW status.

You know, I figured you were smarter than this.

I figured you'd finally resort to calling me dumb. It's the weakest argument you've made yet.

In the court case, the government doesn't argue that the length of the pre-trial detention is in violation with the Geneva Conventions, as was ruled in this case, which is why the government must convene a tribunal. The government knew it would lose that case. They argued that the courts didn't have the jurisdiction to make a ruling on this.

The clear allowance made in Geneva, and in the Supreme Court ruling, is to continue to hold the detainee indefinately as a POW. Should the government wish to try Hamden on the basis which it has constructed, it MUST first determine his status with a tribunal, because the court found the trial insufficient for someone who is allowed POW status. See how that works?

 

[IControlThePast]

And yet the court also allows for NO TRIAL, as long as POW rights are maintained.

Are you ignoring that the government must convene a tribunal to decide Hamdan's status under the Geneva Conventions. That means the tribunal must decide if he is POW. If they don't then there is a minimum time they can hold him. I don't think that one of the rights of POW status is "be detained indefinately without proof." I'd like to see in the Geneva Convention where it says government can detain civilians who claim they aren't POWs and not have to provide evidence.

'In this case' applies specifically.

Well then find a source that says so.

Followed immediately by:

"Until or unless such a tribunal decides otherwise, Hamdan has, and must be accorded, the full protections of a prisoner-of-war."

Which specifically allows for him to be held as a POW at the Gitmo facility indefinately. Rememer, the motion for habeous corpus (petition for release) was granted only in part.

It allows him to be held until the tribunal, which MUST be convened and convened quickly, decides he is a POW, which is actually what the government doesn't want. They want the people in Gitmo to be Terrorists, and also want to be able to charge them as such and not have to release them when the war is over.

Also aren't the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq technically over? I think that Mission Accomplished was the official end of wartime benefits and pay for soldiers, so doesn't that mean the war is officially over and we can't hold POW from those two countries?

The petitioner is the one who can take this to a ruling, not me. And this boy was shut down, as well as the government attempt to try him. So back to Gitmo he goes, indefinately. Now, if another petitioner comes forward with a better case, then maybe. But for now, the ruling precludes the trial and denies to enforce a tribunal to determine his status. However, if anything BUT POW status is granted at this point, he must receive a tribunal.

The tribunal is over whether he will recieve POW status. That is how he is granted POW status, and look at the statement again:

"The government must convene a competent tribunal...and seek a specific determination as to Hamdan's status under the Geneva Convention." There are no qualifiers there.

"Until or unless such a tribunal decides otherwise, Hamdan has, and must be accorded, the full protections of a prisoner-of-war."

That statement only means you can't deprive him of any rights POWs have until the tribunal proves he is not a POW. The tribunal is going to happen, and that is exactly the opposite of "the government denies to enforce a tribunal to determine his status."

This is in the context of the President attempting to label Gitmo detainees devoid of POW status. If a tribunal to determine his status was specifically ordered to resolve this question, then it would be in the conclusion. However, since the main reason for doing this was to hold the illegal trial, which was tossed out, there is no longer any need to determine his status in preperation for such a trial. It may be hard to understand this but its clear from the whole text. Here is the part I'm referring to:

Right now, they haven't been given any clear status under the Geneva Convention, until a tribunal decides they have.

Do you understand now? I suppose your no lawyer. But this means as long as he's treated like a POW (which he now currently is), then no tribunal is necessary.

And then there is THIS:

As before, it means you can't take away the benefits of POW status until the tribunal proves he is not a POW.

And by no means DEMANDS a tribunal to determine his status.

And most of all, THIS:

"He may be detained for the
duration of the hostilities in Afghanistan if he has been
appropriately determined to be an enemy combatant.(18)"

Do you know what determined if he was an enemy combatant? A tribunal. This case modifies tribunal procedings to include determination of POW status as well as enemy combatant status.

The government’s legal position is that the CSRT
determination that Hamdan was a member of or affiliated with al
Qaeda is also determinative of Hamdan’s prisoner-of-war status

I figured you'd finally resort to calling me dumb. It's the weakest argument you've made yet.

Then what court decided this case we've been referring to, the Supreme Court? .

What's this:

'm only following the law with respect to your own linked supreme court rulings.

I never linked any Supreme Court rulings. You also refer to this ruling as a Supreme Court ruling below, and until that last post I had given you the benefit of the doubt, in case you were maybe referring to a Supreme Court case somewhere. At least read the title of the cases. This is the District Court, which was given authority to rule on habeas corpus by the Supreme Court in the case Rasul vs. Bush.

The clear allowance made in Geneva, and in the Supreme Court ruling, is to continue to hold the detainee indefinately as a POW. Should the government wish to try Hamden on the basis which it has constructed, it MUST first determine his status with a tribunal, because the court found the trial insufficient for someone who is allowed POW status. See how that works?

See how this works, you even mentioned CSRT off page 18 in one of your quotes. Do you know what that stands for? Combatant Status Review Tribunal. These are for all prisoners, but they can claim they are guilty of being a combatant. Here is the list of proceedings on these tribunals. http://www.defenselink.mil/news/Jul2004/d20040730comb.pdf

What this case does is modify the tribunal procedure to also include POW status as well as enemy combatant. If someone is an enemy combatant, then they either have POW status, or they don't. If it is found they don't, then they must be tried by Court-Martial and convicted of crimes. If they are a POW, then must be convicted if they wish to be held after the war ends.

 

[Comrade]

Are you ignoring that the government must convene a tribunal to decide Hamdan's status under the Geneva Conventions. That means the tribunal must decide if he is POW. If they don't then there is a minimum time they can hold him. I don't think that one of the rights of POW status is "be detained indefinately without proof." I'd like to see in the Geneva Convention where it says government can detain civilians who claim they aren't POWs and not have to provide evidence.

Plus more complaints from you about the supposed absence of Supreme Court rulings...

Repeated:

These concerns were more urgent before Hamdan was
transferred out of Camp Echo and back to Camp Delta and before
the Supreme Court made it clear, in Hamdi, that, whether or not
Hamdan has been charged with a crime, he may be detained for the
duration of the hostilities in Afghanistan if he has been
appropriately determined to be an enemy combatant.(18)

(18) Hamdan does not currently challenge his detention as an 18
enemy combatant in proceedings before this Court.

Well then find a source that says so.

It's self explanatory that 'per se' applies to this case only. The court rules on only one case at a time.

It allows him to be held until the tribunal, which MUST be convened and convened quickly, decides he is a POW, which is actually what the government doesn't want. They want the people in Gitmo to be Terrorists, and also want to be able to charge them as such and not have to release them when the war is over.

I don't want to repeat what I said earlier.

Also aren't the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq technically over? I think that Mission Accomplished was the official end of wartime benefits and pay for soldiers, so doesn't that mean the war is officially over and we can't hold POW from those two countries?

And I definately don't want to let you change the subject.

The tribunal is over whether he will recieve POW status. That is how he is granted POW status, and look at the statement again:

"The government must convene a competent tribunal...and seek a specific determination as to Hamdan's status under the Geneva Convention." There are no qualifiers there.

This is a qualifier:

"Until or unless such a tribunal decides otherwise, Hamdan has, and must be accorded, the full protections of a prisoner-of-war."

That statement only means you can't deprive him of any rights POWs have until the tribunal proves he is not a POW. The tribunal is going to happen, and that is exactly the opposite of "the government denies to enforce a tribunal to determine his status."

But the Court has put a stop to judicial proceedure in this case. Instead, he's to be returned to Gitmo, and no additional rulings were made. So we'll wait, and you can keep sucking wind until it is ordered to take place.

Right now, they haven't been given any clear status under the Geneva Convention, until a tribunal decides they have.

No need as long as they are held as POWs. But by no means does the court rule that such a tribunal is necessary as long as he is returned to Gitmo without an attempt to try him under the current structure.

As before, it means you can't take away the benefits of POW status until the tribunal proves he is not a POW.

Correct! Otherwise you can give him POW benefits (as Bush said just today with his interview with Neil Cavuto) and hold him without a tribunal.

"He may be detained for the duration of the hostilities in Afghanistan if he has been appropriately determined to be an enemy combatant.(18)"

Well last I heard hostilities are ongoing in Afganistan.

Do you know what determined if he was an enemy combatant? A tribunal. This case modifies tribunal procedings to include determination of POW status as well as enemy combatant status.

This case makes the tribunal suggested by the government illegal.

See how this works, you even mentioned CSRT off page 18 in one of your quotes. Do you know what that stands for? Combatant Status Review Tribunal. These are for all prisoners, but they can claim they are guilty of being a combatant. Here is the list of proceedings on these tribunals. http://www.defenselink.mil/news/Jul2004/d20040730comb.pdf

What this case does is modify the tribunal procedure to also include POW status as well as enemy combatant.

Again, no tribunal is ordered to determine Hamdan POW status because he is already accorded those rights per the President under confinement at Gitmo. The trial proposed by the government was struck down, because it would have stripped those POW rights. Therefore, he is ordered back to Gitmo to be held as an enemy combatant with POW treatment...

Until or unless such a tribunal decides otherwise, Hamdan has, and must be accorded, the full protections of a prisoner-of-war.

But there is no express right to Habeus Corpus insofar as such treatment is maintained under captivity. No order by the Court to subject him to a trial or tribunal.

If someone is an enemy combatant, then they either have POW status, or they don't.

Hamden has not challenged his position as an enemy combatant.

If it is found they don't, then they must be tried by Court-Martial and convicted of crimes.

No, he can only be tried by Court-Martial. Until he is tried, he must be afforded POW treatment. But NO REQUIREMENT is set forth to determine his status nor try him in the ruling, given his return to Gitmo.

f they are a POW, then must be convicted if they wish to be held after the war ends.

I'd agree... but the war goes on. Why don't we round this discussion off, and make final statements, because this is getting tiresome. Agreed?

 

[IControlThePast]

This is a qualifier:

"Until or unless such a tribunal decides otherwise, Hamdan has, and must be accorded, the full protections of a prisoner-of-war."

All this is saying is that due process must be carried out before depriving someone of their rights.

But the Court has put a stop to judicial proceedure in this case. Instead, he's to be returned to Gitmo, and no additional rulings were made. So we'll wait, and you can keep sucking wind until it is ordered to take place.

They've established a new judicial procedure.

No need as long as they are held as POWs. But by no means does the court rule that such a tribunal is necessary as long as he is returned to Gitmo without an attempt to try him under the current structure.

They weren't being held as POWs.

This case makes the tribunal suggested by the government illegal.

Actually not, it only modifies proceedings. Those tribunals are still going on for every single prisoner who claim's he's not guilty. Like I've said, every prisoner gets a tribunal. This court case ruled that the CSRTs can't determine or take away POW status, because they are only focused on whether someone is an enemy combatant.

Again, no tribunal is ordered to determine Hamdan POW status because he is already accorded those rights per the President under confinement at Gitmo. The trial proposed by the government was struck down, because it would have stripped those POW rights. Therefore, he is ordered back to Gitmo to be held as an enemy combatant with POW treatment...

He's given POW status by default after being ruled as an enemy combatant by a tribunal, which should be a judicial review.

Hamden has not challenged his position as an enemy combatant.

Which means he is accepting the ruling on that by an earlier tribunal.

No, he can only be tried by Court-Martial. Until he is tried, he must be afforded POW treatment. But NO REQUIREMENT is set forth to determine his status nor try him in the ruling, given his return to Gitmo.

That's because one has already convened. I would guess that the government tries to remove POW status from at least 90% of the people at Gitmo, because there are other camps for POWs, but Gitmo is for Terrorists.

I'd agree... but the war goes on. Why don't we round this discussion off, and make final statements, because this is getting tiresome. Agreed?

Agreed.


Every prisoner detained at Gitmo recieves at least one tribunal. The first tribunal is over enemy combatant status, and that tribunal should be conducted by the military. However, tribunals requiring interpretation of actions in accordance with the Geneva Convention should by court interpreted by our Judicial Branch to create a check and balance against the Executive branch which conducts the CSRT, and against Congress which conducts a Court-Martial for crimes. The best justice and most competent review will come from involving all three branches of the government. As of right now, there is no Judicial precedent on this specific topic, but there is a precedent on maintaining checks and balances, and our courts are in charge of examining and applying the Geneva Convention to rulings of Habeas Corpus by detainees.

 

[Comrade]

Every prisoner detained at Gitmo recieves at least one tribunal. The first tribunal is over enemy combatant status, and that tribunal should be conducted by the military. However, tribunals requiring interpretation of actions in accordance with the Geneva Convention should by court interpreted by our Judicial Branch to create a check and balance against the Executive branch which conducts the CSRT, and against Congress which conducts a Court-Martial for crimes. The best justice and most competent review will come from involving all three branches of the government. As of right now, there is no Judicial precedent on this specific topic, but there is a precedent on maintaining checks and balances, and our courts are in charge of examining and applying the Geneva Convention to rulings of Habeas Corpus by detainees.

U.S. courts have not ruled on the status of any particular detainee of Gitmo, nor do I expect them to. I believe the fate of these detainees lies in the hands of the Administration exclusively, even if that eventually means returning them to their home countries for prosecution under what will inevitably be a harsher form of justice. I believe their treatement at Gitmo satisfies the Geneva Conventions for humanitarian confinement, and do not find anything particularly at odds with my conscience with this, given they are not U.S. citizens and cannot be afforded the same rights for practical reaons. I also believe the U.S. Courts will maintain this opinion.

Good debate over a topic which probably doesn't merit the kind of effort we both put into researching and debating, but it was good to find an intelligent and worthy opponent who takes his position seriously. You're okay by me.

 

[IControlThePast]

Good debate over a topic which probably doesn't merit the kind of effort we both put into researching and debating, but it was good to find an intelligent and worthy opponent who takes his position seriously. You're okay by me.

Samefor you, and this research is probably the best way to learn about these situations, much better than CBS or FOX.

 

[Comrade]

Samefor you, and this research is probably the best way to learn about these situations, much better than CBS or FOX.

Respect.