Sponsor Message:
Non Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
John Ashcroft Justifies Gitmo Internment  
User currently offlineAerospaceFan From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Posted (7 years 6 months 2 weeks 5 days 2 hours ago) and read 1530 times:

In an interview broadcast today on The Mark Davis Show carried on XM Satellite Radio, Former Attorney-General John Ashcroft defended the indefinite internment of unlawful combatants at the U.S. military prison in Guantanamo Bay by noting that the alternative would have been to kill them on the battlefield. He said that, by comparison, their detention was actually the more humanitarian option.

The former Bush Administration official, who has just written an autobiography on his days in the United States Senate, also said that it would be absurd to release these internees from custody, since to do so would run the risk that they would once again target American troops.

[Edited 2006-10-09 23:52:04]

42 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineFalcon84 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 1, posted (7 years 6 months 2 weeks 5 days 2 hours ago) and read 1519 times:

Quoting AerospaceFan (Thread starter):
In an interview broadcast today on the Mark Davis Show on XM Satellite Radio, Former Attorney-General John Ashcroft defended the practice of indefinite internment of unlawful combatants at the U.S. military prison in Guantanamo Bay by noting that the alternative would have been to kill them on the battlefield. He said that holding them as detainees was actually the more humanitarian option.

You're joking, right? Seems to me, he's saying that, after capture, we would have had to shoot them, which, like indefinite detainment, is simply not the American way.

This guy is a Nazi, in my book. There's another alternative, Herr Ashcroft: try them, convict them, or, if found innocent, deport them! That's how we do things in the United States of America.

Seig heil, John.

Absolutely incredible.


User currently offlineAirCop From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 2, posted (7 years 6 months 2 weeks 5 days 1 hour ago) and read 1515 times:

Quoting AerospaceFan (Thread starter):
Ashcroft defended the indefinite internment of unlawful combatants at the U.S. military prison in Guantanamo Bay by noting that the alternative would have been to kill them on the battlefield. He said that, by comparison, their detention was actually the more humanitarian option.



Quoting Falcon84 (Reply 1):
You're joking, right? Seems to me, he's saying that, after capture, we would have had to shoot them,

Ashcroft is just full of himself. (Didn't he lose to a dead guy?) It's against international law to shoot and kill after capture. Where, the heck did he get his legal training?


User currently offlineBushpilot From South Africa, joined Jul 2007, 0 posts, RR: 1
Reply 3, posted (7 years 6 months 2 weeks 5 days 1 hour ago) and read 1513 times:

I dont think that is the real gripe for the proponents, at least not for me. The problem is setting up the prison (or detention facility...whatever you want to call it) so those people are in limbo(something the Pope banned the other day BTW). They are being held without trial, and are not considered prisoners of war, nor are they considered normal prisoners. Well if we cant release them because they will go back and fight against us, and will attack US soldiers, doesnt that make them fighters themselves. Despite not wearing a uniform, they are part of a military, just a privately funded one instead of state sponsored. Believe it or not "they" dont hate us for our freedoms, they hate us for some of our hypocritical policies, and this is one of them.

User currently offlineAerospaceFan From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 4, posted (7 years 6 months 2 weeks 5 days 1 hour ago) and read 1510 times:

Quoting Falcon84 (Reply 1):
You're joking, right? Seems to me, he's saying that, after capture, we would have had to shoot them, which, like indefinite detainment, is simply not the American way.

Actually, what he could have meant was that instead of capturing them, they would have been shot on the spot, if our policy had been to take no prisoners.


User currently offlineFalcon84 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 5, posted (7 years 6 months 2 weeks 5 days 1 hour ago) and read 1507 times:

Quoting AerospaceFan (Reply 4):
tually, what he could have meant was that instead of capturing them, they would have been shot on the spot, if our policy had been to take no prisoners.

And pray tell me, AF, how many investigations would THAT have led to, about possibly shooting unarmed people? It's the same thing. If they surrender, a "take no prisonsers" policy would have meant shooting them after surrendering.

Is this where you want the U.S. to go? To gulag-style prisons? To torture? To shooting surrendering combatants? That's insane. But that's what this administration is doing, on all fronts.


User currently offlineNoUFO From Germany, joined Apr 2001, 7919 posts, RR: 12
Reply 6, posted (7 years 6 months 2 weeks 5 days 1 hour ago) and read 1507 times:

Quoting AerospaceFan (Thread starter):




I support the right to arm bears
User currently offlineAerospaceFan From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 7, posted (7 years 6 months 2 weeks 5 days 1 hour ago) and read 1502 times:

Quoting Falcon84 (Reply 5):
And pray tell me, AF, how many investigations would THAT have led to, about possibly shooting unarmed people? It's the same thing. If they surrender, a "take no prisonsers" policy would have meant shooting them after surrendering.

In the old days, before the term "unlawful combatants" had even been coined, shooting unlawful combatants wasn't any different from shooting enemy soldiers during battle.


User currently offlineBushpilot From South Africa, joined Jul 2007, 0 posts, RR: 1
Reply 8, posted (7 years 6 months 2 weeks 5 days 1 hour ago) and read 1495 times:

Quoting AerospaceFan (Reply 7):
In the old days, before the term "unlawful combatants" had even been coined, shooting unlawful combatants wasn't any different from shooting enemy soldiers during battle.

It still isnt any different, I dont care if someone is wearing a uniform or not, if you point a gun at me, and I have my own gun, I will do my best to shoot you before you shoot me. The difference is what happens when the fight is over. When someone surrenders, or for whatever reason decides not to fight anymore, they are taken into custody. The issue is about these people who act like soldiers, are not treated like soldiers, nor are they treated like criminals.


User currently offlineBravo45 From United States of America, joined Sep 2001, 2165 posts, RR: 11
Reply 9, posted (7 years 6 months 2 weeks 5 days ago) and read 1489 times:

Quoting Falcon84 (Reply 1):
...is simply not the American way.

This guy is a Nazi, in my book. There's another alternative, Herr Ashcroft: try them, convict them, or, if found innocent, deport them! That's how we do things in the United States of America.

I have to admit, it took us to stumble upon some unexpected (I assume unexpected by both) common ground for me and now this to know we have more views in common than I thought.


User currently offlineL-188 From United States of America, joined Jul 1999, 29705 posts, RR: 59
Reply 10, posted (7 years 6 months 2 weeks 4 days 21 hours ago) and read 1476 times:

Quoting AerospaceFan (Thread starter):
U.S. military prison in Guantanamo Bay by noting that the alternative would have been to kill them on the battlefield. He said that, by comparison, their detention was actually the more humanitarian option.

And he is actually entirely correct.

Looters, spys and what are commonly known as, "unlawful combatants" would have been shot on spot.

And I don't think international law has actually been changed in this regard.



OBAMA-WORST PRESIDENT EVER....Even SKOORB would be better.
User currently offlineFalcon84 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 11, posted (7 years 6 months 2 weeks 4 days 21 hours ago) and read 1469 times:

Quoting L-188 (Reply 10):
Quoting AerospaceFan (Thread starter):
U.S. military prison in Guantanamo Bay by noting that the alternative would have been to kill them on the battlefield. He said that, by comparison, their detention was actually the more humanitarian option.

And he is actually entirely correct.

Wrong. He's actually a fascist.


User currently offlineAerospaceFan From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 12, posted (7 years 6 months 2 weeks 4 days 18 hours ago) and read 1454 times:

Quoting Falcon84 (Reply 11):
Wrong. He's actually a fascist.

Well, that's really an opinion, isn't it? Do you have proof that L-188 is wrong, if he is?


User currently offlineUH60FtRucker From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 13, posted (7 years 6 months 2 weeks 4 days 18 hours ago) and read 1450 times:

Quoting Falcon84 (Reply 11):

Alright, I rarely get involved in prisoner related threads, simply because I know I'd piss a lot of people off. Huh, imagine that, I actually know enough to keep my mouth shut sometimes! 

Anyway, Falcon, one of the biggest problems with western trials for terrorists/insurgents/enemy combatants is this.

I am pulling duty out at the front gate of the base here in Iraq. While I was standing there, a man from across the street shoots a few rounds in our direction. A few soldiers give chase and bring him back. They show him to me, and I I.D. him as the asshole who shot at me. So he is now a congratulatory guess of the United States Army combatant prison system. Yay for him!   

And it makes me happy to know that the man who just tried to kill me, is now in jail. But really, if you stop to think about it, if this was the US, that guy wouldn't be in jail. It's not like CSI showed up and forensically proved the bullets lodged in the wall of the guard shack were from his weapon. Really, all that happened, was three soldiers gave chase to a running Iraqi, they caught him, and I visually identified him as the shooter. And that was it. There was no physical proof... no crime scene investigation... just my verbal statement. Not much of a case, aye? And you can forget about him confronting his accuser...And I'm fucking on the front lines... I can't go back to Cuba everytime I gotta prove Mr Iraqi was a bad boy and needs to be punished.

And this happens all the time. We'll be flying recon, we'll see some suspicious activity (by which I mean a car pulled off to the side of the road) and we'll call it in. The grunts will show up, search their vehicle and find weapons and bomb making material.

But there was no warrant to search... I mean in all honestly, there wasn't even CAUSE to search. I saw a car... on the side of the road... with some men standing around it... that's about it. But having been here for more than an hour, I know this road is dangerous and they're probably standing around waiting for me to fly away so they can plant an IED. But that's just instinct talking... that wouldn't hold water in court.

Anyway Falcon, I'd love to be fair with these guys and show them American justice... but a lot of what we do simply wouldn't meet legal standards. A lot is based on soldier's instincts and statements. There are no investigations everytime we arrest someone.

The guy shot at me. I know he did. But that's about all the evidence we have. And Falcon, if someone shot at you, and tried to deny you the chance to ever see your wife again, would you like to see him walk the streets again?

-UH60

[Edited 2006-10-10 07:54:07]

User currently offlineAerospaceFan From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 14, posted (7 years 6 months 2 weeks 4 days 18 hours ago) and read 1447 times:

NoUFO, that's a nice picture. But I'd like you to know that I said what former Gen. Ashcroft said before he'd even said it; I posted something similar here on Airliners.net a few weeks ago.

User currently offlineAndesSMF From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 15, posted (7 years 6 months 2 weeks 4 days 17 hours ago) and read 1440 times:

Quoting Falcon84 (Reply 1):
if found innocent, deport them! That's how we do things in the United States of America.

Actually, sometimes you cant deport them, since they may actually get real torture at their own countries. And that is wrong. We do not advocate torture here!


User currently offlineFalcon84 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 16, posted (7 years 6 months 2 weeks 4 days 10 hours ago) and read 1417 times:

Quoting AerospaceFan (Reply 12):
Well, that's really an opinion, isn't it? Do you have proof that L-188 is wrong, if he is?

Gee, AF, you're so on the ball. That's what we give here: OUR OPINIONS! You win the Rumsfeld action figure as a prize.

And do you have any proof he's RIGHT? I don't see any-just OPINION!

As for my friend UH60's post, I understand all that. And no, I wouldn't want the guy to walk free, but I also know if he's held without charge, trial, counsel-things that we used to berate the USSR for, then we're all diminished as a nation.

We simply cannot hold people ad infinium, without resolution of their cases, and still be the nation we claim to be-that's my view on it. We diminish ourselves as a nation when we act this way. And Ashcroft can justify Gitmo all he wants, but as I said, I think the guy is a fascist, and wouldn't mind simply putting them all against a wall, guilty or not, and shoot them.

Again, if we're going to try to beat our enemies by becoming more like our enemies, then, in the end, we lose anyway. We're better than they are, and we ought to live like we're better than they are-and our actions should declare that every day. But when we stoop to torture, and holding people without charge or counsel, we eat away at the very heart of who we are as a nation.


User currently offlineAndesSMF From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 17, posted (7 years 6 months 2 weeks 4 days 7 hours ago) and read 1400 times:

Quoting Falcon84 (Reply 16):

Again, if we're going to try to beat our enemies by becoming more like our enemies

This statement is the crux of the matter, isn't it? Regardless of all the 'torture' the US has committed, I can tell you 100% that our enemies and other countries would have done 100X worse than this.

This is what pisses me off about this. Start really comparing what other countries and what our enemies do with the treatment received from the US authorities, and you will find out that it is not uncommon for our worse treatment to be their best treatment. There is no comparison.

I wish our enemies would treat people the same way we treat them, that will be better than what they are doing now.


User currently offlineAerospaceFan From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 18, posted (7 years 6 months 2 weeks 4 days 7 hours ago) and read 1399 times:

Quoting Falcon84 (Reply 16):
Gee, AF, you're so on the ball. That's what we give here: OUR OPINIONS! You win the Rumsfeld action figure as a prize.

And do you have any proof he's RIGHT? I don't see any-just OPINION!

Actually, there's logic in what former Gen. Ashcroft says. For example, you wouldn't want to release the "bad guys" if it means that it runs the risk of exposing your own troops to harm.

As I've often noted, opinion is fine; on the other hand, persuasive opinion is better, and if nothing is offered except opinion, based on nothing at all, then that should be taken for what it's worth.


User currently offlineKlaus From Germany, joined Jul 2001, 21353 posts, RR: 54
Reply 19, posted (7 years 6 months 2 weeks 4 days 4 hours ago) and read 1388 times:

Quoting AerospaceFan (Thread starter):
Former Attorney-General John Ashcroft defended the indefinite internment of unlawful combatants

...the indefinite internment of suspects for being "unlawful combatants"!

And that is where it falls apart completely. If suspicion is cause enough for jail for life, you're in an authoritarian dictatorship where the rule of law has simply ceased to exist.

Right while I was just proof-reading this post, the following song happened to come on on Radio Paradise - eclectic online rock radio. I couldn't help laughing out loud - and so I dedicate this quote to you personally:

Randy Newman - Political Science:

Quote:
No one likes us
I don't know why.
We may not be perfect
But heaven knows we try.
But all around even our old friends put us down.
Let's drop the big one and see what happens.

We give them money
But are they grateful?
No they're spiteful
And they're hateful.
They don't respect us so let's surprise them;
We'll drop the big one and pulverize them.

Now Asia's crowded
And Europe's too old.
Africa's far too hot,
And Canada's too cold.
And South America stole our name.
Let's drop the big one; there'll be no one left to blame us.

[...]

Read on here...:

 bigthumbsup 

Quoting AndesSMF (Reply 17):
This is what pisses me off about this. Start really comparing what other countries and what our enemies do with the treatment received from the US authorities, and you will find out that it is not uncommon for our worse treatment to be their best treatment. There is no comparison.

And there is no comparison about the difference in respect those countries receive as a consequence. Or contempt, as the case may be.

Choose wisely - you might not like the outcome otherwise...!

Quoting UH60FtRucker (Reply 13):
The guy shot at me. I know he did.

First off, good to hear you haven't been hurt.

Quoting UH60FtRucker (Reply 13):
But that's about all the evidence we have. And Falcon, if someone shot at you, and tried to deny you the chance to ever see your wife again, would you like to see him walk the streets again?

No. But not everything goes as we'd like.


I'd see the following hierarchy of priorities:

• Averting an immediate threat, with direct application of force if plausibly justified.

Detaining the attacker, with a reasonable effort of securing the evidence ("reasonable" satisfying the respectively applicable standards).

Now after that it gets a bit trickier:

• In a stable situation, due process would have to be applied without exception, including the presumption of innocence and a speedy and proper trial.

• In an unstable situation, those rules are not entirely applicable and some or all of the rules have to be relaxed - but this is where the actual problem resides.

If you declare martial law - and I think we can safely assume that Iraq is de facto under US-enforced martial law - the western standards don't just vanish into thin air as some are conveniently assuming.

Instead the military power in control (even if just "sort of" in control) still has the responsibility to uphold those standards to the maximum extent possible under the circumstances. The only valid limitation to the full application of the standards would be in the plausible prevention of a threat, which is what makes it so difficult.

In your example I have no problem with the reaction to the shots fired at you (including any shots fired in defense, of course). The problem I have begins at the point where the plausibility of the presumably prevented threat is becoming ever more remote and the legitimacy of the measures taken recedes into the sphere of arguable policies instead of plausible operational necessities.

I hear a lot of justifications for all kinds of human rights violations around here, in most cases based on the flimsiest of excuses right down to: "but I'm angry (in their general direction), so that's why they deserve anything they get! (And they're all strangers who I couldn't care less about anyway, so what's it to me if some of them should actually be innocent?)"  crazy 

That in fact is unacceptable!

I have no doubt that the decision will be extremely difficult in an unstable situation like the one in Iraq, but there is a watershed line up to which it "pays" to release one pissed-off asshole after a while on the chance that he might have better things to do than to repeat his previous stunt, but even more importantly to not have half his clan and/or friends join the insurgency instead of just waving off the delinquent's rants after his (unharmed!) release...

Yes, this watershed line will be in a different place in different situations, but unconditional indefinite imprisonment or even abuse as a catch-all response is definitely the second-poorest of possible responses, right next to doing nothing at all.


There is also the point of what it's doing to you. I do not believe that you can be part of a fighting force and not be affected by the methods and the principles applied by your own side.

I'm fully behind you when you're definding yourself, but when you're clearly in control, you have choices - and the choice you actually take at that point says something about you; Commands, peer pressure and everything else considered.

Character is something that shows not so much when we're in the defensive; It shows when we're in control.

Easy for me to say? Yes, very much so - but still true.


In that vein, please stay safe and sane!


User currently offlineAndesSMF From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 20, posted (7 years 6 months 2 weeks 4 days 4 hours ago) and read 1385 times:

Quoting Klaus (Reply 19):
And there is no comparison about the difference in respect those countries receive as a consequence. Or contempt, as the case may be.

Always interesting to read your point of view.

Perhaps I'll clarify what bothers me. There is a difference between criticism and constructive criticism. I have seen plenty of criticism against the policies of the US, not much constructive criticism.


User currently offlineSearpqx From Netherlands, joined Jun 2000, 4343 posts, RR: 11
Reply 21, posted (7 years 6 months 2 weeks 4 days 4 hours ago) and read 1385 times:

Quoting UH60FtRucker (Reply 13):
The guy shot at me. I know he did. But that's about all the evidence we have. And Falcon, if someone shot at you, and tried to deny you the chance to ever see your wife again, would you like to see him walk the streets again?

First off, I echo Klaus's comment, glad to hear that you and the bullets never became up close and friendly. Secondly, so why not treat him as a prisoner of war? No matter what euphimism is being used, you are in a state of war against the insurgents. You catch someone acting in that capacity, they are now a prisoner of war, and are treated as such. What I don't get is this determination to hold them in legal limbo.

Quoting AndesSMF (Reply 17):
This is what pisses me off about this. Start really comparing what other countries and what our enemies do with the treatment received from the US authorities, and you will find out that it is not uncommon for our worse treatment to be their best treatment. There is no comparison.

You are 100% correct, but that in itself is why we cannot sink to thier level, or even begin to lower our standards. We are better than them, and we are because of how we act. If we start to act like them, and justify it because that's how they act, then we lose that high ground.



"The two most common elements in the universe are Hydrogen and stupidity"
User currently offlineFalcon84 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 22, posted (7 years 6 months 2 weeks 4 days 4 hours ago) and read 1384 times:

Quoting AerospaceFan (Reply 18):
Actually, there's logic in what former Gen. Ashcroft says. For example, you wouldn't want to release the "bad guys" if it means that it runs the risk of exposing your own troops to harm.

Actually, there's not, because in every war, prisoners have had reasonable hope of returning home. Under Ashcroft's Nazi thinking, we just hold them forever, against our own fine traditions as a nation, and against everything that is decent.

Somehow, this Administration has chosen to choose these combatants different than any at any time. They ARE POW's, because, by Mr. Bush's own admission, we are in a WAR on terror, is that not correct.

So Ashcroft is an ass. And this flies in the face of everything decent in this nation.


User currently offlineKlaus From Germany, joined Jul 2001, 21353 posts, RR: 54
Reply 23, posted (7 years 6 months 2 weeks 4 days 4 hours ago) and read 1380 times:

Quoting AndesSMF (Reply 20):
Perhaps I'll clarify what bothers me. There is a difference between criticism and constructive criticism.

Okay, we fully agree on that.

Quoting AndesSMF (Reply 20):
I have seen plenty of criticism against the policies of the US, not much constructive criticism.

True - the pissed-off rants certainly outnumber the well-thought-through arguments, but that goes both ways...


User currently offlineAerospaceFan From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 24, posted (7 years 6 months 2 weeks 4 days 3 hours ago) and read 1373 times:

Quoting Klaus (Reply 19):
And that is where it falls apart completely. If suspicion is cause enough for jail for life, you're in an authoritarian dictatorship where the rule of law has simply ceased to exist.

But you see, you and others continue to think that war is somehow a parallel to peace. It isn't. Law can't always apply when a shooting war exists, and moreover, it shouldn't.

UH said in his message, for example, if I understand him correctly, that his statement might not be sufficient in a civilian context to hold a prisoner for detention; and yet in a wartime context, such statements must be, because the alternative -- the release of someone who might have been shooting at your own -- is too risky to contemplate.


25 Klaus : Read my post again. Yours is already answered. Temporary detention is one thing - indefinite internment is something fundamentally different.
26 AerospaceFan : Disagree. The Geneva Conventions do not prohibit indefinite detention.
27 Bushpilot : Umm correct me if Im wrong, but hasnt it been the Bush administration that has wanted to more or less suspend the Geneva convention is application to
28 AerospaceFan : No, you're right. But the critics of this Administration have persistently used the Geneva Conventions against it, and I'm merely pointing out that t
29 Bushpilot : How about catering to the American people? This is the United States of America, the most powerful nation to ever exsist, with liberties that are unp
30 AerospaceFan : You know, I respect your position because I think that it promotes the cause of civil liberties, but still, I cannot bring myself to believe that we
31 Searpqx : Agreed, but again, why don't we treat them as prisoners of war?
32 AndesSMF : Agreed! And I do have to say that indefinite internment does bother me. A better question would be exactly what to do with these people. You can't le
33 Bushpilot : I wrote my idea in reply 29. The concept is quite simple, it is modeled on the American legal system with special consideration to the defendants, al
34 Klaus : You a) missed my point by a mile and b) misrepresent both the problem (addressed above) and the intended nature of the Geneva Convention.
35 Post contains links AerospaceFan : The Geneva Conventions do not apply the same criteria to unlawful combatants as they do to uniformed soldiers. Further, unlawful combatants can be he
36 Klaus : Completely beside my point: Especially in the context above.
37 AerospaceFan : Why is it beside the point to discuss indefinite internment for the duration of the war?
38 Klaus : You were trying to deny that temporary detention was something fundamentallly different from indefinite internment. Which does not even begin to compa
39 AerospaceFan : The point I made in my citation is not diminished, since the Geneva Conventions do not make a distinction between them. [EDITED after review of previo
40 Klaus : Indefinite imprisonment is a direct violation of human rights - that's an internationally acknowledged basic principle. The Geneva Convention defines
41 AerospaceFan : If that's the case, someone should have mentioned that in the Geneva Conventions, which mention the duration of war, and do not say how long it must
42 Klaus : The USA are not in a war right now. A war would require an organized territorial opponent, which does simply not exist in either Afghanistan or in Ir
Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
John Edwards Gets Busted On Walmart posted Fri Nov 17 2006 14:19:53 by Texdravid
Elton John: I Would Ban Religion Completely posted Mon Nov 13 2006 19:50:50 by Jimyvr
John Murtha Wants To Be House Leader posted Fri Nov 10 2006 07:49:34 by AndesSMF
John Kerry's Latest Brilliant Comments Part 2 posted Sun Nov 5 2006 22:39:57 by Diamond
He Is Gone, MSU's John L Smith posted Wed Nov 1 2006 22:04:04 by AirCop
John Kerry's Latest Brilliant Comments posted Tue Oct 31 2006 19:27:58 by Jcs17
Great! John Mark Karr Moves To ATL posted Sat Oct 21 2006 21:12:27 by DeltaGator
The John Mark Karr Circus Ccntinues.. posted Tue Oct 17 2006 17:18:37 by NIKV69
New John Grisham Book: The Innocent Man posted Mon Oct 16 2006 20:36:38 by 9V
John Kerry Plays Politics With North Korea posted Sun Oct 15 2006 17:09:28 by AerospaceFan