| FORUM | ARCHIVE |                    | TOTAL QUIZ RESULT |


  New Posts New Posts RSS Feed - Targetted Killing File Released
  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Events   Register Register  Login Login


Welcome stranger, click here to read about some of the great benefits of registering for a free account with us and joining us in our global online community.


Targetted Killing File Released

 Post Reply Post Reply
Author
Guest View Drop Down
Guest Group
Guest Group
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Guest Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Topic: Targetted Killing File Released
    Posted: 24 Jun 2014 at 13:47
IT’S the memo the US government didn’t want released: The justification for killing one of its own citizens in a drone strike.
 
 
A memo on the secret Drone Strike that killed Anwar al Awlaki and his son, has been released following an order by the US Supreme Court.
 
Drone strikes against senior Al Qaeda members is nothing new, but the controversy building is about the legal rights of the "targets", their democratic right to a fair trial etc. I didn't mention that Awlaki and his son were US nationals, and that they were killed in Yemen.
 
Quote EXTRACT:
 
The 2011 “targeted killing” sparked a storm of controversy — with fears it discarded key US legal concepts such as the right to trial and the rules of war.

A US Federal court last night overruled White House objections and ordered the release of the previously secret legal note which details the Presidency’s justification for assassinating US citizen and key terror suspect Anwar al Awlaki.

Anwar al Awlaki was a Muslim cleric who was born in New Mexico and preached at a Virgina mosque. He had been accused of associating with an al Qaeda operative in Yemen who was believed responsible for attempting a bombing on a Detroit airliner in 2009.

When word leaked out that his name was on a US government “kill or capture’’ list, his family rushed to court to try to stop the government from killing him, saying he had to be afforded the constitutional right to due process.

Targeted drone strikes also killed Abdulrahman al Awlaki, al Awlaki’s teenage son, who was also a US citizen. Another US citizen, the editor of an al Qaeda magazine, was also targeted.

 
Regardless of nationality, there is a hovering question over the rights of civilians deliberately killed in "Undeclared War". I use this term because, I don't really understand how war can be declared against an idealogy as opposed to a sovereign country. In effect, the so called war knows no geographic boundaries and is capable of moving from place to place.
 
That civilians have been killed in the past when they have presented a threat to a country or its aims, is nothing new. It's not publicised but we all know it happens, without knowing who does it do whom.
 
In popular fiction, such acts are commonly called "Termination with Extreme Prejudice", "Render Safe" and similar phraseology.
 
But the civil rights of the targets are one thing, the rights of a nation to protect itself (and its citizens) from unprovoked or unlawful attacks is quite another. In all common sense, would one make a pre-emptive strike against and enemy before damage can be done to ones citizens or interests, or wait for it to happen and then retaliate.
 
Some may say that US Military action against a US national is in breach of the Posse Comitatus Act, which specifically relates to the use of military, other than National Guard, to enforce State Laws in the US. If not a breach of Posse Comitatus in the legal sense, it certainly appears to be a moral breach.
 
Bearing in mind the limtations of Posse Comitatus to enforcement of State Laws, could or should the US military target US Nationals on home soil?
 
(I'm well aware of the existance of the FBI, Homeland Security etc in relation to their Counter Terrorism responsibility-this thread relates specifically to the US Military.)
 
What do other members think about the US government targetting its own nationals for death at the hands of the military?
 
 
 
 
Back to Top
Sponsored Links


Back to Top
Captain Vancouver View Drop Down
Immortal Guard
Immortal Guard
Avatar

Joined: 30 Sep 2010
Location: Vancouver Isle
Status: Offline
Points: 2146
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Captain Vancouver Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 24 Jun 2014 at 14:30
Killing one's own citizens without trial or process is completely illegal. So is the killing of more or less random foreign individuals.

It's a complete waste of time, because every time a US drone blows away a car with a "suspected" terrorist, his family, his bodyguards, and his hangers on, the rage that so ensues simply creates more radical sentiment.

So try this thought experiment: China, at some point in the future, decides that Australia is turning against their national interests. "Radicals" are impeding the flow of minerals and other needed resources, and so China decides, based on their assessment that Australia is out of control, that certain individuals need to be "hit", ie: killed, drones take out certain individuals that some Australians would consider over the top, and repugnant in their rhetoric and actions, but were never the less, Australians.

Public sentiment is now going to flow........in which direction?
Back to Top
Guest View Drop Down
Guest Group
Guest Group
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Guest Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 24 Jun 2014 at 14:55
Originally posted by Captain Vancouver Captain Vancouver wrote:

Killing one's own citizens without trial or process is completely illegal. So is the killing of more or less random foreign individuals.

It's a complete waste of time, because every time a US drone blows away a car with a "suspected" terrorist, his family, his bodyguards, and his hangers on, the rage that so ensues simply creates more radical sentiment.
 
So try this thought experiment: China, at some point in the future, decides that Australia is turning against their national interests. "Radicals" are impeding the flow of minerals and other needed resources, and so China decides, based on their assessment that Australia is out of control, that certain individuals need to be "hit", ie: killed, drones take out certain individuals that some Australians would consider over the top, and repugnant in their rhetoric and actions, but were never the less, Australians.
 
Public sentiment is now going to flow........in which direction?
 
So, you contend that the killing of anyone without "due process" is unlawful.
 
If, as you contend, the killings are unlawful, why has there been no action against the US, and its allies, in the International Court of Justice or the War Crimes Commission?
 
How about the capturing of suspects (not only terrorists but criminals as well) and taking them across the world to the US or a place controlled by the US, without trial or due process, where they are imprisoned?
 
What entitles the US to try foreign nationals for crimes committed in their home country?
 
Now, bear in mind that this is not intended to be an anti-US rant, but both of the above have not only happened, but the US has been happy to publicise the fact.
 
For the time being, I'll contain myself to questioning the act rather than injecting my own opinion, which some members will be able to anticipate anyway.
 
 
Back to Top
Captain Vancouver View Drop Down
Immortal Guard
Immortal Guard
Avatar

Joined: 30 Sep 2010
Location: Vancouver Isle
Status: Offline
Points: 2146
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Captain Vancouver Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 24 Jun 2014 at 15:21
Killing people without due warrant is unlawful, but it happens. As for taking it to the international court, that's a joke. They have about as much authority in the world today as the Pope had in the middle ages. Sure, some might feel strongly about the moral right of the court, but courts have no writ outside of areas they cannot control. History is littered with such problems. Americans are killing people because the alternative is impracticable,if not impossible. 

The deeper question is though, what is this accomplishing? Some in Washington apparently subscribe to the NRA philosophy that if you just shoot enough of the "bad guys", peace will prevail. Maybe they have watched too many TV westerns, and this is intruding on to otherwise intelligent assessment of the issue.

The degree of terrorism against western targets,and US targets in particular, has multiple roots, and these roots need to be explored and dealt with if any hope of reducing this current epidemic of violent incidents is to be hoped for. This will require an intelligent analysis of history and current geopolitical dispositions. Are there people in Washington that can manage this? Maybe, but in recent years, they have been submerged by simplistic and extremist rhetoric.
Back to Top
Guest View Drop Down
Guest Group
Guest Group
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Guest Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 24 Jun 2014 at 17:14
Captain:
OK, but this is all well and good.
 
Canada occupies a fairly unique place in the world, rubbing shoulders with arguably the most powerful nation in the world. Canada exists in a world of confidence, knowing that whatever threatens Canada threatens the USA, and therefore the USA will not permit that threat to exist.
 
I agree that the threat to western targets has multiple roots. One of them maybe the interference by western powers when arbitrary lines were drawn on the world map years ago, another may be the continuing interference by the west in matters which are uniquely middle eastern.
 
I've sometimes thought that if all of the warring parties in the middle east could be brought together to discuss historic disagreements and rivalries, perhaps redraw the national boundaries how the people in the Middle East want them, not how the west wants them, perhaps there could be peace.
 
Just wishful thinking on my part and a bit off topic.
 
The OP questions remain, should the US, or anyone else target their own citizens (or others) for military strikes?
 
The other questions also remain as part of the overall discussion, what authority does the US, or anyone else, have to "render" people to another country to be tried for crimes in their country of origin without "due process"?
 
As for your comment about the Popes powers in the Middle Ages, you are joking aren't you? The Pope was the most powerful international figure in the world in medieval times.
 
 
Back to Top
caldrail View Drop Down
Chieftain
Chieftain
Avatar

Joined: 21 Jan 2014
Location: Rushey Platt
Status: Offline
Points: 1487
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote caldrail Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 24 Jun 2014 at 22:58
http://www.heritage.org/research/projects/enemy-detention/al-qaeda-declarations

Since these men hide within populations ordinarily, how else does America defend its interests? Certainly a more defensive option is possible - but that is never 100% effective and leaves your enemy at large to plan ways of defeating your protection. Whilst I'm not a supporter of drone strikes, I do understand why America uses them, and it agrees with my argument about the best defense being offense, because it allows you the possibility of taking initiative away from your enemy by taking out their leaders, and even possibly helping to force them on the defensive instead.


Edited by caldrail - 24 Jun 2014 at 23:00
http://www.unrv.com/forum/blog/31-caldrails-blog/
Back to Top
Guest View Drop Down
Guest Group
Guest Group
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Guest Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 24 Jun 2014 at 23:54
Originally posted by caldrail caldrail wrote:

http://www.heritage.org/research/projects/enemy-detention/al-qaeda-declarations

Since these men hide within populations ordinarily, how else does America defend its interests? Certainly a more defensive option is possible - but that is never 100% effective and leaves your enemy at large to plan ways of defeating your protection. Whilst I'm not a supporter of drone strikes, I do understand why America uses them, and it agrees with my argument about the best defense being offense, because it allows you the possibility of taking initiative away from your enemy by taking out their leaders, and even possibly helping to force them on the defensive instead.
 
Make no mistake, I'm not arguing against the drone strikes.
 
There is an old saying which I favour, "Do unto others before they do it to you".
 
But you're circling the questions I posed.
 
Do you have a concrete view of the legality of military action against US citizens by the US Military?
 
What about the second question-that of citizens being forcibly taken from their home country to one which is either controlled by the US or with which the US has friendly ties, for the purpose of being tried for alleged crimes committed in a third country?
 
And there's always the foreign nationals who are targetted for execution by the US for acts committed in countries other than the US.
 
 
Back to Top
Guest View Drop Down
Guest Group
Guest Group
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Guest Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 26 Jun 2014 at 20:06
I expected that this thread would have excited some response from American nationals who are members of this forum.
 
That it hasn't puzzles me.
 
The whole basis of, for example, US forces activities in Afghanistan are questionable at law.
 
Particularly questionable are the rules adopted by the US in targetting civilians for "surgical strikes".
 
But, this is not matter just for the US, all forces engaging in military adventures on foreign soil, imo, do so without the support of current laws.
 
 
Quote
Extract:


“The Geneva Conventions do not provide answers about who may be held in a conflict with a non-state actor like al-Qaeda or how long that person may be detained. As John Bellinger, top legal advisor to the U.S. State Department recently said, the Geneva Conventions
"were designed in 1949 for different sorts of circumstances, and they
don't provide easy answers in all cases to how to deal with international
terrorists.”


Recognizing its commitment to the actual text and spirit of the Geneva Conventions and its
position as the world's lone superpower, the United States has developed a
comprehensive legal framework governing the detention and treatment of detainees
during this new type of war. That framework, specifically as it relates to the
detainees at Guantanamo Bay, consists of six major components, each discussed
below:
     
  1. The  Geneva Conventions

  2. The Detainee Treatment Act (McCain Amendment)

  3. Department  of Defense Directive 2310.01E

  4. Army Regulation 190-8 (AR 190-8)

  5. Combatant Status Review Tribunals

  6. Administrative  Review Boards



None of the above address the circumstances under which anyone, US national or otherwise, may
be killed by US Armed Forces, especially when the deceased persons have not been identified as having engaged in warlike activities against the USA.

Membership of a group which is engaged in activities contrary to US interests is not evidence of warlike activities, per se, nor is their killing covered by war time self defence.
The McCain Amendment, along with the other five references, set out how a detainee should
be treated after being captured, but does not set out the legal framework by which people can be treated as a Prisoner of War, when no formal declaration has been made, there is no country or countries alleged to be party to the conflict, and no proof has been offered that the detainee has engaged in warlike activities against the USA or its interests.
Setting aside for moment Declarations of War, and therefore identification of people as
enemy combatants, it is clear that US forces do in fact have the right to defend
themselves from attack, to take as prisoners any members of organised forces
who engage in warfare against the US its Armed Forces or interests, and to detain such persons.
The source web site readily identifies the fact that the nature of warfare has changed
since the Amendment to the Geneva Convention of 1949, which clearly could not
foresee the emergence of war such as being experienced in Afghanistan.
So, there is no law to be relied upon in modern day circumstances.
I personally agree with the doctrine of “surgical strikes” and of “pre-emptive action” as
common sense strategies of war. These will always create the risk of “collateral
damage” but warfare has always had this risk, as unfortunate as it is.
But there is still the original question to be answered-that is the legal entitlement of US
forces to use Drone Strikes against US Nationals? And my question of the very
fine line that exists between association with known or suspected enemies and the right to kill them without due process.
Hands up anyone who grew up in East Los Angeles, and who doesn’t know a criminal or
suspected criminal.


 


 


 


 


 


Edited by toyomotor - 26 Jun 2014 at 20:08
Back to Top
caldrail View Drop Down
Chieftain
Chieftain
Avatar

Joined: 21 Jan 2014
Location: Rushey Platt
Status: Offline
Points: 1487
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote caldrail Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 26 Jun 2014 at 20:59
Quote But you're circling the questions I posed.

No, I'm not. I'm not answering your question - merely giving my views.
 
Quote Do you have a concrete view of the legality of military action against US citizens by the US Military?

Since you ask me directly, no, I don't, and neither do you nor anyone else on the entire internet does. The military does as it is commanded to do. It acts on the rules of engagement, directives from their chiefs of staff and presidential approval, or simply finds ways of masking mistakes.
 
Quote What about the second question-that of citizens being forcibly taken from their home country to one which is either controlled by the US or with which the US has friendly ties, for the purpose of being tried for alleged crimes committed in a third country?

The USA can ask. Often this is allowed after the usual legal rigmarole, provided the Americans can provide a substantial case for doing so. Forcible repatriations from foreign countries is kidnapping in almost every state in the world. It goes on, of course, now and then as intelligence or special forces do their stuff, but these are always specific instances rather general methodologies and done to achieve an objective.
 
Quote And there's always the foreign nationals who are targetted for execution by the US for acts committed in countries other than the US.

What? Like it's only America that does that?
http://www.unrv.com/forum/blog/31-caldrails-blog/
Back to Top
Guest View Drop Down
Guest Group
Guest Group
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Guest Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 26 Jun 2014 at 22:21
Caldrail wrote:
Quote What? Like it's only America that does that?
 
Absolutely not. The only reason that the US is mentioned so much in this thread is that the OP relates to the killing of US nationals by US Drone Strikes.
 
I agree that US forces, like military all over the world, does what its told by the government.
 
But, given what the source web site reveals, and I accept that it's accurate, the whole matter of accepted Rules of Warfare are out the window.
 
The historical concept of war was one country declaring war on another country or countries. Uniformed armys fought against uniformed soldiers of another. Combatants were clearly recognisable as such, and combatants not wearing uniform were regarded as spies and shot.
 
Everyone knew the Rules.
 
But when the US declared War Against Terrorism, there were no national boundaries involved, no uniforms, not even the identities of many, if not most, of the enemy leaders.
 
The Geneva Convention is no longer relevant, nor are the historic Rules of Warfare. The only rules remaining for, for example, US Forces, are the self made Rules of Engagement and the rules on how enemy prisoners should be treated.
 
Lacking formal, accepted Rules of Warfare, combatants are purely at the mercy of political masters, which could result in military personnel being imprisoned for obeying orders.
 
Quote Since you ask me directly, no, I don't, and neither do you nor anyone else on the entire internet does. The military does as it is commanded to do. It acts on the rules of engagement, directives from their chiefs of staff and presidential approval, or simply finds ways of masking mistakes.
 
I've laid out very clearly my opinions on this matter, and I see no reason to reiterate my support for Allied Forces using pre-emptive strikes.
 
But the question remains!
Back to Top
Captain Vancouver View Drop Down
Immortal Guard
Immortal Guard
Avatar

Joined: 30 Sep 2010
Location: Vancouver Isle
Status: Offline
Points: 2146
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Captain Vancouver Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 27 Jun 2014 at 02:51
Originally posted by toyomotor toyomotor wrote:

Captain:
OK, but this is all well and good.
 
Canada occupies a fairly unique place in the world, rubbing shoulders with arguably the most powerful nation in the world. Canada exists in a world of confidence, knowing that whatever threatens Canada threatens the USA, and therefore the USA will not permit that threat to exist.

The world is full of crazies. It is not doing Canada any good to have selected examples, and numbers of bystanders, blown away. Once this starts, there is no end.

 
Originally posted by toyomotor toyomotor wrote:

I agree that the threat to western targets has multiple roots. One of them maybe the interference by western powers when arbitrary lines were drawn on the world map years ago, another may be the continuing interference by the west in matters which are uniquely middle eastern.
 
I've sometimes thought that if all of the warring parties in the middle east could be brought together to discuss historic disagreements and rivalries, perhaps redraw the national boundaries how the people in the Middle East want them, not how the west wants them, perhaps there could be peace.
 
Just wishful thinking on my part and a bit off topic.
 
The OP questions remain, should the US, or anyone else target their own citizens (or others) for military strikes?

This has always happened, and will continue to happen. The big mistake today I believe, is in calling this a war. This sort of thing used to lost in the covert world of espionage, and was not played up or glamorized. Calling it war means a disconnect from reality, meaning that errors in strategy will be made, due to a fundamentally incorrect assessment of the situation. There will always be criminals and terrorists, and so a war on terror will be never ending. In fact,the drones strikes help prolong things because of the imprecise nature of the attack- bystanders are killed, invoking rage, and more terrorism. It used to be that the few individuals that were an ultra high risk to civilization found their end in a back alley somewhere, and few mourned. Drones are a blunt weapon, and are stirring the pot considerably.
 

Originally posted by toyomotor toyomotor wrote:

The other questions also remain as part of the overall discussion, what authority does the US, or anyone else, have to "render" people to another country to be tried for crimes in their country of origin without "due process"?
 
As for your comment about the Popes powers in the Middle Ages, you are joking aren't you? The Pope was the most powerful international figure in the world in medieval times.
 
 

I think there is a parallel with the pope. In theory, all should have obeyed the Pope due to his moral authority. In practice, people did whatever they wanted, insisted that the Pope would agree, if he sat down and really thought about it, no matter what violent outrage they committed. Retribution for such was usually in direct proportion to the size of their armed forces.
Back to Top
Guest View Drop Down
Guest Group
Guest Group
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Guest Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 27 Jun 2014 at 12:38
Caldrail wrote:
Quote The world is full of crazies. It is not doing Canada
any good to have selected examples, and numbers of bystanders, blown away. Once
this starts, there is no end.
I agree with you, but short of “feet on the street”, how else should the US or its allies remove those who pose a threat?
Quote
This has always happened, and will continue to
happen. The big mistake today I believe, is in calling this a war. This sort of
thing used to lost in the covert world of espionage, and was not played up or
glamorized. Calling it war means a disconnect from reality, meaning that errors
in strategy will be made, due to a fundamentally incorrect assessment of the
situation. There will always be criminals and terrorists, and so a war on
terror will be never ending. In fact,the drones strikes help prolong things because
of the imprecise nature of the attack- bystanders are killed, invoking rage,
and more terrorism. It used to be that the few individuals that were an ultra
high risk to civilization found their end in a back alley somewhere, and few
mourned. Drones are a blunt weapon, and are stirring the pot considerably.

 
Again, I tend to agree. The word “War” can be an emotive word with which to drum up public backing-and Americans do wear their patriotism on their collective sleeve.
 
Although I support the doctrine of pre-emptive strikes, I can understand how the amount of “collateral damage” results in more opposition to the allies. And unfortunately, there has been far to much visual footage of colateral damage being done, and with accompanying sound track to show the the US forces were aware of the potential.


Back to Top
Captain Vancouver View Drop Down
Immortal Guard
Immortal Guard
Avatar

Joined: 30 Sep 2010
Location: Vancouver Isle
Status: Offline
Points: 2146
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Captain Vancouver Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 27 Jun 2014 at 19:17
Originally posted by toyomotor toyomotor wrote:

 
I agree with you, but short of “feet on the street”, how else should the US or its allies remove those who pose a threat?

Take a more realistic and even handed approach to foreign policy. There is no war with terrorism. There is no war of religions. Although it enrages many Americans to hear it, it is often their own policies in the Mid-East that have caused turmoil, and the sort of violence and chaos that can be breeding grounds for extremism. Start off with a demand the Israel make a just settlement with Palestine. Drop the mania for controlling oil supplies, and perhaps even review why the US is so absolutely addicted to high energy consumption, as a side benefit. Send aid where it is needed, not to where it will best position Israel's strategic position. Do not necessarily support any brutal dictator that aligns himself with US interests. Do these things, and terrorism will start to recede from the fixation it is, back to historical levels, I predict. There are some of course so far off the mark that nothing will deter them, other than a bullet. In those cases, they should receive one. But only for themselves, and not for their family, acquaintances, or the guys in the car ahead or behind. If this can't be done, then suck it up. Other countries have had to live with this arrangement for many years, and they are still intact.
Back to Top
Guest View Drop Down
Guest Group
Guest Group
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Guest Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 27 Jun 2014 at 21:15
Originally posted by Captain Vancouver Captain Vancouver wrote:

Originally posted by toyomotor toyomotor wrote:

 
I agree with you, but short of “feet on the street”, how else should the US or its allies remove those who pose a threat?
Take a more realistic and even handed approach to foreign policy. There is no war with terrorism. There is no war of religions. Although it enrages many Americans to hear it, it is often their own policies in the Mid-East that have caused turmoil, and the sort of violence and chaos that can be breeding grounds for extremism. Start off with a demand the Israel make a just settlement with Palestine. Drop the mania for controlling oil supplies, and perhaps even review why the US is so absolutely addicted to high energy consumption, as a side benefit. Send aid where it is needed, not to where it will best position Israel's strategic position. Do not necessarily support any brutal dictator that aligns himself with US interests. Do these things, and terrorism will start to recede from the fixation it is, back to historical levels, I predict. There are some of course so far off the mark that nothing will deter them, other than a bullet. In those cases, they should receive one. But only for themselves, and not for their family, acquaintances, or the guys in the car ahead or behind. If this can't be done, then suck it up. Other countries have had to live with this arrangement for many years, and they are still intact.
 
I can't argue with what you're saying here, but I must qualify remarks I made earlier in this thread.
 
I said that I agree with pre-emptive strikes, Drone or otherwise, but only when directed specifically at enemy combatants, and every effort should be made to eliminate "collateral damage".
 
The points you make are valid, and could possibly work over the long term, although there would still be those who would rail against the west, and use the west for their own political gain. If all the suggestions you've made were acted upon, the fanatics would find some other reason to act against western interests.
 
Perhaps a start would be for the west to butt out of Middle Eastern problems and let them sort it out for themselves.
 
 
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply
  Share Topic   

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

Forum Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 12.03
Copyright ©2001-2019 Web Wiz Ltd.

This page was generated in 0.203 seconds.