Foreign Policy

Assassinations Done Wrong

Obama's troubling embrace of the state secrets doctrine

|

At the risk of sounding melodramatic, I just wonder: If a president—any president—has the authority to order the assassination of a U.S. citizen without oversight, what exactly can't a president do?

Now, as a matter of foreign policy, I am quite comfortable when Islamic extremists, militants, and terrorists meet their atomized ends through the work of unmanned flying contraptions operated remotely by the U.S. government.

Then again, I can also unequivocally state that the thought of an American citizen's being placed on one of these terrorist hit lists without due process of law or any oversight is one that I find disconcerting.

My unease over the case of Anwar Awlaki—an American citizen penciled in for targeted assassination by the Obama administration—isn't based on any conspiratorial daydreams about Barack Obama's wanting to randomly knock off citizens. There is no doubt, in fact, that Awlaki is a despicable character, a member of radical Islamic networks, dangerous, and deserving of a gruesome fate.

In other words, the administration has a straightforward case to make. Yet when Awlaki's father asked a court to enjoin the president from killing his despicable son, the administration asked the court to dismiss the lawsuit without hearing the merits of the case by invoking "state secrets."

With that, the Obama administration argued that the president should be empowered to order the execution of a U.S. citizen—outside a war zone and without exhibiting an imminent threat to other citizens—without any oversight from the judicial or legislative branch of government. And by using the protection-of-state-secrets argument, the administration is also asserting that the public has no right to know why.

Granted, I am not a constitutional expert. I simply assumed that somewhere in the founding documents, it states that a citizen cannot be whacked without a trial.

If Awlaki is an enemy of the United States, a seditious and murderous traitor, there are legal avenues to make the case. As Kevin D. Williamson of National Review Online recently wrote, "the penalty for treason is not assassination without trial, and there is nothing in our Constitution or tradition to suggest that it is."

Or the administration can make the case that Awlaki, because of his actions, is a danger to the nation and should be stripped of his U.S. citizenship. If the man deserves a drone strike, surely he doesn't deserve his citizenship.

What do we know for sure about Awlaki? He's a homegrown radical who likes to issue fatwas and probably recruits other Americans to the Dark Side. There has to be much more to his story.

Clearly, there are legitimate uses for state secrets during a time of war. But let's face it; we are in perpetual war. If conservatives oppose the intrusive domestic policy of this administration, it defies logic for them not to question a unilateral decision that abuses state power—even if the decision is helpful in a cause they deeply believe in. Does the cause of national security overpower any concern?

As for liberals, it seems that once Barack Obama ascended to the presidency, the urgent need to protect our "civil rights" from the Hitlerish previous president lost a lot of steam. This administration has done virtually nothing to change the way we do business.

Should Awlaki meet a martyr's end on a battlefield or during the weekly meeting of evil terrorist masterminds in a grotto in Yemen, it would be nothing less than a victory for humankind.

But that's not the issue.

David Harsanyi is a columnist at The Denver Post and the author of Nanny State. Visit his website at www.DavidHarsanyi.com.

COPYRIGHT 2010 THE DENVER POST
DISTRIBUTED BY CREATORS.COM

NEXT: One Cheer for The Aftermath of French Intellectual Mao Worship

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Let me be clear.

    Mandate, biotches!

  2. our “civil rights” from the Hitlerish previous

    our civil rights from the “Hitlerish” previous

    FIFY

  3. I got into an argument with a Team Blue buddy of mine the other night. I asked how a government could order a death like this without due process. I asked him what about his citizenship. He said it should be revoked because the guy spoke out against America.

    I asked him if he saw the irony in what he just said, and that a state that could order the death or revoke citizenship because someone exercises their first amendment rights is a pretty scary scenario. Of course, he sait that would never happen.

    While I do believe this guy is a despicable scumbag, I believe there is only one way to deal with him: arrest him and put him on trial. A public trial as well, to show America what kind of brainwashing, manipulative evil we get from the most extreme elements of Islamofascists.

    1. Your friend is an idiot. This guy did more than “speak out against America”. He is advocating the violent overthrow of the government and the murder of American citizens. And he seems to be taking steps to ensure this happens.

      I stand behind no one in my contention that this guy most certainly needs killing. But you just can’t do it this way. It is not about this scumbag. It is about the precedent it sets.

      1. “”He is advocating the violent overthrow of the government and the murder of American citizens. “”

        Some on this board advocate revolution, which is a violent overthrow of the government and American citizens will be killed in the process. Just sayin.

      2. He is advocating the violent overthrow of the government and the murder of American citizens.

        I seem to recall the founders of this country doing the first part of that sentence, which necessarily involved killing some British subjects in the colonies.

        These are protected free speech acts under the First Amendment, and any liberal who does not defend the right of any citizen to speak like that is violating one of the few things liberals purport to be on the right side of, freedom of speech. I say purport, since their advocacy of free speech often seems limited to people they agree with.

        1. I seem to recall the founders of this country doing the first part of that sentence, which necessarily involved killing some British subjects in the colonies.

          Yes, all was not sweetness and light in the Revolutionary War, on both sides. Ben Franklin definitely read the mail of suspected Tories.

          Whenever it comes to an actual armed revolution, I would expect any government to make its implicit threat of violence explicit.

          1. He can call for whatever he wants to call for. Violent revolution, Sharia law, blowing up shit, whatever. Those are still protected within the Constitution (I think). His crimes are following through on those statements and offering support to those that would harm us. And he needs to be brought to trial for those crimes. It’s as simple as that.

            We have a 5th Amendment for a reason. It should never be suspended for a single citizen ever. We are simply better than that.

            1. “‘We have a 5th Amendment for a reason. It should never be suspended for a single citizen ever. We are simply better than that.””

              Are you aware the Constituion allows for such in times of insurection or rebellion? Also domestic tranquility is listed in the Preamble of the Constitution.

              But the issue is can the US kill an American citizen in a war zone without due process. The world is considered the battlefield in the war on terror by many.

              1. It does and it doesn’t. Lincoln tried to do it twice and was stopped by the Supreme Court. In WW2, it was upheld only after the convicted were deemed to be enemy combatants. Either way, they were tried in a military tribunal. Had they been tried for treason, they would have ultimately been convicted, seeing as the 2 Americans involved were caught red-handed (is that a racist term, I wonder). The case regarding Pearl Harbor was viewed with some skepticism as to it’s legality, but these objections became moot when the order was rescinded.

                The way I interpret the AEDPA deals more with the appeals process and time limits on filing writs.

                So where does it specifically say in the Constitution that the 5th can be suspended because I am either ignorant of it or it is not there. This is a serious question as well. I’m not being a smartass.

                1. Article 1. Section 9.

                  The privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in cases of rebellion or invasion the public safety may require it.

                  1. I don’t know if one rabble rouser who hasn’t done any direct harm yet qualifies as a “rebellion” or “invasion.”

                    1. I think that a court should have to first determine whether or not something that qualifies as a rebellion is actually taking place, and then it should have to determine whether or not an individual is an active part of said rebellion. At that point I would be okay with some removal of their basic rights, but the standards for qualifying somebody as a revolutionary should be high. Basically, there should be some sort of revolutionary apparatus in place with large numbers of people stockpiling weapons and actively engaging in plots that flaunt the rule of law at the very very least. SImply being anti government and shouting that government officials should die doesn’t qualify as a revolution to me. Sorry.

                  2. I was going to say Commerce Clause, but close enough.

                2. I think the term ‘red-handed’ originally referred to blood on the hands. I’m not absolutely certain, though.

  4. Since Barry O’s ascendance to the heavens, there isn’t anything he can’t do

  5. You cannot set the precedent of the President being able to assassinate American citizens outside of a war zone. That is about as slippery a slope as you can get. You have to at least try to apprehend this guy. If he resists and they kill him, well that is how it goes. But you cannot have the President sign what amounts to death warrants. I honestly don’t see how you can defend this.

    1. No no, you don’t understand. See, Barack Obama is the greatest man who ever lived and he can be trusted with this power. No one else will ever hold his office, so it’s okay! He’ll always be in charge.

  6. The fact that Obama hasn’t changed much of what Bush put in place is either a sign that Bush was doing it right or that everyone has been doing it wrong. I think Obama entered office, was briefed on the WoT situation, and discovered that there were really no palatable ways of dealing with it other than what Bush had already come up with. I can only assume that whatever genius plans Obama and “the base” envisioned turned out to be untenable in the real world. But you won’t catch them admitting it…

    1. Of course not. They will never be held responsible if anything happened. No one is going to blame Glenn Greenwald for the next terror attack. But they will blame Obama. Responsibility tends to focus the mind.

      I disagree with Obama on this. But I don’t think he is some kind of evil fascist bent on creating a new power to kill his political enemies. I think he is scared shitless of something happening and is doing what he thinks is right.

      1. I don’t think many people think he is some kind of evil fascist bent on creating a new power to kill his political enemies. Most think he is a politically naive opportunist who wants to stamp his legacy on the world by getting everyone to embrace him.

        He’s a lot like Commodus in “Gladiator.” He wants people to embrace him while he appeases their anxiety with platitudes and grandstanding.

        “We are the ones we’ve been waiting for.” The stage set in Denver. The speech at the Brandenburg Gate. The Cairo speech. The Nobel acceptance speech. The list goes on and on. The guy just wants to be worshiped.

      2. “”I think he is scared shitless of something happening and is doing what he thinks is right.””

        I call bullshit on the scared shitless. But other than that I argee. He is doing what he thinks is right to protect American citizens. The same thing Bush thought, the same thing the next President will think.

        1. He is doing what he thinks is right to protect American citizens.

          Well, with the one exception of the guy he’s killing.

          1. If he’s helping with the killing, he doesn’t fall under the catagory of American citizens being protected.

            1. What part of “Equal Protection” do you not understand? Or is it subjective now?

              1. Subjective like during the civil war?

                1. Yeah, and IIRC, the courts ruled that Lincoln overstepped there.

        2. Sorry Vic, you’re absolutely wrong.

          He’s simply an idiot. Obama is not someone who can conceptualize or appreciate consequences. I don’t think there is any grand plan beyond the left patronizing and right admonishing bullet points for his next TV appearance. I think you’ve been imagining some grand benevolence from this guy, which isn’t borderline religious… it’s plain dogmatic.

          He’s never demonstrated higher thinking, never given any hint of possessing cognitive resources. His speeches are filled with the type of feeble, shallow well-wishings of a junior high graduation commencement speech. I think he just rides the waves, and tries to cover his ass. Unfortunately that trait makes for a terrible leader. His constant back-peddling and inability to deliver of superstitious, pandering rhetoric should be reality check for you. This article provides a detailed example of his idiocy at work.

          I feel sorry for those that did and continue to expect more. Next time, remember that your ‘hope’ vote wasn’t what you thought it was going to be, you’re ineffective at judging politicians, and your time is better spent not voting safely at home.

          1. I can conceptualize and my faith in Jesus guides me in these life and death decisions. But let’s be clear, the concept of “unintended consequences” is an invention of my political foes.

    2. The simple truth is that there is only marginal difference between Team Red and Team Blue. Once in power, they make almost identical political decisions.

    3. Or he’s just a dickless pussy that is letting the Pentagon dictate foreign policy because along with being a dickless pussy he’s also totally inept and has no idea what he’s doing.

  7. Obama learned from Bush’s mistake of rounding up these guy’s and sending them to Guantanamo. That caused way too much outrage and consternation fron the left. He just has them all killed on sight. Saves himself all those headaches. So all of the lefty media outrage at the denial of terrorist “constitutional” rights we heard about daily under the Bush administration has been replaced by the sound of crickets chirping.

    1. Which is exactly what I loudly and repeated predicted on here before the 2008 election, and why I offered a qualified defense of Guantanamo– since in my view the inevitable result would be either secret trials and prisons, or assassinations (or “oops, he died in the process of capturing him.”)

      Since some commenters like to say that you have responsibility for any foreseeable outcome, that forced me to support keeping Guantanamo open so that things would at least be more in the open.

      If I were to take it further, I could argue that this means that some of those who argued for Gitmo’s closure bear moral responsibility for the inevitable consequence, but I think that’s going too far and why I don’t fully respect such arguments about consequences.

      1. Behold the political version of “Shoot, Shovel, and Shut Up” at work in the Executive Branch. This wretched excuse for an administration that irresponsible anti-American “anti-war” rhetoric helped to elect actually does strike me as pretty fascist–just not on this particular subject; that is, the particular guys they’re seeking to assassinate aren’t being targeted merely for something they said. At the same time, it’s unlikely that, given the power to order anyone killed for any reason with no one allowed to question why the order was given or prevent its being carried out, this administration or the next one will not at some point start assassinating people just for being political enemies.

        As for fascism in general, though, this administration has been engaging in plenty of that! I trust I’m not the only one creeped out by all those videos of the brainwashed little kiddies singing praises to Dear Leader and the thuggish “organizing” by the parasitic public labor unions in favor of their thug-in-chief. Neither can I simply overlook the nationalization of the auto industry and of medicine in the hands of “czars” answerable to none but Dear Leader himself.

        Bush’s main flaw was that he was way too nice to his enemies, rarely vetoing anything or firing anybody who was undermining his administration. The new boss has lots and lots of flaws and foibles, but that is definitely not one of them. He’s not going to keep a stiff upper lip and keep taking crap from underlings the way his predecessor did. In fact, from some of his activities, it’s obvious he views all American citizens as his subjects and thinks he’s our boss rather than our employee. Only in the vaguest media-manipulating sense does he grasp that he actually serves at our sufferance and we may yet vote him out.

        Those who are actually his minions, meanwhile–those czars, and the rest of his cabinet, and even his JournoLista sycophants in the leftstream media–would do well to watch their own backs. Cowardly as his tactics are, and incompetent as he is, he may yet develop a talent for purging anyone he sees as a competitor for his throne. More recent investigations of the historical records have suggested that contrary to the images of cunning and efficiency they liked to project, Stalin, Hitler, Mao, Pol Pot, and other infamous mass-murdering despots were not really that talented at anything but seizing and holding on to power for its own sake. In other words, you don’t have to be all that bright to be a totalitarian; you just have to be utterly ruthless with anyone who gets in your way. This lazy mongrel some of the very people at this magazine (*cough* Weigel *cough*) were dumb enough to support in the last election may yet demonstrate a talent for this kind of ruthlessness with you now that you’ve started complaining about his policies.

        1. We have our enemies list, let the purges begin.

  8. Revoke citizenship? Is that even possible? I know there have been immigrants who’ve been naturalized and subsequently lost their citizenship due to fraud in their applications for it, but has anyone who was actually born here ever had his citizenship revoked? I’ve never heard of such a case. Would it even be constitutional?

    1. Probably not without due process.

      Oops, there’s that silly Constitution in the way again.

    2. “Would it even be constitutional?”

      Does that even matter any more:(

  9. Is being whisked away to a secret tribunal really the due process Harsanyi is hoping for?

    1. Better than a cruise missile. This is the predictable reaction to giving every terrorist an OJ trial. This clown is not going to ever be let go if we capture him. Yet, if we take him to federal court we risk a fiasco. Guilty people are occasionally acquitted. But we can’t have military tribunals anymore can we? No tribunal, court is not an option, leaving him alone is not an option, what do you do? You kill him. That is what you do. I would rather live with the evil military tribunals than this. They are not perfect, but they are better than this. At some point Libertarians need to realize they are never getting a pony on this one and take the best of the bad options available.

      1. Why not a public trial? Would it be such a bad thing to put this guy on trial and let everybody in America see him for what he is? And do you really think for a second it will be a tool the terrorists use against us? If it is,so what. The alternative is that they’ve won if they get us to sacrifice our sense of justice in the name of security and secrecy.

        1. We used military tribunals against German spies.

          1. And we could have used the same tribunals for terrorist, but Bush didn’t want to do that either. He wanted to create a system in which hearsay alone gets a conviction. When you pay warlords to bring you bad guys, what evidence do you have that they are really bad other than the word of a warlord. For many in Gitmo, the crux of the problem isn’t the type of trial we give them. It’s how they were accused in the first place.

            1. IIRC it was Bush who set up the tribunals, which were then shot down in favor of… well, nobody knows what to do now so I guess we’ll just keep them all in Gitmo forever.

      2. “So I’m thinking, maybe I should just put them on trial.”

        “An e-vil trial?”

        “No, no! I mean, like a military tribunal.”

        “An e-vil military tribunal?”

        “You always do that!”

      3. “””and take the best of the bad options available.”””

        That’s subjective. The best of the bad options might be following the Constitution and if they get off the hook today, we catch or kill them tomorrow. I guess it depends on how much one values life over the Constitution. Some may say the Constitution trumps life. If it doesn’t we are screwed. People could make the arguement from health care to crime that the Constitution shouldn’t matter when people’s lives are at stake.

  10. As for liberals, it seems that once Barack Obama ascended to the presidency, the urgent need to protect our “civil rights” from the Hitlerish previous president lost a lot of steam.

    As it should now that the “right” person is in charge!

    [It’s a brand thing, Coke vs Pepsi, “my fascist versus your fascist” kind of thing, you know…]

  11. Is this guy really being targeted for assassination or is the rule something like ‘Even if an American is present, we are going proceed with the missile strike’?

    1. This particular guy is being targeted.

  12. I may be wrong but I don’t think it’s even possible to strip someone of their citizenship no matter what they’ve done. You can give up your citizenship but it can’t be taken away from you.

    1. That’s essentially what I was asking earlier in the thread.

      1. Yes, it’s possible.

        And now, it will be NEW & IMPROVED possible!

        http://www.cbsnews.com/stories…..7524.shtml

        “I like the spirit of it,” Pelosi told reporters.

        You go girl!

        1. It was introduced by Lieberman and Brown. Pelosi didn’t get within 60 feet of it.

  13. Obama is a political coward who has caved completely to the Pentagon and the CIA. He will do basically whatever they tell him to do. He is afraid that if he doesn’t and there is a significant terrorist attack, stories will appear saying “We wanted to fight the terrorists abroad but Obama wouldn’t let us. It’s all his fault.” The “state secrets” routine is to protect him from having to justify the unjustifiable.

    1. You’ve got that exactly backward, even though he is a political coward. He’s not the one taking orders.

  14. Granted, I am not a constitutional expert. I simply assumed that somewhere in the founding documents, it states that a citizen cannot be whacked without a trial.

    Fifth Amendment: No person shall … be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law;

  15. “”outside a war zone””

    It’s a global war on terror, therefore you can’t be outside the “war zone”. That’s pretty much they way they view it.

  16. Since Anwar al-Awlaki is trying to kill Molly Norris, an innocent citizen, I think it’s OK to kill him first to defend her.

    http://www.nationalreview.com/…..may?page=1

  17. Oh come now, when in the history of human civilization has a leader with that kind of power ever abused it? Oh wait! I guess – every time – would be the answer. It seems that every political “victory” in the WoT means the American citizen loses. I’m not saying that Obama would abuse it or for that matter Bush… but some day someone will without a doubt. There is a lot of talk about the constitution but sadly very little about why there is one…

  18. And I’m pretty sure that once that power is in the hands of the presidency, the only way to take it will be from someones cold dead hands… It won’t be given up willingly, because there will always be some “danger” out there

  19. Liberal doctrine on this matter is rather clear. It states that a head of state may summarily execute an unlimited number of citizens as long as there is no clear pattern of discrimination against minorities.

    1. Would the same doctrine have allowed the Cambridge Police tojust shoot that asshole professor right on his porch. Much simpler for everyone. Except the dead guy, but fuck it, dead people haven’t got rights.

    2. Alright, Now move along, or I’ll be forced to execute every one of you by gunshot to the head!!

    3. Alright, Now move along, or I’ll be forced to execute every one of you by gunshot to the head!!

  20. He’s an American and thus entitled to due process of law.

    1. And free health care.

      1. and broadband internet.

        1. and to be the President.

          1. and free chocolate chip cookies!

  21. “At the risk of sounding melodramatic, I just wonder: If a president?any president?has the authority to order the assassination of a U.S. citizen without oversight, what exactly can’t a president do?”

    Balance a budget?

    1. Let himself be clear?

  22. That we find Aulaqi so repugnant is why the Constitution is so important in situations like this one, where the inclination to violence is trumping reason. As bad as Aulaqi appears to be, the Constitution demands that we provide him with due process.

    1. Drink!

  23. This is where the usual analysis breaks down.

    In the old, binary world, you were either at war (in which case due process didn’t apply to anyone, citizen or not, engaged in warfighting), or you were not (in which case due process applies to anyone, citizen or not, that the State wishes to punish or kill).

    These amorphous ideological/religious groups don’t fit these categories. They aren’t states, so we can’t be at war with them (under the traditional definition). They are, however, definitely engaged in warfighting, both locally and against US forces.

    One of the mistakes, BTW, that too many people are making is the assumption that US citizens are entitled to due process from the government that non-citizens are not. That’s not the way the Constitution reads – it says “no person.”

    1. “”That’s not the way the Constitution reads – it says “no person.”””

      Well, illegal aliens and terrorsts are not people. 😉

    2. “”In the old, binary world, you were either at war (in which case due process didn’t apply to anyone, citizen or not, engaged in warfighting), or you were not (in which case due process applies to anyone, citizen or not, that the State wishes to punish or kill).””

      How would you view our early fights with pirates? War? or something else?

      1. Something else. That’s why pirates are not recognized under the terms of the Geneva Convention. They are considered criminals under the jurisdiction of the flag of the vessel they are pillaging or plundering, whichever the case may be.

        1. Early fight with pirates, think 1775.

          1. Well, a little later than 1775, but not much.

        2. I thought that since pirates operate on “the high seas” and thus outside the jurisdiction of any country, there is basically no law about how you handle them. Hence why the usual treatment back then was to just hang them. But I could be wrong there.

  24. Whoa, everybody light up some weed and mellow out.

  25. This should never have made the news to begin with. Any CIA Section Chief that can’t authorize a drone hit on some unnamed terrorist and whack the Yank accomplist as collateral damage isn’t worth his government pension.

  26. “Granted, I am not a constitutional expert. I simply assumed that somewhere in the founding documents, it states that a citizen cannot be whacked without a trial.”

    Golden.

    1. Depends on your reliance on semantics.
      The one mistake made by Ike, Kennedy, Johnson, Nixon, Regan, Bush’s I/II was not walking into congress and issuing an ultimatum: declaration of war or I sit on my hands. Korea, Lebanon, Viet Nam, Grenada, Panama, Serbia, Kuwait, Iraq, Shitholeistan. Once declared, you can whack the combatants, uniformed or not, at will, and do it unilaterally. Declared wars are normally fought by professionals, with a fervor; not waged by bureaucrat committee considering their electability, and thus are harsh…and mercifully short.

      1. And I think this is how you solve this problem, quickly. If a terrorist organization or some other wingnut extremist group commits some act of aggression against the U.S. (or any country for that matter), then the host country should be bear full responsibility for either a) harboring the enemy or b) being too inept and weak to control the situation. If a), then issue an ultimatum that they are to extradite all known accomplises to the U.S. or some other location for some type of tribunal or court proceedings. If they don’t, then a Declaration of War should be made against the host country. If they don’t get the point after the ‘shock and awe’ strategy, I guarantee the other countries will.
        I’m tired of this pussy footing ‘delicate situation’ bullshit. If you’re allowing, intentionally or not, a rogue group committed to violence to sit comfortably within your borders, then you bear full responsibility for any actions they take from within your borders. If they don’t have the ability to extract them, well by all means, allow us..
        Also, if b), see a)

      2. Politically-run wars are long, drawn out affairs. I knew we were in for a long stretch in the Mid East — nearly 20 years now — since HW Bush renamed “Infinite Justice” to Desert Storm or some such thing — to assuage the offended feelings of the enemy. Then W Bush insisting that Islam is the religion of peace while bombing. Obama, the Nobel Peace Prize winner, follows the same path, insisting we are not at war with Islam while unleashing the drones on two continents. Expect some escalations before the U.S. mid-term elections….

        1. Operation Infinite Justice was the US led invasion of Afgahnistan. It was changed to Operation Enduring Freedom. G. H. W. Bush had fuck all to do with it.

  27. Tony? Chad? S’matter, this slice of ‘powergrab pie’ not sitting well?

    1. We were waiting for Max to post first.

  28. Obama is allowed to assassinate whoever he wants; there’s nothing wrong with that. Its only murder if one of you civilians kills someone. Laws grant increasing privilege to persons in government as they get higher in position, that’s the way it is in the USA.

    http://youareproperty.blogspot…..ality.html

  29. Obama is allowed to assassinate whoever he wants; there’s nothing wrong with that. Its only murder if one of you civilians kills someone. Laws grant increasing privilege to persons in government as they get higher in position, that’s the way it is in the USA.
    http://youareproperty.blogspot…..ality.html

  30. wholesale nfl jerseys is not just adults ,cheap nfl jerseys, and now they are for children. If you have your own children, this is not far-fetched to say that your kids pick you up with the sports preferences. So, why not wholesale nhl jerseys for the kids, and help them in the local football team spirit? In addition, to watch sporting events is a good, healthy-binding activity. No matter where they are, watching your TV before the game , dvd copy, living in a soccer field, because of them that love with their favorite players jersey in a sign of this. cheap nhl jerseys on the websites, you would find that the jerseys look like almost the same as the real. They can really meet the needs of cheap jerseys. There are also many online stores while they are stocking. It is safe to say that you can find many of the most preferential prices online , you will get the best quality, affordable prices and stylish appearance of online big shirt. , But you can have a comfortable shopping. If you want to nfl jerseys on the website, be patient to find a reliable website. w2200fmx

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.