« Are There No Prisons? | Main | "Bandits Move About From Town to Town, Pillaging Whatever They Can Find" »

January 25, 2008


This shouldn't just be a question for Clinton. It's well past time for opponents of the Bush Administration's war and violations of the Constitution to look long and hard at the many ways in which their policies were anticipated by the Reagan, George H.W. Bush, and Clinton administrations. As Andrew Bacevich and a variety of other scholars have argued, the Bush administration's policies have deep roots and it is simply not enough to return to a version of the status quo ante c. Y2K.

Right, they all should be more focused on these issues in general. Obama has taken a position on rendition though, & was an early co-sponsor of a Senate bill banning it. Him I would ask: will there be a thorough public investigation of these abuses under your administration? To which I hope he'd reply: (1) we will definitely find out what happened & make it public; (2) criminal investigations are a matter for independent career prosecutors--in my dep't DOJ will follow the facts wherever they lead.

Speaking of DOJ, Robert Novak is evil and usually full of crap, but the idea of working for Attorney General Edwards under President Obama is like, a vision of sugarplums for me.

(as a bunch of blogs are saying, "hey, how about after South Carolina you go to D.C. & provide some backup for Senator Dodd on his telecom immunity filibuster" would be a great question for both of them).

would you lead an effort to persuade the major political parties to reform the primary system to allow people in all states to have a voice in primaries ?

"She can't have; she didn't have a security clearance."

Do you know that for a fact? I'd be curious to see a cite. I don't know why should couldn't have been investigated and given a clearance of whatever level.

If you want a broader question than just rendition, than ask all the candidates to detail a list of what sort of covert actions are and aren't appropriate for the U.S. government to be sponsoring or engaging in. Should the U.S. government try to overthrow other governments? Where, if anywhere, do we draw the line below in not just gathering intelligence, but in committing sabotage, coups, funding mobs, paying agents of influence, and so on?

Of course, none will ever really answer in true detail. But that's a question I'd like to see answered, not just the question offered.

"would you lead an effort to persuade the major political parties to reform the primary system to allow people in all states to have a voice in primaries ?"

Are you advocating eliminating caucuses?

Gary: cite on the security clearance thing.

(I guess I can't actually rule out that she found out about renditions informally, but there's no evidence that she did, & I'd be surprised if she knew enough or was involved enough for it to be fair to hold her responsible).

Although rendition isn't specifically mentioned, I believe several of Senator Clinton's answers to Charlie Savage's invaluable survey inquiring about each candidate's views on the limits of executive power are germane to the discussion:

5. Does the Constitution permit a president to detain US citizens without charges as unlawful enemy combatants?


6. Does executive privilege cover testimony or documents about decision-making within the executive branch not involving confidential advice communicated to the president himself?

I fundamentally believe that our constitutional system depends upon each branch striving to accommodate the interests of the other, and the President should seek to accommodate legitimate congressional requests for information. I also believe in an open transparent government that fulfills its obligation to share as much information as possible with the public. But it is settled law that certain limited "communications made by presidential advisors in the course of preparing advice for the President, come under the presidential communications privilege, even when these communications are not made directly to the President."

7. If Congress defines a specific interrogation technique as prohibited under all circumstances, does the president's authority as commander in chief ever permit him to instruct his subordinates to employ that technique despite the statute?


8. Under what circumstances, if any, is the president, when operating overseas as commander-in-chief, free to disregard international human rights treaties that the US Senate has ratified?

The international human rights treaties that the U.S. has joined represent an historic advance for the cause of human freedom. Under our Constitution, they also are the law of the land, and the President has the same duty to comply with them as with any other valid law.

9. Do you agree or disagree with the statement made by former Attorney General Gonzales in January 2007 that nothing in the Constitution confers an affirmative right to habeas corpus, separate from any statutory habeas rights Congress might grant or take away?

I disagree with Attorney General Gonzales. I have long believed that the right to habeas corpus offers fundamental protection against unchecked government power. It is a constitutionally guaranteed right. The Supreme Court should reaffirm this principle in the Boumediene case now pending and correct the mistake Congress made when it attempted to rescind habeas corpus through the Military Commissions Act.

10. Is there any executive power the Bush administration has claimed or exercised that you think is unconstitutional? Anything you think is simply a bad idea?

The Bush Administration has acted unconstitutionally in failing to comply with FISA, failing to adhere to Congress's prohibitions on torture and cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment, and attempting to hold enemy combatants indefinitely at Guantanamo without review, to name a few examples. More fundamentally, I reject the basic premise of the Bush Administration's view that Executive Power is not subject to the rule of law or to constitutional checks and balances.

I highly recommend reading each candidate's answers in full. This is one important policy area that many members of the MSM have thus far conspicuously veered around.

(Interestingly, Obama, Clinton and Edwards would all continue the practice of issuing signing statements, but would be "less aggressive" than the Bush admin has been. FWIW, John McCain says he would never issue one, while Mitt would double 'em along with Gitmo.)

This isn't exactly what you asked for, but it's related--an article about the foreign policy perspectives of Clinton/Obama/Edwards from the viewpoint of a lefty--


Somewhat to my surprise, I liked Obama's positions better than Edwards, not that I like any of them that much.

I wish Zunes was more explicit in this part of his article (the one I linked to above)--

"ll three candidates have displayed a tendency to exaggerate human rights abuses by regimes and movements opposed by the United States while minimizing human rights abuses by pro-U.S. regimes. Clinton has gone as far as sponsoring Senate resolutions explicitly contradicting findings of Human Rights Watch, Amnesty International and other reputable human rights groups when they are critical of the policies of some U.S. allies."

I'd like to ask the candidates on what occasions they've disgareed with HRW or AI, and why.

"Gary: cite on the security clearance thing."

Thanks muchly, Katherine. I'm not astonished, but I did think it reasonably likely that she'd have been possibly given a low-level clearance, just so Bill could talk with her about some stuff, but apparently not. I guess it would have been too far out of SOP for even the President to do that, these days, at least in the views of the Clintons.

(Which doesn't support a narrative of how willing to bend the rules they are, FWIW. Note also that JFK went as far as possible in the other direction, in making his brother, the Attorney-General, the government's director and coordinator of all covert action efforts, including assassination, including specifically directly supervising the CIA and intelligence agencies, even though there was little official connection between those agencies and the Justice Department; Bobby got all those powers, and more, such as during the Cuban Missile Crisis, because he was the president's brother, not because he was AG; my point here being that views of propriety change.)

"Yet little has been made public about her involvement in foreign policy and national security as first lady. Documents about her work remain classified at the National Archives."

I wonder if as a Senator, she now has sufficient clearance, or whether she's still unable to read documents about her own work.

I suppose it won't be until the nominees are officially nominated that they'll start getting some level of CIA briefing, as per precedent.

Katherine: "And former Clinton administration officials have recently been making factually false claims about rendition during the 1990s in an apparent effort to rehabilitate the program."

Which claims in the article are factually false?
None seem to be. The 2001 Wall Street Journal story you link to in hilzoy's June 15 2004 post doesn't factually contradict Daniel Benjamin's washingtonpost.com piece--so what false claims are you referring to?

Donald--I may be over-reading or projecting hopefully but I find Obama the most promising on human rights issues. Some of the only Senate votes where he differs from Clinton are on obscure human rights issues, like cluster bombs & the idiotic "material support to a terrorist organization" restrictions in immigration laws.

Jay Jerome--the major factually false claims are: (1) that we didn't send people to countries w/ indisputably lousy human rights records. Wrong. In a word, Egypt.(2) That diplomatic assurances actually worked. They didn't, & some officials involved in the program have said we knew that all along. See: Michael Scheuer, A Fine Rendition. Jane Mayer, Outsourcing Torture. I don't frankly feel like looking up the links because I've been through this over and over.

For the hell of it, though, here's a letter I wrote to Brookings in response to the Benjamin op-ed:

"Daniel Benjamin's recent op-ed in the Washington Post regarding "myths" about rendition makes a false factual claim. Specifically, Mr. Benjamin's statement that during the Clinton administration, "countries with indisputably lousy human rights records" were "off-limits" for rendition of terrorist suspects is demonstrably false. The Clinton administration carried out multiple renditions of suspects to Egypt, despite Egypt's well-documented history of torturing prisoners.

In January of 1998, the U.S. State Department reported that although torture was illegal in Egypt, there were "numerous credible reports, including statements by government officials, that security forces mistreated and tortured citizens....Detainees are frequently stripped; hung by their wrists with their feet touching the floor or forced to stand for prolonged periods; doused with hot or cold water; beaten; forced to stand outdoors in cold weather; and subjected to electrical shocks."

In the summer of 1998, the Clinton administration rendered five suspected terrorists from Eastern Europe to Egypt. An Egyptian human rights organization later reported that all five suspects were beaten and subjected to electrical shocks by Egyptian intelligence agents.

Egypt has remained a popular destination for renditions under the Bush administration. There have been more publicly reported cases of rendition there than to any other country. The following suspects rendered to Egypt have made allegations that they were tortured in Egyptian custody:

Clinton Administration
(1) Talat Fouad Qassem
(2) Ahmad Ibrahim al-Sayyid al-Naggar
(3) Shawqi Salama Mustafa
(4) Mohamed Hassan Tita
(5) Ahmad Ismail Uthman
(6) Issam Abd al-Tawab
(7) Ahmed Mabrouk

Bush Administration
(8) Mamdouh Habib
(9) Abu Omar
(10) Ibn Shaykh al Libi
(11) Ahmed Agiza
(12) Mohamed Al Zery
(13) Mohamed Saad Iqbal Madni

There are two cases in which there are no public reports about the suspects' treatment after rendition. After studying rendition in detail for several years, I know of zero cases in which a suspect rendered to Egypt has: (1) spoken to an attorney, the press, or a human rights group about his treatment in prison; (2) not made allegations of torture.

Some of the torture allegations are conclusory and vague, but others are quite detailed, and have been independently corroborated by government officials or human rights groups. They are also consistent with FBI and CIA agents' repeated statements to the press and Congress that they knew prisoners sent to Egypt were likely to be tortured.

I find it extremely difficult to believe that Mr. Benjamin, a former member of the National Security Council, does not know all this already. I'm having trouble finding a benign interpretation of his factual misstatements about rendition during the Clinton administration, and his complete omission of any mention in Egypt's role in rendition. I fear the goal is to persuade the next President that the U.S. should continue to send prisoners to Egyptian and Jordan prisons in violation of Article III of the Convention Against Torture, based on "diplomatic assurances" that have long since been proven worthless.

You can argue I'm being paranoid, but it's a hard-won paranoia that has nothing to do with my liking for Obama's pretty speeches. And the op-ed isn't isolated--he's written elsewhere that rendition is getting a bad rap & that it's a necessary tool. Other former Clinton advisors have testified to similar effect before Congress.


The difference with Bobby was that he held an actual government role. He was appointed and approved by the Senate.

Hillary held no official role. She had no need to know and thus she would not be able to get TS clearance. I'd imagine that she was able to get a lower clearance just to make things easier. Simply living in the White House would probably require that.

I hate to be completely OT like this, but I want someone to ask the Clinton campaign what in the world they think they're doing with their new position on the MI and FL delegates. I can't decide if it's one of the slimiest things I've ever heard, or the most boneheaded PR move of the primary -- or both -- but my brain's about to explode just reading about it.

Adam, I'm not sure it's bad PR, unfortunately. If the headlines are like "Obama rejects Clinton's olive branch to Michigan, Florida" rather than about Clinton's trying to change the rules in the middle of the game, then her ploy is working.

... somehow I'm having difficulty taking the Detroit News as a neutral source on this one.

Considering that the Clinton campaign was complaining just a few days ago about an Obama national ad buy running in Florida, this looks like a pretty cheap move and not at all about the disenfranchisement of FL/MI voters -- if they are really worried about that, they're not doing anyone any favors by pulling this *after* Clinton's won the MI primary uncontested under the guise of "the delegates won't count so it doesn't matter if we stay on the ballot," and it's not as if she took a principled stand and included them in the process by, you know, campaigning there.

But -- off topic, and I'll wait for a proper thread to discuss it. Just blowing off steam.

Adam, I hope you're right. And there's been a minor amount of discussion about it in the "Lies and Democracy" thread.

Darn, Adam beat me to it. I want to know, given her desire to completely trash rules and compromises she agreed to when she thought they might benifit her, how are we to believe she'd honor things like treaties, laws and the Constitution.

We've had 7 years of this. I don't want any more.

I want to know what Hillary Clinton would do differently than her husband. I know that's a huge question, but as several people said, she's running on his record, so...

"Donald--I may be over-reading or projecting hopefully but I find Obama the most promising on human rights issues"

He did seem distinctly better than her on those issues in the article I linked. I was for him over her before--this strengthens it for me. I was for Edwards over both of them and still am on domestic issues, but now I'm less sure.

But in my state it doesn't much matter who I vote for anyway.

Katherine: the idiotic "material support to a terrorist organization" restrictions in immigration laws

Genuinely curious… Why do you find these restrictions idiotic? I mean OK, if you give money to a charity that gives the money to terrorists and you didn’t know that and you are prosecuted for it – that is idiotic. But should these restrictions not exist at all?

Depends how "terrorist organisation" is defined. Should we prosecute every American who ever dropped money in a Sinn Féin collecting box?

I hope you won't mind me giving my answer, knowing that Katherine will probably come and give a far more detailed (and correct) response.

I have been suspicious of the material support clause ever since the administration argued that an English teacher who unknowingly taught a potential terrorist was providing material support. As this link from the International Rescue committee notes,

The problem has two parts. First, anyone who has provided "material support" to a terrorist group can be denied entry into the United States. The concept of "material support" has neither a clear de minimis level nor an explicit exemption for those who have been coerced--so a farmer who, under duress, provides a bowl of rice to a terrorist can be barred from resettling in the United States. Compounding this situation is the irrationally broad definition of terrorism put forth by Congress. Since passage of the Patriot Act, a "terrorist organization" can be any "group of two or more individuals, whether organized or not," that uses an "explosive, firearm, or other weapon or dangerous device (other than for mere personal monetary gain), with intent to endanger, directly or indirectly, the safety of one or more individuals or to cause substantial damage to property." In other words, just about any kind of violence can qualify as terrorism--even when it is a struggle that advances democracy and even when it is being carried out in opposition to unjust regimes. What's more, anyone who gives "material support," however minimal, to such groups is ineligible for refugee status.

I taught at Hokkaido University, where a number of the Oum Shinrikyo followers were recruited, so had I been their earlier, I would have provided material support to a known terrorist organization. My next door colleague does Korean studies and I've helped him with English translations and he has spent a lot of time and effort in having our library amass a large collection of North Korean printed material, so that our library often is the only one with copies of various books and pamphlets from NK. You've seen the hamhanded attempts to punish people who deal with Cuba and how ineffectual they are, so it seems unavoidable that a law like this one is never going to succeed. The goal is to frighten people into not providing support, and so is so broadly written as to make anyone guilty if they are involved in dealing with people who could potentially have ties to the Iraq or other countries that the US is unhappy with.

This leads me to discuss the more general question of material support, which to me, it is just laziness, because a law that aims to dry up material support is a shortcut, bypassing attempts to try to educate people on what their individual responsibilities are and deal with groups that are going to resort to violence in the battlefield of ideas. It is saying, we can't actually convince people to stop supporting them, so let's clumsily threaten them so they will think twice before they support someone they don't know everything about. The law is simply fear talking, and because of that, is idiotic.

"In other words, just about any kind of violence can qualify as terrorism"

And I'd like to again remind people of what I think has gotten a remarkable lack of attention, which is that in fact people are being prosecuted as terrorists for ordinary crimes, like firing a gun on a street.

If it scares people in the course of the crime, they've terrorized people, and are therefore prosecutable as terrorists. And so people are being charged and put away.

Is this what people want? Any time someone is scared during a crime, the perp is a terrorist?


Because I don't understand why everyone hasn't been blogging and screaming about this, myself.

My own view is that it is because terrorism is the new communism, which was the new anarchism, i.e. the term de jour to use to frighten people. Looking at how successful screaming and yelling were in stopping people from using the first two terms as a brush to smear anything and everything, I'm not sure if blogging and screaming will make a difference, even though you are spot on about the stupidity of it.

Hillary Clinton, of course, played no role in her husband's rendition policies. She can't have; she didn't have a security clearance.

Isn't this just a bit naive? She may not have had a security clearance, but what about the respective personalities of her and Bill makes you assume that 1) she would never have tried to talk to Bill about such matters, and 2) he would have always had the self-control not to respond?

OCS--lj has it right. I don't normally hold with "one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter", but in this case define "terrorist group" such that there's no question that George Washington & the continental army would count. They define "material support" to include something as minimal as a bowl of rice or forced labor or 'allowing' terrorists to sleep in your home. They also define it to include a doctor providing medical care--even though of course we require medical personnel in our own army to provide medical care to the enemy. They do not make an exception for "support" provided under duress--so, a family who "allows" terrorists to stay in their home at gunpoint qualifies; it gets used against people who are *victims* of terrorism.

See this post and thread for more. The rescue committtee is probably the best source on how this is screwing up refugee admissions.

Leahy's amendment would have still barred who provide real support to actual terrorist organizations.

Personal anecdote, re: terrorism charges for "ordinary crimes."

I was actually charged with terrorism for participating in a nonviolent political protest sponsored by an internationally recognized pacifist environmental organization. Specifically, conspiracy to disrupt the nation's energy supplies (y'see, some of the energy company's employees were "scared" by our protest).

Mind you, it was in Texas. And the judge tossed the charge like a salad (as they say). But it was a pretty interesting view into the potential for wide-scale, Stalinist-like abuse. For what it's worth.

LJ and Katherine: Thanks for the responses. I guess I have no problem with the concept, but I’d like to see it tightened up (more rigorous definition of what constitutes terrorism) and the prosecution should have to prove that you knowingly provided material support to someone you had grounds to believe was a terrorist at the time (under a more rigorous definition).

S.G.E.W. – your personal anecdote actually has the most impact here. Thanks.

I guess I have no problem with the concept

I've been thinking about it a bit more, and I wonder if it wouldn't be too harsh to frame it in this way, especially since you use the word 'knowingly'.

As a conservative/libertarian type, you've often suggested (I think) that a problem with lawmaking now is that we often try to spread the net to criminalize behavior in way thatis overly broad. I'd suggest that any kind of 'material support' concept, severed as it is from notions of intent and meaning, is just like those laws that you (or at least people on the right-ish side) have railed against. The idea that materially supporting terrorists is bad is something that can be agreed to with the same fervour that we can agree that child pornography is bad. Yet I think you have pointed out the problems that occur when the urge occurs to punish anyone who somehow ends up with something defined as child pornography (I seem to remember you mentioning that someone you know got in trouble for 1 image on his computer that probably got sent to him as spam). The concept of disliking child pornography is clear, but trying to find a way to punish people who aren't knowingly involved in distributing it just leads to confusion.

(if I am just imagining that you told an anecdote along these lines, apologies in advance)

Please note that I'm talking about immigration laws, not criminal laws. There are criminal "material support" laws & they have a lot of critics but they're not quite as broad. I am not kidding or exaggeratomg about refugees being excluded on grounds like "you let the rebels who raped you sleep in your house--that's material support!" Leahy's amendment was specifically tailored to end these absurdities, while still keeping out people who actually provided meaningful support to actual terrorist organizations.

"LJ and Katherine: Thanks for the responses."

You're welcome. Cough.

I agree that the 'material support' idea as currently employed has all of the annoying definitional abuse problems of 'hate crimes' and drug forfeiture policies. Analytically a conservative should oppose the former for the same reasons as the latter.

"I agree that the 'material support' idea as currently employed has all of the annoying definitional abuse problems of 'hate crimes' and drug forfeiture policies"

I'm pointing out that the charge of terrorism, as currently defined in law and prosecuted in court, is nutso-broad, since all that is required is that people be scared during the commission of a crime for you to be found guilty of terrorism.

Comment, Sebastian, OCSteve?

Not really Sebastian. The problem with "material support" is that it criminalizes/deports/excludes people based on entirely innocent behavior. If you object to treating some violence as worse than others based on its motivation & historic connection w/ killing large #s of people, then laws specifically directed against TERRORISM, as opposed to plain old murder, assault, kidnapping, etc. would seem to be problematic in themselves. So would the "persecution ON ACCOUNT OF" requirement for asylum.

If you're saying that anti-terrorism laws are problematic precisely because they spread beyond the clear cut examples, I sort of see what you mean, but that's not the crux of the issue w/ material support.

I agree with you Gary. 'Terrorism' as currently defined is ridiculous. If we are going to treat it purely from a crime perspective, traditional murder statutes and old style (non-RICO) conspiracy laws are fine.

Katherine, "If you're saying that anti-terrorism laws are problematic precisely because they spread beyond the clear cut examples"

I definitely believe that a problem with anti-terrorism laws is that they spread past the clear-cut examples. The problem with 'material support' as currently implemented is that it isn't all that 'material'.

I could easily get behind an attempt to punish actually *material* support freely given to people you know or strongly suspect to be terrorists. But here, 'material' means "almost anything we can think of that might have remote support" and I'm not happy with that.

But it does mirror the drug forfeiture laws--anything with a remote connection (or nowadays even a suspected remote connection) gets taken.

LJ: I seem to remember you mentioning that someone you know got in trouble for 1 image on his computer that probably got sent to him as spam

You’re right, that was me.

I'd suggest that any kind of 'material support' concept, severed as it is from notions of intent and meaning, is just like those laws that you (or at least people on the right-ish side) have railed against.

I agree. In fact that’s what I thought I said… Maybe I wasn’t strong enough on what I meant by knowingly? If the prosecution has to prove that the person a) knew the person they were aiding was in fact a terrorist and b) knew it at the time they offered material support, and c) was not under any duress when they did so – that seems like a pretty high bar that is unlikely to catch up any innocents.

Gary: You're welcome. Cough.

Sorry dude – I didn’t realize that was in response to me – you quoted LJ’s comment…

FWIW though, I have no problem with a gang-banger who kills a 10 year old girl and wounds someone else being put away, using any charge the prosecutor has available.

…the terrorism charge fit because Mr. Morales and his gang had terrorized Mexicans and Mexican-Americans in the west Bronx for years through violence and intimidation. It also provided for a far more substantial sentence. (linked article)

I'm pointing out that the charge of terrorism, as currently defined in law and prosecuted in court, is nutso-broad, since all that is required is that people be scared during the commission of a crime for you to be found guilty of terrorism. (Gary)

OK – so I would prefer that he was charged under RICO. I don’t agree with an additional penalty because the prosecutor managed to stuff this into a box labeled terrorism. But then IMO there should be no possible additional penalty because he should have gotten death to begin with…

Katherine: Thanks for the clarification re: immigration laws vs. not criminal laws.

"FWIW though, I have no problem with a gang-banger who kills a 10 year old girl and wounds someone else being put away, using any charge the prosecutor has available."

I may not have been clear in what I was asking, OCSteve.

I wasn't asking what you thought the punishment should be for murder, nor what you thought that particular criminal's punishment should be, interesting as those topics may be. (Neither will I open up your apparent implication that the ends justifies the means, if the end is putting away a child-murderer.)

I was asking you if you think it's a good idea for our law to be what it is, which is that all that is required for someone to be found guilty of terrorism is that people be scared during the commission of their crime.

When people talk about "terrorists" and "fighting terrorism" and "the war on terrorism," are they in fact talking about every mugger, and every frightening panhandler, in the United States of America?

Or, rather, do they realize that that's what they're talking about under current law?

And do you think this is sane policy?

Anyone else?

Incidentally, OCSteve, have you ever seen A Man For All Seasons?

Gary: I was asking you if you think it's a good idea for our law to be what it is, which is that all that is required for someone to be found guilty of terrorism is that people be scared during the commission of their crime.

Sorry – I wasn’t clear enough. Existing laws sufficed to put him away without bringing terrorism into it.

I would imagine that every crime victim feels fear during the commission of the crime…

The first lady doesn't have a security clearance? Seriously?

i juss would like to know why hillary cliton is acting like a republican rather that a democrat....why is shes not playing by the rules 1.attacking obama 2.campaining in Micigen 3.not being truthfull and then blamng obama and $. stop being unetical,,,,stop trying to destry the democratic party

I have a question for Hillary, my brother needs a heart transplant, his left kidney has shut down, he also has a blockage to his heart. He has Grimes & Tiesh as his attorneys. They have been trying to get his disability started and they keep denying him. So what do you have to do to get this started, I"m not sure but I think that he takes 15 different medications.Do you worry about where your next $1.00 will come from, or do you give up and die?

A few yrs. ago, Hillary Clinton took credit for the little bit of activity that occurred at the closed Griffiss AFB, Rome,NY. In short she wanted to be seen at a reception and in the planning asked that blue colar workers not come!! That offended the plane mechanics etc., most of which were retired from the military in that area left behind because the area became devasted and houses wouldn't sell. What right does she say she supports the working class! The people that experienced this will never forget and share the sad event with others.

The comments to this entry are closed.