This is similar to the 'question' asked in cases of "state secrets privilege" assertion: Would the disclosure 'harm' the 'national security'. This determination is done by the executive and given (for reasons totally mysterious to me) great deference by the judiciary.

But is it the right question: It's like asking if the prosecution and imprisonment of a bank robber would impinge his free speech and free assembly rights. Why, yes, but that ain't the point....

It is quite true that the exposure of illegal acts by the executive can (and should) have a tendency to discourage furtehr such acts, and if 'intelligence' was gathered by such means, this would now have to be done by other means (presumably more difficult, unless we assume the executive decided to break the law just because they can), if at all. So, yes, 'playing by the rules' might impinge on surveillance capabilities.

And in fact, if the intelligence activities were in fact useless, even the 'embarrassment' of having this pointed out could subject the executive and the country to contempt and ridicule, and "embolden our enemies", and thus also hurt the national security (this last was, in fact, even offered with a straight face as a justification for secrecy in such cases, and a reason to harass, terminate or prosecute those that would expose such wrongdoing).

The "damage to national security" can't be the only consideration as to whether secrecy should be imposed. This would make the "exception swallow the rule".

Cheers,
 

What the Bush Administration may have actually done could be more damaging to America's national security than disclosing, admitting, what was done. Apparently confession is not good for the soul of the Bush Administration. It's time to reread Joseph Heller's "Catch 22" to understand Bush 43.
 

So far as I can tell from the limited facts provided in the unclassified opinion, the petitioner is seeking this information to allegedly prove that the evidence to be offered against him during a hypothetical future military commission was coerced and thus unreliable. However, it would appear that this request is far from ripe given that no such evidence has been offered to date.

When (or more properly if) such evidence is offered AND such evidence was allegedly obtained during a period which petitioner claimed to have been tortured AND if that evidence was admitted by the judge presiding over the military commission,* THEN and only then would the matter be ripe for the British court and then would the British court have the information to limit a review of the classified materials to relevant facts and not a general fishing expedition.

*The judge presiding over the initial military commission denied admissibility any evidence obtained during intelligence gathering interrogations which allegedly involved coercion. It is likely that this will and should be the standard for criminal prosecutions.
 

"Bart" DeConstitoo-shun:

So far as I can tell from the limited facts provided in the unclassified opinion, the petitioner is seeking this information to allegedly prove that the evidence to be offered against him during a hypothetical future military commission was coerced and thus unreliable. However, it would appear that this request is far from ripe given that no such evidence has been offered to date.

When (or more properly if) such evidence is offered AND such evidence was allegedly obtained during a period which petitioner claimed to have been tortured AND if that evidence was admitted by the judge presiding over the military commission,* THEN and only then would the matter be ripe for the British court and then would the British court have the information to limit a review of the classified materials to relevant facts and not a general fishing expedition.

*The judge presiding over the initial military commission denied admissibility any evidence obtained during intelligence gathering interrogations which allegedly involved coercion. It is likely that this will and should be the standard for criminal prosecutions.

I kind of like these rules:

Amendment V

"No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

Amendment VI

"In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense.

Amendment VIII

"Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted."

No one has explained why they won't do just fine for what we need to do here.

Under these rules, coerced confessions (much less torture) are categorically banned, and prosecutions tainted with such are irretrievably compromised ... and for good reason. Even if a "chinese wall" is created, simply the initial coercion of a "confession" has poisoned the case. The defendant can never wipe that from his mind. The thought (as enacted into law in the horrific MCA) that we would even consider introducing such evidence is beyond comprehension in a country whose constitution proclaims such a Bill of Rights as ours.

Cheers,
 

For those who wish to see the judgment on line, here is the link: Mohamed, R (on the application of) v Secretary of State for Foreign & Commonwealth Affairs [2008] EWHC 2048 (Admin) (21 August 2008)

There are one or two observations which may be pertinent.

1. The Administrative Court is a specialist court which is part of the Queen's Bench Division of the High Court which hears judicial review cases - applications for certiorari, mandamus, prohibition and for declaratory relief. One of the two Judges is from the Court of Appeal, the other is a High Court Judge. The originating process in this case was issued on 6th May 2008, the substantive hearing commenced on 28th July 2008 and judgment was delivered on 21st August 2008. You may think that this represents reasonable despatch. On other threads of this blog I have questioned the time taken by the US Court system for the various habeas corpus applications. I venture to suggest that the US Courts have been far too deferential to the executive in terms of the time allowed to take steps to bring matters to substantive hearing.

2. It will be noted that the applicant was represented by two groups of Counsel, one designated as "Special Advocates" and that the Court refers to an "open" and a "closed" judgment. Special Advocates are members of the bar who have special security clearance and are therefore permitted to see classified material which the Government objects to a party and his counsel seeing. They take the party's instructions up to the point where the classified material is disclosed, then a chinese wall comes down and they may no longer communicate with the party or his counsel without the permission of the Court. The inability to take instructions is, of course, a considerable disadvantage to the defence, but it is at least better than having the judge make decisions on whether classified material should be disclosed or not without any assistance from counsel who has seen what is in the classified papers and knows what the defence case is.

3. The Court approached the issue on the footing that the papers of which disclosure was sought and ordered were germane to the applicant's defence and therefore he ought to have them for the purposes of (i) making representations to the Convening Authority with a view to the proceedings being halted in limine and (ii) thereafter for the purposes of his Defence. See paragraphs 105-107 and 146-147.

4. At paras 148-149, the Court has afforded the Secretary of State a brief period to either agree disclosure with the defence in the light of the judgment or come back and further argue state immunity issues.

5. The language is very restrained, as one might expect from a Court at this level, but one can discern a degree of irritation with the attitude of the US authorities and with the absence of any attempt to put in evidence as to the adequacy of the Military Commission procedures. See in particular Para 147 at subparas x) to xiv).

Bart de Palma (see above) asserts:-

"However, it would appear that this request is far from ripe given that no such evidence has been offered to date."

Bart claims to practise as a criminal defence lawyer. Ye Gods and little fishes! "Not ripe" after 6 years! and after repeated requests made!

What the "open" judgment makes clear is that the Court has conducted a detailed review of the documentary and oral evidence in the "closed judgment" and has reached a view that the A category documents are essential to a consideration (i) as to whether the trial ought to proceed at all and (ii) to the conduct of the defence if it does. It seems to me that a military judge might find the conclusions of the English Court - both "open" and "closed" of some passing interest, particularly the formulations of principle set out in paragraph 147 of the open judgment.

What the Court is not going to do is make the classified information available to the general public. The disclosure is going to be ordered on terms that the papers are used only in the US proceedings and presumably in closed sessions unless a US decision permits reference to them in open court. But it looks as if the information may identify potential witnesses who are US and UK persons who may be compellable in the US proceedings. The fact that a UK intelligence officer had to be warned of his right not to answer questions which might tend to incriminate him as an accomplice to war crimes speaks for itself. That officer's evidence may also be of use to the defence.

This judgment is going to have repercussions in terms of intelligence co-operation. This is going to make UK co-operation with the US intelligence services subject to more constraints - which cannot be good for the fight against terrorism - and that only because of US disregard for generally accepted international law principles in relation to the treatment of prisoners. The US authorities have only themselves to blame. But the resulting situation is not only harmful to the US security interest, but also harmful to that of the UK.
 

Mourad said,

>>>>>>> But it looks as if the information may identify potential witnesses who are US and UK persons who may be compellable in the US proceedings. The fact that a UK intelligence officer had to be warned of his right not to answer questions which might tend to incriminate him as an accomplice to war crimes speaks for itself. <<<<<<<

One possible solution is to grant immunity to those who may be called upon to testify.

The UK's desire to foster its "special relationship" with the USA has turned the UK into a goon of the USA. What does the UK get out of this "special relationship"? Not much.
 

"What does the UK get out of this 'special relationship'"?

Perpetuation of the Anglo-Saxon myth of superiority?
 

Mourad Says...

Bart claims to practise as a criminal defence lawyer. Ye Gods and little fishes! "Not ripe" after 6 years! and after repeated requests made!

The petitioner has been held as an enemy prisoner or war (generic) for the past six years.

Perhaps I missed it in my skimming of the lengthy opinion, but the petitioner did not appear to be seeking this information for the purposes of challenging his status as an enemy combatant in during a status review. Rather, he is claiming that he is going to be put to death by a military commission on the basis of unidentified coerced admissions and that the information held by the British would prove these admissions to be inadmissible.

My point is that this argument should not be ripe until such admissions are actually offered by the prosecution during the military commission process.
 

In response to Larry and Shag's posts above, I think that the proper question is not "What does the UK get out of the Special Relationship?" We need to consider what it is.

The term was first used by Winston S. Churchill, a citizen of both our countries, in a speech delivered at Westminster College in Fulton, Missouri on 5th March 1946 The Sinews of Peace.

The speech is an abiding evocation of values our nations ought to hold in common:-

"Now I come to the second danger of these two marauders which threatens the cottage, the home, and the ordinary people - namely, tyranny. We cannot be blind to the fact that the liberties enjoyed by individual citizens throughout the British Empire are not valid in a considerable number of countries, some of which are very powerful. In these States control is enforced upon the common people by various kinds of all-embracing police governments. The power of the State is exercised without restraint, either by dictators or by compact oligarchies operating through a privileged party and a political police. It is not our duty at this time when difficulties are so numerous to interfere forcibly in the internal affairs of countries which we have not conquered in war.

But we must never cease to proclaim in fearless tones the great principles of freedom and the rights of man which are the joint inheritance of the English-speaking world and which through Magna Carta, the Bill of Rights, the Habeas Corpus, trial by jury, and the English common law find their most famous expression in the American Declaration of Independence.

All this means that the people of any country have the right, and should have the power by constitutional action, by free unfettered elections, with secret ballot, to choose or change the character or form of government under which they dwell; that freedom of speech and thought should reign; that courts of justice, independent of the executive, unbiased by any party, should administer laws which have received the broad assent of large majorities or are consecrated by time and custom. Here are the title deeds of freedom which should lie in every cottage home. Here is the message of the British and American peoples to mankind. Let us preach what we practice - let us practice - what we preach."

Churchill was, of course speaking of the need for international organisations such as the UN and NATO and there were two specific references which I think remain valid today:-

"The safety of the world requires a new unity in Europe, from which no nation should be permanently outcast. It is from the quarrels of the strong parent races in Europe that the world wars we have witnessed, or which occurred in former times, have sprung. Twice in our own lifetime we have seen the United States, against their wishes and their traditions, against arguments, the force of which it is impossible not to comprehend, drawn by irresistible forces, into these wars in time to secure the victory of the good cause, but only after frightful slaughter and devastation had occurred. Twice the United States has had to send several millions of its young men across the Atlantic to find the war; but now war can find any nation, wherever it may dwell between dusk and dawn. Surely we should work with conscious purpose for a grand pacification of Europe, within the structure of the United Nations and in accordance with its Charter. That I feel is an open cause of policy of very great importance."

Churchhill is speaking not merely of a US-UK relationship but also that with the other Dominions with the same traditions and to the extent that the "special relationship" is an affirmation of the values which stem from our common legal and constitutional doctrines, I happen to think that it is a relationship which ought to be cherished and built upon.

Let no man underrate the abiding power of the British Empire and Commonwealth. Because you see the 46 millions in our island harassed about their food supply, of which they only grow one half, even in war-time, or because we have difficulty in restarting our industries and export trade after six years of passionate war effort, do not suppose that we shall not come through these dark years of privation as we have come through the glorious years of agony, or that half a century from now, you will not see 70 or 80 millions of Britons spread about the world and united in defense of our traditions, our way of life, and of the world causes which you and we espouse.

If the population of the English-speaking Commonwealths be added to that of the United States with all that such co-operation implies in the air, on the sea, all over the globe and in science and in industry, and in moral force, there will be no quivering, precarious balance of power to offer its temptation to ambition or adventure. On the contrary, there will be an overwhelming assurance of security. If we adhere faithfully to the Charter of the United Nations and walk forward in sedate and sober strength seeking no one's land or treasure, seeking to lay no arbitrary control upon the thoughts of men; if all British moral and material forces and convictions are joined with your own in fraternal association, the high-roads of the future will be clear, not only for us but for all, not only for our time, but for a century to come."

I find a reaffirmation of that principle in this heartfelt cry on the blog of an English Justice of the Peace The Magistrate's Blog [post dated 8th August 2008].

"Oh My America!

As I type this I am watching Peter Ackroyd's programme about the Thames, and I have just been stirred by a shot of the memorial at Runnymede, celebrating 'Freedom Under The Law'.

I have been a lifelong admirer of the American dream, one that has delivered freedom and prosperity to unprecedented numbers of people, and has in the last century unselfishly spent blood and treasure to liberate the Europe from which its ideals and principles spring in large part.

That's why Magna Carta struck such a chord. The barbarians who currently hold power in America have junked more than 200 years' worth of freedom under the law in an obsession to avenge the unbearable hurt of 9/11. If the Founding Fathers could see what is being done in their name at Guantanamo, with its travesty of legal process, they would surely weep.

The memorial that moved me to write this was paid for by American lawyers. They owe it to their nation to redress the wrongs now being perpetrated.

Properly understood, the "Special Relationship" is an affirmation of common values from which we depart at our moral peril.
 

Readers may be interested to know more about the organisation providing the representation in this and other UK cases:

Reprieve

I expect that many members of the UK bar appear pro bono (and these are top names) and I think about 100 US law firms are acting pro bono in the USA - so lawyers on both sides of the pond do have consciences.
 

Well, I want to know as an American citizen what my government did to this guy in my name. So whether the English pussyfoot or the Americans pussyfoot about it. I want to know. So kindly Mr. Attorney General put the file on the web and let me and other Americans look at it as we decide who to support in our elections. None of the hidden crap like in 2004.
And there is nothing in all these doctrines that prevents this information from being out in the open except that there are people with power who do not want it out in the open. All the rest of it is just word games. Show me what we did. Where was this guy for TWO YEARS? What did we do to him?
Cut the crap.
Best,
Ben
 

Bart again:-

"My point is that this argument should not be ripe until such admissions are actually offered by the prosecution during the military commission process."

I take this to be an admission that the process of review of prosecutions by the Convening Authority (as to which there is a continuing duty) is so flawed that it is a waste of time.

That does not say a lot of good about the holder of that Office or her legal advisers.

What was it Churchill said again?
Ah yes:-

"courts of justice, independent of the executive, unbiased by any party".

Members of the bar are in a real sense members of the court and that is particularly true of prosecuting authorities.

Where a prosecutor finds that he has tainted evidence, it is his duty in the interests of justice to withdraw it from consideration, not to lead it in the hope that it might "get by".
 

Guests, like fish, after three days smell. Now six years is really ripe, isn't it? In contrast, a DUI defendent might sober up with six years of confinement as well as do no harm to others driving, perhaps benefiting both himself and society.
 

The special relationship between the US and UK is the security of a constant alliance in an inconstant world of changing alliances between rival powers.

This special relationship creates the world's dominant power alliance because it joins the lead creators and practitioners of the Anglo-American political economy as described in an excellent book by Walter Mead entitled "God and Gold." Under this political economy, neither the UK or the US individually nor the alliance of the two have ever lost a major power war or had their territory invaded by a foreign power outside of this alliance for the past 400+ years. Rather, the alliance has ensured historically unparalleled peace and prosperity to their countries.

Anyone with a passing knowledge of the ravages of world history recognizes that this is a special relationship indeed.

The historical piffle that is the subject of this case will not even merit a footnote in the history of this special relationship nevertheless endanger the alliance.
 

Bart,

You keep using the word "nevertheless". I do not think this means what you think it means.
 

mourad said...

Bart again: "My point is that this argument should not be ripe until such admissions are actually offered by the prosecution during the military commission process."

I take this to be an admission that the process of review of prosecutions by the Convening Authority (as to which there is a continuing duty) is so flawed that it is a waste of time.

Hardly.

This issue would be ripe at the first stage when the prosecution is required to disclose their evidence for a military commission trial and only to the extent that the evidence consists of admissions by the defendant that were allegedly coerced.

I do not recall from my admittedly quick perusal of the court opinion the discussion of the disclosure of any particular confession which the petitioner sought to exclude as coerced. Thus, I have to conclude that this disclosure has not occurred yet, the matter is not ripe and the defense is on a fishing expedition for information which is not relevant to the claim they are making.

If you have read the opinion in detail and can offer a citation to the parts which would address this concern, I would be grateful as I am too busy today at work to do so.
 

Bart, again, and again:-

1. "This special relationship creates the world's dominant power alliance..."

2. "Thus, I have to conclude that this disclosure has not occurred yet, the matter is not ripe and the defense is on a fishing expedition for information which is not relevant to the claim they are making"

On the first point, our "loathsome spotted reptile" still doesn't get it, does he?

If it means anything the "special relationshship" is primarily about values and the beneficent use of power to sustain those values.

It is the abandonment of those values by the Bush Administration and the amoral malign misuse of power that has brought the Administration into such disrepute throughout the civilised word. To the extent that under Blair (and Brown) our government has colluded in that process, our standing has been diminished too.

Our Courts have "got the message" about the Military Commissions. The Court in the decision at issue did not need to cite a US authority for the proposition that coerced or induced confessions are inadmissible. It chose to do so and it is worth recalling the precise words of the Supreme Court decision cited and accepted as an authority by the English Court:-

"The maxim "nemo tenetur seipsum accusare" had its origin in a protest against the inquisitorial and manifestly unjust methods of interrogating accused persons which has long obtained in the continental system, the British throne in 1688, and the erection of additional barriers for the protection of the people against the exercise of arbitrary power, was not uncommon even in England. While the admissions or confessions of the prisoner, when voluntarily and freely made, have always ranked high in the scale of incriminating evidence, if an accused person be asked to explain his apparent connection with a crime under investigation, the ease with which the questions put to him may assume an inquisitorial character, the temptation to press the witness unduly, to browbeat him if he be timid or reluctant, to push him into a corner, and to entrap him into fatal contradictions, which is so painfully evident in many of the earlier state trials, notably in those of Sir Nicholas Throckmortion, and Udal, the Puritan minister, made the system so odious as to give rise to a demand for its total abolition.

The change in the English criminal procedure in that particular seems to be founded upon no statute and no judicial opinion, but upon a general and silent acquiescence of the courts in a popular demand. But, however adopted, it has become firmly imbedded in English, as well as in American, jurisprudence. So deeply did the iniquities of the ancient system impress themselves upon the minds of the American colonists that the States, with one accord, made a denial of the right to question an accused person a part of their fundamental law, so that a maxim which, in England, was a mere rule of evidence became clothed in this country with the impregnability of a constitutional enactment. Brown v Walker 161 US 591 (1896), at pp 596-7.

The English Court is not going to "pussyfoot". The Order for disclosure has been made and the Secretary of State will comply. In view of the attitude manifested by the US authorities, I doubt that there would be any stay pending appeal.

As to the 2nd point, Bart is once again pontificating on matters of which he is ignorant. This was a civil not a criminal application for disclosure. The applicant (not "the petitioner") brought the application under the "Norwich Pharmacal" jurisdiction which is absolutely classic equitable relief - much used in fraud, copyright infringement and the like. See para 63:-

The principle in "Norwich Pharmacal" is best described is in the speech of Lord Reid (at page 175): "If through no fault of his own a person gets mixed up in the tortious acts of others so as to facilitate their wrongdoing he may incur no personal liability but he comes under a duty to assist the person who has been wronged by giving him full information and disclosing the identity of the wrongdoers. I do not think that it matters whether he became so mixed up by voluntary action on his part or because it was his duly to do what he did. It may be that if this causes him expense the person seeking the information ought to reimburse him. But justice requires that he should co-operate in righting the wrong if he unwittingly facilitated its perpetration."

At paragraphs 64 and 65 the Court sets out the allged wrongdoing and went on to say:-

"64. It was accepted on behalf of the Foreign Secretary that BM had established an arguable case that:

i) After being subject to torture and cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment in Pakistan, he was unlawfully rendered from Pakistan to Morocco by the United States authorities,

ii) Whilst in Morocco he was subject to unlawful incommunicado detention and torture during his interrogation there by or on behalf of the United States authorities.

iii) He was unlawfully rendered by the United States authorities from Morocco to Afghanistan on 21 or 22 January 2004

iv) He was detained unlawfully and incommunicado at the "Dark Prison" near Kabul and thereafter at the United States Air Force base at Bagram.

v) He was tortured or subject to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment by or on behalf of the United States authorities in the "Dark Prison".

65. In the light of the concession that there was an arguable case of wrongdoing and in the light of the further concession that it was sufficient for the purposes of obtaining Norwich Pharmacal relief if an arguable case of wrongdoing was advanced, it was not necessary for us to determine whether there was in fact any wrongdoing by or on behalf of the United States Government. It is important to emphasise that we therefore do not do so..

It is the US criminal justice system - in specie the Military Commission and the appellate jurisdictions therefrom which have to determine the facts.

The English civil application was made on the footing that agents of the Secretary of State by the agents of the Intelligence Service had arguably gotten themselves mixed up in the alleged wrongdoing and were therefore under a duty to assist by giving full information and disclosing the identity of the wrong doers. If there has been wrong doing, the Court has done what it can to ensure that the applicant has the material he needs for his defence (and incidentally also for possible actions against the wrongdoers).

PS - Bart says he is at work today - what a frightening thought.
 

Mourad:

1) The special relationship between our two countries has nothing to do with your personal values or the issues raised in this litigation. It is relationship built on a common political economy.

2) The ripeness argument which I have posited applies in civil and criminal matters. From a civil viewpoint, petitioner is essentially demanding discovery from a plaintiff before the plaintiff has even filed suit.

What this entire exercise appears to be is an attempt by US attorneys to engage in a fishing expedition in Britain to obtain politically embarrassing but legally irrelevant evidence in the hope of scaring the US Convening Authority from even sending this matter to trial.
 

Bart said:

From a civil viewpoint, petitioner is essentially demanding discovery from a plaintiff before the plaintiff has even filed suit.

Thank you, that is a nice way of summing up the doctrine of Norwich Pharmaceutical. You are aware that ripeness is an essentially American concept?

O, and while you're at it, please explain why it is "legally irrelevant" for this guy to know where he's been for two years of his life, and for him to be able to prove what happened to him during that time.
 

Martinned:

Actually, I was not aware that the UK did not utilize a ripeness doctrine. I have learned something new.

In any case, evidence that an admission is coerced is only relevant to the petitioner's military commission trial if the prosecution is indeed going to offer the challenged admission. If not, the evidence is irrelevant.
 

Thank you, that is a nice way of summing up the doctrine of Norwich Pharmaceutical. You are aware that ripeness is an essentially American concept?

American law does provide for discovery in advance of litigation. Rule 27 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides as follows (in relevant part):

"Depositions to Perpetuate Testimony
(a) Before an Action Is Filed.
(1) Petition.

A person who wants to perpetuate testimony about any matter cognizable in a United States court may file a verified petition in the district court for the district where any expected adverse party resides. The petition must ask for an order authorizing the petitioner to depose the named persons in order to perpetuate their testimony. The petition must be titled in the petitioner's name and must show:

(A) that the petitioner expects to be a party to an action cognizable in a United States court but cannot presently bring it or cause it to be brought;

(B) the subject matter of the expected action and the petitioner's interest;

(C) the facts that the petitioner wants to establish by the proposed testimony and the reasons to perpetuate it;

(D) the names or a description of the persons whom the petitioner expects to be adverse parties and their addresses, so far as known; and

(E) the name, address, and expected substance of the testimony of each deponent.

(2) Notice and Service.

At least 20 days before the hearing date, the petitioner must serve each expected adverse party with a copy of the petition and a notice stating the time and place of the hearing. The notice may be served either inside or outside the district or state in the manner provided in Rule 4. If that service cannot be made with reasonable diligence on an expected adverse party, the court may order service by publication or otherwise. The court must appoint an attorney to represent persons not served in the manner provided in Rule 4 and to cross-examine the deponent if an unserved person is not otherwise represented. If any expected adverse party is a minor or is incompetent, Rule 17(c) applies.

(3) Order and Examination.

If satisfied that perpetuating the testimony may prevent a failure or delay of justice, the court must issue an order that designates or describes the persons whose depositions may be taken, specifies the subject matter of the examinations, and states whether the depositions will be taken orally or by written interrogatories. The depositions may then be taken under these rules, and the court may issue orders like those authorized by Rules 34 and 35. A reference in these rules to the court where an action is pending means, for purposes of this rule, the court where the petition for the deposition was filed.

(4) Using the Deposition.

A deposition to perpetuate testimony may be used under Rule 32(a) in any later-filed district-court action involving the same subject matter if the deposition either was taken under these rules or, although not so taken, would be admissible in evidence in the courts of the state where it was taken."
 

If something is ripe too long it gets rotten. But if something begins rotten, it doesn't get a chance to ripen and ripeness is thus not in issue. If something is rotten in Denmark, should it be covered up or aired?
 

@Bart: As such, Ripeness is a US law doctrine, that is connected to other separation of powers questions. (Case or Controversy requirement, etc.) As such, one would not expect it to travel well outside the US.

That said, of course in all jurisdictions a plaintiff will have difficulty prevailing if some of the facts that underlie his claim concern uncertain future events. However, that is less of a factor if the plaintiff is seeking an injuction.

(Eg., my country's civil code says quite simply, that, unless the law, etc. says otherwise, a person who has a legal obligation to give, do or not do, will be ordered by a court to [give, etc.] upon the application of the person who is entitled to such. (It sounds less clunky in the original.) Of course this rule is limited by the rules on standing, but still.)

In this case, the doctrine that the plaintiff used was meant explicitly to cover future claims as well. That takes care of all the concerns that, under US law, are covered by the ripeness doctrine. (Remember that the Norwich Pharmacal rule is an equitable remedy, which explains why the claimant is allowed a little more leeway here.)
 

Oh dear, oh dear, Bart again:

"1. The ripeness argument which I have posited applies in civil and criminal matters. From a civil viewpoint, petitioner is essentially demanding discovery from a plaintiff before the plaintiff has even filed suit.

2. "The special relationship between our two countries has nothing to do with your personal values or the issues raised in this litigation. It is relationship built on a common political economy.

What this entire exercise appears to be is an attempt by US attorneys to engage in a fishing expedition in Britain to obtain politically embarrassing but legally irrelevant evidence in the hope of scaring the US Convening Authority from even sending this matter to trial.

Bart should attempt to get it into his thick skull that these were English proceedings brought in an English Court against a UK Defendant under the English Rules of Civil Procedure. There are a whole raft of remedies (including disclosure) why may be applied for before action begun. See Civil Procedure Rules - Part 25.

But judging by the date of the application and the date of the hearing, this was undoubtedly a claim commenced in the ordinary way and expedited by the Court.

The "Norwich Pharmacal" principle permits a self-standing action for discovery for use (i)in other proceedings within or outside the jurisdiction, (ii)to vindicate one's reputation or seek redress by means other than litigation, such as arbitration, mediation, application for ex gratia payment.

The applicant obviously did not appear in person. He is, presently detained elsewhere.

But it is sufficient that like many other overseas litigants he appeared by English solicitors and counsel. Nothing unusual about that. What may be unusual in US terms are the Special Advocates. I have explained that these are ordinary members of the bar who have agreed to be vetted and security cleared. But the addional expense of having them participate is not down to the applicant. They are paid for out of the Attorney-General's budget in the interests of justice. As was the Amicus Curiae.

I do not see how evidence that a confession was obtained by ill-treatment or coercion of any kind could be legally irrelevant to the defence of criminal charges where such confessions are anticipated to be relied upon by the prosecution. When defending someone, it is permissible and, generally thought to be essential to the proper conduct of a defence to seek to conduct all investigations to ascertain what exculpatory evidence there may be and obtain it. One does not [unless perhaps one is Bart] wait to be drip-fed what a prosecutor may deign to release, nor assume that a prosecutor will disclose all that he ought to disclose.

As to point two, the "special relationship" is very much about the shared values of our common heritage including Magna Carta, the Bill of Rights, Habeas Corpus, trial by jury and no convictions on confessions obtained by ill-treatment or improper inducement.

Of course, the problem is that Bart has long advocated on this blog for the use of torture, the admissbility of confessions obtained by torture and the kangaroo courts of Guantanamo Bay.

Given half a chance, he would probably also wish replacement of the verdict of the jury [military or civilian] by a certificate of conviction signed by some functionary or other. Like the Red Queen in "Alice in Wonderland" (Chap XII) he is for "Sentence first! Verdict Afterwards!" and he probably enjoyed tearing he wings off flies when he was a nasty little boy.
 

"Bart" DeObtuse:

neither the UK or the US individually nor the alliance of the two have ever lost a major power war or had their territory invaded by a foreign power outside of this alliance for the past 400+ years.

You might explain that to the folks in Hong Kong, Burma, the Philippines, the Falklands, anonanon....

One might quibble about whether the above were justly the "territory" of the U.S. and the U.K., but they were de jure territories.

So much for the military 'intelligence' of the esteemed "Bart"....

Cheers,
 

"Bart" DePalma:

If you have read the opinion in detail and can offer a citation to the parts which would address this concern, I would be grateful as I am too busy today at work to do so.

Transalation from Republican into English: "Please read things for me."

Which might not be a bad idea; "Bart" seems to have difficulty in understanding the stuff he does read....

Tell you what, "Bart", since you're so busy, why not let others make your arguments for you as well. That would also improve the levlof discourse.

Cheers,
 

Mourad:

Petitioner is not a defendant before a British Court. He is a plaintiff seeking allegedly exculpatory evidence for admission in his defense before a US military court. Whether such evidence is relevant to the US military proceedings is or should be the primary issue before the British court. The evidence sought cannot be exculpatory if it is inadmissible in the US proceedings as irrelevant.

Furthermore, there should be no anticipation that admissions gained through torture will be admitted as evidence before the military commission as the commission has rejected all such evidence so far. Indeed, judicial comity would recommend that the British court have the good graces to wait until the US military commission has a chance to rule on the admissibility of such evidence before creating an international incident anticipating an adverse ruling which is contrary to current commission precedent.
 

@Bart: Are you saying that the evidence at issue here would be inadmissible as "irrelevant" in a court hearing of the case, such as a habeas hearing? Really?

I agree with you that there is no telling what the military commissions might do, but I don't quite see how you would expect an actual court of law to dismiss lawfully obtained evidence of an exculpatory nature. And remember, if it weren't exculpatory in nature, it could not be covered by a court order under Norwich Pharmacal.
 

Bart wrote:-

Indeed, judicial comity would recommend that the British court have the good graces to wait until the US military commission has a chance to rule on the admissibility of such evidence before creating an international incident anticipating an adverse ruling which is contrary to current commission precedent.

The problem with that observation is that the Convening Authority is not a Court within the Judicial Branch. Nevertheless the Court did take steps as may be seen from this passage from the Judgment:-

57. As it became clear to us when the hearing of the claim began that there would be considerable difficulties in completing the matter in the two days allotted for the case and as we would need some time to consider the extensive and difficult issues which arose, we wrote to the Foreign Secretary on 29 July 2008, the second day of the hearing. We asked him to consider drawing to the attention of the Convening Authority this case and the fact that normally in this jurisdiction; the Executive Branch of Government would not make a decision in advance of the court giving its judgment. Our request was addressed to the Foreign Secretary as the Convening Authority is not part of the judicial branch of the United States Government, but part of the Executive Branch. It was therefore for the Foreign Secretary to consider whether he should lay the matter before her. On the following day, Mr Bethlehem QC, the Legal Adviser, wrote to the Acting General Counsel of the Department of Defense (with a copy to the Legal Adviser to the State Department) enclosing our letter and asking him to draw it to the attention of the Convening Authority if appropriate.

58. It is a matter of considerable regret that no response was received, despite our reiterating our request in the course of the hearing.

Any defendant to process has an absolute right to seek out evidence which his counsel consider might assist him by all lawful means. When a claim is made for public interest immunity from production, the Court has a balancing act to perform. Where the applicant for disclosure is defending English process, the Court will embark on precisely the process carried out in this case.

If it decides that the material is necessary for proper defence purposes, the Crown will be put to its election: either it can made the disclosure, redacted or otherwise as the Court may direct, or it can abandon the prosecution.

Here the Convening Authority is not subject to the jurisdiction of the Court because it is the emanation of a foreign sovereign, so the balancing act is whether any potential embarrassment to HM Government occasioned by ordering disclosure outweighs the principle that a defendant is entitled to all material potentially relevant to the conduct of his defence in proceedings where he is in peril of his life.

The Court has conducted that exercise and decided that disclosure is proper. There is no need for any international incident.

Unless, of course, the US authorities have been trying to suppress evidence of official misconduct during the years the applicant was in the custody of the US authorities or of the authorities of other nations at the instance of the USA.

In which case the apposite maxim to be applied is: "Fiat justitia ruat caelum".
 

Bart, I think you are missing something: there is no real statute of limitations on the effects of torture. If someone can prove that torture occurred and that the person was, to use the interrogation parlance, broken, then all future admissions ought to be ruled out, regardless of whether they occurred on the waterboard or in the palace of the gods.

Consequently, since the alleged torture began at the beginning of Mr. Mohammed's incommunicado incarceration by the U.S. in Pakistan, it is relevant to any statements made by the defendant whatsoever in the trial, which, as I think you are also missing, was referred for trial in June by the Convening Authority. The details of the torture would be grounds for dismissal of the entire trial, which has already happened to Mohammed al Qahtani.

We've already seen a lack of understanding of this by one judge at Guantanamo. The FBI is known to have sent "clean" interrogators in, in advance of these commissions, to get non-coerced testimony that could be used, under very false pretenses, and that testimony has already been admitted once. So if I were defending Mr. Mohammed, I'd amass the strongest case I could about the torture and hope for a dismissal.

As for your idea that the search for evidence about torture is some kind of fishing expedition, it isn't. There is very little need to go fishing for evidence about U.S. torture, people know exactly where the evidence is, in the countries that have it. All that are needed is cases like these, suing for, essentially, freedom of information from foreign governments.

A lot of the tortures are so well documented by this point that the only thing keeping your boys out of jail is a bunch of rewritten implementations of Geneva and a timid U.S. Congress.
 

martinned said...

I don't quite see how you would expect an actual court of law to dismiss lawfully obtained evidence of an exculpatory nature. And remember, if it weren't exculpatory in nature, it could not be covered by a court order under Norwich Pharmacal.

That is a circular argument.

Here is a hypothetical for you to consider:

Tom the Terrorist trained with al Qaeda to conduct terrorist operations, but was captured before he did so.

The Evil CIA beat Tom within an inch of his life, obtained various intelligence and turned him over to the military for detention and prosecution.

The military prosecutor offers documents and other physical evidence found on Tom as well as the non-coerced and admissible testimony of four of Tom's fellow terrorists to prove Tom's guilt of war crimes under the MCA. None of the CIA's intelligence from Tom's beating is offered as evidence.

How is evidence of Tom's beating in any way relevant to the charges or evidence offered against Tom at his trial?

The fact that the Evil CIA acted unlawfully towards Tom is not a defense to Tom's war crimes.

Additionally, the fact that a court of law ignores the law and does what it pleases to make a political point is nothing new and is not proof in itself that the evidence against Tom is in fact relevant or exculpatory.
 

@Bart: Whatever else may be wrong with my previous comment, circular it is not. The claimant asked for a set of documents, which under the relevant law he can only have if the British court judges that they are exculpatory for in any criminal (or civil) proceedings against him. The only way that they could be "irrelevant" is if the later US court disagrees with the assessment of the court in the UK, which seems unlikely.

As for your hypothetical, it conveniently assumes away all the real life problems with such cases. Binyan Mohamed needs the documents he is asking for exactly in order to establish which evidence is "fruit of the poisonous tree". Those documents you mention, were they found only because of the information obtained by torture, or do the authorities have some unrelated story for how they got access to them? How will BM or the trial court know unless they have access to these documents.

Add to that the question of where you're going to get the uncoerced testimony of four other terrorists, and you can color me skeptical.
 

The bouquet of countries signing the accords on humane treatment of prisoners certainly seems so preponderant that the US would find its approach will isolate it to belonging to a diminutive group of permissively torturing nations among which US would find trustworthy "'intell' sharing relationships".
 

I was just intrigued by the following:

"The special relationship between the US and UK is the security of a constant alliance in an inconstant world of changing alliances between rival powers."

This is interesting; up until the special relationship between the US & Great Britain in WWII, we were first a rebellious set of territories, then a growing economic rival, and finally a competing world power, who at times was expected to go in on the other side of the two World Wars.

Yes, alliances change, even special relationships...e.g. France & Russia, Germany & Italy, England and Holland, and numerous others through history. Ours with the British has lasted some 60 years--historically shorter than some of the others, which also decayed when the interests, institutions, and goals of the nations drifted or were pushed apart. It is also much shorter than the total time our nations have been rivals on the world stage.

Someone who likes to push for power politics at its rawest in some venues, is very naive when considering its applications in other areas.
 

ondolette:

Bart, I think you are missing something: there is no real statute of limitations on the effects of torture. If someone can prove that torture occurred and that the person was, to use the interrogation parlance, broken, then all future admissions ought to be ruled out, regardless of whether they occurred on the waterboard or in the palace of the gods.

Consequently, since the alleged torture began at the beginning of Mr. Mohammed's incommunicado incarceration by the U.S. in Pakistan, it is relevant to any statements made by the defendant whatsoever in the trial, which, as I think you are also missing, was referred for trial in June by the Convening Authority. The details of the torture would be grounds for dismissal of the entire trial, which has already happened to Mohammed al Qahtani.

We've already seen a lack of understanding of this by one judge at Guantanamo. The FBI is known to have sent "clean" interrogators in, in advance of these commissions, to get non-coerced testimony that could be used, under very false pretenses, and that testimony has already been admitted once. So if I were defending Mr. Mohammed, I'd amass the strongest case I could about the torture and hope for a dismissal.

That's pretty much what I said above too.

The "chinese wall" really doesn't work too well when the suspect has already been "broken". You can't rewind and undo that damage.

Cheers,


Cheers,
 

martinned:

Add to that the question of where you're going to get the uncoerced testimony of four other terrorists, and you can color me skeptical.

Why, from four other Terra-ists after they've been tortured, and are then subsequently reinterviewed by a "clean" team..... ;-)

<*sheesh*> Even a neophyte in Yoomania like me can figger that kind of stuff out.

Cheers,
 

ondolette:

Bart, I think you are missing something: there is no real statute of limitations on the effects of torture. If someone can prove that torture occurred and that the person was, to use the interrogation parlance, broken, then all future admissions ought to be ruled out, regardless of whether they occurred on the waterboard or in the palace of the gods.

Apart from the fact that the Constitution's right to silence and the exclusionary rule does not apply to KSM, this is not even the current state of the exclusionary rule. You can obtain a voluntary statement after obtaining an involuntary statement and the former is admissible.

Also, why would you possibly want to do this as a matter of policy?

KSM was waterboarded and gave up much of al Qaeda.

He later voluntarily and repeatedly claimed credit for his acts.

Why should the latter be excluded because of the former?
 

@Bart: OK, let's see: Uncle Sam grabs this guy and throws him in a hole in he-himself-doesn't-even-know-what-country, where he was, quoting the court's summary of BM's allegations: "severely beaten and subjected to sleep deprivation, his penis and private parts were cut with a scalpel" (par. 35). After two years of that, Uncle Sam comes to pick him up again, and puts him in a nice comfortable cell in GITMO, saying "don't worry, we won't harm you, just tell us what you did". In what universe does anything the suspect says after that not qualify as coerced?
 

Bart: Why would you want to do this as a matter of policy?

Because, as a signatory of the Convention Against Torture, the United States is required to make no use of anything derived from torture, and not to practice torture. As a signatory of the Geneva Conventions, it is also banned from torture and inhumane treatment, and punishing prisoners without a proper judicial hearing. Because the Fifth Amendment reads "no person", and its history in British law also states "no man". You can't pull a Doug Feith on this stuff, Bart. There is no special class of people for whom no rights or laws need apply.

Sanctioning torture or CIDT in any form completely warps a democratic government and society. It exposes the public to the acceptance of cruelty, and misinforms their judgment and consent, from which the government derives its powers.

The reason you would want to do this as a matter of policy is so you don't destroy your functioning democracy by polluting its values at the roots. Darius Rejali has said that torture fundamentally destroys democracies, and he's right. It's currently destroying this one.
 

martinned:

Allegations in a complaint are not proof. Al Qaeda is trained to lie that they have been tortured and have done so on multiple occasions.

ondellette:

Evidence of "torture" is admissible in a prosecution of the "torturer," not a get out of jail free card for the war crimes of the "tortured" party.
 

@Bart: That's why I was careful to note that I was quoting an allegation.

But on the off chance that maybe I'll get through to you this time: Whether or not he's actually been tortured can only be established with the documents BM tried to get in this case. That was the point of the case all along.
 

The Administrative Court has now heard further argument on the Secretary of State's claim that there was a public interest in not disclosing the information. sought from the Secretary of State. A copy of the Judgment is here in PDF format - it should be on-line shortly.

As will be seen from the Judgment, the US authorities have moved quite a long way in order to avoid the Court making an order - what before was not going to be disclosed is going to be disclosed in the USA.

The Court notes wryly at paragraph 12.2 "It would not be appropriate for us to consider in this judgment the reasons for this change in position by the United States Government"

[Translate this as: "The US has realised that unless they conceded, we would order disclosure, but for the sake of international relations we are not going to rub that in"]

Note also paragraph 12.2 where the Court observes: "Nor would it be appropriate for this Court, at present, to go behind the clear assurances which have been provided by the United States Government to the Foreign Secretary. We proceed on the basis that they will be honoured."

[Translate this as: "We are going to give liberty to apply, in case there is any backsliding on the assurances"].

Note also paragraph 13 where the Court notes that it considers the documents essential to a fair trial.

At paragraph 16, the Court points out that there is now really only a single issue and that is the question of redactions and the Court has adjourned for a further week with a very broad hint that it expects that to be resolved as well.

So, as anticipated, the Court has not backed down. It appears that the Foreign Office lawyers had read the earlier judgment as I did and told their partners in crime back in Washington that unless the documents were disclosed in the USA, the Order in England would be made and that the Court was not impressed by the "national security" arguments in a case like this.

Judges read newspapers too - and I suspect that they will not have forgotten that Lord Steyn, one of the most distinguished jurists to sit in the House of Lords in the last 100 years, referred to the Guantanamo process as "a kangaroo court".

The very good reason why persons suspected of terrorist activity who are detained by the Western states should be treated strictly in accordance with international human rights norms, both as regards detention and as regards interrogation and trial, is that we are engaged in a battle of hearts and minds with a large population, many of whom are potentially on the tipping point as regards joining or supporting extremist terrorist movements.

There are about 1.8 billion Muslims world wide. The 2006 figures were 1.565 billion Muslims world-wide, with 422.88 millions in Africa, 1,060.65 millions in Asia, 50.7 millions in Europe, 10.21 millions in the Americas and 0.6 millions in Oceania. The growth rate of the population is about 2.9% per annum.

Horrendous as it was, 9-11 was but one of a very large number of terrorist plots, some of which have resulted in loss of life in other European cities, such as Madrid, London and Istanbul.

There is quite a deal of evidence that there is systematic the targeting and recruitment of disadvantaged youth in Europe and elsewhere who are then conveyed to Pakistan, often believing that they are going to pursue religious studies, when instead they are brain-washed into supporting the extremist positions - from there it is but a step to the training camps. There is also evidence of the 'spontaneous development' of terrorist-inclined cells based on on internet propaganda.

Say 10% of Muslim youth is vulnerable to recruitment - that is about 2.5 million potential recruits in Europe alone.

It we are going to win the "hearts and mind battle" for those young people we have to be seen to behave properly.

These extracts are taken from Page on UK Terrorist Threat - MI5-Security Service

"As of September 2007, we are tracking some 2,000 individuals, 200 terrorist networks and 30 active plots, plus a significant number of sympathisers."

"Between 11 September 2001 and 31 March 2007, 41 individuals have been convicted under the Terrorism Act and another 183 have been convicted of terrorist-related offences, including murder, illegal possession of firearms and explosives offences. 1,165 people have been arrested under the Terrorism Act and 114 were awaiting trial as of the end of March 2007."

" - 27 February 2002 - Moinul Abedin was sentenced to 20 years' imprisonment after being convicted of making large amounts of detonators and the explosive HMTD in a Birmingham house.
- 1 April 2003 - Leicester residents Brahim Benmerzouga and Baghdad Merziane were each sentenced to 11 years' imprisonment for their roles in fundraising for Al Qaida and other extremist groups.
- 13 April 2003 - "Ricin plotter" Kamel Bourgass was convicted of the murder of PC Stephen Oake in Manchester and conspiracy to cause a public nuisance using explosives and the deadly poison ricin.
- 22 April 2003 - Saajit Badat was imprisoned for 13 years following his admission that he had plotted with jailed shoebomber Richard Reid to destroy an airliner over the Atlantic.
- 7 February 2006 - Radical London cleric Abu Hamza was convicted of incitement to murder and sentenced to 7 years.
- 26 May 2006 - Kazi Nur al-Rahman was convicted of attempting to procure guns, rocket-propelled grenades and surface-to-air missiles, and was sentenced to 9 years.
- 7 November 2006 - Al Qaida operative Dhiren Barot was sentenced to a minimum of 30 years' imprisonment after admitting a plot to attack UK and US targets using a "dirty bomb" and gas-filled limousines.
- 30 April 2007 - Five men were imprisoned for life after being convicted of a plot to attack targets such as shopping centres and nightclubs using fertiliser-based explosives.
- 15 June 2007 - Seven men were jailed for a total of 136 years for their involvement in Dhiren Barot's "dirty bomb" plot and "Gas Limos Project".
- 5 July 2007 - Three men were imprisoned for up to 10 years after being convicted of using the Internet to promote terrorism.
- 11 July 2007 - The four would-be suicide bombers of 21 July 2005 were given life sentences following their convictions on charges of conspiracy to murder.

The above list is not complete - it looks as if the page has not been updated for a few months because there have been other trials with convictions and, in fact I happen to know that the jury is out now on yet another as I write.

In our system, suspects when detained are continuously monitored on CCTV, every word of interviews is recorded on tape, they have access to their lawyers. They are tried before Judge and Jury in a way which would be perfectly familiar to a US lawyer. Similar efforts are made in other EU states.

What this shows is that it is perfectly possible to give persons accused of terrorist acts a fair trial in a manner compliant with human rights norms.

So why has it been necessary to rig the trial system in Guantanamo Bay? There could be many reasons: eg, because some people may in fact have been gathered up by mistake; because in some cases sufficient evidence may not be there; because there may be reluctance to give full and frank disclosure of how the detainees were treated; because there may be a desire to avoid a situation where officials are held to account for their actions; even because the government might be made financially liable for the tortious acts.

But history tells us that the truth will out eventually and when it does come out it looks set to hand a tremendous propaganda victory to the terrorist recruiters.

So it is in the public interest that these matters be resolved in a matter consistent with generally accepted human rights principles.
 

martinned said...

But on the off chance that maybe I'll get through to you this time: Whether or not he's actually been tortured can only be established with the documents BM tried to get in this case. That was the point of the case all along.

In understand you clearly. Please understand me.

The alleged "torture" is only relevant in a separate prosecution of the "torture" OR if the prosecution attempts to admit coerced statements which are the result of the "torture." It is completely irrelevant to the issue of whether the petitioner committed war crimes.
 

It is completely irrelevant to the issue of whether the petitioner committed war crimes.

# posted by Bart DePalma : 12:13 PM

It's relevant if you want to use statements obtained from the petitioner when prosecuting them for war crimes.
 

@Bart: All I can do in reply to your most recent comment is to refer you to my comment of 11.04 PM yesterday, where I wrote:

Binyan Mohamed needs the documents he is asking for exactly in order to establish which evidence is "fruit of the poisonous tree". Those documents you mention, were they found only because of the information obtained by torture, or do the authorities have some unrelated story for how they got access to them? How will BM or the trial court know unless they have access to these documents.

Please take my remarks to extend not only to documents, but also to witnesses: were they only discovered because of something BM said under torture, or because of some other form of coercion, or were they independently discovered? And how will the defendant know?

Otherwise, please feel free to keep going around in circles between your remarks and my (and others') replies, but please don't actually post them here. We get the idea. No one was tortured. If they were, they can't prove it. If they can't, they shouldn't be allowed to. And if they are, it is irrelevant.

Just call back if you have a new point to make.
 

Martinned:

You may paraphrase Bart as follows:-

"Don't confuse me with facts or law! These people were opposed to my beloved Führer! They have no rights! They're lucky even to meet a Judge on the way to the scaffold! Off with their heads! Off with their heads I say!
 

True friendship comes when the silence between two people is comfortable.
Agen Judi Online Terpercaya