ACLU calls Obama's likely decision to try 9/11 detainees in military tribunals "stunning"

[Better Believe It]

ACLU On Obama's 9/11 Detainee Reversal: 'Stunning'
By Nick Broten
March 5, 2010

The ACLU issued a statement today in response to the Obama Administration's likely decision to try 9/11 detainees in military tribunals.

Excerpt:

"If this stunning reversal comes to pass, President Obama will deal a death blow to his own Justice Department, not to mention American values.

If the president flip-flops and retreats to the Bush military commissions, he will betray his campaign promise to restore the rule of law, demonstrate that his principles are up for grabs and lose all credibility with Americans who care about justice and the rule of law.

Even with recent improvements, the military commissions system is incapable of handling complicated terrorism cases and achieving reliable results. President Obama must not cave in to political pressure and fear-mongering. He should hold firm and keep these prosecutions in federal court, where they belong."

http://tpmlivewire.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/03/aclu-on-obamas-911-detainee-reversal-stunning.php?ref=fpb

--------------------------------------------------------

Obama Administration On Verge Of Reversing Decision On 9/11 Prosecutions

March 4, 2010
Advisers To Recommend Abandoning Promise Of Civilian Trials For Military Commissions

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
CONTACT: [phone]; [e-mail]

NEW YORK – According to the Washington Post, the Obama administration is on the verge of reversing itself on its earlier decision to prosecute the 9/11 suspects in federal criminal courts, opting for the military commissions system instead. The report indicates that the president's advisers will soon recommend to him that he overturn Attorney General Eric Holder's November decision to use civilian trials for the cases, and that an announcement could come in the next two weeks.

According to the American Civil Liberties Union, this regrettable reversal under political pressure will strike a blow to American values and the rule of law and undermine America’s credibility.

There have been over 300 terrorism-related convictions in the federal courts, while there have been only three in the military commissions, two resulting in sentences of less than a year.

The following can be attributed to Anthony D. Romero, Executive Director of the ACLU:

“If this stunning reversal comes to pass, President Obama will deal a death blow to his own Justice Department, not to mention American values.

“If the president flip-flops and retreats to the Bush military commissions, he will betray his campaign promise to restore the rule of law, demonstrate that his principles are up for grabs and lose all credibility with Americans who care about justice and the rule of law.

“Even with recent improvements, the military commissions system is incapable of handling complicated terrorism cases and achieving reliable results. President Obama must not cave in to political pressure and fear-mongering. He should hold firm and keep these prosecutions in federal court, where they belong.”

More information on why terrorism suspects should be tried in civilian courts can be found online at: www.aclu.org/national-security/terrorism-cases-should-be-tried-federal-court

http://www.aclu.org/national-security/obama-administration-verge-reversing-decision-911-prosecutions

--------------------------------------------------

WH considering military trials for 9/11 suspects
White House nearing recommendation for military trial for Khalid Sheik Mohammed
By JENNIFER LOVEN
AP News
March 5, 2010

In a potential reversal, White House advisers are close to recommending that President Barack Obama opt for military tribunals for self-professed Sept. 11 mastermind Khalid Sheik Mohammed and four of his alleged henchman, senior officials said.

Officials spoke Thursday on condition of anonymity because they weren't authorized to discuss private deliberations.

In addition to local opposition to a trial, the administration faces pressure on its goal of closing Guantanamo on another front. Republicans in Congress have proposed barring prosecutions of terrorism defendants in federal courts or in reformed military commissions located in the United States.

Rep. Peter King, R-N.Y., has proposed legislation that would prevent the Obama administration from putting Mohammed and other terrorists on trial in any American community. Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., joined by about half the Senate's Republicans and a few Democrats, has made a similar proposal.

The Obama administration views civilian trials for terrorists as an important demonstration of the U.S. commitment to rule of law. Officials also have cited the numerous terrorism trials already held successfully in U.S. criminal courts.

Further, the administration argues that prosecutorial decisions are for the executive branch to make, not lawmakers.

The Washington Post first reported that a recommendation for a military trial is almost ready.

Read the full article at:

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/news/2010/03/wh_considering_military_trials_for_911_suspects.php

[arcadian]

1. Changelicious!

[leftstreet]

2. Reformy-ness!

[arcadian]

6. Hope & Change®

[Name removed]

70. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[stray cat]

3. Are there any facts about the rule of law the way tribunals would be carried out

or is the problem the name?

[Better Believe It]

10. Here's the ACLU letter to Congress on George W. Bush's order establishing military tribunals

You can find a lot more information you need at the ACLU national website.

--------------------------------------------

ACLU Letter to Congress on President Bush's Order Establishing Military Tribunals
March 7, 2002
Re: President Bush's Order Establishing Military Tribunals

Dear Member of Congress:

We are writing to ask you to exercise your oversight responsibilities and reclaim your proper constitutional role with regard to President Bush's "Military Order" of November 13, 2001, permitting the use of military tribunals against any non-citizen accused of terrorism.

The Military Order applies to some 20 million non-citizens in the United States, most of whom are legal residents, and any other non-citizen anywhere else in the world, and could permit indefinite detention without trial in violation of a key detention compromise made in the USA Patriot Act. It could, at the stroke of a pen, be expanded to include United States citizens.

These military tribunals will not observe the same procedures as ordinary courts-martial under the Uniform Code of Military Justice and do not contain the protections available in the ordinary military justice system. They could, at the discretion of the Pentagon, permit secret trials, permit conviction or even execution on only a two-thirds vote of military officers, require less than proof beyond a reasonable doubt, deprive a defendant of counsel of their own choosing, and do away with the presumption of innocence.

These fundamental rights not only ensure a fair trial of the accused, but the safety of the public. They help ensure that the government convicts the guilty - and only the guilty - thus making sure that the actual perpetrators of terrorism are not still at large because an innocent person stripped of constitutional protection was wrongly convicted.

While the ACLU does not believe that the use of military tribunals is unconstitutional in all circumstances, the ACLU strongly opposes the Military Order because:

Unlike President Roosevelt's order permitting trial of spies and war criminals during World War II, the order was issued without Congressional authorization, as required by the Constitution, which gives Congress, not the President acting alone, the power "To define and punish . . . Offences against the Law of Nations."
Regular courts have so far proven successful in prosecuting terrorism cases. Military tribunals should be authorized by Congress only if the regular courts cannot function in particular cases.
Military tribunals, if authorized by Congress, may only be used constitutionally used against clearly identified "unlawful enemy belligerents," - a class far narrower than all persons accused of terrorism crimes -- and have normally been reserved for individuals captured in a zone of military operations.
Military tribunals, if authorized by Congress, must comply with basic international and constitutional due process standards, which are not provided for by the order.
The ACLU strongly urges Members of Congress to consider carefully the breadth of the Military Order, and to reclaim its constitutional power by deciding for itself under what circumstances, if any, military tribunals should be authorized in terrorism cases and to ensure that basic due process protections are preserved.

More information is included in a memorandum attached to this letter.

Sincerely,

Laura W. Murphy
Director

Timothy H. Edgar
Legislative Counsel

ACLU Memorandum on Military Tribunals

[warm regards]

95. The only thing they are stunned by is the loss of millions in attorney fees.

And then there would have been the security costs. We cannot afford these trials, nor does al qaeda deserve them. I am thankful that someone in the administration was able rein Holder in.

[NJmaverick]

4. Where was the ACLU when absolutely NO ONE was support Obama's plans

to try them in NY? There was zero support from anyone when President Obama tried to hold the trials in NYC. Now that he has decided being left high and dry is not a very good position those that should have had his back are instead plunging the knife in it.

[Name removed]

5. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

7. Here is where the ACLU was:

9/11 Defendants to be Tried in Federal Court
November 13, 2009
Military Commissions Will Be Used To Try Some Guantánamo Detainees

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
CONTACT: [phone] or 2666; [e-mail]

NEW YORK – In a major victory for due process and the rule of law, the Obama administration will announce today that the five defendants represented by the John Adams Project who have been charged in connection with the 9/11 attacks will be tried in federal court rather than in the Guantánamo military commissions. However, the administration will also announce that it will continue to use the illegitimate military commissions system to prosecute some Guantánamo detainees, including the defendant accused in the attack on the U.S.S. Cole. The American Civil Liberties Union has been working through the Project, a joint effort with the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers (NACDL), to provide legal assistance to the five individuals accused of masterminding the 9/11 attacks and other military commissions defendants. The Guantánamo military commissions proceedings have been plagued from the start with legal challenges and international condemnation due to their disregard for basic due process rights.

“The transfer of cases to federal court is a huge victory for restoring due process and the rule of law, as well as repairing America’s international standing, an essential part of ensuring our national security. We can now finally achieve the real and reliable justice that Americans deserve. It would have been an enormous blow to American values if we had tried these defendants in a process riddled with legal problems,” said Anthony D. Romero, Executive Director of the ACLU. “However, it’s disappointing that the administration has chosen to prosecute some Guantánamo detainees in the unsalvageable military commissions system. Time and again the federal courts have proven themselves capable of handling terrorism cases while protecting both American values and sensitive national security information. Justice can only be served in our tried and true courts.”

Through the John Adams Project, the ACLU and the NACDL assembled a team of trial counsel, mitigation specialists and investigators to work with the under-resourced military lawyers in their representation of Guantánamo detainees accused in connection with the 9/11 attacks and other cases. The John Adams Project attorneys brought years of experience in criminal defense law, including much needed expertise in capital cases, to the defense effort. The Project’s lawyers, who were formally admitted by the presiding judge as part of the civilian legal team, appeared before the military commissions on their clients’ behalf numerous times and filed over 80 pretrial motions in the proceedings. Project lawyers spent hundreds of hours meeting with Guantánamo defendants, and, in one case alone, made 20 trips to Guantánamo and spent more than 225 hours meeting with the defendant. The John Adams Project worked to bring some degree of fairness to the proceedings while raising awareness of their serious deficiencies, and succeeded in stopping the military commissions from fast-tracking to illegitimate guilty verdicts and subsequent death sentences.

“Over $4 million of private money has been spent on what should have been the government’s legal responsibility, but we are gratified that we averted a miscarriage of justice in sham proceedings,” said Romero. “We launched the John Adams Project because of our grave concerns that the military commissions process does not reflect our country's commitment to justice and due process. Through our representation of these defendants as part of the Project, the ACLU has seen first-hand the legal debacle of the military commissions and has repeatedly called for their abolition. Moving these cases to federal courts will finally deliver the justice that Americans deserve and can trust. We call on the administration to reconsider the continued use of military commissions and to rely on our federal courts that can finally deliver the justice that Americans deserve and can trust.”

With today’s announcement that these cases will be transferred to federal courts, the ACLU/NACDL John Adams Project will be formally discontinued. The ACLU will continue to fight for a fair and constitutional resolution of all detainees’ cases, including the provision of government resources for the defense of the detainee accused of the attack on the U.S.S. Cole and others.

“America is showing the world that we intend to return to a system of justice that upholds the values we espouse for ourselves and for nations around the world,” said Norman L. Reimer, Executive Director of the NACDL. “Unfortunately, it appears that some individuals will apparently still be subjected to military commission proceedings which do not comport with American values. The administration is perpetuating a flawed parallel justice system designed solely to convict, and the ACLU and the NACDL will continue to oppose it.”

For more information about the history of the Project, including statements of support from prominent military and government leaders and 9/11 family members, go to: www.aclu.org/johnadams


http://www.aclu.org/national-security/911-defendants-be-tried-federal-court

[NJmaverick]

9. They needed to do more than just issue a press release that was ignored by the MSM

this was a critical issue which the ACLU should have gone all out to support. It was painful to watch the media after it the NYC trial plans were announced. Everyone on the right and many others all piled on Obama and spread all sorts of lies and misinformation. No one came out strongly in support of the issue and made the media rounds and corrected the misinformation.

[mike_c]

37. for pete's sake....

First you accuse the ACLU of not supporting civilian trials and then, when shown that you were utterly wrong about that, you blame them because the MSM didn't scream it from the rooftops. Might that be the MSM's fault, not the ACLU?

[Marr]

41. They criticized Obama, so they must be condemned.

Same shit you hear on right-wing radio. Whenever someone points out an obvious transgression by one of their own, they just turn it around and condemn the person who pointed it out.

[QC]

60. Yes, that's pretty much the shape of things. n/t

[Mithreal]

47. Listen, you were proved wrong. I have been wrong many times.

Just admit you were wrong and move on, please.

Please see this post you made where you advocate admitting when your argument is weak and you will earn some respect.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=7170545&mesg_id=7170545

You want me to post where I have found out I said something stupid, has happened all too often and I try to admit it. I've even been stunned by how stupid I sounded a time or two, but I try to live and learn, trust my instincts and take risks, trying to push my thinking on any given topic.

[Name removed]

50. Deleted message

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Bill McBlueState]

57. Look, everyone!

If you were unclear about the meaning of the phrase "moving the goalposts," here's a top-notch example! :thumbsup:

[Solly Mack]

24. In point of fact, the ACLU has pushed for criminal trials since 2001

Only a handful of organizations have been as forceful in the push for criminal trials.


Where those criminal trials are held isn't what is important, that criminal trials are held is... and no one - with anything remotely approaching honesty - can say that the ACLU hasn't be active in support of criminal trials.



http://www.aclu.org/national-security/aclu-comments-draft-military-commission-instruction-crimes-and-elements-trials-mil

http://www.aclu.org/national-security/interested-persons-memorandum-regarding-military-commission-order-no-1

http://www.aclu.org/technology-and-liberty/memorandum-congress-president-bushs-order-establishing-military-tribunals


Thanks for the thread.

[QC]

61. Someone here once demanded, "Where was Paul Krugman when Bush was making a mess of things???"

Krugman, of course, was stripping the bark off Bush twice a week in the pages of the New York Times, but that was all forgotten when he had the audacity to disagree with Obama about something.

[Bluebear]

68. He just wanted Sarah Palin to win!!!!1

[QC]

69. Why does Paul Krugman hate hope? n/t

[Solly Mack]

76. Yeah. I've seen that time and time again.

[QC]

81. Mostly from people who just discovered politics in the past few months.

That's my guess, anyway.

I also had someone here tell me, in perfect seriousness, that if the president were to pressure Congress to do something, that would violate the separation of powers doctrine.

Seriously.

[DefenseLawyer]

17. The location of the trial really has nothing to do with it. n/t

[Bluebear]

21. thank you

[mike_c]

36. the ACLU has supported civilian trials FROM DAY ONE....

eom

[Mithreal]

46. Zero support, ridiculous. I know some are fond of that particular word.

[donco6]

53. Weren't you the one saying the whole thing was a lie?

Now that it's proven true, it's everyone else's fault?

Interesting.

[Name removed]

66. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

71. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[spoony]

54. Yes, poor Obama.

Poor, poor Obama.

[tekisui]

87. Poor guy.

He is the best of the best, yet his hands are tied at every turn. When the apologists repeat this, they admit he is an incredibly weak and ineffective leader.

[upi402]

8. Like Chinese water torture to his remaining supporters

Must be getting thicker, bigger, uncut blinders so they don't have to see that he's a Clinton-Republican. He will be ruined by the media... and the betrayals he keeps dishing out to middle and working class folks.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

11. On the bright side, Obama's cave-ins to the right have led to the renewed popularity of shrugging.

Not to mention the usage of such phrases as, "I told you so", "No shit", and "So, what's new?"

[Better Believe It]

15. Well, what can we do?

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

18. According to the apologists, we should just shut up and kiss the hem of his robe.

As for me, I vote issues, not party or politician.

[spoony]

55. An excellent post.

Ambrose Bierce couldn't have put it better. "Renewed popularity of shrugging," I love that.

[liberal_at_heart]

12. Do you think the republicans laugh at how easy it is to pull the puppet strings?

I mean the Bush administartion put terrorists on civilian trial, prosecuted them, and put them in jail. Now the republicans are telling Obama he has to put them in a military tribunal. Honestly, I think they do these things just to see how much they can pull the puppet strings and control the democratic majority Congress and our democratic President. AND THEY ARE LETTING THEM!
:banghead:

[Echo In Light]

14. Re elected Reps? No. The Dem voting public that obediently disavows collusion? Yes

[newtothegame]

13. What exactly is stunning? Obama's Presidency has been exactly what his voting record said it'd be.

We're the fools for building him into more than that in our drive to make "history" with our votes.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

19. I believed him. Which is why I didn't vote for him.

[mike_c]

39. yup, me too....

None of this is the least bit surprising, IMO. Just disappointing as all hell.

[readmoreoften]

51. I voted for him just so I could have the right to complain. I won't be next time.

And considering that we just had a thousand-plus person rally for a gay hate crime victim and not one Dem above city council showed up for the rally or wrote a note of support, I'm getting pretty sick of the local cowards too.

[gulfcoastliberal]

16. Bodaciously audacious!

Wow, what a strong-willed president, always staying true to his moral compass, his core values, & beliefs in the face of adversity...


:sarcasm: :rofl:

[frebrd]

20. Why "stunning"?

Is anyone really surprised?

:grr:

[Better Believe It]

22. I think the ACLU and many supporters of our Consitution and Bill of Rights are stunned.

They didn't think this admininstration would cave in so easily to Republican and right-wing attacks on this issue.

[Solly Mack]

23. A reversal wouldn't really be surprising in a country that won't prosecute war criminals.

Which already says a lot (and none of it good) about the rule of law, American values, and America's credibility...

[Bluebear]

25. You said it.

[jonathon]

26. But, Tom Hanks says he is doing a great job. What does the ACLU know?

:sarcasm:

[Better Believe It]

27. Tom Hanks clearly knows more about the Bill of Rights than the ADLU

And I'm sure he supports the good parts.

[QC]

28. GARISON KEEILER LIKES HIM TO!1!!!1!

[Bluebear]

83. You'd be happy with Pol Pot and Mussolini!!!11

[QC]

29. Hopetastic! n/t

[Lord Helmet]

30. "advisers to recommend" -- It's a leak from a faction pressing for a military tribunal.

No reliable source says it's "likely."

You are taking license with your title for effect.

[Bluebear]

31. It has been published exactly so from many sources. The OP is taking no license with the headline

[Lord Helmet]

32. Here's from THE source.

edited for link: LINK

The Senate has cut off funding for the trials and Bloomberg has done a 180 on hosting the trials in NY.

from the article: "Those officials said advisers were close to advising the president against such a trial."

That doesn't sound anywhere in the ballpark of "likely."

[Bluebear]

33. Obama Administration On Verge Of Reversing Decision On 9/11 Prosecutions

From ACLU webpage itself..

http://www.aclu.org/national-security/obama-administration-verge-reversing-decision-911-prosecutions

No matter. He WILL reverse his decision, bank on it.

[Lord Helmet]

34. It's more likely he'll change the venue of a civilian trial than change to a military tribunal.

[Bluebear]

35. Well, we will have to stay tuned.

[twitomy]

94. Why not a civilan trial at Gitmo?

Offer a 6 month "working vacation" to the jurors: Sunshine, margaritas after the court session, you know sort of like a legal "all-inclusive"...
Im there if offered.

[spanone]

38. i. don't. get. it.

[Rosa Luxemburg]

40. why do they want military courts?

to hide the real truth behind 9/11

[KDLarsen]

42. 4th paragraph in the final newspost of the OP

Don't derail this further with 9/11 'truth', lest it ends up in the Dungeon.

[scentopine]

43. "he will betray his campaign promise to restore the rule of law"

That seemed to start the first fucking day he stepped in to the White House.

The one tribunal we need is where Bush and Cheney and Rove are tried for treason.

Spineless and unprincipled democratic leadership. And they are calling and emailing for money. Sorry DCCC et al - you aren't worth spit.

What a shameful lesson we are teaching for posterity.

[Bluebear]

45. Well said, pine scented one.

[readmoreoften]

52. +1000. This administration is a disgrace. I can't believe they played their hand so early.

I mean he started playing his corporate, war mongering hand straight out of the gate.

[readmoreoften]

44. Voters should start a class action lawsuit against this administration for false advertising.

Time for a product recall.

[truth2power]

59. False advertising? I think yur point is well-made, except that

if you think about it, he didn't advertise anything at all.

I've said this here ad nauseum , but I'll say it again: I should have listened to what my intuition was telling me. During the primaries, my co-worker was praising Obama, and I said, "He makes all-purpose speeches."

I knew it....I knew it. But I eventually got on-board. What choice did we have once that moron, Palin, showed up.

And, regarding Palin, I'm convinced she was selected (not by McCain) to load the dice in favor of Obama, i.e., to assure that those with HALF a brain would be scared sh*tless and vote for the Chicago guy.

Well, I won't do it again. I'll either sit out 2012 or write in "Mickey Mouse". What difference does it make, really?

[troubledamerican]

48. Is Obama a Cheney sleeper-cell?

[truth2power]

58. I think it's probable that he is. n/t

[Name removed]

49. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Better Believe It]

56. Feingold Statement On Reports of Obama Administration's Planned Decision on Detainee Trials

Feingold Statement On Reports of Obama Administration's Planned Decision on Detainee Trials
Friday, March 5, 2010

"We have a great track record of successfully trying and convicting terrorists in civilian courts. The military commission system is largely untested, and these cases could easily get bogged down in years of legal challenges. The best way to bring these terrorists to justice swiftly is through our civilian courts."

http://feingold.senate.gov/record.cfm?id=322861

[skyounkin]

62. Has Obama kept ANY campaign promises?

Seriously?

I honestly can't think of one at the moment. I know the health care bill has "some" stuff he wanted but it doesn't include what we ALL wanted.

[Jefferson23]

63. It's not that anyone would fault Obama for conceding and or reshaping

a position for political reasons. BUT he does this without fighting back on some of the most critical issues before him, imho.

[yourout]

64. Sadly....not suprised.

[democrank]

65. Caveinagainistan

[Jakes Progress]

67. That slapping you hear

is the administration flip flopping its way out of office.

[QC]

72. I find it very touching that they still have the capacity to be stunned

by Obama's abandonment of promises, constant rightward lurches, etc.

It's very sweet, in a way.

[warm regards]

73. I call it smart. This was beginning to cause the administration serious problems.

[Bluebear]

74. Well, as long as the administration doesn't have problems, it's OK

:silly:

[donco6]

75. Constitution, schmonstitution!

As long as it looks good and plays in Peoria!

[warm regards]

78. That's right. I would feel differently if these were US citizens, but they're not.

Besides, we really can't afford the $$$ it would take these combatants.

Actually, I'm inclined to believe that the ACLU's outrage has more to do with lost attorneys fees than it does with rights al qaeda.

[Bluebear]

82. 'That is why losers prefer socialism.' - Nice.

[Tesha]

77. Standing up FOR WHAT'S RIGHT often comes with problems. (NT)

[warm regards]

79. A military tribunal is the "right" thing for members of al qaeda.

[Bluebear]

80. you're not very subtle, are you?

[ima_sinnic]

84. who says they're "members of al qaeda"?

how convenient, that in a military tribunal, we'd never know, would we, just what their affiliations were, or what they supposedly did.

you do know that many Guantanamo detainees were simply people whose neighbor wanted some bounty, or somebody had a grudge against, or were in the wrong place at the wrong time? They've been locked up without charges for years. We don't know who they are--and for all we know, neither do they, now, after years of isolation, deprivation, and most likely torture.

Obama is skirting war criminal status here.

[Bluebear]

85. something tells me the poster is not interested in one word of that

[tekisui]

88. Oh, that's right. We need the President to be strong, so he can

....wait, I'm not sure why he needs to be strong. So far, he hasn't figured out how to spend political capital.

[Bluebear]

92. indeed

[dysfunctional press]

86. this administration IS turning into an 'obamanation'.

i've NEVER been so regretful of the votes i've cast for someone.

[lwcon]

89. It's all good

[whistler162]

93. Of course that conversation took ten seconds and

had no input from the President and should be prefixed with RUMOR HAS IT!

[marshall]

90. ....Sigh.....Campaign promises don't mean squat

Regardless of who makes them, they never have been anything you can count on.

It's all about getting elected. And then in fairness, the perspective is different (and the information is much weightier) once somebody is in office.

[jonathon]

91. Keep up the great blogging Betterbeliveit - you are a gem!