Can U.S. Courts Free Innocent Gitmo Prisoners?

By
Tuesday, April 07, 2009 at 12:11 pm
Donald Rumsfeld called the Gitmo detainees "the worst of the worst." (Wikimedia Commons)

Donald Rumsfeld called the Gitmo detainees "the worst of the worst." (Wikimedia Commons)

In what’s being called the first major challenge of the Obama administration’s detention policy, lawyers on Monday filed a petition with the U.S. Supreme Court to review the case of Kiyemba v. Obama, in which a Court of Appeals ruled that federal courts do not have the power to order innocent Guantanamo detainees released into the United States.

The significance of that ruling goes far beyond the now-notorious case of the 17 Chinese Muslim Uighurs directly involved. At its core, the petition asks the Supreme Court more broadly: does a federal court have any power at all over innocent prisoners of the “war on terror”?

Illustration by: Matt Mahurin

Illustration by: Matt Mahurin

In the Kiyemba case, the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia ruled that even though the government had no grounds to continue to hold the Uighurs, imprisoned for more than seven years, the federal courts had no authority to order them released into the United States, either. Their lawyers say that makes their right to habeas corpus — confirmed by the Supreme Court last June in Boumediene v. Bush — meaningless.

“What happens in a habeas case is the judge orders the jailer to release the prisoner,” explained Sabin Willett, the lead lawyer representing the Uighurs. “But there’s no sovereign [government] the court can order except our own. Now the DC circuit is saying the court can’t even do that.”

The result is that not only are these Chinese Muslim dissidents still stuck at Guantanamo Bay, but the Obama administration has used the Kiyemba ruling broadly to argue that all habeas corpus proceedings brought by prisoners approved for release should be halted because the courts have no power to release the men from prison anyway. In other words, when it comes to innocent men imprisoned indefinitely at Guantanamo, the judiciary has no role to play at all.

What’s more, the Obama administration has been using the latest Kiyemba ruling to seek a ban on all lawsuits brought by former Guantanamo prisoners claiming constitutional violations by U.S. military officials, claiming that the D.C. court ruled that prisoners at Guantanamo Bay have no due process rights.

As I’ve written before, the Uighurs were abducted in Afghanistan (some claim they were sold to U.S. troops for bounty) and sent to Guantanamo Bay, where they’ve been imprisoned for more than seven years even though the Department of Defense and a federal judge have said that they’re not “enemy combatants” and were not fighting against the United States. Some have been cleared for release since 2003. Because they are a persecuted minority in China, however, they cannot return home because they’d face a significant risk of being tortured.

In October, district court Judge Ricardo Urbina ruled, based on “the court’s authority to safeguard an individual’s liberty from unbridled executive fiat” that they must be released.

The Bush administration appealed, arguing that the federal courts have no power to order the release of any foreigners into the United States. That’s a matter only for the executive and his immigration authorities, the government reasoned. Unless the Uighurs apply for asylum and win, they’re doomed to remain at Guantanamo until the administration can find some other place for them to go.

So far, only Albania has been willing to take any; five were sent there in 2006. The U.S. government — which under President Bush deemed all Guantanamo prisoners “the worst of the worst” — hasn’t been able to convince other countries to accept them.

In their petition to the Supreme Court, Willett and his colleagues write that instead of applying the usual standard for a petition for habeas corpus that requires the government to justify the men’s imprisonment, the court wrongly put the burden on the Uighurs to prove their right to release.

Significantly, “no evidence was ever offered to the district court demonstrating dangerousness, involvement in terrorism, criminal activity or any other putative basis for detention,” the lawyers write in their brief to the Supreme Court. “To the contrary, the record contains powerful evidence that Petitioners release would create no risk to the public.”

Given one last opportunity to provide such evidence at the district court hearing, the Justice Department lawyer responded: “I don’t have available to me today any particular specific analysis as to what the threats of — from a particular individual might be if a particular individual were let loose on the street.”

Continuing to hold the innocent men indefinitely, then, violated a “fundamental right of liberty” that the courts must protect against “unbridled executive fiat,” the court ruled. “[T]he carte blanche authority the political branches purportedly wield over [the Uighurs] is not in keeping with our system of governance,” Judge Urbina wrote, and ordered that the Uighurs be released.

A three-judge panel of the Court of Appeals, however, disagreed. In a 2-1 decision, the court decided that the question ultimately fell under the immigration laws, even though the Uighurs had never applied for refugee status or to immigrate to the United States. Citing a 1889 case that upheld the executive’s right to exclude all Chinese immigrants, the court held that it is “the exclusive power of the political branches to decide which aliens may, and which aliens may not, enter the United States, and on what terms.”

“Not every violation of a right yields a remedy, even when the right is constitutional,” the circuit court majority wrote, and ultimately, no alien has a right to admission to the United States. The court could provide nothing more for the prisoners than an assurance that the executive branch would keep trying to resettle them in another country.

Lawyers for the prisoners argue that the ruling essentially eviscerates the Supreme Court’s ruling in Boumediene v. Bush, which confirmed that prisoners at Guantanamo Bay have the right to habeas corpus review.

“The Kiyemba majority’s taxidermy would hang Boumediene as a trophy in the law library, impressive but lifeless,” write the lawyers in their petition.

Put another way, “if the court doesn’t take this case and reverse this case, then Boumediene was a whole lot of nothin’,” said Willett yesterday. “Because right now they’re in the strange situation that they’re all sitting in Guantanamo.”

In effect, the ruling applies not only to the 17 Uighurs but to every detainee that has been, or will be, cleared for release, he said. So far, more than 60 prisoners have been cleared but remain at the prison. “You can’t order a foreign government to accept anyone, even its own citizen,” said Willett. “So the court can’t make those prison gates open in any case if they don’t take and reverse this case.”

Some legal experts are more sympathetic to the government’s view that the prisoners’ release should be handled by the executive.

Glenn Sulmasy, for example, an expert on national security law at the U.S. Coast Guard Academy, said the D.C. Circuit was right that the district court’s ruling interfered with immigration laws. The Court of Appeals was “trying not to trump existing immigration law that might have long term consequences for those who did not live in the U.S.,” he said.

Indeed, a part of the federal immigration law — the REAL ID Act of 2005 — would exclude any immigrant who has received terrorist training or belonged to an organization that promotes terrorism. Although the Uighurs were not planning to fight the United States, at least some are alleged to have been in weapons training in Afghanistan.

“The Uighurs are excludable on both grounds, even if one accepts, for argument’s sake, that they were trained for the purpose of conducting operations against China,” wrote Andrew McCarthy, senior fellow of the National Review Institute in a recent debate in The New York Times about the Uighurs’ situation.

To the lawyers representing the prisoners, however, that’s irrelevant, because the Uighurs were not trying to immigrate to the United States. The case therefore shouldn’t be decided under immigration law, but under the law governing the writ of habeas corpus. “The core proposition of the Great Writ is that the jailer has the burden to demonstrate positive law authorizing imprisonment,” they write in their brief to the Supreme Court. “Where he cannot do so, the court must order release, and the jailer must comply.”

More broadly, the Uighurs’ case highlights the complex problem facing the Obama administration due to Bush administration’s waging of the so-called “war on terror.”

“The authorization for the use of military force was so broad, using terms like the ‘war on terror,’ that it provided an opportunity for folks we were not engaged in armed conflict with to get swept up in this,” said Sulmasy. “Words matter. ‘War on terror’ means we’re at war against all terrorists. Even folks like the IRA, The Red Brigades, Shining Path, FARC. But we’re clearly not at war with those people,” he said. “What we’re really at war with is al Qaeda.” Because of the language used, “we’re holding folks alleged to be terrorists, but not enemies of the United States.”

How the Supreme Court will view the case — and how the Obama administration, which has so far supported its predecessor’s broad claims of executive power, will argue it — is hard to predict.

“There are no exceptions to the habeas provision as written in the constitution that would permit this kind of detention,” said Diane Marie Amann, a law professor at University of California, Davis who specializes in international and cross-border crime. Then again, she added: “the constitution wasn’t written after September 11.”

Comments

45 Comments

Bill Fisher
Comment posted April 7, 2009 @ 9:23 am

As a working journalist, I appreciate your reporting. Keep up the good work.


Hawaiian style
Comment posted April 7, 2009 @ 12:17 pm

If the courts and especially the Supreme Court have no jurisdiction over non-citizen prisoners in US prisons what is a courts function? Is it to imprison only?

If non-citizens are placed in a US prison by fiat or creating a class of citizens or non-citizens that by definition ( or desired definition by the imprisoning authority) have no rights we have a situation where we are in effect being controlled, governed, by the Executive only. In other words a Monarchy.

Should a non-citizen be arrested by civil authorities in the US, does the court only have the power to put the person in jail, but not have any authority after that? If you answer yes to this question what does that do to habeas corpus? Is your answer that the great writ only applies to citizens of the imprisoning country?

If the argument is that this is really an immigration question, then it also begs the question do the immigration authorities in the US have the power to imprison non-citizens forever even when it is admitted they have committed no crime? If the answer to this is yes, then how do you reconcile that with, “We hold these truths to be self evident, that ALL MEN (my emphasis) are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, LIBERTY ( my emphasis) and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men…”

The day that the court system is told by the Executive that they have no business addressing non-citizen prisoners in US courts whether civilian or military is the day the Executive eviscerates the intended checks and balances of the Constitution.

My opinion is that there is a fundamental law that fairness and justice applies to all men and it is not given to any branch of any government to take such away without impartial legal due process. And, that due process is in extreme cases ensured by habeas corpus which is being a legal writ the province of the Courts to handle.

Does it make sense to say that habeas corpus applies to all persons incarcerated regardless of nationality and whether in prisons within or without the country, but as the court has no jurisdiction over the prisoner it can't handle the writ? Would you suggest the Executive should handle the writ for non-citizens as they are the “imprisoners” and the Executive then should explore and issue legal rulings on the validity of the Writ?


Can US courts free Guantánamo prisoners? « Later On
Pingback posted April 7, 2009 @ 2:33 pm

[...] in Daily life, Government, Law, Obama administration at 11:32 am by LeisureGuy Interesting article in the Washington Independent by Daphne Eviatar. It begins: In what’s being called the first [...]


Sabin Willett
Comment posted April 8, 2009 @ 4:18 am

Dear me Glen — the AUMF never authorized any war on “terror,” or any other common noun.

And while there has been a lot from the blogosphere about “training camps,” there was no evidence that any of the Uighurs ever trained to engage in any act of terrorism, or thought about doing so, or belonged to any terrorist group, or fell into any excludable category.

I rode over to court from Reagan National on the Metro. We went through the Pentagon stop and a lot of guys and gals in uniform got on the train. Every one of em has had more weapons training than the Uighurs. Actually, you've had more weapons training than the Uighurs. Half the adult civilian population of Virginia has handled more weapons than the Uighurs have.

This case is a brontasaurus. Nine bones, and six hundred thousand gallons of plaster of paris and voila! a monster. Eight years is enough — as a people, we're bigger than this. Holding innocents in a prison because we're frightened of plaster of paris?

cheers
s


thomas
Comment posted April 10, 2009 @ 9:59 pm

Thank You a lot Daphne Eviatar for this nicely written article

Yeah….911, 911 & 911!! Do they really need to IMPRISON INNOCENT people to populate their

911 HOAX so we believe their OFFICIAL STORY……….

So no one asks WHY…..

Why they DESTROYED the air traffic controllers audio tapes… of…the..controllers..of..911..planes??

Why they destroyed 91 interrogation discs of the 911 suspects??

Why the 911 commission was not allowed access to the suspects, and their tapes, and wast FOOLED

by the Bush cabal of criminals to believe there were no interrogation tapes of the sessions.


Alex Bell
Comment posted April 10, 2009 @ 10:30 pm

And to compound America's guilt no one (so far as I know) has ever considered paying reparations to the innocent prisoners of the United States held at Guantanamo Bay for so many years.

And you have the gall to call yourselves the leaders of the free world, and to claim that you support the rule of law!

Regards, Alex


thomas
Comment posted April 11, 2009 @ 7:35 am

I wrote the comment 2 or 3 comments below before I went to bed…….

But before I fell asleep I realized, that I had missed a (the) POINT !

O.K.,O.K.The EXECUTIVE controls immigration, BUT They must exercise their control legally…

AND NOT use their CONTROL to DENY a basic RIGHT…….. WHICH is a CORNERSTONE

of The CONSTITUTION..!! The REASON for all this?? So the crimes (TORTURE) (FORCED

DEPORTATION) & the LIES that were used on these VICTIMS are HIDDEN & IMPRISONED…..

How CORRUPT has the U.S.A. BECOME..?? The Justice DEPARTMENT argues to DENY justice!

to their INNOCENT VICTIMS……in the GOVERNMENTS (phony?) WAR on TERROR…………….

THE CRIMINALS deciding JUSTICE for their VICTIMS……………..


Kampanye Damai
Comment posted April 15, 2009 @ 3:28 pm

“The authorization for the use of military force was so broad, using terms like the ‘war on terror,’ that it provided an opportunity for folks we were not engaged in armed conflict with to get swept up in this,” said Sulmasy. “Words matter. ‘War on terror’ means we’re at war against all terrorists. Even folks like the IRA, The Red Brigades, Shining Path, FARC. But we’re clearly not at war with those people,” he said. “What we’re really at war with is al Qaeda.” Because of the language used, “we’re holding folks alleged to be terrorists, but not enemies of the United States.” This a great steatment..


Kampanye Damai
Comment posted April 15, 2009 @ 10:28 pm

“The authorization for the use of military force was so broad, using terms like the ‘war on terror,’ that it provided an opportunity for folks we were not engaged in armed conflict with to get swept up in this,” said Sulmasy. “Words matter. ‘War on terror’ means we’re at war against all terrorists. Even folks like the IRA, The Red Brigades, Shining Path, FARC. But we’re clearly not at war with those people,” he said. “What we’re really at war with is al Qaeda.” Because of the language used, “we’re holding folks alleged to be terrorists, but not enemies of the United States.” This a great steatment..


Refusal to release prisoners on court order: unconstitutional « Later On
Pingback posted June 26, 2009 @ 6:09 pm

[...] the decision of the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Washington, D.C., in Kiyemba v. Obama, which prohibits the federal courts from ordering any detainees released into the United States. As a result, while according to [...]


Pretty disgusting behavior from the Obama Administration « Later On
Pingback posted July 29, 2009 @ 2:44 pm

[...] the D.C. Circuit Court has ruled that federal courts don’t have the authority to release a foreign detainee into the United [...]


Anon
Comment posted September 7, 2009 @ 12:11 am

The Govt. will never admit that anyone is innocent, they never have and never will. Anyone who looks middle eastern caught in that area is a Jihadi. Incarcerating and torturing, raping innocent people makes terrorists out of them. President Obama is already being held responsible for Afghanistan, although he has only be int he office 9 months.


cerita dewasa
Comment posted September 9, 2009 @ 5:56 pm

hmmm i think i agree with you


Cell Phone Review
Comment posted September 9, 2009 @ 5:57 pm

My opinion is that there is a fundamental law that fairness and justice applies to all men and it is not given to any branch of any government to take such away without impartial legal due process. And, that due process is in extreme cases ensured by habeas corpus which is being a legal writ the province of the Courts to handle.


conferencecall
Comment posted September 9, 2009 @ 5:59 pm

I agree wit this steatment : My opinion is that there is a fundamental law that fairness and justice applies to all men and it is not given to any branch of any government to take such away without impartial legal due process. And, that due process is in extreme cases ensured by habeas corpus which is being a legal writ the province of the Courts to handle.


Video Bokep
Comment posted October 2, 2009 @ 6:45 pm

Nice info sir… useful for my job, thanks very much…


Foto Bugil
Comment posted October 2, 2009 @ 6:53 pm

This case is a brontasaurus. Nine bones, and six hundred thousand gallons of plaster of paris and voila! a monster. Eight years is enough — as a people, we're bigger than this. Holding innocents in a prison because we're frightened of plaster of paris?

Lol.. I like it…


ceritadewasa
Comment posted October 23, 2009 @ 7:24 pm

Yes, that is good idea…I agree to..


Cerita Dewasa
Comment posted October 23, 2009 @ 7:35 pm

Holding innocents in a prison because we're frightened of plaster of paris? Same wit my quetions..


foto cewek bugil
Comment posted November 1, 2009 @ 5:41 am

And to compound America's guilt no one (so far as I know) has ever considered paying reparations to the innocent prisoners of the United States held at Guantanamo Bay for so many years.


cerita dewasa
Comment posted November 13, 2009 @ 3:38 pm

President Obama is already being held responsible for Afghanistan, although he has only be int he office 9 months…. yup…


cerita panas
Comment posted November 26, 2009 @ 9:02 pm

@ Thomas : I totally agree your opinion…


video bokep
Comment posted December 7, 2009 @ 12:13 am

As a working journalist, I appreciate your reporting. Keep up the good work…


Cerita Dewasa 2010
Comment posted December 15, 2009 @ 12:13 pm

Yes, this is great post, i agree with this comment..


Koleksi Video Bugil
Comment posted December 21, 2009 @ 4:23 pm

Great, good info…


Cewek Bugil
Comment posted December 21, 2009 @ 4:25 pm

Thanks for share information…


Foto Bugil
Comment posted March 1, 2010 @ 7:07 am

I agree with this opinion..


Foto Bugil
Comment posted March 1, 2010 @ 12:07 pm

I agree with this opinion..


Cerita Memek
Comment posted May 10, 2010 @ 12:49 am

I very like this topic, but not know what i cant share wit you all, i just want look what the next case…


mobile phone
Comment posted May 21, 2010 @ 6:08 am

I really liked your article, I immediately RSS mengetagui you to your next update. thanks for the info anada really very stony also a lesson in finding articles about my campus.


Foto Bugil
Comment posted May 22, 2010 @ 6:07 am

It smae question, does the court only have the power to put the person in jail, but not have any authority after that? If you answer yes to this question what does that do to habeas corpus? Is your answer that the great writ only applies to citizens of the imprisoning country?


christian louboutin shoes
Comment posted June 8, 2010 @ 2:02 pm

thanks for your shareing

Fashion legancy– we sell famous brand christian louboutin

100% Authentic, 50% discount cheap christian louboutin shoes.

christian louboutin shoes authentic hot sell online, welcome for retail and wholesale christian louboutin,
christian shoes, louboutin shoesorders.

24 hours/day customer service online, louboutin paypal accepted.

Hi, I like to lose weight!
thanks for your shareing
Recently so many people who want to lose weight choose this style shoes– mbt shoes!

we call it massaqi shoes, it is special design have lose weight function.

come to our website, and choose cheap mbt shoes online, 65% discount mbt shoes Cheap MBT Shoes sale online.

welcome for retail and wholesale mbt shoes orders.


ghd
Comment posted June 8, 2010 @ 2:05 pm

100% Authentic quality gurrantee,3 days free shipping.

World cup soccer jerseys is coming, hot sell

soccer jerseys

recently.

we are the wholesale jersey company from china, mainly selling

nfl jerseys

,

mlb jerseys

, and

cheap soccer jerseys

.

all our jerseys are made in embroidered. and top good quality. nowdays, we have so many customers doing

wholesale nfl jerseys

,

wholesale soccer jerseys

,

wholesale mlb jerseys

from us, especialy for the orders in usa, uk, australia, canada, and another euro

countries.

wecome for retail orders and wholesale orders of

cheap nfl jerseys

,

cheap mlb jerseys

, 2010 new nfl jerseys hot sell.

2010 new nfl jerseys

we believe we are your best choice.
http://www.jerseylink.com

hey, do u want to have a straightening hair style?

why are u hestitate!!

come to our website to buy

cheap ghd

,

ghd hair straighteners

online.

we are special ghd website for

ghd purple

,

ghd straighteners

.

welcome for

wholesale ghd

orders online. yours satisfied is our honor.

cheap ghd

cheap ghd hair straighteners

here, get much discount ghd.

surprise so much.

please chlick here to our website.

http://www.hghdoctor.com


nining hadiyanti
Comment posted June 23, 2010 @ 12:15 pm

I really enjoyed reading your article, because it is very useful for me especially in finishing my studies. Looks like I have the same views with you. I also have new information for you http://kcellphones.com


Video Bokep
Comment posted June 23, 2010 @ 9:20 pm

Yep… If the courts and especially the Supreme Court have no jurisdiction over non-citizen prisoners in US prisons what is a courts function? Is it to imprison only?

If non-citizens are placed in a US prison by fiat or creating a class of citizens or non-citizens that by definition ( or desired definition by the imprisoning authority) have no rights we have a situation where we are in effect being controlled, governed, by the Executive only. In other words a Monarchy.


Qqq
Comment posted July 6, 2010 @ 3:01 am

http://www.buynflshop.com/Category/81-baltimore… Baltimore Ravens Jerseys
http://www.buynflshop.com/Category/97-arizona-c… Arizona Cardinals Jerseys
http://www.buynflshop.com/Category/98-buffalo-b… Buffalo Bills Jerseys
http://www.buynflshop.com/Category/99-atlanta-f… Atlanta Falcons Jerseys
http://www.buynflshop.com/Category/124-cincinna… Cincinnati Bengals Jerseys
http://www.buynflshop.com/Category/101-carolina… Carolina Panthers Jerseys
http://www.buynflshop.com/Category/102-clevelan… Cleveland Browns Jerseys
http://www.buynflshop.com/Category/103-chicago-… Chicago Bears Jerseys
http://www.buynflshop.com/Category/104-denver-b… Denver Broncos Jerseys
http://www.buynflshop.com/Category/105-dallas-c… Dallas Cowboys Jerseys
http://www.buynflshop.com/Category/106-houston-… Houston Texans Jerseys
http://www.buynflshop.com/Category/108-detroit-… Detroit Lions Jerseys
http://www.buynflshop.com/Category/109-indianap… Indianapolis Colts Jerseys
http://www.buynflshop.com/Category/110-green-ba… Green Bay Packers Jerseys
http://www.buynflshop.com/Category/125-jacksonv… Jacksonville Jaguars Jerseys
http://www.buynflshop.com/Category/126-minnesot… Minnesota vikings Jerseys
http://www.buynflshop.com/Category/127-kansas-c… Kansas City Chiefs Jerseys
http://www.buynflshop.com/Category/128-new-orle… New Orleans Saints Jerseys
http://www.buynflshop.com/Category/129-miami-do… Miami Dolphins Jerseys
http://www.buynflshop.com/Category/130-new-york… New York Giants Jerseys
http://www.buynflshop.com/Category/131-new-engl… New England Patriots Jerseys
http://www.buynflshop.com/Category/132-philadel… Philadelphia Eagles Jerseys
http://www.buynflshop.com/Category/133-new-york… New York Jets Jerseys
http://www.buynflshop.com/Category/134-san-fran… San Francisco 49ers Jerseys
http://www.buynflshop.com/Category/135-oakland-… Oakland Raiders Jerseys
http://www.buynflshop.com/Category/136-seattle-… Seattle Seahawks Jerseys
http://www.buynflshop.com/Category/137-pittsbur… Pittsburgh Steelers Jerseys
http://www.buynflshop.com/Category/138-st-louis… St Louis Rams Jerseys
http://www.buynflshop.com/Category/139-san-dieg… San Diego Chargers Jerseys
http://www.buynflshop.com/Category/140-tampa-ba… Tampa Bay Buccaneers Jerseys
http://www.buynflshop.com/Category/142-tennesse… Tennessee Titans Jerseys
http://www.buynflshop.com/Category/143-washingt… Washington Redskins Jerseys


totem111
Comment posted July 29, 2010 @ 11:07 pm

Thank you!


Sutiningsih
Comment posted August 4, 2010 @ 3:57 pm

same, I agree with you… http://cewek.telanjangbugil.net/


Foto Cewek Bugil
Comment posted August 26, 2010 @ 3:34 pm

Cool…


Cerita Dewasa
Comment posted August 28, 2010 @ 9:18 pm

Ok, i agree with your post comment..


Web Directory
Comment posted September 12, 2010 @ 5:50 pm

That great, i agree..


How to Go to Yiwu
Comment posted September 27, 2010 @ 3:50 am

thanks for your shareing
Recently so many people who want to lose weight choose this style shoes–


remove antivirus 8
Comment posted January 6, 2011 @ 7:57 am

Enjoy reading your post! Keep going!


remove antivirus 8
Comment posted January 6, 2011 @ 7:57 am

Enjoy reading your post! Keep going!


Can U.S. Courts Free Innocent Gitmo Prisoners? | The Washington ...
Trackback posted March 18, 2011 @ 2:29 pm

Can U.S. Courts Free Innocent Gitmo Prisoners? | The Washington ……

[...]http://cerita-dewasa.us/ cerita dewasa. President Obama is already being held responsible for Afghanistan, although he has only be int he office 9 months…. yup… http://ceritadewasasexpanas.info/ cerita panas …[...]…


RSS feed for comments on this post.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.