INTERNATIONAL CRIMINAL TRIBUNAL FOR AFGHANISTAN, TOKYO
THE PEOPLE
Versus
GEORGE WALKER BUSH
President of the United States of America
INDICTMENT
The Prosecution has presented a formidable Indictment against the Defendant, George Walker Bush, President of the United States and Commander -in-Chief of US military forces for serious crimes ; waging a war of aggression on Afghanistan, war crimes and crimes against humanity against the Afghan people, against prisoners of war ; and the use of radioactive depleted uranium weapons of mass destruction , against the people of Afghanistan ; with serious fall out effects on the military personnel of the United States ,UK and other forces deployed ; and on countries, in and around the region .
Relevant for the trial, is the profile of the Defendant , elected as the 43rd President of the United States, and sworn in as President in January 2001 ; the year of the military attack on Afghanistan ; after an election which received international focus , in view of the issues involved , resolved by the Supreme Court. The Defendant's past history, of close association, with the Corporate sector in the United States of America, has been highlighted in the indictment by the prosecution ,in particular with the Oil and Energy sector ; the Defendant formed an oil company, the Arbusto Energy Inc in 1978, which was unsuccessful ; after which Spectrum 7 Energy of Ohio was formed in 1984 with the Defendant as CEO ; thereafter the Defendant was a Consultant to Harken Energy from 1986 , prior to being elected as Governor of Texas in 1994 and re-elected in 1998.
2.Accomplices and Accessories to the Crimes of waging a war of aggression, war crimes and crimes against humanity .
In view of the undisputed facts, that apart from the military forces of the United States ,ordered to be deployed by the Defendant as Commander-in-Chief for the war on Afghanistan , military forces of other governments were deployed and leading members of the defendant's administration , participated in the decision making ; the prosecution has clarified in the indictment , that other members of the Defendant's administration who were a party to the conspiracy to wage a war on Afghanistan ,and those heads of government who have deployed military forces of their countries to assist in the military occupation ; are equally accomplices and accessories to the crimes committed by the Defendant ; though in this trial it is the Defendant who has been proceeded against .
3. Universal Jurisdiction
The Tribunal being conscious of the basic principle of jurisprudence that ' no one must be condemned unheard ' , that ' justice must not only be done but appear to be done '; appointed amicus curiae , a Senior counsel from Japan ,to assist with the defense of the Defendant; amicus curiae entered a plea of "not guilty", on behalf of the Defendant and questioned the jurisdiction of the Tribunal as and by way of preliminary objection ; the Defendant, though duly served by the Secretariat of the ICTA through the embassy of the United States in Tokyo and directly , failed to appear before the Tribunal and enter a plea.
Professor Willaird B. Cowles in an article titled 'Universality of Jurisdiction over War Crimes ( California Law Review , Vol. 33 ( 1945) p.177 ) emphasized that :
…….." all civilized states have a very real interest in the punishment of war crimes "…and that " an offense against the laws of war , as a violation of the laws of nations , is a matter of general interest and concern"…
This was in an academic paper written more than half a century ago, when the principle of 'Universality of Jurisdiction', and the personal accountability of individuals for War Crimes, was gaining adherents among jurists , after the Second World War.
The objection raised to the exercise of jurisdiction by this Tribunal on behalf of the Defendant, by amicus curaie ; and the United States government claiming "impunity" in various forums , against indictment for war crimes ; is best answered by the undertaking given to the International Military Tribunal at Nuremberg , by the Chief Counsel for the government of the United States of America , Mr. Justice Robert H. Jackson , who stepped down temporarily ,as Judge of the United States of America , to represent the United States before the Nuremberg Tribunal , established pursuant to the Moscow Declaration and the London Agreement of 1945 , to which the government of the United States was a signatory . Justice Jackson categorically declared that:
" If certain acts of violation of treaties are crimes , they are crimes whether the United States does them or whether Germany does them and we are not prepared to lay down a rule of criminal conduct against others , which we would not be willing to have invoked against us …"
In view of this position taken before the Nuremberg Tribunal , the Defendant is liable not only before this Tribunal ,but the entire claim of 'impunity' of the government of the United States, is legally untenable ; no government can surrender the right vested in its citizens to invoke International Criminal Law, not by a Resolution of the Security Council nor by bilateral treaty.
On the issue raised by amicus curiae , of how authoritative is the verdict of such a Tribunal ; it is necessary to restate , that sovereignty is a constitutional and political concept , which resides in the final analysis with the people ; who have a right to judge through legal forums created by them ; at a critical period of history for serious crimes committed against humanity ; in particular , when several governments across continents have abandoned the democratic principle of governance; many being elected in seriously flawed electoral process ; on the basis of Corporate support and campaign contributions
4. The World Disorder.
The critical question , among others, posed before this Tribunal by the Prosecution is, how do we challenge this 'world disorder ' ; this is a juridical question ; yet the law is always a reflection of existing economic and political systems ; though all legal systems maintain that the purpose and objective of law , is the preservation of the 'Rule of Law' within and between nations; this presupposes that there are no privileged individuals , classes, or groups, within and across nations .
5. The Charge of Waging a War of Aggression .
The International Military Tribunal at Nuremberg referring to the charge of waging a war of aggression , highlighted the gravity of this offense in the following words:
" To initiate a war of aggression ….is not only an international crime ; it is the supreme international crime differing only from other war crimes, in that it contains within itself the accumulated evil of the whole".
The legal defense of the Defendant to this charge , is to be found in public statements made by the Defendant ,after the terrorist attacks of 11th September 2001 , on the World Trade Centre and the Pentagon, by hijacking of aircraft in the United States ; which admittedly , destroyed the lives of approximately three thousand innocent citizens of the United States; and of other nationalities and religious beliefs .
The defense advanced by amicus curiae is, that the military attack of 7th October 2001 ordered by the Defendant, as President of the United States and its Commander in Chief , was a 'just war' or a 'bellum justum'; a war of self defense, a preventive war ; in response to the terrorist attacks of al Qaeda , masterminded by Osama bin Laden, harboured by the Taliban government in Afghanistan , which had permitted terrorist camps on its territory ; who were committing hostile acts against the United States of America .
~ more... ~
From Justice, the American way by Khaled Diab
But wouldn't it be great if, rather than spending his post-presidential silver years cashing in on his stint in the White House, he would be made to pay for the crimes
against humanity he instigated?
Before we consider the possible avenues to justice, let's briefly recount the various charges against him. Most fundamentally, the Bush administration's decision to invade two sovereign nations unprovoked should be enough to indict him under international law, although the situation is a little more blurred in the case of Afghanistan under the Taliban. And protestations of "pre-emptive" defence hold no legal water.
Benjamin Ferencz, a Nuremburg chief prosecutor, expressed his opinion that Bush's 2003 war of aggression against Iraq constituted "the supreme international crime". This is what has been known since the Nuremberg trials as a crime against peace.
Then there's the charge of crimes against humanity, another pillar of international law. In this instance, legal experts argue that the war's opening "shock and awe" campaign alone – with its thousands of civilian casualties, wholesale destruction of civilian installation, and severe traumatising and terrorising of an entire population – counted as a serious crime against humanity.
Principle VI of the Nuremberg conventions outlaws the "wanton destruction of cities, towns, or villages", while Article 48 of the Geneva conventions demands that parties to a war "shall at all times distinguish between the civilian population and combatants and between civilian objects and military objectives", which clearly did not happen during shock and awe. Torture – including waterboarding, sensory deprivation and complete isolation – which has been controversially endorsed by the Bush administration at Guantanamo Bay, also counts as a serious war crime.
Now that we have established a powerful case against Bush and the other architects of the Iraq war, what are the possible avenues for prosecution?
With no prosecution on the horizon in the United States, jurisdiction should automatically shift to the International Criminal Court. However, the US is one of only seven countries that has refused to sign up to the ICC, despite its support of the court's indictment of the Sudanese president, Omar al-Bashir.
With this international avenue blocked off, another possible avenue would be to take advantage of the Geneva conventions's "universal jurisdiction" to bring a case against Bush in another country.
Belgium, before it watered down and then effectively abolished its own courageous and controversial war crimes law, could have been a good place to take legal action. In fact, there had been attempts in Belgium to prosecute George Bush, as well as other leaders, including Israel's Ariel Sharon, Palestine's Yasser Arafat and Cuba's Fidel Castro.
Spain and Canada also have universal jurisdiction laws on their books, but I doubt that courts there will hear a case against the Bush administration after the diplomatic fury Washington unleashed against Belgium.
From Let Judgment Be Bush's History by David Swanson
For many months, citizens have been funding an effort to send copies of Vincent Bugliosi's "The Prosecution of George W. Bush for Murder" to state attorneys general and district prosecutors. That should continue, and we should get organized about electing prosecutors to office who commit to enforcing our laws.
But Vince only hits on one of the thousands of possible criminal charges. Another book that lists and describes dozens of the most egregious criminal violations by the Bush gang is The 35 Articles of Impeachment and the Case for Prosecuting George W. Bush. This book includes the full text of Dennis Kucinich's articles of impeachment, plus documentation of the charges. It also includes a chart created by author and former federal prosecutor Elizabeth de la Vega that pulls out the criminal violations found in each article of impeachment. And the book begins with an introduction that I wrote, discussing some of the areas of criminality not included in the 35 articles and explaining how we can bring about indictments. This book should be purchased, read, and mailed to Eric Holder.
Five other books should be sent Holder's way. One is de la Vega's U.S. v. Bush, which lays out a presentation to a grand jury of a case that Bush, Cheney, and others defrauded the nation into an unnecessary war. Another is Marjorie Cohn's Cowboy Republic, which covers six general areas of criminal activity. Michael Ratner's The Trial of Donald Rumsfeld is an indictment of the whole lot of them, not just Rumsfeld.
The other two books are ones that I've just now read and highly recommend both for reading and for sending to Eric Holder. One is George W. Bush: War Criminal? The Bush Administration's Liability for 269 War Crimes by Michael Haas. This is a phenomenal work that categorizes 269 of the crimes committed by Bush and his subordinates. Haas covers crimes in four areas: "the legality of war, the conduct of war, treatment of prisoners, and the conduct of the postwar occupation." And he does indeed list and explain 269 violations of law, without touching on the bulk of the criminal offenses committed by Bush and Cheney, which occurred right here at home, albeit often with the justification of "war time." Talking heads in the media generally ask me why Bush should be prosecuted when past presidents have committed crimes and not been prosecuted, and I try to point out that not only does justice have to begin somewhere, not only have we raised our standards over the decades and criminalized more actions, but the abuses of the Bush administration have surpassed in both arrogance and sheer volume the rest of the American presidents' crimes combined. Book's like Haas' help to make this point hit home.
The last book I want to recommend is one of pre-Bush history that ought to inspire our determination to make judgment Bush's history rather than letting history be his judge. I didn't know about this book until John Nichols in the Nation magazine named it a Most Valuable Progressive for 2008. The book is called The Magna Carta Manifesto: Liberties and Commons for All by Peter Linebaugh. This is a stunning work of scholarship documenting the meaning of the Magna Carta down through the centuries, prominent in that meaning being the tradition established by the Magna Carta that no man would be above the law, that no man would sit in judgment of himself, that no one would be tried or imprisoned without due process including judgment by a jury of peers.
From If U.S. doesn't prosecute Bush & Cheney, other nations may by Karen Harper
If the U.S. chooses not to prosecute Bush, Cheney and others for their failure to uphold the U.S. Constitution and abide by the rules of the Geneva convention, there is some evidence to support the idea that another country will.
In 2007, Vice-President Cheney fled from France fearing he would be arrested for authorizing torture at Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq and Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. Cheney was taken by U.S. embassy officials over the border into Germany to avoid being arrested.
It was reported that "Under international law, authorities in France are obliged to open an investigation when a complaint is made while the alleged torturer is on French soil."
Author of the book, "Torture Team", Philippe Sands believes that should the United States choose not to prosecute Bush, Cheney and others, foreign prosecutors might. Sands, a British law professor told the New York Times back in May,
Some of us have been asking the question, "Who will prosecute Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld?" It seems we have an answer. Other nations will.If the U.S. doesn't address this, other countries will.
From A chronicle of US war crimes by Shannon Jones
The use of torture violated longstanding US traditions dating back to the Revolutionary War, when General George Washington ordered the humane treatment of British prisoners. This policy stood in stark contrast to the brutal treatment meted out to continental soldiers by the Red Coats, who considered the Americans treasonous "illegal combatants."
America had long been in the forefront of nations demanding an international code of conduct for warfare. Following World War II the United States had pushed for the strengthening of the Geneva Conventions to close loopholes that had been exploited by the Japanese and German governments to justify the abuse of captives. The new rules even stipulated barracks conditions, food rations and the provision of athletic equipment.
Mayer writes, "In addition to the Geneva Conventions, the United States took the lead in drafting and ratifying the 1984 Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, which provided international law's first explicit definition of torture." It bans torture absolutely, stating: "No circumstances whatsoever ... could be "invoked as a justification of torture" (emphasis added). The Convention described torture as inflicting "severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental" (p. 150).
The United States did violate the Geneva rules in practice during the course of its colonial wars. The US carried out terrible atrocities in the Korean and Vietnam wars, crimes for which no high-ranking officials were ever held to account. Still, in its official stance, the US government declared its opposition to abusive treatment of prisoners and its adherence to the Geneva Conventions.
Mayer points out that during the Vietnam War the US military made some effort to distinguish between civilians captured by the military and actual combatants. The military held so-called Article 5 hearings to avoid "mistakenly imprisoning innocent bystanders." Such hearings became binding military law.
However, in Afghanistan Addington proposed scrapping these rules. On January 19, 2002 Rumsfeld rescinded an order by General Tommy Franks, which had set up Article 5 hearings to screen prisoners captured in Afghanistan individually. "The president had determined unilaterally that all prisoners captured in the war on terror were unlawful combatants," writes Mayer.
After September 11 Cheney became fascinated with the "success" of the Phoenix program in Vietnam, Mayer writes. Operation Phoenix had involved the assassination of tens of thousands of suspected National Liberation Front sympathizers. Most of those killed were civilians who had little or no connection to the armed struggle against the US-backed South Vietnamese puppet government.
According to Mayer, high-level White House discussions on the use of torture against detainees took place in April 2002 and there was "no indication that any Bush cabinet members opposed it."
Mayer describes in detail the fate of alleged Al Qaeda logistics chief Abu Zubaydah, who was captured by the CIA in Pakistan in March 2002. He had the distinction of being the first person waterboarded at the directive of the president of the United States.
The interrogation of Zubaydah involved multiple instances of waterboarding, 10 times in a single week, and other forms of severe abuse, including "thrusting his head against a bare concrete wall" and forcing him to lie in a "coffin sized box." Other prisoners were subject to illegal treatment, tantamount to torture, such as sleep deprivation. Some were forced to stay awake for as long as 96 hours.
FBI agents at the scene were shocked by the CIA interrogation of Zubaydah and "wanted CIA head James Mitchell arrested," Mayer reports. After this the CIA barred the FBI from coercive interrogations. The CIA videotaped hundreds of hours of Zubaydah's torture, tapes which the White House later ordered destroyed.
Under pressure from the Bush administration to get "results," the CIA produced glowing reports about the supposedly valuable information it obtained via the torture of Zubaydah, who "confessed" to plots to bomb US banks, shopping malls, even the Brooklyn Bridge. While these alleged terrorist conspiracies had little or no foundation in reality, leaked reports of spectacular "confessions" were useful to the administration, which wanted justifications for its crimes.
Mayer writes that "a closely held investigative report written by the International Committee for the Red Cross for the detaining authority, the CIA, which it shared with the President and the Secretary of State, in 2007 described the treatment that he (Zubaydah) underwent, categorically, as 'torture' and warned that the abuse constituted war crimes, placing the highest officials in the US government in jeopardy of being prosecuted, sources familiar with the report said."
From "War Crimes Times" Debuts At Newseum, Urges Bush Prosecution by David Swanson of warcrimestimes
At 11:30 AM, Saturday, January 17th, at the Newseum, 555 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Washington, D.C., activists will surprise and delight tourists as they distribute the Inaugural Issue of a 12-page tabloid called "War Crimes Times," and display a huge banner saying, "ARREST BUSH AND CHENEY / CORPORATE MEDIA: PARTNERS IN CRIME? / READ WARCRIMESTIMES.ORG"
Two dozen members of Veterans For Peace and supporters will conduct the action as part of an ongoing campaign to have outgoing president Bush and members of his administration prosecuted for war crimes.
"Our goal is to have George Bush and his administration prosecuted for war crimes, no matter how long that takes. There is no statute of limitations on war crimes," said Tarak Kauff, VFP member and coordinator of the event at the Newseum.
Kauff, a former Army paratrooper, added, "We have come to the Newseum, the showpiece home of the corporate media, to distribute the War Crimes Times, a newspaper created to fill the void left by the corporate media's failure to report the Bush administration's numerous and severe war crimes. We are also here to demand the Obama administration vigorously and unconditionally prosecute Bush and all members of his administration responsible for these crimes."
The War Crimes Times features articles by Michael Ratner, President of the Center for Constitutional Rights; Colleen Rowley, former FBI agent and one of Time Magazine's Persons of the Year for exposing FBI mishandling of September 11 information; Ann Wright, retired U.S. Army Col. and career foreign service officer; Lawrence Velvel, Dean of the Massachusetts School of Law; Jesselyn Radack, former U.S. Department of Justice Ethics Adviser; and Elaine Brower, mother of a young Marine deployed in Iraq.
From MoveOn's shocking retreat from the battlefield by P.M. Carpenter
MoveOn's executive director, Eli Pariser, framed the democratic outcome in this way: He "says that this happy alignment with Barack Obama's agenda -- and fortuitous absence of conflict with same -- comes in part because 'the people he's listening to and the people we're listening to are the same people.'"
The Politico framed it in another way: The Final Four of priorities "may be a sign that MoveOn's members want to move ahead -- and that they're willing to make some ideological sacrifices in exchange for real progress."
OK, somebody is fudging here, big time.
Group think -- the institutional disease which for years MoveOn spent considerable resources properly assailing -- is now a democratic virtue, according to, yep, MoveOn; and according to the Politico, sweeping aside, or under the rug, years of immensely impeachable, extraordinarily indictable high crimes and misdemeanors is little more than an "ideological sacrifice."
Just who's kidding who here? These are crimes we're talking about -- war crimes, Constitutional crimes, crimes against "the people," crimes against the world, crimes, simply put, against humanity. And it's a trifle more than an "ideological sacrifice" or democratic virtue to now neglect the prosecution of those crimes; indeed that would be an unpardonable crime itself.
I'm not suggesting we pursue some animalistic joy of revenge. In fact, revenge has nothing to do with it. This is national self-preservation I'm talking about. For if we permit the Bush administration's darkest luminaries to walk away legally unscathed, we are inviting more of the same. And that "more" will return to haunt us in exponential spades.
Roughly a year and a half ago Bill Moyers invited the Nation's liberal John Nichols and conservative attorney Bruce Fein onto his show. The result (transcript here) was perhaps the most riveting and critically important broadcast in the history of public television.
From Those Who Enable the Triumph of Evil, and the Choice Before Us by
Only a few people will be honest enough to name the truth: that this system of evil continues in all its horror, and that better "marketing" (loathsome word) does not alter the nature of the torture and the murder that will go on. For the truth of where the Obama administration will begin -- and a preview of where it is all too likely that the logic of this system will carry it -- is this (from "Killing Truth and Hope -- The Fatal Illusion of Opposition"):
You desperately need to understand this: the next President of the United States, no matter who it is, will enter office knowing that he or she can systematically and regularly authorize torture, order mass murder, direct the United States military to engage in one campaign of criminal conquest and genocide after another, oversee uncountable acts of inhumanity and barbarity -- and he or she will never be challenged or called to account in any manner whatsoever. It may have taken the Bush administration two terms to bring us to the point where such evils are committed and even boasted about in broad daylight, while almost no one even notices -- but this will be where the next President starts.I understand and appreciate very well indeed (better than most of you will ever know) that this view does not win me many friends, or lead to much popularity or a wide readership. But I am convinced this is the truth of our situation, and of the United States. For me, that is enough. I don't offer this fact as an offensively boastful claim to some kind of bravery or courage; in fact, I reject such characterizations as irrelevant and unhelpful, and I occasionally (and momentarily) wish I could soften the edges of my arguments and make them "easier" for many readers. But that course is not "easier" for me, and I am incapable of following it. In significant part, that is because I hear the voices of the victims too clearly. I wish, deeply and terribly, that more people did. (While I am not hopeful about our political situation, I am profoundly hopeful about our future in more general human terms, if you will. I've written about the nature of that hope in essays such as "Flecks of Light, Points of Understanding, and the Gift of Sight," and "Passing on the Sense of Wonder." I will discuss these issues in more detail in future articles.)
And for this monstrous, unforgivable fact, you can thank the Democrats and those who whore themselves for the Democrats' success in our disgustingly meaningless elections.
I mention these points because yet another piece of powerful evidence for my general argument has come to my attention. The admirable David Swanson has written an article about John Conyers' "new report that updates his previous report originally released in 2005 documenting Bush and Cheney's crimes and impeachable offenses." I commend Swanson's indispensable piece to your careful consideration.
Swanson documents Conyers' history on the issue of impeachment in devastating detail. It is genuine Show of Horrors, and it provides plentiful examples of the rationalizations, equivocations, misrepresentations and outright lies that are required when an individual declines to fight against what he himself regards as monstrous and immensely destructive. Swanson goes through all the major arguments that have been used in the last few years to discourage impeachment -- all the arguments that many of you have undoubtedly seen offered by most of the leading liberal and progressive writers -- and he demolishes every single one of them. I refer you to his article for the details.
[ ... ]
Thus, the lesson: when you choose to be a critical part of a system that has become this corrupt -- and the endless corruptions of our corporatist-authoritarian-militarist system have been documented at great length here and in other places -- you will not ameliorate or "save" it. The system will necessarily and inevitably corrupt you.
Finally, that is the choice that confronts Conyers, and all of us: you can remain or become part of a system dedicated to destroying liberty and peace -- or you can choose to withdraw your support, to whatever extent is possible given the particulars of your life. I have never suggested, and I am not suggesting now, that the choice is always obvious, and it is certainly not easy -- but that is the choice. It is long past time to pretend otherwise.
Choose with care, and wisely, if you dare. As I have said before:
[T]hese horrors are now what the United States stands for. Thus, for every adult American, the question is not, "Why do you obey?" but:
Why do you support?
Or will you refuse to give your support? Will you say, "No"? These are the paramount questions at this moment in history, and in the life of the United States. We all must answer them. Our honor, our humanity, and our souls lie in the balance.
From Universal Jurisdiction in the 21st Century by Sarah Kuck
After decades of debate, the United Nations General Assembly put forth a treaty, which created the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court in 2002. Approximately 108 states are members of the court, and about 40 states have signed but not ratified the treaty.
India, China, Russia and the United States are among those who have not signed. Although Clinton signed the treaty on his way out of office, President George W. Bush withdrew the signature.
In an opinion piece for the International Herald Tribune, Roger Cohen commented on how this impacted U.S. international relations, and what a new administration, such as Obama's, could mean for the ICC:
This remarkable, and gleeful, "un-signing" was followed by an aggressive campaign to oblige countries to make a formal commitment, under threat of U.S. reprisals, never to surrender U.S. citizens to the court.
Former Republican Congressman Tom DeLay caught the snarling Bush-Cheney view of the institution when he referred to a "kangaroo court" that was a "clear and present danger" to Americans fighting the war on terror.
As a result, I can think of no better place for President-elect Barack Obama to start signaling a changed American approach to the world, and particularly its European allies, than the ICC. Even short of American membership, which would involve a tough battle in Congress, there is much he can do. But "re-signing" followed by ratification should be Obama's aim.
The effect of U.S. rejection of the court, combined with the trashing of habeas corpus at Guantánamo Bay, has been devastating. Allies from Canada to Germany that are court members have been dismayed by the U.S. dismissal of an institution they see doing evident good.
...
Obama should now confront U.S. responsibility, and signal a new commitment to multilateralism, in his attitude toward the court. After the terrible decade of the 1990s, with its genocides in Bosnia and Rwanda and the loss there of a million lives while the United States and its allies dithered, it is unconscionable that America not stand with the institution that constitutes the most effective legal deterrent to such crimes.Universal Jurisdiction is vital for the creation of a just global society. Simply signing and ratifying a treaty will of course not instantly bring peace and justice to all, but the action would carry heavy significance none the less. I think Alex Steffen said it well when he wrote that "Universal Jurisdiction may not save us from the crazies, but it will weaken their rule and make them think twice - for them, somewhere, always, the gavel will be hanging in mid-air."
No comments:
Post a Comment