Letter to Senator Clinton, from Human Rights Watch.

[Tom Joad]

This is from Human Rights Watch, another respected human rights organization. I think it is good for all to ponder and reflect. If there is anything "unfair" about this, it is that it was not addressed to nearly every member of Congress (Pelosi and Tom Delay first and foremost), nearly all of whom (with a few courageous exceptions)have expressed support for a "barrier" or "wall" that will simply destroy Palestinian communities, and will define unilaterally the border of the Israeli state.

Despite its immense cost, the commitment of most Israeli and US politicians to this Wall, I have no doubt that through "people power", it will be dismantled. It is an embarrassment to the human race. --Tom

http://hrw.org/english/docs/2005/11/23/isrlpa12086.htm

Letter to Senator Clinton on Comments about the Construction of the Wall

November 23, 2005

Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton
United States Senate
476 Russell Senate Office Building
Washington, DC 20510


Dear Senator Clinton,

We write in response to comments attributed to you in Ha’aretz (November 15, 2005) during your recent trip to Israel and the Occupied Palestinian Territories (OPT) regarding the construction there of a metal and concrete barrier (hereinafter referred to as a “wall”, in accordance with the terminology used by the International Court of Justice). The media has quoted you as expressing support for the wall because it “is against terrorists” and “not against the Palestinian people.” In light of your general standing as a supporter of international law and human rights, we find these comments disturbing and disappointing.

Israel certainly claims that its construction of the wall is designed to counter terrorist attacks by building a barrier between Israelis and Palestinians, but that could have been accomplished by building it along the Green Line. Instead, Israel has built the bulk of the wall (benignly referred to as a “security fence” by the Israeli government) well inside the OPT for the purpose of capturing Israeli settlements, and the Palestinian land and resources they control, on the “Israel side” of the wall.

Under the current route, only twenty percent of the wall’s route is inside Israel or along the Green Line, while 80 percent deviates from it, encompassing fifty-five Israeli settlements and other land in the OPT. These settlements contain the vast majority of more than 400,000 settlers living in the West Bank and East Jerusalem. The wall succeeds in providing contiguity among the illegal settlements, their access roads, and Israel, while severing Palestinian cities, towns and villages from each other and from their land. This deep intrusion suggests that the function of the wall is less for security than for facilitating the eventual annexation of territory. B’Tselem, a leading human rights organization in Israel, unequivocally concluded in its September 2005 report, “Under the Guise of Security”, that


Contrary to the state's claim that the Barrier's route is based solely on security reasons, the main consideration in setting the route in some locations was to include on the “Israeli” side of the Barrier areas which are slated for settlements expansion. In some cases, the expansion amounts to the establishment of new settlements.


The location of the wall outside Israel is also illegal under international law. In 2004, the International Court of Justice concluded that Israel’s construction of the wall within the boundaries of the OPT contravenes international humanitarian law and is tantamount to an illegal annexation of the settlements on the “Israel side” of the wall. The court wrote that Israel should cease construction of the wall on Palestinian territory, dismantle those portions already constructed there, and pay reparations for damage caused. Unfortunately, Israel has failed to follow the court’s decision and continues its construction of the wall.
The court also reiterated its finding, shared by international legal commentators and every major human rights organization in the world, that the settlements themselves violate international humanitarian law. Article 49 of the Fourth Geneva Convention prohibits Israel, as the occupying power in the OPT, from transferring members of its own population into the OPT; Article 55 of the Hague Regulations, a component of customary international law, also prohibits Israel from making permanent changes to the territory, such as establishing Jewish-only settlements, that do not benefit the local inhabitants. These laws were designed in recognition of the tremendous damage that colonization of occupied territories causes to the lives of the indigenous population.

Sadly, all evidence indicates that the wall is, in fact, very much “against” the Palestinian people. The humanitarian, economic, and social impact of the wall on Palestinian communities has been nothing short of disastrous, as extensively documented by the United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs, relief organizations, and human rights groups, among others. In the case of many Palestinian villages, the wall separates students from their schools, families from their relatives and friends, workers from their jobs, and farmers from their agricultural land, greenhouses, olive and citrus trees, and even water. The wall has severely circumscribed the already limited access of a number of Palestinian cities and villages to their local hospitals, schools and social service facilities. Worst off are the Palestinians trapped on the “Israel side” of the wall, who must now obtain special permits from the Israeli government to reside in their own homes. By making movement and in some cases residence so difficult, the wall seems intended to encourage Palestinians to leave for other areas of the West Bank, or even other countries.

Even the Supreme Court of Israel has recognized that the Israeli government cannot ignore altogether these humanitarian impacts. In two recent cases, although the court continued to avoid ruling on the illegality of settlements, it ordered Israel to consider rerouting the wall or its route in certain areas where Palestinians in a number of villages demonstrated the destructive effect of the wall on their ability to earn a livelihood or have any semblance of normalcy in their lives. While these decisions may alleviate some of the damage caused to those particular villages that were able to file claims and receive a hearing, they fail to address the ongoing, overall harm caused by the wall to Palestinians in the OPT or the fundamental illegality of the wall’s construction on Palestinian territory.

In light of these considerations, we hope that you will reconsider your position in support of the wall, which ignores, and thereby undermines, the pronouncement of the world’s highest judicial authority on matters pertaining to international law. We hope you will reconsider the evidence indicating that the placement of the wall inside the OPT is designed to annex settlements to Israel, under the guise of security. And we hope that you will instead join us and other human rights organizations, both around the world and inside Israel and the OPT, in demanding that Israel respect international law and protect the human rights of the Palestinians subject to Israeli military occupation.

Sincerely,

Sarah Leah Whitson
Executive Director, Middle East and North Africa Division

[eyl]

1. Incorrect

Israel certainly claims that its construction of the wall is designed to counter terrorist attacks by building a barrier between Israelis and Palestinians, but that could have been accomplished by building it along the Green Line

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=124x93371#93455

As for the ICJ:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=124x90847#90883

[Tom Joad]

2. Why lock thousands of Palestinians into the so-called *Israeli* side of

apartheid wall??

You may have reasons for supporting the destruction of Palestinian villages, the inevitiable end of this work, but the fact remains most of the world sees it for what it is, a gross violation of human rights.

The Wall supporters do have a problem. This wall will not stand for the same reason apartheid did not stand, world opinion, and the direct action of the world's people (especially the Palestinians, and their international supporters, that include thoughtful Jewish Israelis) will not permit it. It is just a matter of time.

[barb162]

29. Lock them? Like a prison? Like they have no right to leave?

Aren't you overstating by a lot?

I disagree that the wall supporters have a problem. It is for protection and Israel has a right to protect itself. Period.

[Violet_Crumble]

10. No, it's not...

Yr opinion is that yr opinion outweighs that of human rights groups and the ICJ. My opinion on reading all opinions is that the opinion of human rights groups and the ICJ are much sounder. Any argument that Israel needs to construct the wall where it is to 'protect' settlements in the West Bank is flawed, because moving citizens of an occupying power into occupied territory is illegal under international law. Any argument that the purpose of the wall would be negated by locating it on or inside Israel because Israeli citizens would be left outside it is also flawed, as if the motive for the wall is security, there's a hell of a lot of Palestinians who find themselves inside it and separated from the rest of the West Bank. Why aren't they a security threat? Is it because the Israeli military issues them with temporary residence permits that can be revoked at any time, even though they've lived there for generations?

Violet...

[eyl]

11. One of the primary premises

of the ICJ decision is that Israel has no right of self-defense against Palestinian terrorism. Because the Court made that premise - on the basis of a, to my opinion, rather dubious interpretation of Article 51 of the UN Charter - the question of whether the location of the barrier is necessary to Israel's security or not was never actually addressed. If you don't grant that premise, the entire basis of the verdict becomes much shakier, since international law allows construction, as well as confiscation and/or destruction of property, if necessary for security.

As for your point on Palestinians to the west of the barrier, Israel hasn't claimed that all Palestinians are security threats in actuality. Were that so, the barrier wouldn't have been necessary in the first place, since Israel could have used harsher, active means. The problem is that they are threats in potentia, because, since the terrorists don't wear uniforms, and sadly our only psychic is in the US, terrorists and civilians generally look the same until the former open fire, and thus we cannot sort them out without checkpoints. What the barrier does, as far as Palestinians to its west are concerned, is prevent terrorists from getting into those communities from areas deeper in the West Bank. I should also note that the inclusion of Palestinians to the west of the barrier is actually an argument against its being permanent, since Israel is hardly likely to desire them to become Israeli citizens in the end.

[Violet_Crumble]

12. No it isn't...

Read the report again, eyl. All the way through it, and in all the separate rulings, it is emphasised that Israel has the right to protect itself against terrorism using means that are legitimate. I'm not sure why yr saying it said anything different to that...

The question that was addressed was very clear, and the ruling only ruled on the parts of the wall that were in Palestinian territory. How does that translate as not dealing with the question of location?

If Israel isn't claiming that all Palestinians are security threats in actuality, then why the hell is the wall needed in the first place? That makes no sense. Are you saying that the Palestinians on the east of the wall who now have been given temporary resident status on land they have lived on all their lives are deemed no security threat, while Palestinians get more dangerous and terroristic to the west?

I'm thinking that Israel doesn't want the Palestinians to the east of the barrier to become Israeli citizens, which would explain the temporary resident status. From what I've heard, it appears very much that life for them is made as intolerable as possible so they end up moving to the east of the barrier, and freeing up all that land for Israelis...


Violet...

[eyl]

13. From the decision

138. The Court has thus concluded that the construction of the wall constitutes action not in conformity with various international legal obligations incumbent upon Israel. However, Annex I to the report of the Secretary‑General states that, according to Israel: “the construction of the Barrier is consistent with Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations, its inherent right to self‑defence and Security Council resolutions 1368 (2001) and 1373 (2001)”. More specifically, Israel’s Permanent Representative to the United Nations asserted in the General Assembly on 20 October 2003 that “the fence is a measure wholly consistent with the right of States to self‑defence enshrined in Article 51 of the Charter”; the Security Council resolutions referred to, he continued, “have clearly recognized the right of States to use force in self‑defence against terrorist attacks”, and therefore surely recognize the right to use non‑forcible measures to that end (A/ES‑10/PV.21, p. 6).

139. Under the terms of Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations:

“Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self‑defence if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations, until the Security Council has taken measures necessary to maintain international peace and security.”

Article 51 of the Charter thus recognizes the existence of an inherent right of self‑defence in the case of armed attack by one State against another State. However, Israel does not claim that the attacks against it are imputable to a foreign State.
The Court also notes that Israel exercises control in the Occupied Palestinian Territory and that, as Israel itself states, the threat which it regards as justifying the construction of the wall originates within, and not outside, that territory. The situation is thus different from that contemplated by Security Council resolutions 1368 (2001) and 1373 (2001), and therefore Israel could not in any event invoke those resolutions in support of its claim to be exercising a right of self‑defence.
Consequently, the Court concludes that Article 51 of the Charter has no relevance in this case.

Note that the arguments the Court uses to support the position that Israel cannot invoke the right of self-defense have nothing to do with the location of the barrier. Rather, they rely on the general situation - that is, that the attacks against Israel are not imputable to a foreign state. Therefore, Israel does not, under the ruling, have the right to invoke the right of self-defense in any dealings with Palestinian terrorism. Consequently, the question of whether the barrier's location is necessary for security reasons was sidestepped - if Israel cannot invoke the right of self-defense, the question is irrelevant, and Israel has cannot invoke the defense of necessity.

This part of the ruling actually has wider implications. For example, using the exact same reasoning, Israel had no right to defend itself against the recent Hizbullah attacks, since those are not imputable to another state either.

If Israel isn't claiming that all Palestinians are security threats in actuality, then why the hell is the wall needed in the first place? That makes no sense. Are you saying that the Palestinians on the east of the wall who now have been given temporary resident status on land they have lived on all their lives are deemed no security threat, while Palestinians get more dangerous and terroristic to the west?

Because those Palestinians who are terrorists are coming from the east of the barrier; thus, it serves to delay, reroute, or block them. Also, don't you have your directions reversed?

[Violet_Crumble]

19. Some more from the decision...

Actually, the most important part, which is the question the Court issued the Advisory Opinion on:

'What are the legal consequences arising from the construction of the wall being built by Israel, the occupying Power, in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including in and around East Jerusalem, as described in the report of the Secretary-General, considering the rules and principles of international law, including the Fourth Geneva Convention of 1949, and relevant Security Council and General Assembly resolutions?'

I'd be thinking that the reason why Article 51 of the Charter wasn't found applicable in this case is because attacks are originating from territory that Israel occupies, and as the occupying power, Israel has the obligation not to alter the character of the territory it's occupying. That is not to say that Israel does not have the right to defend itself against attacks just because the Court ruled that the construction of the wall was illegal. In fact, the ruling states so very clearly:

141. The fact remains that Israel has to face numerous indiscriminate and deadly acts of violence against its civilian population. It has the right, and indeed the duty, to respond in order to protect the lives of its citizens. The measures taken are bound nonetheless to remain in conformity with applicable international law

142. In conclusion, the Court considers that Israel cannot rely on a right of self-defence or on a state of necessity in order to preclude the wrongfulness of the construction of the wall resulting from the considerations mentioned in paragraphs 122 and 137 above. The Court accordingly finds that the construction of the wall, and its associated regime, are contrary to international law.

Sorry, eyl, but I find it unbelievable that the Israeli govt's motives for the route the wall takes has anything to do with 'good' vs 'terrorist' Palestinians. It's got everything to do with where the settlements are in the West Bank, and Israel's plans for annexing that territory...

Violet...

[eyl]

20. First of all

If you'll read the excerpt I gave, you'll see that the reason given for the Article 51's nonapplicability was solely that the attacks were not imputable to a state. The fact that Israel occupied the Territories was also mentioned, but only in the context of saying Israel could not use two specific UNSC resolutions as precedents; it was not used to support the Court's contention that Article 51 was inapplicable. So as far as the verdict is concerned, Israel's status as an occupying power is irrelevant to the question.

And this has a direct bearing on the bolded portion of your excerpt. Israel is required to abide by international law, but international law allows "altering the character of the territory" if there is a security need to do so (see for instance Article 53 of GC4). Except that, since the Court ruled Israel could not invoke Article 51 - and, later in the verdict, summarily dismissed Israeli claims of necessity - it threw out that entire portion of international law.

[Violet_Crumble]

23. Of course Israel's status as an occupying power is relevant...

If it wasn't, then it wouldn't have the obligations it has not to change the character of the territory it's occupying. You make it sound as though the ruling only briefly touched on the fact that Israel is the occupying power, but it was dealt with in great detail. The ruling wouldn't have found that Israel has violated a whole raft of international laws and human rights laws if Israel's status as an occupying power was irrelevent...

It's pretty obvious that the reason why Article 51 wasn't applicable was because of Israel's status as the occupying power. Article 51 was invoked after the Sept.11 attacks, which were also carried out by non-state actors, but the difference there is that they weren't carrying out attacks from territory that the US is occupying and building American-only settlements all over in an attempt to create facts on the ground and change the character of the territory....

The reason the court dismissed Israeli claims of necessity when it comes to constructing the wall in Palestinian territory and creating untold suffering for Palestinians affected by it should be pretty clear - the ruling states quite a few times that while Israel has the right to defend itself, it does not have the right to violate international law in doing so...

Violet...

[eyl]

24. Except that

under international law necessity is a legitimate reason to suspend some of its provisions! (I gave you one example from GC4 above). What you're saying here equivalent to saying that a homicide suspect's claim of self-defense is irrelevent because he must follow the law when defending himself - even though the law recognizes self defense as an exception to the prohibition of homicide.

And again - if the only reason Article 51 was inapplicable was Israel's occupation if the territory, the Court would not have specified it only applied to state-vs-state violence. Again, with this logic, since Hizbullah's actions are not formally imputable to another state, Article 51 would not apply to their attacks against Israel - even though they are carried out from Lebenese territory.

[Violet_Crumble]

31. No, still wrong...

Yes, necessity is a legitimate reason to suspend some of the obligations of an occupying power, but necessity in the case of the wall is a completely false argument. What I'm arguing is that the wall isn't self-defence, and even in cases of self-defence, it's not morally or legally right to take actions that will place a large number of people in completely miserable situations...

Uh, yes the Court did say it only applied to state-vs-state violence, but how then do you explain that it was invoked after the Sept. 11 attacks?

Personally, I think if the Court had ignored all evidence of the detrimental affect it was having on Palestinians living under occupation and had decided that Israel can build whatever it wants in occupied territory, it would have made a complete joke out of international law...

Violet...

[eyl]

44. ..

Yes, necessity is a legitimate reason to suspend some of the obligations of an occupying power, but necessity in the case of the wall is a completely false argument. What I'm arguing is that the wall isn't self-defence, and even in cases of self-defence, it's not morally or legally right to take actions that will place a large number of people in completely miserable situations...

Well, here we disagree. I maintain the primary purpose of the barrier is defensive, supported by the drastic drop in suicide bombings inside Israel (as well as cross-Green Line shootings) since it went up. As for your last sentence, you realise the same argument could be used against going to war in self-defense?

And more to the point of the discusion, it would be one thing if the Court said "we don't think the barrier is required by self defense, because of A..B..C.."; instead, they dismissed Israeli claims of necessity without any discussion or explanation.

Uh, yes the Court did say it only applied to state-vs-state violence, but how then do you explain that it was invoked after the Sept. 11 attacks?

I said that was what the Court decided. I happen to think that this determination was flawed, both because of the very point you bring up here, and because Article 51 does not, as the Cort maintained it did, specify it only applies to state-vs-state violence.

Note also paragraphs 33-34 of Judge Higgens' dissenting opinion, paragraph 35 of Judge Kooijmans' dissenting opinion, and paragraphs 4-7 of Judge Buergenthal's dissenting opinion.

[Wordie]

14. A self-defense claim only makes sense on a country's *own* land. eom

[eyl]

16. No it doesn't

Example - I place warships off your shores - outside your territorial waters - and shoot at every one of your ships which leaves your ports. Can you invoke the right of self defense to attack my ships or not?

If you answered yess, add another wrinkle - your technology is less advanced than mine, so you cannot shoot at my ships unless you come out of your territorial waters. Can you still invoke the right of self defense?

[Wordie]

17. Israel's claiming a need for self defense of territory that is not Israeli

You missed my point, eyl. Your example does not take into account the reality of the situation. But if you still see it as valid, do you think Pals should be able to invoke a similar right to self defense, I wonder? If not, why not?

[barb162]

3. This is a total piece of crap. The wall is for security

[Tom Joad]

5. If you take human rights seriously, I think this is a helpful post.

I think, however, that there is a small and vocal minority here who do not believe in human rights for Palestinians, and I don't expect to change any minds in that camp.

[barb162]

6. what do you mean

I take the human right to security and self -defense VERY seriously. Read the speech by Hillary Clinton.

[Violet_Crumble]

7. I read it. That woman doesn't believe in human rights for Palestinians...

n/t

[Andromeda]

21. That's not true.

I've never read anything in print or heard her say in any of her speeches that she doesn't believe in human rights for Palestinians.

If she actually HAS said that she doesn't think Palestinians deserve to be self-determining and that she doesn't believe in a two-state solution then I will condemn her myself.

I know as a fact that she believes in a two-state solution. Just because she believes that Israel needs to be secure from suicide bombers and missiles doesn't mean she's anti-Palestinian.

You make this mistake a lot: you think just because a person is pro-Israel, they are anti-Palesinian and anti-Arab. Nothing could be farther from the truth.

[Violet_Crumble]

22. Yes, it is true. Her own words recently display it...

But maybe you can show me all these times that she's expressed her support for human rights when it comes to Palestinians...

There's quite a few folk in the US who think if they say they support the Palestinian right of self-determination and a two-state solution, that makes them bastions of human rights. That's bullshit. Someone who never utters a word of concern for the conditions that the Palestinians are forced to live under, and who justifies human rights violations by hiding behind the weak excuse of keeping Israel secure from suicide bombers, is not someone who wants a peaceful resolution to the conflict that is fair for both Israelis and Palestinians. And I've discovered that many folk who claim to support a two-state solution in fact support the idea of a mini-state with no power and no independence which is nothing more than a series of disconnected bantustans amongst Israeli settlements in the West Bank....

No offense, but yr the one making the mistake in assuming that I simplify things into 'anti-Israel' (btw, criticising Israel does not make anyone anti-Israel anymore than someone criticising the US being anti-American) and 'anti-Palestinian' (same goes for this term). I'm not into such nonsensical black and white, pick yr team and cheer it no matter what garbage. I made this observation about Hillary Clinton because it's true...

btw, how do you define 'pro-Israel'? I'm curious to know....

Violet...

[barb162]

26. Do you have a link supporting your statement or not

that Ms. Clinton doesn't support Palestinian human rights

[Violet_Crumble]

30. Try reading what she's said about the I/P conflict...

n/t

[Andromeda]

36. I don't have to show you anything.

You are the one who made the statement that Hillary Clinton doesn't believe in human rights for Palestinians.

Since you made the charge I want you to tell me when she made that statement. Did she say that in the New York Times? How about the Washington Post? Maybe Al Jazeera?

The ball is in your court. You made the charge, now you have to prove it.

[Violet_Crumble]

37. And I don't have to show you anything...

Also, try reading what I say. I didn't say she made that statement. What I said was she doesn't believe in human rights for Palestinians.

Once you actually address what I say, then we can go from there. I wasn't expecting you to be able to show me any evidence that she's ever expressed concern for the human rights violations committed against the Palestinians, because that'd be an impossible thing to do...


btw, you didn't answer my question about how you define 'pro-Israel'. I thought seeing it's a term you use a lot, that'd be an easy one to anwer...

Violet...

[Andromeda]

39. I asked you a question, now it's up to you...

to tell me what you base your opinion of Hillary on.

I'm not going to fall for this thing you do which is to answer a question with a question.

If Hillary didn't make any kind of statement that would make you draw the conclusion that she didn't believe in Palestinian human rights then what do you base your opinion on?

Once you actually address what I say, then we can go from there.

[Violet_Crumble]

41. Yr claiming I said something I didn't say...

Of course I'm not going to provide examples of something I NEVER claimed...

I said very clearly that she didn't believe in Palestinian human rights, not that she'd made a statement saying she didn't believe in Palestinian human rights. Yet you said: 'Since you made the charge I want you to tell me when she made that statement. Did she say that in the New York Times? How about the Washington Post? Maybe Al Jazeera?'

I've already told you what I based my opinion that she doesn't believe in human rights for Palestinians on, so asking again seems rather pointless...

Yr turn to answer my question now :)

Violet...

[Name removed]

42. Deleted message

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

[Name removed]

40. Deleted message

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

[barb162]

25. link please

[Violet_Crumble]

32. See post 30

That's the reply to the exact same question you asked...

Violet...

[Violet_Crumble]

8. Try reading the ICJ ruling on the wall...

Even the Israeli govt is admitting now that the wall will dictate the future border of Israel. Are you disagreeing with them?

Violet...

[Tom Joad]

18. Exactly. Israel is always creating *facts on the ground*.

This wall is just the latest.

US policy in the Middle East must change, and support people, not ideologies of dispossession and racism.

[barb162]

27. Too bad these things don't deal with terrorism

and little ol things like basic security facts. Eyl's post 1 and its reference critiques the ICJ ruling more than adequately.

[Violet_Crumble]

34. Sorry, but not everything can by justified with the 'security' excuse...

Especially when much of what happens has zero to do with security. Also, why is the security of the Palestinians never deemed important by some folk?

Also, can you explain why you think eyl's critique of the ICJ ruling does a more than adequate job? I've identified some flaws in it, so maybe you could address the ruling and explain why you think eyl is right and the Court is wrong?


Violet...

[barb162]

4. check thread

"Hillary Calls Israel a 'Beacon' of Democracy"

[Name removed]

9. Deleted message

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

[Wordie]

15. Unfortunately, pandering is not always idiotic.

Shallow, yes; short-sighted, yes; self-serving, yes. But sadly, it's often a highly effective strategy that achieves the desired result. Hardly idiotic in that sense. It can backfire, though...

There were many reasons I liked Clinton and would have considered voting for her for President. But this and some of the other recent shift-to-the-right nonsense, including the flag-burning stuff, has turned me off completely. I suspect there are LOTS of others who feel the same, and just won't forget these things.

[barb162]

28. She's neither slavering nor an idiot

She is one very smart attorney

[Name removed]

33. Deleted message

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

[Name removed]

35. Deleted message

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

[Name removed]

38. Deleted message

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

[Behind the Aegis]

43. heehee...I did...

...."some animals are more equal than others."

[julianer]

45. Highly inflammatory or divisive attacks

that echo the tone or substance of our political opponents are not welcome here.

I'm glad to hear that is in the rules - perhaps I won't be accused of 'supporting terrorism' in the future.