It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Patriot Act Bill Would Expand Death Penalty

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 28 2005 @ 05:18 AM
link   
WASHINGTON – The House bill that would reauthorize the USA Patriot Act anti-terrorism law includes several little-noticed provisions that would dramatically transform the federal death penalty system, allowing smaller juries to decide on executions and giving prosecutors the ability to try again if a jury deadlocks on sentencing.



The bill also triples the number of terrorism-related crimes eligible for the death penalty, adding, among others, the material support law that has been the core of the government’s legal strategy against terrorism.

The death penalty provisions, which were added to the House bill during a voice vote in July, are emerging as one of the major points of contention between House and Senate negotiators as they begin work on a compromise bill to renew expiring portions of the Patriot Act. If approved, the provisions could have a significant effect on future Justice Department terrorism prosecutions.

The Senate version of the bill does not include the death penalty expansions. Senate Democrats argue that the proposals are extraneous to the Patriot Act and should not be approved without fuller debate. Death penalty opponents and defense attorneys also contend that the measures would increase the risk that innocent people could be executed by removing some of the safeguards now in place.

Under the proposals, 41 new crimes would be added to the 20 terrorism-related offenses now eligible for the federal death penalty. Prosecutors would also find it easier to impose a death sentence in cases in which the defendant did not have the intent to kill.

Source:
From Washington Post on InfoWars.com

Well, well, well.

Yet another step of the current US administration to tighten the Security Laws and endanger the Basic Human and Civil rights.

Kind of reminds me of a certain German Empire, that also Incrased the scope of the Capital Punishment.

But ofcourse, any Connections with a certain Fascist State are purely Coincidental!




posted on Oct, 28 2005 @ 05:21 AM
link   
You said it all.


We are being stripped, layer by layer.



posted on Oct, 28 2005 @ 05:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by dgtempe
You said it all.


We are being stripped, layer by layer.

Add the "Bullet in the Head" tactic, that the UK Police practiced after the July bombings - and you have several cases, like that one of the killed Brazilian guy, that was innocent, but shot dead, seven times in the Head.

The judge, the jury and the executioner all in one?



posted on Oct, 28 2005 @ 06:19 AM
link   
The title of this thread is very misleading. Before we look at the facts, let's all remember that we have a House of Representatives and a Senate,

House proposal:

The House bill that would reauthorize the USA Patriot Act anti-terrorism law includes several little-noticed provisions that would dramatically transform the federal death penalty system, allowing smaller juries to decide on executions and giving prosecutors the ability to try again if a jury deadlocks on sentencing.

This gets voted on and sent up to the Senate:

The Senate version of the bill does not include the death penalty expansions. Senate Democrats argue that the proposals are extraneous to the Patriot Act and should not be approved without fuller debate. Death penalty opponents and defense attorneys also contend that the measures would increase the risk that innocent people could be executed by removing some of the safeguards now in place.

After knowing these facts, how can irresponsible statements such as these be made?

Yet another step of the current US administration to tighten the Security Laws and endanger the Basic Human and Civil rights.

Kind of reminds me of a certain German Empire, that also Incrased the scope of the Capital Punishment.

But ofcourse, any Connections with a certain Fascist State are purely Coincidental!

Blame it on the current admin, and continue with your "Woe is you" monotone to Americans. Tsk, tsk, tsk.:shk:



posted on Oct, 28 2005 @ 06:30 AM
link   
conference committee could work out the kinks easily. if the house version passed and went to senate or if the senate version went to house. the conference commitee makes the two bills the same.



posted on Oct, 28 2005 @ 06:34 AM
link   
I wonder why was this Bill PROPOSED anyway?

The Idea of having a Expanded Death Penatly is somehow Sickening - even if it does not get passed.

It was Proposed - meaning that there are people in the places of Power (probably Chaney-Rumsfeld Cabal) that really WANTS this Bill.

After all, remember what was Bush famous at, when he was the Governer of Texas?

Oh Yeah! 152 Death Penalties!



posted on Oct, 28 2005 @ 06:51 AM
link   
Here is a new Question:



"It’s a strange notion of justice indeed to give prosecutors multiple bites at the apple," Human Rights Watch US Director Jamie Fellner said in a press statement. "Death penalty cases are already riddled with unfairness. Why would Congress want to make them worse?"

Among associated concerns raised by humanitarian groups are provisions that would increase the number of terrorism-related crimes eligible for the death penalty and allow judges to reduce the number of jurors involved in capital cases. Human Rights Watch is concerned that individuals supporting organizations accused of terrorism could face the death penalty even if they were unaware of the group’s allegedly violent actions and intent.

Source:
NewStandard News



posted on Oct, 28 2005 @ 11:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by Souljah
I wonder why was this Bill PROPOSED anyway?

It was Proposed - meaning that there are people in the places of Power (probably Chaney-Rumsfeld Cabal) that really WANTS this Bill.

No. It was actually proposed by wingnuts from Slovenia, because their own existence is so bland and lonely that they must live vicariously through the actions and deeds of the USA.


from Souljah
Here is a new Question:

Maybe you can amuse yourself with what the Humans Rights Director has to say, but I think she sounds like a moonbat:

Human Rights Watch is concerned that individuals supporting organizations accused of terrorism could face the death penalty even if they were unaware of the group’s allegedly violent actions and intent.

You must be kidding me.:shk:


[edit on 28-10-2005 by jsobecky]



posted on Oct, 28 2005 @ 08:05 PM
link   

You said it all.

We are being stripped, layer by layer.


Are you a terrorist?
Then your not being stripped of anything.



posted on Oct, 28 2005 @ 10:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by WestPoint23

You said it all.

We are being stripped, layer by layer.


Are you a terrorist?
Then your not being stripped of anything.


the problem is . . . What is considered a Terrorist who draws the line.


I believe the Bush administration has expanded the area quite well in the resent years since 9/11.



posted on Oct, 28 2005 @ 10:46 PM
link   
Some people amaze me. They are actually defending this bill as if its good
. I am not sure if I should be concerned or humored of their thinking of if its done by the government it must be good on everything. O well I am not a terroist ... o wait almost any American citizen can be considered a terroist according to .gov. Patriot Act I and II are the most unconstitutional pieces of crap ever passed in America. Yet they continue to add bills to them. Thank you .gov for destroying what preserved this country for so many years and yet doesn't even seem to exist anymore which is the constitution.



posted on Oct, 29 2005 @ 08:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by UFObeliever
Some people amaze me. They are actually defending this bill as if its good
. I am not sure if I should be concerned or humored of their thinking of if its done by the government it must be good on everything. O well I am not a terroist ... o wait almost any American citizen can be considered a terroist according to .gov. Patriot Act I and II are the most unconstitutional pieces of crap ever passed in America. Yet they continue to add bills to them. Thank you .gov for destroying what preserved this country for so many years and yet doesn't even seem to exist anymore which is the constitution.


If you put a fancy schmancy name on top of all the unconstitutional bills such as the 'patriot' act, one who judges a book by it's cover would think it's a good thing.
There are some good things in there when dealing w/ terror suspects, but it doesn't seem to draw the line or mention who in fact is a terrorist, and this gives them more leeway to spy on the citizenry w/ out just cause. I believe it was created that way though because they are targeting American's as potential enemies of the state - those who try and buck this current administration anyway.



posted on Oct, 29 2005 @ 08:17 AM
link   
are we being stripped???

try moving to another state, getting a job, and well, then opening up a bank account and depositing a paycheck...

can't rent most apartments....untill you have a job for awhile
can't get a bank account....until you can prove you have a permanant address in the state....
so, can't cash your check.

heck, I had to have my boss send my son a thank you for applying letter through the mail, just so he can get a drivers liscense!

if it's not being stripped, well then it's being bogged down with so much redtap it's about non-nogotiable!



posted on Oct, 29 2005 @ 10:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by Souljah
I wonder why was this Bill PROPOSED anyway?


A lot of things are proposed, Souljah. Just like democrats proposed a draft for the military which had no chance of being passed.


The Idea of having a Expanded Death Penatly is somehow Sickening - even if it does not get passed.


Sickening? There are many instances where the death penalty is warrented, and I believe terrorist activity should be one. I do understand your personal problem with capitol punishment though, and respect that. However, you must also understand that there are some cases when the death penalty may be reasonable.


It was Proposed - meaning that there are people in the places of Power (probably Chaney-Rumsfeld Cabal) that really WANTS this Bill.


Like I said, that is not really the case. By that logic, Hillery Clinton wanted a draft. Just because things are proposed does not always mean that they are ment to be passed... That said, in this case I do believe it is ment to be passed.


After all, remember what was Bush famous at, when he was the Governer of Texas?

Oh Yeah! 152 Death Penalties!


Again, though you may personally not agree with the death penalty, a lot of people do agree with it. I believe murderers and rapists should be put to death - all they do is hurt other people.



posted on Oct, 29 2005 @ 10:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by American Mad Man
A lot of things are proposed, Souljah. Just like democrats proposed a draft for the military which had no chance of being passed.

Agreed - its a Proposal, like any other. But still, its a chilly reminder how the goverment can quickly "expand" certain bills and acts to tailor them for their needs and purposes. Patriot Act is not exactly a shinning example of Demcratic country you know.



Sickening? There are many instances where the death penalty is warrented, and I believe terrorist activity should be one. I do understand your personal problem with capitol punishment though, and respect that. However, you must also understand that there are some cases when the death penalty may be reasonable.

Define: Terrorist Activity.
That is very hard to do. Everybody can point a finger at Anybody and say that he is a potential terrorist. How many innocent people are currently being locked up in Gitmo's, that were arrested just because the wrong kind of religion? Imagine that the punishment for terrorism would be death - how many innocent people would the goverment then kill? Makey you think, just how far are they prepared to go with their "Expansion"...



Like I said, that is not really the case. By that logic, Hillery Clinton wanted a draft. Just because things are proposed does not always mean that they are ment to be passed... That said, in this case I do believe it is ment to be passed.

So you have no problem with that kind of Expansion to the Patriot Act?



Again, though you may personally not agree with the death penalty, a lot of people do agree with it. I believe murderers and rapists should be put to death - all they do is hurt other people.

Seven percent of the people on death row in Texas prooved to be innocent. Thats 10 innocent people Dead. I also belive that if somebody did the Crime, he should receive equal or worse punishment upon him. Coming from a Country that does not have a Life Setance, and has very weak penalties, I know how it looks like when murderers and rapists come out in 20-30 years. We do not have a capital punishment. But when talking about expanding certain penalties, like death setance, this system becomes very similar to the Islamist Sharia Law, that cuts off hand of thieves and kills the murderers. So, basicly, you also agree with Sharia then?



posted on Oct, 29 2005 @ 11:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by Souljah
Agreed - its a Proposal, like any other. But still, its a chilly reminder how the goverment can quickly "expand" certain bills and acts to tailor them for their needs and purposes. Patriot Act is not exactly a shinning example of Demcratic country you know.


I agree completely with you, and that rarely happens Souljah


The fine print of legislation is often used to "sneak" laws into being passed, and I am no fan of it.




Define: Terrorist Activity.
That is very hard to do. Everybody can point a finger at Anybody and say that he is a potential terrorist. How many innocent people are currently being locked up in Gitmo's, that were arrested just because the wrong kind of religion? Imagine that the punishment for terrorism would be death - how many innocent people would the goverment then kill? Makey you think, just how far are they prepared to go with their "Expansion"...


That is a good point. Terrorist activety is vague at best. If I were to define it, and were to wright the legislation, I would define it as knowingly aiding in, directly or indirectly participating in the planning or execution of a plan to commit terrorism.

Obviously no system is perfect Souljah, and mistakes are inevidably going to be made because humans are imperfect. It is sad indeed that people are imprisoned or detained when they are innocent. However, I seriously doubt that their religion is the reason for this in most cases. More likely, it is the fact that they can be tied to terrorists because of the company they keep.



So you have no problem with that kind of Expansion to the Patriot Act?


Honestly, it depends. I have not read the bill myself, so I can't really give a defenitive answere. I will say that in spirit, I believe that if the government knows someone is a terrorist and has credible evidence that proves this, the death penalty should be used on such individuals.

As you pointed out though, there will always be flaws in such a system, and the government does often excede the meaning of laws to persue it's own ends.



Seven percent of the people on death row in Texas prooved to be innocent. Thats 10 innocent people Dead. I also belive that if somebody did the Crime, he should receive equal or worse punishment upon him. Coming from a Country that does not have a Life Setance, and has very weak penalties, I know how it looks like when murderers and rapists come out in 20-30 years. We do not have a capital punishment. But when talking about expanding certain penalties, like death setance, this system becomes very similar to the Islamist Sharia Law, that cuts off hand of thieves and kills the murderers. So, basicly, you also agree with Sharia then?


Like I said, I believe in theory that murderers and rapists should be executed. The practical problem though, is it actually costs more to execute people then it does to put them in jail for life because of the apeals and such. That coupled with the inevitable execution of an innocent person leads me to believe that in practice the death penalty may not be a logical option.

Honestly I am torn on the subject. I believe firmly in the death penalty, but rationally it is too hard to put into practice in most cases...

How is "I don't know" for an answere?



posted on Oct, 29 2005 @ 11:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by American Mad Man
I agree completely with you, and that rarely happens Souljah


This calls for a Celebration!




The fine print of legislation is often used to "sneak" laws into being passed, and I am no fan of it.


At times like this we have to seriously ask ourselves, if our Goverments really work for the People or for Themselves.



That is a good point. Terrorist activety is vague at best. If I were to define it, and were to wright the legislation, I would define it as knowingly aiding in, directly or indirectly participating in the planning or execution of a plan to commit terrorism.

You have defined what defines a Terrorist. But what is Terrorism? What is the stereotype for a terrorist today? An averege Islamistic Fundamentalist that comes from the Middle East. Terorism is "supposed" to be the weapon of the poor and the weak - but infact it is a tool of Strong.



Obviously no system is perfect Souljah, and mistakes are inevidably going to be made because humans are imperfect. It is sad indeed that people are imprisoned or detained when they are innocent. However, I seriously doubt that their religion is the reason for this in most cases. More likely, it is the fact that they can be tied to terrorists because of the company they keep.

The problem here rised after the 9-11 when president Bush declared a Holy War against Terrorism - and when he defined terrorism, he used countries like Afganistan and Iraq. Basicly Muslims in Unites States became the target of Intelligence agencies and every one of them a potential candidate for the Gitmo. And the Democratic way of "Innocent until proven Guilty" was quickly dismissed here. Everybody is a suspect, and everybody will be locked up until proved Innocent.



Honestly, it depends. I have not read the bill myself, so I can't really give a defenitive answere. I will say that in spirit, I believe that if the government knows someone is a terrorist and has credible evidence that proves this, the death penalty should be used on such individuals.

Sounds very Severe. Lets say, that US Special Forces, Delta Squadron goes to Syria and performs so-called "Counter-Intelligence" and Scouting actions. They are also considered as terrorist by the Syrian goverment and, by your standards, they have the right to shoot them?



Like I said, I believe in theory that murderers and rapists should be executed. The practical problem though, is it actually costs more to execute people then it does to put them in jail for life because of the apeals and such. That coupled with the inevitable execution of an innocent person leads me to believe that in practice the death penalty may not be a logical option.

Honestly I am torn on the subject. I believe firmly in the death penalty, but rationally it is too hard to put into practice in most cases...

How is "I don't know" for an answere?

Have you seen the movie Equilibrium? A modern society is without wars, crimes and they live in complete peace. BUT, the price is high: they have to be "drugged" all the times, everybody has to be sedated and everybody spies on everybody, if they have taken the drug - a drug, that kills Emotions. Basicly, by removing Emotions from Human system, they have removed War, Crimes and everything "bad". And the Punishment for an Emotional Outbreak is DEATH. I know I know, its pure science-fiction, but we can draw so good parallels between that movie and the world we have today.

I belive that if you do the Crime - the Punishment Must be so High, that you will not do that crime again. For example, if your daughter is Raped by a man, an averege Parent would want that Guy Dead or at least cut off his johnson, so he wont EVER do that again.

But, a death penalty in the case of terrorism - a term, that is VERY hard to define itself, would cause even more Problems that already have surfaced by now.



posted on Oct, 29 2005 @ 01:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by Souljah
At times like this we have to seriously ask ourselves, if our Goverments really work for the People or for Themselves.


I think the answere to that is fairly obvious. The individuals that make up the government use the government as a tool to persue their own ends. Often times though, their goal is to keep or improve their power, and thus they must appease the voters with legislation they call for.



You have defined what defines a Terrorist. But what is Terrorism? What is the stereotype for a terrorist today? An averege Islamistic Fundamentalist that comes from the Middle East. Terorism is "supposed" to be the weapon of the poor and the weak - but infact it is a tool of Strong.


OK, seeing as their are different degrees of terrorism I will go a step further... Terrorism should be punishable by death if the plot involves murder.

Clearly the stereotypes for a terrorist is an Islamic fundamentalist, and for most people Arab.



The problem here rised after the 9-11 when president Bush declared a Holy War against Terrorism - and when he defined terrorism, he used countries like Afganistan and Iraq. Basicly Muslims in Unites States became the target of Intelligence agencies and every one of them a potential candidate for the Gitmo. And the Democratic way of "Innocent until proven Guilty" was quickly dismissed here. Everybody is a suspect, and everybody will be locked up until proved Innocent.


Can you point me to where Bush declared a "holy war", because I do not recall that.

Muslims did become the target of intellegence agencies, because guess what - muslims were responsable for the WTC attacks. That is only natural.

Now, that does not justify detaining innocent people indefenatly, but logically focusing on Muslims only makes sense here, and I have no problem with it. Call it unjust profiling if you want, I see it as logical.



Sounds very Severe.


That is the idea.


Lets say, that US Special Forces, Delta Squadron goes to Syria and performs so-called "Counter-Intelligence" and Scouting actions. They are also considered as terrorist by the Syrian goverment and, by your standards, they have the right to shoot them?


If they are targeting civilians, absolutely.

If they are targeting military forces, then they would be within the commonly accepted rules of engagement. There is a difference, in my eyes and in the eyes of most nations, between intentionally targeting innocent civilians and targeting the military. There is no excuse or reason to intentionally kill civilians other then to bring terror to them.



Have you seen the movie Equilibrium? A modern society is without wars, crimes and they live in complete peace. BUT, the price is high: they have to be "drugged" all the times, everybody has to be sedated and everybody spies on everybody, if they have taken the drug - a drug, that kills Emotions. Basicly, by removing Emotions from Human system, they have removed War, Crimes and everything "bad". And the Punishment for an Emotional Outbreak is DEATH. I know I know, its pure science-fiction, but we can draw so good parallels between that movie and the world we have today.


I have not seen the movie, but it sounds very good - I think I will pay a visit to blockbuster for it.


Yes there are parallels, but that is an extreme example. Frankly, you can not justify wanting to kill someone with emotions. Anger is a powerfull emotion, and the results that come from it are not always good. The question is how you handle your emotions. Resorting to terrorism is different then simply expressing ones anger.



I belive that if you do the Crime - the Punishment Must be so High, that you will not do that crime again. For example, if your daughter is Raped by a man, an averege Parent would want that Guy Dead or at least cut off his johnson, so he wont EVER do that again.

But, a death penalty in the case of terrorism - a term, that is VERY hard to define itself, would cause even more Problems that already have surfaced by now.


I'm not sure I agree with you here. I don't think any new problems would come from putting terrorists to death.

Again, if anything, I would agree that the death penalty is a bad idea in this case for practicality reasons. There are huge legal liabilities, and on top of that dead men tell you nothing usefull. On top of that, the death penalty is supposed to be a deterent, and yet those that we tend to think of as terrorists supposedly do not fear death because of their strong belief in God.

Thus, the death penalty wouldn't work as a deterent most of the time.



posted on Oct, 30 2005 @ 04:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by American Mad Man
I think the answere to that is fairly obvious. The individuals that make up the government use the government as a tool to persue their own ends. Often times though, their goal is to keep or improve their power, and thus they must appease the voters with legislation they call for.

I think the problem today is that these Individuals do nothing for the People - but they still Persuade them, that its for THEIR own good. They are getting Trickier by the year...



OK, seeing as their are different degrees of terrorism I will go a step further... Terrorism should be punishable by death if the plot involves murder.

OK - what about the "normal" murder trials? Shoudl they be punishable by death penatly also, or just the terrorist acts?



Clearly the stereotypes for a terrorist is an Islamic fundamentalist, and for most people Arab.

Terrorism is practiced all around the world: the Chinese use it upon People of Nepal, Isreali soldiers use it to scare the Palestnian population, the US goverment used it to "convert" countries of the Central America from communism, the IRA used it to fight the UK in the North Ireland, Red Brigades use it in the armed struggle in Italy - it is not just the weapon of the Islamic fundamentalists. That is the WAY that the current admin wants us ALL to think it is. They want us all to make a strong connection between Terrorism and Islam.



Can you point me to where Bush declared a "holy war", because I do not recall that.

By blaming the entire Islamic World for the 9-11 attacks is kind of generalizing the problem. Terrorism is used by extremists - not a religious group. Extremists are everywhere. They are of all religions.



Muslims did become the target of intellegence agencies, because guess what - muslims were responsable for the WTC attacks. That is only natural.

Here is the problem. Muslims religion forbids suicide - therefore, these people were not muslims fanatics, just fanatics coming from muslim countries. THAT is a difference. Imagine a few crazy white christian people from France hijacking an airplane and crashing it into Bejing biggest tower. Would the Chinese then start a War against France and all other Countries that are home to White Christians?



Now, that does not justify detaining innocent people indefenatly, but logically focusing on Muslims only makes sense here, and I have no problem with it. Call it unjust profiling if you want, I see it as logical.

Ofcourse it is logica - if you look at this problem through the "Bush looking glass". Then every muslim is a potential terrorist. Why were the Osama clan then flew out of United States in days after the collapse of the WTC? Wasn't OBL the main suspect in this case - why were all the Saudis then let go to escape, when the entire US Airspace was Closed and ALL airplanes grounded? The Majority of the hijackers were Saudi, as is OBL - did the US admin ever Threat Saudi Arabia? Or attack, like they did Afganitan and Iraq? Nope. Why is that?



If they are targeting military forces, then they would be within the commonly accepted rules of engagement. There is a difference, in my eyes and in the eyes of most nations, between intentionally targeting innocent civilians and targeting the military. There is no excuse or reason to intentionally kill civilians other then to bring terror to them.

What if you target the military forces, but end up killing innocent civilans, just because they were "in the way" and you just had to destroy that military target at all cost - even the cost of 50 or 100 dead civilans?



Yes there are parallels, but that is an extreme example. Frankly, you can not justify wanting to kill someone with emotions. Anger is a powerfull emotion, and the results that come from it are not always good. The question is how you handle your emotions. Resorting to terrorism is different then simply expressing ones anger.

There are Six Basic emotions: Love, Joy, Surprise, Anger, Sadness, Hate and Fear. And the last one is the Tool of Terrorism. By increasing Fear you control the population and keep it that way. Fear is a great tool for powerful countries to control their own people and people of the world. And Fear is what keeps this US Admin in Power. Without Fear their Power is useless...



Again, if anything, I would agree that the death penalty is a bad idea in this case for practicality reasons. There are huge legal liabilities, and on top of that dead men tell you nothing usefull. On top of that, the death penalty is supposed to be a deterent, and yet those that we tend to think of as terrorists supposedly do not fear death because of their strong belief in God.

By expanding Patriot Act - a Bill that is already very contraversial, and breaks several civil and human rights already - to lower the minimum of the Death Penatly, would have a huge impact among the civil rights groups, as well as the rest of the world. The so-called Democratic state is loosing its freedom and liberty and the rights, that make it democratic and truly the land of the Free. Istead this kind of extended Bill would push it one more step closer to the Police state, with Hardcore Laws, that resemble Fascist regimes and their obsession for Security, Secrecy and the Invincibility of the Goverment itself to do whatever they want.



posted on Oct, 30 2005 @ 08:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by Souljah
Add the "Bullet in the Head" tactic, that the UK Police practiced after the July bombings - and you have several cases, like that one of the killed Brazilian guy, that was innocent, but shot dead, seven times in the Head.

The judge, the jury and the executioner all in one?

Oh yeah thats it , blame SO19 all the time yeah.
You ever read about these people?
Ever met a police officer?
Ever known one?
Know anything from THIER prespective...noooo ofcourse not...after all police are right wing nazis who carry Walthers and MP-5's to smack you down when you rise up...




top topics



 
0

log in

join