OT: In court, US claims rights to kidnap anyone anywhere for any crime.... - Linux

This is a discussion on OT: In court, US claims rights to kidnap anyone anywhere for any crime.... - Linux ; ( http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/new...cle2982640.ece ) From The Sunday TimesDecember 2, 2007 US says it has right to kidnap British citizens David Leppard AMERICA has told Britain that it can "kidnap" British citizens if they are wanted for crimes in the United States. ...

+ Reply to Thread
Results 1 to 15 of 15

Thread: OT: In court, US claims rights to kidnap anyone anywhere for any crime....

  1. OT: In court, US claims rights to kidnap anyone anywhere for any crime....

    (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/new...cle2982640.ece)

    From The Sunday TimesDecember 2, 2007

    US says it has right to kidnap British citizens
    David Leppard
    AMERICA has told Britain that it can "kidnap" British citizens if they are
    wanted for crimes in the United States.

    A senior lawyer for the American government has told the Court of Appeal in
    London that kidnapping foreign citizens is permissible under American law
    because the US Supreme Court has sanctioned it.

    The admission will alarm the British business community after the case of
    the so-called NatWest Three, bankers who were extradited to America on fraud
    charges. More than a dozen other British executives, including senior
    managers at British Airways and BAE Systems, are under investigation by the
    US authorities and could face criminal charges in America.

    Until now it was commonly assumed that US law permitted kidnapping only in
    the "extraordinary rendition" of terrorist suspects.

    The American government has for the first time made it clear in a British
    court that the law applies to anyone, British or otherwise, suspected of a
    crime by Washington.

    Legal experts confirmed this weekend that America viewed extradition as just
    one way of getting foreign suspects back to face trial. Rendition, or
    kidnapping, dates back to 19th-century bounty hunting and Washington
    believes it is still legitimate.

    The US government's view emerged during a hearing involving Stanley Tollman,
    a former director of Chelsea football club and a friend of Baroness
    Thatcher, and his wife Beatrice.

    The Tollmans, who control the Red Carnation hotel group and are resident in
    London, are wanted in America for bank fraud and tax evasion. They have been
    fighting extradition through the British courts.

    During a hearing last month Lord Justice Moses, one of the Court of Appeal
    judges, asked Alun Jones QC, representing the US government, about its
    treatment of Gavin, Tollman's nephew. Gavin Tollman was the subject of an
    attempted abduction during a visit to Canada in 2005.

    Jones replied that it was acceptable under American law to kidnap people if
    they were wanted for offences in America. "The United States does have a
    view about procuring people to its own shores which is not shared," he said.

    He said that if a person was kidnapped by the US authorities in another
    country and was brought back to face charges in America, no US court could
    rule that the abduction was illegal and free him: "If you kidnap a person
    outside the United States and you bring him there, the court has no
    jurisdiction to refuse - it goes back to bounty hunting days in the 1860s."

    Mr Justice Ouseley, a second judge, challenged Jones to be "honest about
    [his] position".

    Jones replied: "That is United States law."

    He cited the case of Humberto Alvarez Machain, a suspect who was abducted by
    the US government at his medical office in Guadalajara, Mexico, in 1990. He
    was flown by Drug Enforcement Administration agents to Texas for criminal
    prosecution.

    Although there was an extradition treaty in place between America and Mexico
    at the time - as there currently is between the United States and Britain -
    the Supreme Court ruled in 1992 that the Mexican had no legal remedy because
    of his abduction.

    In 2005, Gavin Tollman, the head of Trafalgar Tours, a holiday company, had
    arrived in Toronto by plane when he was arrested by Canadian immigration
    authorities.

    An American prosecutor, who had tried and failed to extradite him from
    Britain, persuaded Canadian officials to detain him. He wanted the Canadians
    to drive Tollman to the border to be handed over. Tollman was escorted in
    handcuffs from the aircraft in Toronto, taken to prison and held for 10
    days.

    A Canadian judge ordered his release, ruling that the US Justice Department
    had set a "sinister trap" and wrongly bypassed extradition rules. Tollman
    returned to Britain.

    Legal sources said that under traditional American justice, rendition meant
    capturing wanted people abroad and bringing them to the United States. The
    term "extraordinary rendition" was coined in the 1990s for the kidnapping of
    terror suspects from one foreign country to another for interrogation.

    There was concern this weekend from Patrick Mercer, the Tory MP, who said:
    "The very idea of kidnapping is repugnant to us and we must handle these
    cases with extreme caution and a thorough understanding of the implications
    in American law."

    Shami Chakrabarti, director of the human rights group Liberty, said: "This
    law may date back to bounty hunting days, but they should sort it out if
    they claim to be a civilised nation."

    The US Justice Department declined to comment.

    Additional reporting: Anna Mikhailova

    '---------------------------------------------------------

    Are you worried yet?

    jim



  2. Re: OT: In court, US claims rights to kidnap anyone anywhere for any crime....

    * jim fired off this tart reply:

    > (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/new...cle2982640.ece)
    >
    > From The Sunday TimesDecember 2, 2007
    >
    > US says it has right to kidnap British citizens
    >
    > . . .
    >
    > Shami Chakrabarti, director of the human rights group Liberty, said: "This
    > law may date back to bounty hunting days, but they should sort it out if
    > they claim to be a civilised nation."
    >
    > The US Justice Department declined to comment.
    >
    > '---------------------------------------------------------
    >
    > Are you worried yet?


    I think I saw Dick "Darth" Cheney lurking behind my shrubbery.

    --
    Tux rox!

  3. Re: OT: In court, US claims rights to kidnap anyone anywhere for any crime....


    "Linonut" wrote in message
    news:eI7dj.53869$L%6.839@bignews3.bellsouth.net...
    >* jim fired off this tart reply:
    >
    >> (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/new...cle2982640.ece)
    >>
    >> From The Sunday TimesDecember 2, 2007
    >>
    >> US says it has right to kidnap British citizens
    >>
    >> . . .
    >>
    >> Shami Chakrabarti, director of the human rights group Liberty, said:
    >> "This
    >> law may date back to bounty hunting days, but they should sort it out if
    >> they claim to be a civilised nation."
    >>
    >> The US Justice Department declined to comment.
    >>
    >> '---------------------------------------------------------
    >>
    >> Are you worried yet?

    >
    > I think I saw Dick "Darth" Cheney lurking behind my shrubbery.


    I wouldn't worry too much. He's most dangerous when he's hunting.

    Hiding is what he does best. At 9/11 he was whisked away to a "safe place".
    But why?

    Having your commanders go into hiding during an attack instead of standing
    openly and leading the people (which, if I am not mistaken, is their job)
    doesn't really inspire any confidence in the government, does it?

    jim



  4. Re: OT: In court, US claims rights to kidnap anyone anywhere for any crime....


    "jim" wrote in message
    news:aT7dj.31778$Mu4.20223@bignews7.bellsouth.net. ..
    >
    > "Linonut" wrote in message
    > news:eI7dj.53869$L%6.839@bignews3.bellsouth.net...
    >>* jim fired off this tart reply:
    >>
    >>> (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/new...cle2982640.ece)
    >>>
    >>> From The Sunday TimesDecember 2, 2007
    >>>
    >>> US says it has right to kidnap British citizens
    >>>
    >>> . . .
    >>>
    >>> Shami Chakrabarti, director of the human rights group Liberty, said:
    >>> "This
    >>> law may date back to bounty hunting days, but they should sort it out if
    >>> they claim to be a civilised nation."
    >>>
    >>> The US Justice Department declined to comment.
    >>>
    >>> '---------------------------------------------------------
    >>>
    >>> Are you worried yet?

    >>
    >> I think I saw Dick "Darth" Cheney lurking behind my shrubbery.

    >
    > I wouldn't worry too much. He's most dangerous when he's hunting.
    >
    > Hiding is what he does best. At 9/11 he was whisked away to a "safe
    > place". But why?
    >
    > Having your commanders go into hiding during an attack instead of standing
    > openly and leading the people (which, if I am not mistaken, is their job)
    > doesn't really inspire any confidence in the government, does it?
    >
    > jim


    It's difficult to "lead people" if you're dead. When they go into hiding
    what it means is that they are put into a safe location where they won't be
    injured and killed. From the remote command post they have complete
    communication and are able to lead through a time of crisis.

    Their job is to "lead the people" but nowhere in the job description do I
    see anything about having to "stand openly" in harms way in order to do it.



    --
    Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com


  5. Re: OT: In court, US claims rights to kidnap anyone anywhere for any crime....


    "Linonut" wrote in message
    news:eI7dj.53869$L%6.839@bignews3.bellsouth.net...
    >* jim fired off this tart reply:
    >
    >> (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/new...cle2982640.ece)
    >>
    >> From The Sunday TimesDecember 2, 2007
    >>
    >> US says it has right to kidnap British citizens
    >>
    >> . . .
    >>
    >> Shami Chakrabarti, director of the human rights group Liberty, said:
    >> "This
    >> law may date back to bounty hunting days, but they should sort it out if
    >> they claim to be a civilised nation."
    >>
    >> The US Justice Department declined to comment.
    >>
    >> '---------------------------------------------------------
    >>
    >> Are you worried yet?

    >
    > I think I saw Dick "Darth" Cheney lurking behind my shrubbery.
    >

    "Book'em, Danno!" was the cry when Magarret got the goods on Lo Fat.

    I should think, though, that any responsible country would be willing to
    turn over felons such as the Brit in the article without such a fuss. Why
    would the Brits want to keep him around anyway? There has been other
    precedent, too. The Taliban running Afghanistan wouldn't cough up Osama,
    thinking that they had some magic potion that made them bulletproof. Didn't
    work.

    Panama was reluctant to give up Trujillo some years back as well. Now he's
    in the slammer and the Panamanians are not so unhappy about it all. And we
    need not even discuss how far the US is prepared to go for someone like
    Saddam.


  6. Re: OT: In court, US claims rights to kidnap anyone anywhere for any crime....


    "Dusty Hendrix" wrote in message
    news:477502a0$0$26083$88260bb3@free.teranews.com.. .
    >
    > "jim" wrote in message
    > news:aT7dj.31778$Mu4.20223@bignews7.bellsouth.net. ..
    >>
    >> "Linonut" wrote in message
    >> news:eI7dj.53869$L%6.839@bignews3.bellsouth.net...
    >>>* jim fired off this tart reply:
    >>>
    >>>> (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/new...cle2982640.ece)
    >>>>
    >>>> From The Sunday TimesDecember 2, 2007
    >>>>
    >>>> US says it has right to kidnap British citizens
    >>>>
    >>>> . . .
    >>>>
    >>>> Shami Chakrabarti, director of the human rights group Liberty, said:
    >>>> "This
    >>>> law may date back to bounty hunting days, but they should sort it out
    >>>> if
    >>>> they claim to be a civilised nation."
    >>>>
    >>>> The US Justice Department declined to comment.
    >>>>
    >>>> '---------------------------------------------------------
    >>>>
    >>>> Are you worried yet?
    >>>
    >>> I think I saw Dick "Darth" Cheney lurking behind my shrubbery.

    >>
    >> I wouldn't worry too much. He's most dangerous when he's hunting.
    >>
    >> Hiding is what he does best. At 9/11 he was whisked away to a "safe
    >> place". But why?
    >>
    >> Having your commanders go into hiding during an attack instead of
    >> standing openly and leading the people (which, if I am not mistaken, is
    >> their job) doesn't really inspire any confidence in the government, does
    >> it?
    >>
    >> jim

    >
    > It's difficult to "lead people" if you're dead. When they go into hiding
    > what it means is that they are put into a safe location where they won't
    > be injured and killed. From the remote command post they have complete
    > communication and are able to lead through a time of crisis.
    >
    > Their job is to "lead the people" but nowhere in the job description do I
    > see anything about having to "stand openly" in harms way in order to do
    > it.


    Isn't that the reason we have 2 of 'em? If one kicks it, the other takes
    over......

    While I understand "hiding the head to save the tail", it certainly does
    nothing for the people being lead, who have no place to hide.

    jim



  7. Re: OT: In court, US claims rights to kidnap anyone anywhere for any crime....


    "jim" wrote in message
    news:Ru8dj.31793$Mu4.10495@bignews7.bellsouth.net. ..
    >
    > "Dusty Hendrix" wrote in message
    > news:477502a0$0$26083$88260bb3@free.teranews.com.. .
    >>
    >> "jim" wrote in message
    >> news:aT7dj.31778$Mu4.20223@bignews7.bellsouth.net. ..
    >>>
    >>> "Linonut" wrote in message
    >>> news:eI7dj.53869$L%6.839@bignews3.bellsouth.net...
    >>>>* jim fired off this tart reply:
    >>>>
    >>>>> (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/new...cle2982640.ece)
    >>>>>
    >>>>> From The Sunday TimesDecember 2, 2007
    >>>>>
    >>>>> US says it has right to kidnap British citizens
    >>>>>
    >>>>> . . .
    >>>>>
    >>>>> Shami Chakrabarti, director of the human rights group Liberty, said:
    >>>>> "This
    >>>>> law may date back to bounty hunting days, but they should sort it out
    >>>>> if
    >>>>> they claim to be a civilised nation."
    >>>>>
    >>>>> The US Justice Department declined to comment.
    >>>>>
    >>>>> '---------------------------------------------------------
    >>>>>
    >>>>> Are you worried yet?
    >>>>
    >>>> I think I saw Dick "Darth" Cheney lurking behind my shrubbery.
    >>>
    >>> I wouldn't worry too much. He's most dangerous when he's hunting.
    >>>
    >>> Hiding is what he does best. At 9/11 he was whisked away to a "safe
    >>> place". But why?
    >>>
    >>> Having your commanders go into hiding during an attack instead of
    >>> standing openly and leading the people (which, if I am not mistaken, is
    >>> their job) doesn't really inspire any confidence in the government, does
    >>> it?
    >>>
    >>> jim

    >>
    >> It's difficult to "lead people" if you're dead. When they go into hiding
    >> what it means is that they are put into a safe location where they won't
    >> be injured and killed. From the remote command post they have complete
    >> communication and are able to lead through a time of crisis.
    >>
    >> Their job is to "lead the people" but nowhere in the job description do I
    >> see anything about having to "stand openly" in harms way in order to do
    >> it.

    >
    > Isn't that the reason we have 2 of 'em? If one kicks it, the other takes
    > over......


    Sort of. Except that we are supposed to try and prevent them from kicking
    the bucket if at all possible.


    > While I understand "hiding the head to save the tail", it certainly does
    > nothing for the people being lead, who have no place to hide.


    True but the people being lead aren't normally the target. If terrorist were
    attacking then they are more likely out to kill the Prez or VP than someone
    like me or you.

    > jim
    >




    --
    Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com


  8. Re: OT: In court, US claims rights to kidnap anyone anywhere for any crime....


    "Dusty Hendrix" wrote in message
    news:47750aaf$0$26093$88260bb3@free.teranews.com.. .
    >
    > "jim" wrote in message
    > news:Ru8dj.31793$Mu4.10495@bignews7.bellsouth.net. ..
    >>
    >> "Dusty Hendrix" wrote in message
    >> news:477502a0$0$26083$88260bb3@free.teranews.com.. .
    >>>
    >>> "jim" wrote in message
    >>> news:aT7dj.31778$Mu4.20223@bignews7.bellsouth.net. ..
    >>>>
    >>>> "Linonut" wrote in message
    >>>> news:eI7dj.53869$L%6.839@bignews3.bellsouth.net...
    >>>>>* jim fired off this tart reply:
    >>>>>
    >>>>>> (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/new...cle2982640.ece)
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>> From The Sunday TimesDecember 2, 2007
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>> US says it has right to kidnap British citizens
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>> . . .
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>> Shami Chakrabarti, director of the human rights group Liberty, said:
    >>>>>> "This
    >>>>>> law may date back to bounty hunting days, but they should sort it out
    >>>>>> if
    >>>>>> they claim to be a civilised nation."
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>> The US Justice Department declined to comment.
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>> '---------------------------------------------------------
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>> Are you worried yet?
    >>>>>
    >>>>> I think I saw Dick "Darth" Cheney lurking behind my shrubbery.
    >>>>
    >>>> I wouldn't worry too much. He's most dangerous when he's hunting.
    >>>>
    >>>> Hiding is what he does best. At 9/11 he was whisked away to a "safe
    >>>> place". But why?
    >>>>
    >>>> Having your commanders go into hiding during an attack instead of
    >>>> standing openly and leading the people (which, if I am not mistaken, is
    >>>> their job) doesn't really inspire any confidence in the government,
    >>>> does it?
    >>>>
    >>>> jim
    >>>
    >>> It's difficult to "lead people" if you're dead. When they go into hiding
    >>> what it means is that they are put into a safe location where they won't
    >>> be injured and killed. From the remote command post they have complete
    >>> communication and are able to lead through a time of crisis.
    >>>
    >>> Their job is to "lead the people" but nowhere in the job description do
    >>> I see anything about having to "stand openly" in harms way in order to
    >>> do it.

    >>
    >> Isn't that the reason we have 2 of 'em? If one kicks it, the other takes
    >> over......

    >
    > Sort of. Except that we are supposed to try and prevent them from kicking
    > the bucket if at all possible.
    >
    >
    >> While I understand "hiding the head to save the tail", it certainly does
    >> nothing for the people being lead, who have no place to hide.

    >
    > True but the people being lead aren't normally the target. If terrorist
    > were attacking then they are more likely out to kill the Prez or VP than
    > someone like me or you.


    I disagree with you here. Remember 9/11? Nobody was targeting Dick or
    George...yet they ran into hiding.

    While we all should try and keep our leaders safe, when tragedy strikes they
    should do less to show their fear, and more to show leadership in times of
    great stress.

    jim



  9. Re: OT: In court, US claims rights to kidnap anyone anywhere for any crime....


    "jim" wrote in message
    news:NJ8dj.31799$Mu4.13561@bignews7.bellsouth.net. ..
    >
    > "Dusty Hendrix" wrote in message
    > news:47750aaf$0$26093$88260bb3@free.teranews.com.. .
    >>
    >> "jim" wrote in message
    >> news:Ru8dj.31793$Mu4.10495@bignews7.bellsouth.net. ..
    >>>
    >>> "Dusty Hendrix" wrote in message
    >>> news:477502a0$0$26083$88260bb3@free.teranews.com.. .
    >>>>
    >>>> "jim" wrote in message
    >>>> news:aT7dj.31778$Mu4.20223@bignews7.bellsouth.net. ..
    >>>>>
    >>>>> "Linonut" wrote in message
    >>>>> news:eI7dj.53869$L%6.839@bignews3.bellsouth.net...
    >>>>>>* jim fired off this tart reply:
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>>> (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/new...cle2982640.ece)
    >>>>>>>
    >>>>>>> From The Sunday TimesDecember 2, 2007
    >>>>>>>
    >>>>>>> US says it has right to kidnap British citizens
    >>>>>>>
    >>>>>>> . . .
    >>>>>>>
    >>>>>>> Shami Chakrabarti, director of the human rights group Liberty, said:
    >>>>>>> "This
    >>>>>>> law may date back to bounty hunting days, but they should sort it
    >>>>>>> out if
    >>>>>>> they claim to be a civilised nation."
    >>>>>>>
    >>>>>>> The US Justice Department declined to comment.
    >>>>>>>
    >>>>>>> '---------------------------------------------------------
    >>>>>>>
    >>>>>>> Are you worried yet?
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>> I think I saw Dick "Darth" Cheney lurking behind my shrubbery.
    >>>>>
    >>>>> I wouldn't worry too much. He's most dangerous when he's hunting.
    >>>>>
    >>>>> Hiding is what he does best. At 9/11 he was whisked away to a "safe
    >>>>> place". But why?
    >>>>>
    >>>>> Having your commanders go into hiding during an attack instead of
    >>>>> standing openly and leading the people (which, if I am not mistaken,
    >>>>> is their job) doesn't really inspire any confidence in the government,
    >>>>> does it?
    >>>>>
    >>>>> jim
    >>>>
    >>>> It's difficult to "lead people" if you're dead. When they go into
    >>>> hiding what it means is that they are put into a safe location where
    >>>> they won't be injured and killed. From the remote command post they
    >>>> have complete communication and are able to lead through a time of
    >>>> crisis.
    >>>>
    >>>> Their job is to "lead the people" but nowhere in the job description do
    >>>> I see anything about having to "stand openly" in harms way in order to
    >>>> do it.
    >>>
    >>> Isn't that the reason we have 2 of 'em? If one kicks it, the other
    >>> takes over......

    >>
    >> Sort of. Except that we are supposed to try and prevent them from kicking
    >> the bucket if at all possible.
    >>
    >>
    >>> While I understand "hiding the head to save the tail", it certainly does
    >>> nothing for the people being lead, who have no place to hide.

    >>
    >> True but the people being lead aren't normally the target. If terrorist
    >> were attacking then they are more likely out to kill the Prez or VP than
    >> someone like me or you.

    >
    > I disagree with you here. Remember 9/11? Nobody was targeting Dick or
    > George...yet they ran into hiding.


    We know this now... but did we know this on 9/11?

    If I recall the plane that hit the Pentagon was originally supposed to crash
    into the White House except that they couldn't find it or something like
    that. So if they were going after the White House then you could make a case
    that they were going for Dubya or Dick.


    > While we all should try and keep our leaders safe, when tragedy strikes
    > they should do less to show their fear, and more to show leadership in
    > times of great stress.


    I don't think that going into a safe location is the same as showing their
    fear. These guys are basically in protective custody 24/7. It's not because
    of "fear" but rather because of all the nut-cases out there.

    > jim
    >




    --
    Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com


  10. Re: OT: In court, US claims rights to kidnap anyone anywhere for any crime....


    "Linonut" wrote in message
    news:BS8dj.54015$L%6.2827@bignews3.bellsouth.net.. .
    >* Dusty Hendrix fired off this tart reply:
    >
    >> "jim" wrote in message
    >>> Having your commanders go into hiding during an attack instead of
    >>> standing
    >>> openly and leading the people (which, if I am not mistaken, is their
    >>> job)
    >>> doesn't really inspire any confidence in the government, does it?

    >>
    >> It's difficult to "lead people" if you're dead.

    >
    > Just ask Benazir Bhutto.


    I did. But she won't reply to my email anymore.



    --
    Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com


  11. Re: OT: In court, US claims rights to kidnap anyone anywhere for any crime....

    * Dusty Hendrix fired off this tart reply:

    > "jim" wrote in message
    >> Having your commanders go into hiding during an attack instead of standing
    >> openly and leading the people (which, if I am not mistaken, is their job)
    >> doesn't really inspire any confidence in the government, does it?

    >
    > It's difficult to "lead people" if you're dead.


    Just ask Benazir Bhutto.

    --
    Tux rox!

  12. Re: In court, US claims rights to kidnap anyone anywhere for any crime....

    jim wrote:
    > (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/new...cle2982640.ece)
    >
    > From The Sunday TimesDecember 2, 2007
    >
    > US says it has right to kidnap British citizens
    > David Leppard
    > AMERICA has told Britain that it can "kidnap" British citizens if
    > they are wanted for crimes in the United States.

    [...]
    >
    > '---------------------------------------------------------
    >
    > Are you worried yet?
    >


    No. I'd be worried only if I was wanted for something in the U.S.

    Abduction is much more humane than killing them where they stand. And
    tidier.



  13. *SPAM* In court, US claims rights to kidnap anyone anywhere forany crime....



    jim wrote:



  14. Re: *SPAM* In court, US claims rights to kidnap anyone anywhere for any crime....


    "Bob I" wrote in message
    news:e8VNBVXSIHA.4440@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
    >
    >
    > jim wrote:
    >
    >


    lol

    jim



  15. Re: In court, US claims rights to kidnap anyone anywhere for any crime....


    "jim" wrote in message
    news:VQ2dj.32858$vt2.22778@bignews8.bellsouth.net. ..
    > (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/new...cle2982640.ece)


    AND if they really want you they'll send in the Marines....just ask Manuel
    Noriega of Panama.
    Xan



+ Reply to Thread