Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

President Obama responds to question on Guantanamo

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » General Discussion: Presidency Donate to DU
 
ProSense Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-22-10 07:11 PM
Original message
President Obama responds to question on Guantanamo
News Conference by The President

<...>

Q Guantanamo, sir. I understand a draft of an executive order is being prepared for you, and I don't expect you to comment then on that --

THE PRESIDENT: Right.

Q It hasn’t gotten to you yet.

THE PRESIDENT: Yes.

Q But it makes me wonder where you are, sir, at about the two-year mark on Guantanamo, when closing it was one of your initial priorities, sir?

THE PRESIDENT: Obviously, we haven’t gotten it closed. And let me just step back and explain that the reason for wanting to close Guantanamo was because my number one priority is keeping the American people safe. One of the most powerful tools we have to keep the American people safe is not providing al Qaeda and jihadists recruiting tools for fledgling terrorists.

And Guantanamo is probably the number one recruitment tool that is used by these jihadist organizations. And we see it in the websites that they put up. We see it in the messages that they're delivering.

And so my belief is that we can keep the American people safe, go after those who would engage in terrorism. And my administration has been as aggressive in going after al Qaeda as any administration out there. And we’ve seen progress, as I noted during the Afghan review.

Every intelligence report that we’re seeing shows that al Qaeda is more hunkered down than they have been since the original invasion of Afghanistan in 2001, that they have reduced financing capacity, reduced operational capacity. It is much more difficult for their top folks to communicate, and a lot of those top folks can’t communicate because they're underground now.

But it is important for us, even as we’re going aggressively after the bad guys, to make sure that we’re also living up to our values and our ideals and our principles. And that's what closing Guantanamo is about -- not because I think that the people who are running Guantanamo are doing a bad job, but rather because it’s become a symbol. And I think we can do just as good of a job housing them somewhere else.

Now, to the issue you had about the review. You’re right, I won’t comment right now on a review that I have not received yet. I can tell you that over the last two years, despite not having closed Guantanamo, we’ve been trying to put our battle against terrorists within a legal structure that is consistent with our history of rule of law. And we’ve succeeded on a number of fronts.

One of the toughest problems is what to do with people that we know are dangerous, that we know are -- have engaged in terrorist activity, are proclaimed enemies of the United States, but because of the manner in which they were originally captured, the circumstances right after 9/11 in which they are interrogated, it becomes difficult to try them whether in an Article III court or in a military commission.

Releasing them at this stage could potentially create greater danger for the American people. And so how do we manage that? And that's what this team has been looking at. Are there ways for us to make sure these folks have lawyers, to make sure that these folks have the opportunity to challenge their detention -- but at the same time, making sure that we are not simply releasing folks who could do us grievous harm and have shown a capacity and willingness to engage in brutal attacks in the past.

And so when I get that report, I’m sure that I’ll have more comments on it. The bottom line is, is that striking this balance between our security and making sure that we are consistent with our values and our Constitution is not an easy task, but ultimately that's what’s required for practical reasons.

Because the more people are reminded of what makes America special -- the fact that we stand for something beyond just our economic power or our military might, but we have these core ideals that we observe even when it’s hard -- that's one of our most powerful weapons. And I want to make sure that we don't lose that weapon in what is a serious struggle.

So with that, everybody, I want to wish you all a merry Christmas. Happy holidays. Happy New Year. See you in 2011.


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
Cali_Democrat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-22-10 07:15 PM
Response to Original message
1. "Order for indefinite detention of 'war on terror' suspects marks continuity with Bush"
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ProSense Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-22-10 07:16 PM
Response to Reply #1
2. .
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Cali_Democrat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-22-10 07:17 PM
Response to Reply #2
3. end of sentence
Edited on Wed Dec-22-10 07:18 PM by Cali_Democrat
http://www.voanews.com/english/news/US-Preparing-to-Hold-Some-Guantanamo-Inmates-Indefinitely--112306684.html

"An executive order being prepared for review by President Barack Obama says that Guantanamo Bay prisoners kept in "prolonged detention" will not be put on trial."
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ProSense Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-22-10 07:20 PM
Response to Reply #3
4. Same media story
different page

A White House official told VOA Tuesday night that the plan under consideration will have clear, lawful and fair procedures, and a thorough review process, "so that any prolonged detention is carefully evaluated and justified."


It hurts to see the President have a successful run, doesn't it?



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Cali_Democrat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-22-10 07:27 PM
Response to Reply #4
5. Unless there are actual trials and convictions based on evidence
Edited on Wed Dec-22-10 07:28 PM by Cali_Democrat
I'm not going to buy White House spin. Just the fact that indefinite detention without trial is a possibility should make any true Dem squirm. That can never be justified.

It hurts to see Bush policies continue whether they be tax cuts for the wealthy or indefinite detention of terror suspects at gitmo.

I'm a true Dem, not an apologist. How can you consider this a success?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ProSense Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-22-10 07:32 PM
Response to Reply #5
6. "I'm not going to buy White House spin."
Anything that runs counter to your opinion is WH spin, huh?

"I'm a true Dem, not an apologist. How can you consider this a success?"

Anyone who disagrees with you is an apologist and not a "true Dem"?

As I said, there is a difference between holding the President's feet to the fire and cynical rejection of his accomplishments, the difficulty of the job and the realities of world.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Cali_Democrat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-22-10 07:38 PM
Response to Reply #6
8. It's White House spin because they're trying to make it seem like it's fair trial
When it's not. Indefinite detention without trial is not something I can support. You can support it for all I care, but I definitely will not. I have principals.

"the plan under consideration will have clear, lawful and fair procedures, and a thorough review process, "so that any prolonged detention is carefully evaluated and justified."

So then afterward they can justify prolonged detention without trial. It reads like a Bush press release. :puke:

Nothing but spin.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
boppers Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-23-10 02:46 AM
Response to Reply #8
34. I am out of public school.
Therefore, I no longer have "principals".

As far as your deeper point, I think they should have trials, and any "failed" convictions should be broadcast far and wide, to show why, and how, the US is a failed state when it comes to human rights.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
displacedvermoter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-22-10 07:34 PM
Response to Reply #4
7. A thorough review process.
should make everything all right, correct?

"Fair procedures" for who, the individuals we have had locked up without charges or trial for 9 years now?

I am truly mystified that these same Bush-era linguistic exercises that would -- from what I recall -- have had people like you screaming in Bush time, when torture became enhanced interrogation and you were either for us or against us.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
vaberella Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-22-10 07:48 PM
Response to Reply #7
10. I have to ask you a question.
If we have a criminal who we know from various sources that he has terrorist actions and connections and means harm to the United States---but if we were to prosecute him and due to personnell stupidity and incompetence we know that he would be left off and we'd have to let him go. What would you? I mean let's say we know he's capable of doing something to harm US Americans and has the connections and resources to do so and worked with others in the pass, but due to failure to follow proper procedure on a normal occasion we'd have to let him go...would you do it?

I mean times like this you'd want a Dexter character around. I think that puts us in a shitty spot. Or would you have less problems if the criminal was not on Gitmo but in a maximum security prison in the US?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
displacedvermoter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-22-10 07:58 PM
Response to Reply #10
12. What various fucking sources are you referring to?
The ones that put these folks in stir originally, or a real fair evaluation from the good guys now running things? You believe the CIA is more honest and correct in their analysis now than before, just because a democratic president is nominally in charge of their operation.

That is part of a trial process, determining whether the information that got you locke dup is correct or not, and I don't see that coming from these new procedures.

Sorry, don't trust the new boss much more than the old one.

And, by the way, the incompetence and stupidity that would likely let them off is in many cases the fact that they were tortured, tortured by the same folks the President "has the backs of" now.

We are in a pretty shitty spot now, and I fear we may never get out of it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
vaberella Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-22-10 08:04 PM
Response to Reply #12
13. No. However there are people that are criminals.
How do we know that, based on some of the few who have had trials. So that's to say that there are some people who would be considered criminals but could be released because of error or the torture issue. And I would please suggest you don't cuss at me because I was being civil in my question, I'd like that same respect.

Like there have been many criminals, who we know to be criminals but because of "circumstantial evidence" or "police error" we had them released into the public. You cannot say that, such things are not happening to some of the prisoners at Gitmo. And I believe those are the "iffy" people Obama is speaking about, when we have a group we know are criminals but don't want to release because it would be national security threat.

What you're suggesting is that all these people should be released, even though we know they would mean us harm. Or, on the other hand, you're ignoring that and suggesting that---definitely the CIA is lying about all those people and we should give them a fair trial and if they are released then let them go.

And if they attack again or try too...that's a chance you're willing to take. But then again from what I've garnered from your statement, you don't believe these prisoners fall into a gray area. So that's fine.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Cali_Democrat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-22-10 08:06 PM
Response to Reply #12
14. The fact that people try to justify indefinite detention without trial is sickening.
Edited on Wed Dec-22-10 08:25 PM by Cali_Democrat
The US govt was incompetent and stupid and that means the suspects should rot in gitmo indefinitely without trial? :wtf:

The suspects should be charged in court, evidence should be presented and a jury should decide their fate.

If we're not going to present evidence against the suspects, we should let them go.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ProSense Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-22-10 08:07 PM
Response to Reply #14
15. No one is justifying indefinite detention
"The US govt was incompetent and stupid and that means the suspects should rot in gitmo indefinitely without trial? "

Those are your words and do not remotely reflect anything being said.



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Cali_Democrat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-22-10 08:10 PM
Response to Reply #15
17. Read the post above...
Edited on Wed Dec-22-10 08:13 PM by Cali_Democrat
"Like there have been many criminals, who we know to be criminals but because of "circumstantial evidence" or "police error" we had them released into the public."

This poster is saying that the US government made an error and we can't just let those people go because we know they're criminals.

edit:

In other words, we "know" they're guilty, but a trial would fall apart because of US govt error. But we can't let them go because we know they're terrorists. Instead they will remain in limbo.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ProSense Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-22-10 08:13 PM
Response to Reply #17
18. Like I said
Edited on Wed Dec-22-10 08:14 PM by ProSense
your words do not remotely reflect anything being said.

"Like there have been many criminals, who we know to be criminals but because of "circumstantial evidence" or "police error" we had them released into the public."

This poster is saying that the US government made an error and we can't just let those people go because we know they're criminals.


No, that is not what the poster said.



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Cali_Democrat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-22-10 08:18 PM
Response to Reply #18
19. Again......read the posts again....
Edited on Wed Dec-22-10 08:19 PM by Cali_Democrat
Vaberella wrote:

"
If we have a criminal who we know from various sources that he has terrorist actions and connections and means harm to the United States---but if we were to prosecute him and due to personnell stupidity and incompetence we know that he would be left off and we'd have to let him go."


Summary:

We know from "various sources" that the terror suspects will commit harm against the USA, but we can't prosecute them because of stupidity and incompetence by US personnel (torture). So they we would have to let them go if they go to trial.

How is this post not trying to justify indefinite detention?

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ProSense Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-22-10 08:24 PM
Response to Reply #19
20. Again
as awkward as the statement is, it does not imply that "the US government made an error and we can't just let those people go because we know they're criminals."

There need to be trials, and despite the inability to hold trials in U.S. courts due to Congressional action, that is what the administration is pushing for not indefinite detention.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Cali_Democrat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-22-10 08:31 PM
Response to Reply #20
21. OK then what is the statement implying?
Edited on Wed Dec-22-10 08:32 PM by Cali_Democrat
If the poster is not trying to imply that the US govt made an error and we can't prosecute the suspects because we'd have to let them off due to "personnel stupidity and incompetence", what is the poster implying?

Do tell.....


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
vaberella Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-22-10 09:07 PM
Response to Reply #21
25. Read post. 24, I gave you an answer. It's not Prosense's place to describe my meaning.
I can do it for myself.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
whosinpower Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-22-10 08:41 PM
Response to Reply #20
22. The Presidents own words
Edited on Wed Dec-22-10 08:43 PM by whosinpower
snip - One of the toughest problems is what to do with people that we know are dangerous, that we know are -- have engaged in terrorist activity, are proclaimed enemies of the United States, but because of the manner in which they were originally captured, the circumstances right after 9/11 in which they are interrogated, it becomes difficult to try them whether in an Article III court or in a military commission.

Seems to me what he is saying is that the detainees were tortured - and if they tried them in an Article III court or a military commission - the use of torture would make the trial a farce - and the detainee would have a chance of walking based on that instead of what he did.

So - they languish while he tries to figure this out.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ProSense Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-22-10 08:56 PM
Response to Reply #22
23. They
deserve a trial. What are you suggesting?

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
whosinpower Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-22-10 09:20 PM
Response to Reply #23
26. Because of the manner in which they were captured
And the way in which they were interrogated - makes it difficult to try them in an Article III court or a military commission.... those are his words - not mine.

What do you think Obama is suggesting?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ProSense Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-22-10 09:23 PM
Response to Reply #26
27. "What do you think Obama is suggesting?"
He's suggesting trials. What are you suggesting?

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Cali_Democrat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-22-10 09:40 PM
Response to Reply #27
30. How is Obama suggesting trials when he says this...
"but because of the manner in which they were originally captured, the circumstances right after 9/11 in which they are interrogated, it becomes difficult to try them whether in an Article III court or in a military commission."

He's saying it becomes difficult to try them in an article 3 court or military commission.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
boppers Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-23-10 02:53 AM
Response to Reply #30
36. It is difficult for me to run five miles.
Are you implying that I can't, or won't, because I said it was difficult?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
whosinpower Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-23-10 12:02 PM
Response to Reply #27
39. I think he means
That he wants to try them in a court of law, but wants to be able to seperate the manner in which they were caught, and the interrogation that they had to endure - he wants to be able to seperate that out of the trial system. Not sure how that will work, given Geneva Conventions etc.

Because if they were tortured, and let's be honest - that is what we are talking about - this muddies the process of finding out whether or not they are guilty. If they confessed under duress of "enhanced interrogation techniques", it renders the confession null - a person will say anything to stop the torture.

So - in essence he waits for the report to try to figure out how to move forward....and the detainees languish.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
vaberella Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-22-10 09:06 PM
Response to Reply #17
24. So how am I defending indefinite detention.
Edited on Wed Dec-22-10 09:09 PM by vaberella
That's hardly what I'm doing. However, I am talking about the the quandry we're in and if you looked at the entire bloody statement you would be aware I'm asking the poster above me a question as to what we're supposed to do. Because for all intents and purposes these people could be released and do us harm again. What is the best course of action? Instead of giving me an answer you're running on empty to feel justified anger or to paint me in the same boat you were definitely put last night with you're apologetic posts for trolling.

My post is hardly that. I recognize there's a problem here...and I have no better idea and I haven't really heard another one. Besides doing the trial (which I could respect) but let people who have killed or planned on killing American's go.

The same quandary I speak of is also mentioned in post #9. Because it's a difficult situation. Again, go ahead and believe it's black and white...it's not.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Cali_Democrat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-22-10 09:28 PM
Response to Reply #24
28. I feel no anger toward you and I don't hold grudges.
I just want to understand what you're sayng....

You posted.....


"If we have a criminal who we know from various sources that he has terrorist actions and connections and means harm to the United States---but if we were to prosecute him and due to personnell stupidity and incompetence we know that he would be left off and we'd have to let him go. What would you? I mean let's say we know he's capable of doing something to harm US Americans and has the connections and resources to do so and worked with others in the pass, but due to failure to follow proper procedure on a normal occasion we'd have to let him go...would you do it?"

In the first bolded statement you're saying that we tortured the suspects and cases against them would be thrown out of court because of torture, correct?

In the second bolded statement you're saying that we can't let them go because "we know they're capable of doing harm to Americans", correct?

This is the quandary you speak of, correct? IF not please correct me.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
vaberella Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-22-10 09:34 PM
Response to Reply #28
29. You jumped into the discussion late. The question was placed in post# 10.
That was after I placed my question--and I expanded on it in the post you're quoting.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Cali_Democrat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-22-10 09:46 PM
Response to Reply #29
31. OK then in post 13 you say.....
Edited on Wed Dec-22-10 09:47 PM by Cali_Democrat
"
How do we know that, based on some of the few who have had trials. So that's to say that there are some people who would be considered criminals but could be released because of error or the torture issue. And I would please suggest you don't cuss at me because I was being civil in my question, I'd like that same respect.

Like there have been many criminals, who we know to be criminals but because of "circumstantial evidence" or "police error" we had them released into the public. You cannot say that, such things are not happening to some of the prisoners at Gitmo. And I believe those are the "iffy" people Obama is speaking about, when we have a group we know are criminals but don't want to release because it would be national security threat."


In the first bolded statement you're saying that the suspects could be released because of the torture issue, correct? This is based on suspects that have had trials.

In the second bolded statement you're saying that we "know" they're criminals but we don't want to release them because it would be a threat to national security, correct?

This is the quandary you speak of, correct?



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Cali_Democrat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-23-10 02:00 AM
Response to Reply #29
32. I'm also looking at your post #11 in this thread
It appears that the quandary you speak of is the fact that we can't prosecute the suspects because of Bushco torture and they could easily be let go even though they are threats to national security.

Is my summary of this quandary correct?

It's really not that hard to type yes or no.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
boppers Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-23-10 02:49 AM
Response to Reply #10
35. I'd rather the guilty roam free than the innocent imprisoned.
One day I may be that innocent.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
boppers Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-23-10 02:41 AM
Response to Reply #1
33. ...and you've made his point.
It's more about propaganda than anything else.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Uzybone Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-22-10 07:47 PM
Response to Original message
9. This is one of the more sticky issues Bush left on Obamas plate
What do you do with those guys in Gitmo? Congress doesn't want them moved here, and IMO some of them cannot be put on trial becasue they will be set free (thanks to Bush and torture).

In essence the Presidents hands are tied here somewhat.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
vaberella Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-22-10 07:49 PM
Response to Reply #9
11. That's exactly my question in another post on this thread.
It's a serious quandary and I'm so surprised that so many on DU don't see a gray area but see a black/white issue.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TheKentuckian Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-23-10 04:01 AM
Response to Reply #11
38. Because it is. You have to own the downside. The options are trial or release.
There is no exception for being really scary but no usable evidence to convict them.

There really is no gray, folks just don't want deal with the consequences of our own criminality or actually live the ideals we espouse when it isn't easy.

Any gray is a distortion of our law worse than any possible attack. We venture into the gray and we unwind our basic protections and lose all that we have struggled and sacrificed for through many generations.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
boppers Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-23-10 03:18 AM
Response to Reply #9
37. Here's my solution:
There are roughly what, 300 left?

I propose finding the 300 (or whatever) poorest communities in the United States. I propose giving each detainee 10 million dollars (a million a year for ten years), and an ankle bracelet, and an offer to go (relatively) free, and live in that community, and spend (or burn, or whatever) that money. That's what, 3 billion dollars, or a single fighter plane? Publish the releases, so folks know where the money is.

1. The imprisonment stops.
2. They have enough money to never work again.
3. They can fulfill a tenant of Islam, and help the needy.
4. If they choose to flee, or die, the money stops.
5. If they want to buy in to stocks, or start a business, it's stimulus.

If you really want to punish a person, make them rich.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rug Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-22-10 08:09 PM
Response to Original message
16. "I won’t comment right now on a review that I have not received yet."
That was informative.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Fri May 03rd 2024, 07:03 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » General Discussion: Presidency Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC