MSNBC.com

 

Retired general: ‘Uplifting’ if Rumsfeld removed

Six former senior officers have publicly called for change due to Iraq

 

NBC News and news services

Updated: 9:22 a.m. ET April 14, 2006

 

WASHINGTON - A retired Army general on Friday continued the volleys of criticism against Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and his handling of the Iraq war, telling NBC News that “a fresh start in the Department of Defense ... would be incredibly uplifting” for the armed forces.

 

Retired Maj. Gen. John Batiste, who commanded the 1st Infantry Division in Iraq until last November, appeared on NBC’s “Today” show to reiterate criticisms he leveled earlier this week.

 

Batiste said Rumsfeld had “failed to build the peace” in Iraq, and criticized “a leadership style which is intimidating, abusive. There was not a two-way street of respect.”

 

Whether the United States should be in Iraq in the first place was “moot” given the circumstances, he added. “We have to succeed” now that we are there, he said.

 

Five other retired generals have also spoken out in recent days against Rumsfeld’s war strategy. Batiste emphasized that the generals were speaking independently and had not organized their criticism. “There is no political agenda at all,” he said, adding that he had not spoken to the other officers.

 

As the high-ranking officers accused Rumsfeld of arrogance and ignoring his field commanders, the White House defended the man who has been a lightning rod for criticism over a war that has helped drive President Bush’s public approval ratings to new lows.

 

Retired Marine Gen. Anthony Zinni told CNN that Rumsfeld should be held responsible for a series of blunders, starting with “throwing away 10 years worth of planning, plans that had taken into account what we would face in an occupation of Iraq.”

 

 

‘Micromanaged the generals’

The spreading challenge to the Pentagon’s civilian leadership included criticism from some recently retired senior officers directly involved in the Iraq war and its planning.

 

“I really believe that we need a new secretary of defense because Secretary Rumsfeld carries way too much baggage with him,” retired Maj. Gen. Charles Swannack, who led the Army’s 82nd Airborne Division in Iraq, told CNN on Thursday.

 

“Specifically, I feel he has micromanaged the generals who are leading our forces,” he said.

 

Retired Army Maj. Gen. John Riggs told National Public Radio on Thursday that Rumsfeld had helped create an atmosphere of “arrogance” among the Pentagon’s top civilian leadership.

 

“They only need the military advice when it satisfies their agenda. I think that’s a mistake, and that’s why I think he should resign,” Riggs said.

 

Retired Marine Lt. Gen. Gregory Newbold and Army Maj. Gen. Paul Eaton have also spoken out against Rumsfeld.

 

White House support

The most nettlesome member of Bush’s Cabinet, Rumsfeld has been a lightning rod since the war began in March 2003.

 

He was blamed for committing too few U.S. troops and for underestimating the strength of the insurgency. He took heat in 2004 over the abuse of Iraqi prisoners at the U.S. Army-run Abu Ghraib prison, and for a brusque response he gave to an Army National Guard soldier in Kuwait who questioned him on inadequate armor.

 

Republicans in Congress have offered Rumsfeld little in the way of public support.

 

But at the White House, the 73-year-old Rumsfeld drew unflinching support. “Yes, the president believes Secretary Rumsfeld is doing a very fine job during a challenging period,” White House spokesman Scott McClellan told reporters Thursday.

 

The outcry came as opinion polls show eroding public support for the Iraq war in which about 2,360 U.S. troops have died and Bush is struggling to bolster Americans’ confidence in the war effort.

 

Rumsfeld has offered at least twice to resign, but each time Bush has turned him down.

 

 

Surprising given timing?

Pentagon spokesman Eric Ruff said Rumsfeld is ignoring the calls for him to quit and they have not been a distraction.

 

“Has he talked to the White House? The answer is no, he’s not. And two, the question of resignation: was he considering it? No.”

 

“I don’t know how many generals there are -- a couple thousand, at least. And they’re going to have opinions,” Ruff added. “It’s not surprising, we’re in a war.”

 

But it is surprising, especially because it’s a time of war, said P.J. Crowley, a retired Air Force colonel who served as a Pentagon spokesman in both Republican and Democratic administrations and was a national security aide to former President Clinton.

 

“This is a very significant vote of no confidence and I think the president has to take this into account. The military is saying it does not trust its civilian leadership,” said Crowley, now a senior fellow at the liberal Center for American Progress.

 

Rumsfeld himself answered “no” when asked this week whether the march of retired generals was hurting his ability to do his job. “There’s nothing wrong with people having opinions,” he said.

 

Critics have accused Rumsfeld of bullying senior military officers and disregarding their views. They often cite how Rumsfeld dismissed then-Army Chief of Staff Gen. Eric Shinseki’s opinion a month before the 2003 invasion that occupying Iraq could require “several hundred thousand troops,” not the smaller force Rumsfeld would send.

 

‘Like dealing with a CEO’

But retired Marine Corps Lt. Gen. Mike DeLong rejected the idea that new leadership was needed at the Pentagon.

 

“Dealing with Secretary Rumsfeld is like dealing with a CEO,” he told CNN. “When you walk in to see him, you’ve got to be prepared. You’ve got to know what you’re talking about. If you don’t, you’re summarily dismissed. But that’s the way it is, and he’s effective.”

 

The White House pointed to comments supportive of Rumsfeld from Marine Gen. Peter Pace, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and said criticism was to be expected at a time of war in both Iraq and Afghanistan.

 

“We are a nation at war and we are a nation that is going through a military transformation. Those are issues that tend to generate debate and disagreement and we recognize that,” McClellan said.

 

But military experts say the parade of recently retired military brass calling for Rumsfeld’s resignation is troubling and threatens to undermine strong support Bush has enjoyed among the officer corps and troops.

 

With public anti-war sentiment increasing, “the president and his team cannot afford to lose that support,” said Kurt Campbell, a former deputy assistant secretary of defense.

 

Yet for Bush to try to distance himself from Rumsfeld “would call into question everything about the last three years’ strategy in ways the White House worries would send a very negative message,” said Campbell, now with the Center for Strategic and International Studies.

 

Bush’s dilemma, said Michael O’Hanlon, a military analyst with the Brookings Institution, is that Bush “shares a lot of the responsibility for the key decisions on Iraq.”

 

“Bush is implicated. For Bush to fire Rumsfeld is for Bush to declare himself a failure as president. Iraq is the main issue of his presidency,” said O’Hanlon, who supported Bush’s decision to invade Iraq and said he still supports the war.

 

Reuters and The Associated Press contributed to this report.

 

© 2006 MSNBC.com

 

URL: http://msnbc.msn.com/id/12313869/

 

 

I remember mooooonths ago he said he was going to resign.. then all of a sudden.. the Pres. convinced him to stay so he did... but apparently not everyone is on the same page.... so I pose the question... Whats wrong with this picture??

Another retired general calls for Rumsfeld to resign

 

Raw Story | April 13 2006

 

Another retired general is calling for Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld to resign, according to a front page story set for Thursday's Washington Post, RAW STORY has found.

 

Excerpts from the article written by Thomas E. Ricks:

 

#

The retired commander of key forces in Iraq called Wednesday for Donald Rumsfeld to step down, joining several other former top military commanders who have harshly criticized the secretary of defense's authoritarian style for making the military's job more difficult.

 

"I think we need a fresh start" at the top of the Pentagon, retired Army Maj. Gen. John Batiste, who commanded the 1st Infantry Division in Iraq in 2004-05, said in an interview. "We need leadership up there that respects the military as they expect the military to respect them. And that leadership needs to understand teamwork."

 

Batiste noted that many of his peers feel the same way. "It speaks volumes that guys like me are speaking out from retirement about the leadership climate in the Department of Defense," he said in another interview earlier Wednesday on CNN. Batiste's comments resonate especially within the Army because it is widely known there that he was offered a promotion to three-star rank to return to Iraq and be the No. 2 U.S. military officer there, but declined because he no longer wished to serve under Rumsfeld. Also, before going to Iraq, he worked at the highest level of the Pentagon, serving as the senior military assistant to Paul Wolfowitz, then the deputy secretary of defense.

 

Batiste said that he believes the administration's handling of the Iraq war has violated fundamental military principles, such as unity of command and unity of effort. In other interviews, Batiste has said that he thinks that the violation of another military principle of ensuring there is an adequate number of forces helped create the Abu Ghraib abuse scandal by putting too much responsibility on incompetent officers and undertrained troops.

haha you dont get it? theres no point. every politicians in office has enough dirt on them to be kicked out or to resign. bush for example we have enought to impeach him, but we'd have enough to impeach the next pres and so on. we had enough for clinton. no matter what politician is in office we will have reasons and dirt to impeach or try to force them to resign.

Should he stay or should he go?

 

David Ignatius argues that President Bush should replace Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld, but not because of the criticism from certain generals. As Ignatius says:

 

Military officers often dislike the civilians they work for, but in our system strong civilian control is essential. On some of the issues over which he has tangled with the military brass, Rumsfeld has been right. The Pentagon is a hidebound place, and it has needed the "transformation" ethic Rumsfeld brought to his job.

 

Ignatius argues instead that Rumsfeld needs to be replaced in order to increase domestic support for the war. He thinks that by appointing someone like Senator Lieberman or Senator Hagel, Bush could rebuild a consensus in support of the war.

 

Consider me skeptical. The war has lost domestic support because it is perceived as not going well. That perception is based in part on reality and in part on biased reporting. Bringing in Lieberman, Hagel, or whomever will change neither the reality nor the biased reporting.

 

JOHN adds: When you're President, you get lots of free advice. Some of it is well-intentioned; much of it is not. Here is why I think so many liberals are anxious for President Bush to replace Rumsfeld: they have staked a great deal on the proposition that the Iraq war has not gone well, and, in fact, has been a disaster. But they are troubled because they are not at all sure that is true. By any reasonable standard, casualties have been low and Iraq's progress toward democracy has been impressive. This doesn't mean the project couldn't still go off the rails; it clearly could. But it is also possible--likely, I think--that the Iraqis will succeed in forming a government, violence will continue to decline, our troops levels will be substantially reduced, and, in a year or two, the consensus will be that the war was pretty successful after all. This, I think, is what liberals fear most. They want President Bush to stipulate, in effect, that the war has been poorly conducted and has been a failure. That's the way in which firing Rumsfeld would rightly be interpreted. This would largely insulate liberals against the consequences if the war does, in fact, turn out to be successful. The same logic, I think, explains why liberals are always hectoring President Bush to "admit his mistakes." What they fear, deep down, is that the President's policies haven't been mistakes at all.

 

 

 

 

 

Why they hate him so

 

This quotation from Winston Churchill, one of the great military leaders of modern times, seem to speak directly to the ongoing controversy surrounding Donald Rumsfeld:

 

Never, never, never believe any war will be smooth and easy, or that anyone who embarks on the strange voyage can measure the tides and hurricanes he will encounter. The statesman who yields to war fever must realise that once the signal is given, he is no longer the master of policy but the slave of unforeseeable and uncontrollable events. Antiquated War Offices, weak, incompetent, or arrogant commanders, untrustworthy allies, hostile neutrals, malignant Fortune, ugly surprises, awful miscalculations — all take their seats at the Council Board on the morrow of a declaration of war.

 

War is the most difficult thing of all. Secretary Rumsfeld has proven himself to be a supremely competent war commander under very difficult circumstances. The current conflict is all the more trying for the fact that we have in our midst those who loathe their own country so much that they seek to effect our defeat. And all these people without exception share one thing in common – they hate Donald Rumsfeld with a blinding passion. They hate him, because he stands in their way. It is almost impossible to conceive that the United States could lose while this man is at the helm of our armed forces. And this thought drives the America haters into utter frenzy, because they know that they will not be able to prevail as long as people like him are in charge. Their spouting and gnashing of teeth is the best testimony to the Secretary’s effectiveness.

 

This nation needs Mr. Rumsfeld more than ever. When the history of our time is written many years from now – long after these sick and treasonous maligners have been swept into the sewer of history – this nation will fully recognize its debt of gratitude to this excellent man. May God give him the strength to complete his mission.

He has to go.

haha you dont get it? theres no point. every politicians in office has enough dirt on them to be kicked out or to resign. bush for example we have enought to impeach him' date=' but we'd have enough to impeach the next pres and so on. we had enough for clinton. no matter what politician is in office we will have reasons and dirt to impeach or try to force them to resign.[/quote']

 

 

 

ok smart ass... so why wasn't Clinton impeached???? please enlighten me.. oh wise 17yr old from sheltered from life living FL.

ok smart ass... so why wasn't Clinton impeached???? please enlighten me.. oh wise 17yr old from sheltered from life living FL.

 

because its amazingly hard to impeach anyone in office. like bush will never be impeached. because you are not impeached doesnt mean you dont deserve to be. the fact is every politician has enough reasons to be impeached but for most of them, it will NEVER happen. simple as that, thats how politics goes. deal with it.

you're talking shit again...

 

lol "probable" cause doesn't justify the means... thats highly unlikely. I mean, you're probably right.. thats just it "probably".. the same could be said for anyone.. if its 'probable'... but to say that NO ONE will ever be impeached is ludacris.. Clinton's impeachment wasn't justified.. he didn't do anything wrong but cheat on his wife whilst using the Oval Office as his pimp room?? lol I am sure there are worse things that have been done in there.. like lieing to the Amercian public about justifiable causes for war and stuff.. declassifying info then deny they had any part in it lol

 

Sometimes.. and I mean very rarely... you make sense.. and I give you the benefit of the doubt.. but dude.. lately you seem to make it always about one vs. the other..

 

I gave up that argument with you a loooooooooong time ago.. because I was tired of trying. I think its amazing though hpw even though many of people hav now come about...from both political parties suggesting that he should be impeached, speaks volumes. You're right, he 'probably' won't be impeached.. that just goes to show you what a power hungry man he is.

 

I should also add.. this thread was about Rumsfeld... why and how did impeachment get involved here??? lol

because its amazingly hard to impeach anyone in office. like bush will never be impeached. because you are not impeached doesnt mean you dont deserve to be. the fact is every politician has enough reasons to be impeached but for most of them' date=' it will NEVER happen. simple as that, thats how politics goes. deal with it.[/quote']

 

Maybe you can just sleep through this but some other people actually care if the people running most powerful country in the world are commiting crimes and making lies.

SO, get a nice cup of hot chocolate a watch the O.C all day while the currupt bastards in Washington piss your country's freedom and future away.

U.S.: Rumsfeld Potentially Liable for Torture

 

Reuters | April 17 2006

 

Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld could be criminally liable for the torture of a detainee at Guantanamo Bay in late 2002 and early 2003, Human Rights Watch said today. A December 20, 2005 Army Inspector General's report, obtained by Salon.com this week, contains a sworn statement by Lt. Gen. Randall M. Schmidt that implicates Secretary Rumsfeld in the abuse of detainee Mohammad al-Qahtani. Based on an investigation that he carried out in early 2005, which included two interviews with Rumsfeld, Gen. Schmidt describes the defense secretary as being "personally involved" in al-Qahtani's interrogation.

 

Human Rights Watch urges the United States to name a special prosecutor to investigate the culpability of Rumsfeld and others in the al-Qahtani case.

 

"The question at this point is not whether Secretary Rumsfeld should resign, it's whether he should be indicted," said Joanne Mariner, Terrorism and Counterterrorism Program director at Human Rights Watch. "General Schmidt's sworn statement suggests that Rumsfeld may have been perfectly aware of the abuses inflicted on al-Qahtani."

 

Gen. Schmidt said that Secretary Rumsfeld was "talking weekly" with Gen. Miller about the al-Qahtani interrogation, and that the secretary of defense was "personally involved in the interrogation of [this] one person." Schmidt's statement indicates that Rumsfeld maintained a high level of knowledge of and supervision over al-Qahtani's treatment. Although Schmidt said that he believed that Rumsfeld did not specifically order the more abusive methods used in the al-Qahtani interrogation, he concluded that Rumsfeld's policies facilitated the abuse.

 

The Pentagon has acknowledged that al-Qahtani's mistreatment was not unplanned. "Al-Kahtani's interrogation was guided by a very detailed plan, conducted by trained professionals in a controlled environment, and with active supervision and oversight," wrote Jeffrey Gordon, a Pentagon spokesman, in an email to Salon.com. "Nothing was done randomly."

 

Human Rights Watch has obtained an unredacted copy of al-Qahtani's interrogation log, and believes that the techniques used during al-Qahtani's interrogation were so abusive that they amounted to torture.

 

The interrogation log reveals that al-Qahtani was subjected to a regime of physical and mental mistreatment from mid-November 2002 to early January 2003. For six weeks, he was intentionally deprived of sleep, forced into painful physical positions (known as stress positions) and subjected to forced exercises, forced standing, and sexual and other physical humiliation.

 

After refusing water, al-Qahtani was forced to accept an intravenous drip for hydration and, on several occasions, was refused trips to a latrine, so that he urinated on himself at least twice. He was also threatened with forced enemas, and on one occasion was forced to undergo an enema.

 

"A six-week regime of sleep deprivation, forced exercises, stress positions, white noise, and sexual humiliation amounts to acts that were specifically intended to cause severe physical pain and suffering and severe mental pain and suffering," said Mariner. "That's the legal definition of torture."

 

In 2005, the Judge Advocates General of the U.S. Army, Navy and Marine Corps told the U.S. Senate Committee on Armed Services that the techniques used on al-Qahtani violated the U.S. Army Field Manual on Intelligence Interrogation, and would have been illegal if perpetrated by another country on captured U.S. personnel. The U.S. State Department also regularly condemns as torture the same techniques in its annual Country Report on Human Rights, citing their use in countries such as North Korea and Iran.

 

Human Rights Watch believes that Secretary Rumsfeld, Gen. Geoffrey Miller – a senior commander at Guantanamo in 2002 and early 2003 – and the interrogators who took part in the interrogations could be criminally liable under federal or military criminal law for torture, assaults and sexual abuse. (The Inspector General's report is focused on Gen. Miller's conduct.)

 

Rumsfeld could be liable under the doctrine of "command responsibility" – the legal principle that holds a superior responsible for crimes committed by his subordinates when he knew or should have known that they were being committed, but fails to take reasonable measures to stop them.

 

A special prosecutor is needed because Attorney General Alberto Gonzales was himself deeply involved in the policies leading to the abuse of detainees, a conflict of interest that is likely to prevent a proper investigation from being carried out. U.S. Department of Justice regulations call for the appointment of an outside counsel when such a conflict exists and the public interest warrants a prosecutor without links to the government.

 

"A special prosecutor should look carefully at what abuses Rumsfeld either knew of or condoned," said Mariner.

 

On December 2, 2002, as the Pentagon has previously acknowledged, Rumsfeld approved 16 interrogation techniques for al-Qahtani and other detainees, including the use of forced nudity, stress positions and "using detainees' individual phobias (such as fear of dogs)."

 

Al-Qahtani, who is alleged to have been a "20th hijacker," was denied entry to the United States in August 2001. Pentagon spokesman Gordon told Salon.com on Thursday that al-Qahtani was an "al-Qaida terrorist" who provided a "treasure trove" of information during his interrogation. (The information al-Qahtani is said to have provided, however, is still classified.)

 

Human Rights Watch expressed concern that the Pentagon has never released the full version of Gen. Schmidt's report on abuses at Guantanamo. The report's recommendations were rejected by the head of U.S. Southern Command, Gen. Bantz J. Craddock, who said in July 2005 that the al-Qahtani interrogation did not violate military law or policy.

you're talking shit again...

 

lol "probable" cause doesn't justify the means... thats highly unlikely. I mean, you're probably right.. thats just it "probably".. the same could be said for anyone.. if its 'probable'... but to say that NO ONE will ever be impeached is ludacris.. Clinton's impeachment wasn't justified.. he didn't do anything wrong but cheat on his wife whilst using the Oval Office as his pimp room?? lol I am sure there are worse things that have been done in there.. like lieing to the Amercian public about justifiable causes for war and stuff.. declassifying info then deny they had any part in it lol

 

Sometimes.. and I mean very rarely... you make sense.. and I give you the benefit of the doubt.. but dude.. lately you seem to make it always about one vs. the other..

 

I gave up that argument with you a loooooooooong time ago.. because I was tired of trying. I think its amazing though hpw even though many of people hav now come about...from both political parties suggesting that he should be impeached, speaks volumes. You're right, he 'probably' won't be impeached.. that just goes to show you what a power hungry man he is.

 

I should also add.. this thread was about Rumsfeld... why and how did impeachment get involved here??? lol

 

you can remain blind but EVERY politician has done enough to be fired, but politics do not work that way. everyone is dirty and breaks the law, the next president will, the next senators will, democrat or reupblican, it doesnt matter they all play dirty and break the laws. fact of life you can deny that all you want.

Maybe you can just sleep through this but some other people actually care if the people running most powerful country in the world are commiting crimes and making lies.

SO, get a nice cup of hot chocolate a watch the O.C all day while the currupt bastards in Washington piss your country's freedom and future away.

 

no matter who is running it, they will be corrupt and break laws. clinton did, bush sr did, bush does, and the next president WILL. they all lie and commit crimes, their politicians for crying out loud.

i would have thought, you out of all people would know this camille.

you can remain blind but EVERY politician has done enough to be fired' date=' but politics do not work that way. everyone is dirty and breaks the law, the next president will, the next senators will, democrat or reupblican, it doesnt matter they all play dirty and break the laws. fact of life you can deny that all you want.[/quote']

 

 

you're hopeless dude! lol

 

 

I said its probable.... do you know what probable means?? lol then again... anything is really probable, right??? :rolleyes:

 

I'm not blind lol I said I agreed with you on the 'probableness' hence the word 'probability!'......

 

:lol: I think you just like to try and get a rise out of people.. lol you can't honestly be this stupid.. :lol: you keep beating shit til its dead... and continue to beat on it!

 

quit it.. lol its getting old now..

no matter who is running it' date=' they will be corrupt and break laws. clinton did, bush sr did, bush does, and the next president WILL. they all lie and commit crimes, their politicians for crying out loud.[/quote']

 

I know that because they all are owned by the same coporations trying to achieve the same goal - Destroying your constitution. Taking away freedoms, policing you to death until you have the army on the street 24/7. Carrying out terror to make you give way to new laws that will "protect you" and by this time all power will be given over to the president (whoever it is) by people like YOU who just seem to be ok with all this shit.

good luck. your going to need it.

Amen Gareth!!

 

Just because they (politicians) do the things they do, Nick.. doesn't make it ok. This is what we are trying to say.... where is the freedom? Where are my civil liberties?? What happened to the government working for ME!! We are the ones who are supoose to 'vote' these people into office and out if we should choose to. Note I did say 'should'.... but as Gareth has just pointed out...... there's an agenda.... higher powers $$$ that can control things....

 

totally agree Gareth

^what they said! :P

 

 

 

Seriously, though. I cannot believe how mindlessly complacent people have become. "Oh, shit, he broke the law? Oh well, what else is new. As long as I can drink on the weekends and fuck a couple chicks, then I'm ok!" or whatever. To quote Ginsberg, "America this is quite serious.

America this is the impression I get from looking in the television set.

America is this correct? "

 

 

We need to stop sitting on our asses and taking it, we need to start rising up and showing those in power that they need to work for US, and not themselves. People should not be afraid of their governments, the governments should be in fear of the people.

enough is enough

 

^What you said........

 

Yes. It does need to be done.

It's the most important thing I think I have ever known and it's not as if you can persude these cretins to just be nice and good....they are FAR, FAR too deep into the whole thing to even care. They need to be shown up for their absolute blatent lies and crimes which shocking enough are mostly free for anybody to see....but do some people care at all?? no.....it's absolutely deflating.

And it's the UK too. Our leaders are just as willing to cut out our freedoms whenever possible - everyones in on the big joke and we have been laughed at far too long now and enough is enough.

we need this guy..

 

YES!!! LMFAO!

 

GazeboflossUK, I have to say that you remind me of V. Which is a compliment, because I loved that movie. LOL!!!

Oh really...:pleased:

 

yes, I haven't seen it but I have been advised to go and check it out.

Now I have to. ;)

Oh you will love it! It's all about conspiracies, and HUGE government cover ups. Disasters that are blamed on arabs, etc etc. I thought of you and your threads in the middle of the movie!

Yeah, :cool:

I was reading what it was about a while ago.

You see....Major players in Holywood are now on our side. Lot's of them are going to either come forward with 'public' support and others with movies like this. They are attempts to wake people up to what's actually happening today.

 

I'll try and see it asap....I might go on wednesday.

change your avatar to that piccie I posted!! :lol:

I know that because they all are owned by the same coporations trying to achieve the same goal - Destroying your constitution. Taking away freedoms' date=' policing you to death until you have the army on the street 24/7. Carrying out terror to make you give way to new laws that will "protect you" and by this time [i']all[/i] power will be given over to the president (whoever it is) by people like YOU who just seem to be ok with all this shit.

good luck. your going to need it.

 

its not just american. every politician in the world are corrupt and break laws.