CRIMINAL JURISDICTION

Criminal Law Blog by Defense Lawyer John Floyd and Mr. Billy Sinclair

October 14, 2009

WHO ARE THE REAL HOME GROWN TERRORISTS?

Filed under: Anti-Terrorism Lawyer — Tags: , , , , — johntfloyd @ 3:24 pm

Right-Wing Patriot Groups, White Supremest, Neo-Nazis Pose Growing Threat

By: Houston Criminal Lawyer John Floyd and Paralegal Billy Sinclair

The mainstream media over the past two weeks has been saturated with an endless stream of stories about Najibullah Zazi, a suspected Afganhani terrorist reportedly involved in a plot of bomb New York City’s mass transit system; Michael Fenton, an American converted to Islam who allegedly planted and attempted to trigger a fake vehicle bomb in front of a Springfield, Illinois federal court building with the help of undercover FBI operatives; and Hosam Maher Smadi, a Jordanian who also allegedly planted and attempted to trigger a fake vehicle bomb at a Dallas skyscraper with the help of undercover FBI operatives. All three allegedly terrorist plots were exposed by the FBI this past September following the arrests of these individuals.

These three individuals—all of whom were linked to what some in the media refer to as “radical Islam”—have become the most recent faces of the term “home grown terrorism” in the United States. It has become almost second nature for Americans to associate virtually every threat of terrorism with the religion of Islam. But do radical jihadists pose the greatest threat of terrorism in this country?

James G. Cummings is not a household name in America. He is certainly not as well known as Zazi, Fenton or Smadi. He was shot to death by his wife on December 9, 2008. Two months later an FBI field intelligence report from the Washington Regional Threat and Analysis Center was posted online by WikiLeaks which revealed that “radioactive materials” had been removed from Cummings’ Belfast, Maine home following his shooting death.

“On 9 December 2008, radiological dispersal device components and literature, and radioactive materials, were discovered at the Maine residence of an identified deceased [person] James Cummings,” WikiLeaks quoted the intelligence report as saying.

The report listed the following “dirty bomb” making materials found at Cummings’ residence: four 1-gallon containers of 35 percent hydrogen peroxide, uranium, thorium, lithium metal, thermite, aluminum powder, beryllium, boron, black iron oxide, and magnesium. In addition to these materials, the report stated that literature about how to construct a “dirty bomb” and other information about radioactive materials (cesium-137, strontium-90 and cobalt-60) were found at the residence. (more…)

September 7, 2009

RACE AND RELIGION: THE STARTING POINT OF TERRORISM INVESTIGATIONS

Filed under: Anti-Terrorism Lawyer — Tags: , , , , , , — johntfloyd @ 6:31 pm

Religious and Racial Profiling Justified in McCarthy Era Inspired Investigations and Tactics

By: Houston Criminal Defense Lawyer John Floyd and Paralegal Billy Sinclair

The September 11, 2001 Al-Qaeda attacks on the Twin Towers in New York City, and the reaction to those terrorist attacks by President George Bush’s administration, left this nation with a tragic and despicable legacy that has tarnished our great Country’s reputation and image worldwide. One part of this legacy was the government’s voluntary interview program that used race and religion as the primary factors for initiating contact with individuals which continues to be fueled by the faulty premise that these two factors create “suspect communities” from which real and suspected “terrorists” could be found.

The ACLU and The Rights Working Group’s 2009 follow-up report to the United Nation’s Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination titled “The Persistence of Racial and Ethnic Profiling in the United States” http://www.aclu.org/pdfs/humanrights/cerd_finalreport.pdf (“ACLU Report”) specifically pointed that, while initially part of President Bush’s declared “war on terror,” the FBI “has continued to undertake problematic inquiries and investigations of members of the Muslim communities, Muslim religious organizations (including mosques), and even Muslim charities.” 1/

The “targets” of these investigations, more commonly called “assessments,” quickly learn that FBI agents will visit their places of employment, worship, and community centers where they pressure and harass employers, co-workers, religious leaders, neighbors, friends, and even family members to provide the smallest kernel of evidence that would implicate the targets, or someone else, in some kind of activity that can classified as a “threat to national security” or be charged as some form of terrorist activity. 2/

The ACLU Report pointed out that in December 2008 the U.S. Department of Justice, under the direction of former Attorney General Michael MuKasey, established “The Attorney General’s Guidelines for Domestic FBI Operations.” These Guidelines, however, have a number of significant problems, according to the ACLU Report: “Most notably, they [Guidelines] open the door to abuse of power and racial profiling by allowing the FBI to open ‘assessments’ without any factual predicate. By calling their investigations ‘assessments,’ FBI agents can investigate any person they choose, provided it is done with the goal of preventing crime, protecting national security, or collecting foreign intelligence. There is no requirement of a factual connection between the agent’s authorizing purpose and the actual conduct of the individuals who are being investigated. FBI agents can initiate ‘assessments’ without any supervisory approval and without reporting to FBI headquarters or to the Department of Justice.” 3/ (more…)

May 22, 2009

THE GITMO DILEMMA

Filed under: Anti-Terrorism Lawyer — Tags: , , , , — johntfloyd @ 4:24 pm

Don’t We Have Prison Space for a Few More?

By: Houston Criminal Defense Attorney John Floyd and Paralegal Billy Sinclair

Shortly after assuming the presidency, Barak Obama announced his intention to close the military detention facility at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, which currently houses 240 individuals classified as “enemy combatants” suspected of having engaged in some form of terrorism against the United States. The president stated that he was studying the various options for dealing with these detainees.

The proposed closure of “Gitmo,” as the military facility is now known, drew expected criticism from Republicans and right-wing spokesman like former Vice President Dick Cheney who accused the president of compromising the nation’s security interests. Failing to get a specific plan about what would be done with the “detainees” currently housed there, conservative and moderate Democrats gradually cuddled up to drumbeat of right-wing hysteria being promoted by Cheney and Rush Limbaugh and refused to stand by the president.

On May 20, 2009, the U.S. Senate, with overwhelming bipartisan support, voted 90-6 to block President’s Obama request for funds necessary to shutdown the Gitmo facility.

“One thing [President Obama] has to do is begin to articulate the specifics of a plan for closing Guantanamo,” said Mark Mellman, a Democratic pollster with close ties to the congressional leaders. “The Hill needs to hear that.”

Echoing sentiments held by former Attorneys General John Ashcroft and Alberto Gonzales, FBI Director Robert Mueller, who was asleep at the wheel leading up to the 9/11 attacks, recently warned congressional leaders that placing Gitmo detainees in the nation’s prison system could influence the “radicalization” of other inmates should they be placed in this system.

The FBI director should stick to law enforcement because he knows nothing about the nation’s prison subculture. In the first place, only a couple dozen of the 240 detainees currently housed at Gitmo would be transferred to federal prisons where they would be immediately, and permanently, placed in maximum security lockdown. The majority of the rest would be farmed out to Saudi Arabia where they would be put through that country’s “terrorist rehabilitation” program which has enjoyed some success. The remaining few, and the least dangerous, could be released to their country of origin.

During the Bush administration, some 500 suspected “enemy combatants” were released from Gitmo—either because they were innocent to begin with or because the nation’s military intelligence personnel felt combatants no longer posed a security threat to this country. Pentagon figures show that somewhere between 11 to 14 percent of those released returned to “militant activities.” An 85 percent success rate is not bad for any prisoner release program not based on “individual rehabilitation.” The nation’s regular prison system, which is based on the “rehabilitation” model, enjoys a success rate of around 55 percent.

With respect as to how to handle dangerous terrorists, the nation’s prison system has a historical and legal precedent for keeping “militant” inmates is long term maximum security lockdown. Albert Woodfox and Herman Wallace, both suspected of being former Black Panther Party members, were kept in maximum security lockdown for 35 years in the Louisiana State Penitentiary for the 1972 murder of a prison guard before a federal judge ordered their release from lockdown in 2007. Prison officials quickly returned them to lockdown on trumped up disciplinary charges within weeks of their release from solitary.

As for Mueller’s “radicalization” charge, the nation’s federal prison system is controlled by Mexican or other Latin American gangs—most of whom have direct affiliations with some of the most violent and well-organized drug cartels in the world. They could care less about the Koran, Allah, or “radical Islam.” They are about greed, profit and violence—not religion or justice. Realistically, the Federal Bureau of Prisons could simply put the worst, and the most dangerous, “terrorists” in the general inmate population of the average medium or maximum security facility and they would have to kowtow to the gangs just to survive with their lives, and some with their manhood.

Whether laced in long term maximum security lockdown in a “super max” prison or in general inmate population, given the increased scrutiny these Gitmo detainees would enjoy, they would have about as much success “radicalizing” other inmates as the CIA has enjoyed tracking down and killing Osama bin Laden. After all, you can’t do too much “radicalizing” from solitary confinement.

Remove the political posturing from the debate and the “Gitmo” dilemma could easily be resolved. Clear out one wing in one of the nation’s most secure “super max” federal prisons either in Marion, Illinois or Florence, Colorado; staff this wing with trained security personnel; install sophisticated security monitoring systems; and keep the two-dozen most dangerous terrorists in lockdown for the next fifty years or until they die, whichever comes first. Politics aside, treating these men as normal convicts within the prison system, with the typical threat assessments, classifications and housing placements, would likely adequately solve most of the issues.

The simple reality is that terrorists are not going to be released into American communities as Karl Rove-inspired Republicans have tried to frighten the public into believing. It’s pure nonsense, and dangerous politics. This nation, and the president, faces too many other very real and potentially catastrophic crises to be side-tracked by the so-called “Gitmo dilemma.” This problem is too important to be influenced by the likes of FBI Director Mueller who cannot point to a single instance where a convicted “terrorist” housed in an American prison has “radicalized” either a Muslim or non-Muslim inmate enough to carry out a terrorist attack against America; or conservative Republicans who spread the unfounded fears that terrorists are about to be released into American communities where they can turn our children into “suicide bombers.”

President Obama should give Congress a plan. Release most of the Gitmo detainees into Saudi Arabia’s “terrorist rehabilitation” program. Transfer the remaining and most dangerous others to American federal prisons; try them before military tribunals; and if found guilty and their convictions upheld on appeal, imprison them for the rest of their lives in a maximum security lockdown status where they will grow old and die in anonymity.

That will eliminate whatever national security threat these particular terrorists pose to this country and restore America’s legal and moral standing in the international community. What is so hard about that?

By: Houston Criminal Defense Attorney John Floyd and Paralegal Billy Sinclair

May 19, 2009

THE RIGHT TO KNOW IN THE REAL WORLD

Filed under: Anti-Terrorism Lawyer — Tags: , , , , — johntfloyd @ 12:47 pm

The President’s Balancing Act; Public’s Right to know, Due Process for Terrorist

By: Houston Criminal Defense Attorney John Floyd and Paralegal Billy Sinclair

President Barak Obama has drawn considerable political flak recently from liberal Democrats, human rights groups, and “left-leaning” bloggers for two terror-related decisions: the decision to fight the court-ordered release of dozens of photos of terror suspects being subjected to torture interrogation techniques; and the decision to resurrect the military tribunals set up during the Bush administration to try terror suspects. This new wave of criticism from the president’s natural base of supporters comes of the heels of massive political flak he incurred several weeks ago from Republicans, right-wing radio talk show hosts, and the “new voice” of the Republican Party, former vice-president Dick Cheney, concerning the administration’s decision to release of U.S. Justice Department “terror memos” authorizing CIA torture interrogations in 2002.

Our first observation about these recent politically-motivated turn of events is this: in order to receive that kind of criticism from so many diverse political perspectives—all of which are promoting pushing some kind of out of the mainstream agenda—it is a clear indication that President Obama is doing the “right thing” and trying to serve both the constitutional and security interests of this nation.

We have written rather extensively in the past about a laundry list of the “war-on-terror” issues: torture, secret prisons, CIA-kidnappings of terror suspects, military tribunals, abuses to the great writ of habeas corpus, and the infamous terror “memos.” We are by no means “experts” on these issues but we do have the natural ability to distinguish between necessary restrictions and the flagrant disregard for sacred constitutional principles in the Bush-declared “war on terror.” The Bush administration—led by the likes of Dick Cheney, Alberto Gonzales, and Donald Rumsfeld—manipulated legitimate “national security interests” to justify a host of illegal activity and constitutional abuses: torture of terror suspects, illegal surveillance of American citizens, criminal kidnappings of innocent individuals on foreign soil, denial of basic human and civil rights, to name only a few.

So we naturally supported President’s Obama’s release of the terror “memos” in an April 21, 2009 article (“The CIA Terror Memos”); and as a matter of presenting a balanced perspective, we posted another on May 9, 2009 (“A Defense Against Torture”) offering a defense for those former Justice Department officials who authorized the CIA torture interrogations.

Any weighing of “national security” and “constitutional” interests demands a measured, balanced response. If the ideologues on either the right or left are allowed to control this decision-making process, abuses of both interests are inevitable. Fanatics of any political stripe are dangerous to our founding principles of democracy. A mere review of all the failed democracies that litter the landscape of history will show that it was the fanatics who destroyed them.

That’s why we support the president’s decision to fight the court-ordered release of the photos of the terror interrogations. First, court orders are not always right. How many “court orders” have sent innocent people to prison? And how many lower court orders have later been declared unconstitutional or based on unsound legal principles? Our law books are filled with reversed court-orders. The president not only has a right but a duty to seek a definitive ruling from the nation’s highest court–the U.S. Supreme Court—on such a thorny constitutional issue.

Second, President Obama is the nation’s commander-in-chief. He has a fundamental duty to protect the thousands of military personnel who are currently in “harm’s way” on foreign soil. The highest ranking military officers in this country have advised him that the release of those photos would place these military personnel at greater risk of harm. The president had a constitutional duty, above and beyond all others, to heed the advice of his military advisors not to release photos that could cause harm to our military personnel.  Presidents, democrat and republican, have juggled this political “hot potato” throughout the history of this country.

Finally, what legitimate “right to know” interests would be served by releasing the photos? None. The president has already released the detailed torture memos that unequivocally informed the American public that the CIA engaged in enhanced and torture interrogation techniques. Those memos informed the American public about not only how but why U.S. Justice Department officials authorized those interrogation techniques. The American public is not a “torture voyeur” who wants or needs to see CIA personnel water boarding or slapping around terror suspects. The ACLU and Huffington Post bloggers seek release of the photos not for any First Amendment “right to know” protections but to be used as political ammunition to discredit the political right by seeking criminal prosecution of those responsible for the torture interrogations. While there motives are very understandable, the U.S. Constitution is not a football field where a contest of political ideologies should be waged.

As for military tribunals, we have long had a problem with the complete lack of constitutional protections available to those facing trial before such tribunals. President Obama, however, has greatly enhanced legal protections for terror suspects who will be brought before these tribunals. For example, evidence obtained through cruel and unusual interrogations techniques will not be admissible; greater restrictions will be imposed on the use of hearsay evidence; and a suspect will have greater leeway in choosing military counsel of his choice.

While these protections are not nearly as great as the evidentiary protections and constitutional rights enjoyed by a criminal defendant in the American legal system, unfortunately, certain kinds of terror suspects cannot realistically be tried in the nation’s legal system. The evidence against some of these terror suspects simply would not stand up against evidentiary rules of procedure or constitutional challenges in criminal courts. Some would argue that these individuals should be “turned loose” if a case cannot be made against them in the nation’s legal system where they would enjoy the full panoply of constitutional rights.

But this “turn ‘em loose” option is not only impractical but truly dangerous to the legitimate “national security interests” of this country. A dozen or more of the terror suspects currently being held at the Guantanamo Bay military prison in Cuba are dangerous individuals who were allegedly directly involved in the 9/11 attacks, or were involved in other terror attacks on this country, or were involved in the planning of terror attacks on this country. To this day these individuals declare their allegiance to the destruction of the United States of America.

There should be no debate about whether these individuals should be held accountable for their terrorist activities—some of which cost the lives of thousands of innocent Americans. The rule of law and the very safety of the American people demand accountability for the terrorist attacks committed against them. The military tribunals as they are being resurrected by President Obama are the only realistic way to achieve such accountability.

Even if we subscribed to the “term ‘em loose” argument, there is no country that would take them—and even if another country would take them, it would only allow them to engage future terror attacks against Americans if they so wished.

President Obama has adopted the sound policy for dealing with the difficult “war on terror.” He has not only condemned torture as a way of extracting information from terror suspects, but has also said they will be accorded all the rights guaranteed to “prisoners of war” under the Geneva Convention. The president is chartering a course that will allow America to both treat terrorists in a humane manner, give them due process, and, if necessary punish them as swiftly and severely as their crimes require.

A nation has an indisputable right to protect itself from terrorism—and it does not have to forsake its fundamental constitutional values in doing so. We believe President Obama as our commander in chief has undertaken, and hopefully will continue, a course of action that will protect our legitimate “national security” interests while allowing America to restore its place as a moral beacon in the international community.

By: Houston Criminal Defense Attorney John Floyd and Paralegal Billy Sinclair

April 23, 2009

THE CIA TERROR MEMOS

Filed under: Anti-Terrorism Lawyer — Tags: , , , , — johntfloyd @ 9:24 am

Legal Opinions Redefine Torture, Criminal Acts

By: Houston Criminal Defense Attorney John Floyd and Paralegal Billy Sinclair

The Bush administration’s 2001 declaration of “war on terror” critically—if not irreparably—injured the constitutional soul of America. This nation can no longer look other civilized countries in directly in the eye and unequivocally say it is the moral leader of the “free world.” The recently released CIA “terror memos” demonstrate that during the eight-year presidential tenure of George W. Bush the United States became a nation that subscribed almost exclusively to the base Machiavellian political dogma of “the end justifies the means.”  Those who have defended, and continue to defend, the “torture” practices carried out under the Bush administration say they were a necessary weapon in the “war on terror” declared by President Bush after the three September 11, 2001 terror attacks against the United States by the international terrorist organization, al-Qaeda.

In the wake of that war declaration, the nation’s Central Intelligence Agency established “black site” (secret) prisons in friendly countries across Europe. The CIA, and its contracted mercenaries, began to search for and round up “terror suspects” around the globe. Many of the suspects were kidnapped off public streets in their home countries and whisked away to one of the CIA’s “black site” prisons. Most of those “terror suspects” were ultimately designated by the military term as “enemy combatants” and turned over to the military to be housed in the Guantanamo Bay prison in Cuba. These “enemy combatants,” most of whom were Arab foreign nationals, enjoyed no “constitutional” protections such as right to a public and speedy trial by jury, right to confront and cross examine their accusers, privilege against self-incrimination, or the right to habeas corpus.

One of the first “high-valued” terror suspects captured by the CIA was Abu Zubaydah, the highest ranking member of al-Qaeda captured at the time. A hardcore operative of the terrorist organization and personal confidant of Osama bin Laden, Zubaydah was captured on March 28, 2002 in Faisalabad, Pakistan after being shot three times in an attempt to evade capture. It became immediately clear to the CIA that he was not about to cooperate with American authorities about al-Qaeda’s past or future terrorist attacks against the United States and its allies.

From the moment of his capture, the CIA had aggressively interrogated Zubaydah to force his cooperation without much success. The intelligence agency decided to escalate from harsh interrogation methods to “torture” to get him to talk. The agency, however, knew torture is explicitly prohibited by Section 2340A of title 18 of the United States Code; and being fearful of future congressional and media backlash, the agency sought, and received, legal cover from the U.S. Justice Department to violate this law. (more…)

April 21, 2009

TORTURE FALLOUT CONTINUES

Filed under: Anti-Terrorism Lawyer — Tags: , , , , , — johntfloyd @ 2:07 am

Foreign Investigation of Torture Techniques Sanctioned by Bush Administration

By: Houston Criminal Defense Attorney John Floyd and Paralegal Billy Sinclair

CIA Director Leon Panetta announced on April 9, 2009 that it would shut down those “black site” secret prisons in foreign countries utilized by the George Bush administration to house, and torture, suspected terrorists—many of whom were kidnapped off public streets in their home countries by either CIA agents or CIA operatives, and who had never been formally charged with any terror-related activity.

Panetta said the agency officers who employed what the New York Times called “brutal interrogation methods”—a euphemism for torture—“should not be investigated, much less punished” because their actions had been declared lawful by the U.S. Justice Department.

The laws of the United States, and international law, prohibit torture, as do many treaties between most civilized nations. CIA interrogators employed a variety of brutal interrogation methods in these “black site” prisons to get terrorist suspects to provide information about terrorism activities. One of the methods was “water-boarding”—a near drowning technique used on at least three prisoners in 2002 and 2003, and a torture technique declared a “war crime” by the U.S. after World War II because it had been used by the Japanese. Panetta and other top Obama administration officials have stated publicly that they believe water-boarding is torture.

Neither President of the United States, with all his immense executive powers, nor the United States Justice Department have either the statutory or constitutional authority to declare a crime—and torture is recognized by the laws of this nation and the laws of the international community as a crime—to be “legal” as suggested by CIA Director Panetta. (more…)

November 30, 2008

THE WAR ON TERROR ENJOYS RECENT VICTORIES

Filed under: Anti-Terrorism Lawyer — Tags: , , , , — johntfloyd @ 1:12 pm

Government Finally Reaches the Holy Land in Complex Case of Providing Financial Support to Terrorist

By: Houston Criminal Defense Attorney John Floyd and Paralegal Billy Sinclair

America has a disposition toward war. The nation was created through war, and except for brief periods of respite, America has been at war with itself and other countries throughout its history. When not at war with other nations, America has found a need to declare “war” on one social ill after another, particularly over the last five decades. Beginning with President Lyndon Johnson’s “war on poverty” through President George W. Bush’s “war on terror” following 9/11, government officials have consistently used a war slogan to justify one social crusade after another.

In 2007 we wrote in this column (under the title “The Holy Land Foundation Verdict”) about the efforts of the Bush administration, as part of its “war on terror,” to convict the Holy Land Foundation of Texas for terrorism-related activities. We will revisit some of the historical background of that column as a lead into this one.

Under its original name Occupied Land Fund, the Holy Land Foundation was established in California in 1989 by Ghassan Elashi and other Palestinian Activists. The purpose of the Foundation was to provide assistance to Palestinians displaced by a Palestinian uprising against Israel’s occupation of the West Bank and Gaza. The uprising became known as the “intifada.” The most aggressive resistance in the intifada came from the Iranian-backed organization called Hamas which had been established in 1987. The political leader of Hamas, Mousa Abu Marzook, was married to Elashi’s cousin.

Three years later, in 1992, Holy Land moved its headquarters to Richardson, Texas. The Foundation came under the scrutiny of the governments of the United States and Israel the following year. An Illinois businessman named Muhammad Salah detained in Israel informed authorities that Holy Land, which had become America’s largest Muslim charity, was actually a front for Hamas. While he later claimed that he had provided information to the Israelis under torture, he told the authorities that Marzook, who was living in the U.S. at the time, had actually funded the creation of Holy Land with hundreds of thousands of dollars of start-up money. (more…)

July 8, 2008

JUSTICE ANTONIN SCALIAS DISSENT FROM THE DARK SIDE

Filed under: Anti-Terrorism Lawyer — Tags: , , , , — admin @ 11:55 am

Houston Criminal Attorney John Floyd Discusses Scalias Blistering Dissent Accusing Justices of Aiding Terrorist

The Supreme Court on June 12, 2008 issued a decision that marked the first time in the nation’s history that the constitutional right to the writ of habeas corpus was conferred on enemy aliens detained abroad by American military forces engaged in an ongoing war. See: Boumediene v. Bush, 553 U.S. ____ (2008) [Slip Opinion No. 06-1195 & 06-1196].

This column dealt rather extensively with the legal ramifications and constitutional underpinnings on this decision (June 24, 2008). The Boumediene decision has drawn a great deal of legal scrutiny and political criticism since its release. One of the decision’s harshest critics, however, was Justice Scalia whose 25-page dissent begs attention.

Pointing out that the Boumediene decision had no basis in constitutional law, Justice Scalia accused the court’s majority of issuing an opinion that will make the nation’s “war on terror” harder and “will almost certainly cause more Americans to be killed.” It is probably the first time that a dissenting U.S. Supreme Court justice has ever accused other justices of doing work that will aid and abet terrorism. Justice Scalia certainly has a right to his point of view, and he prefaced that point of view with the following compelling information:

“America is at war with radical Islamists. The enemy began by killing Americans and American allies abroad: 241 at the Marine barracks in Lebanon, 19 at the Khobar Towers in Dhahran, 224 at our embassies in Dar es Salaam and Nairobi and 17 on the USS Cole in Yemen….On September 11, 2001, the enemy brought the battle to American soil, killing 2,749 at the Twin Towers in New York City, 184 at the Pentagon in Washington, D.C., and 40 in Pennsylvania. It has threatened further attacks against our homeland; one need only walk about buttressed and barricaded Washington, or board a plane anywhere in the country, to know the threat is a serious one. Our Armed Forces are now in the field against the enemy, in Afghanistan and Iraq…” (more…)

Powered by WordPress © 2009 John T. Floyd III All Rights Reserved:Webmaster Kevin Grey Lee