Bush administration decides to keep the illegal Guantanamo concentration camp

[Rodion Romanovich]

Thank you Bush administration - you just made it clear to me that I should stop thinking "maybe they're just foolish, maybe they're just making mistakes that make them look evil, deep inside they're probably not that evil". But I was wrong. I will now henceforth classify the Bush administration where it belongs - among cockroaches and amoebas, among the lowest of insects and creeping things. "Exit with honor" my *** - the Bush administration is a mandate period that will live in infamy, and all who struggle for their removal are my heroes - even people like Michael Moore make sense now after hearing this. To those who struggle against the Bush administration - the eyes of the world are upon you, the hopes and prayers of liberty-loving people march with you! This is a sad day for America, for democracy and for human rights. That the Bush administration as one of it's last acts in power chooses to defend the Guantanamo concentration camp after it has been shown to be illegal, which was their best chance of removing it without losing face for having previously supported the torture and murder of people that haven't received any trials at all.

[rory_20_uk]

Who said it was illegal? The court was very clear in saying that its perview was merely that on the type of trials that could take place. rather cowardly IMO.

Has something else happened that I am unaware of?

~:smoking:

[Rodion Romanovich]

Who said it was illegal? The court was very clear in saying that its perview was merely that on the type of trials that could take place. rather cowardly IMO.

Has something else happened that I am unaware of?

~:smoking:

The Bush administration has after this court thing made active statements supporting and defending the existence of the Guantanamo concentration camp. Which shows they're systematically supporting the systematic usage of concentration camps, and the lack of trial problems of the camp wasn't just a result of misunderstandings and problems with bureaucracy. They just proved it's sheer malevolence, not ignorance, that has kept this camp open until now, and will keep it open at least until the end of Bush's mandate period.

[Csargo]

Wow who would have thought the Bush administration was evil.

[Don Corleone]

The court did not find that Gitmo and the military tribunal justice system were illegal. They found that the president himself didn't have the necessary authority to set that whole system up and that he needed congressional approval, which IMHO, he SHOULD have had some time ago. Anyway, this whole story is a scratching post for uber-lefties and uber-righties alike. At the end of the day, the LACK of substantive findings in the decision, one way or the other, is the real story, as far as I'm concerned.

The MoveOn.Org crowd is claiming that this is proof positive that George Bush hasn't taken a single action as president that was remotely legal.

The G. Gordon Liddy crew is claiming this is proof positive that the president just needs to contain leaks better.

Personally, I would have liked SCOTUS speak out in defense of separation of powers a little more strongly, and I'm actually not opposed to the military tribunal system, vis a vis. Personally, I don't think we should be treating Al Queda as a signatory of the Geneva convention.

[rory_20_uk]

Personally, I would have liked SCOTUS speak out in defense of separation of powers a little more strongly, and I'm actually not opposed to the military tribunal system, vis a vis. Personally, I don't think we should be treating Al Queda as a signatory of the Geneva convention.

Which is fine and dandy for those that state that they are part of Al Queda. As for the others that state that they are innocent should they be tarred with the same brush?

A more detailed investigation into the issue is required on this one. But I doubt that this is wanted by the leaders. Give as little ground as possible on each issue. It could easily go on for many more years.

~:smoking:

[Rodion Romanovich]

The terrorists are now impossible to rank any lower than the Bush administration. If the terrorists direct their next action against a Bush administration related person rather than civilians I'd say they're above the Bush administration people. This is outrageous - the Bush administration defending concentration camps. What's next? Will the Bush administration deny the holocaust, or even praise it?

[Lemur]

Legio, you've got to be careful with these slippery slope arguments ...

[Don Corleone]

Legio, you've got to stop with the inflammatory rhetoric, such as "concentration camp". You have a good basis to argue on, you don't need to weaken your position by restorting to extreme hyperbole. As far as I know, there have been no gas showers, no firing squads, no mass starvations in Gitmo. If you are aware of the circumstances, then please, by all means, share the evidence you possess. Otherwise, stick to making the arguments that you can support (which are sound.... I don't happen to agree with you, but there is substance there...)

[yesdachi]

Evil president, concentration camps, sad day for America, democracy and human rights, making sense of Michael Moore, torture and murder, Paaaaaleeeese. I couldn’t find more drama in a soap opera.

[rory_20_uk]

No time has been lost:


Bill Frist - Mr Bush's personal choice to lead the Republicans in the Senate, and a man who hopes to replace him in the White House - declared that he would press for a law giving the president the power to do what the Supreme Court said he could not.

Within hours of the Supreme Court ruling, he introduced an "Unprivileged Combatant Act" which would, he said, balance "the need for national security with the need to afford detainees with sufficient due process".

Linky (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/5131662.stm)

So, to protect freedoms of the free, we need to remove all freedoms from the accused. :thumbsup:

~:smoking:

[Don Corleone]

No time has been lost:



Linky (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/5131662.stm)

So, to protect freedoms of the free, we need to remove all freedoms from the accused. :thumbsup:

~:smoking:

As opposed to your strategy of "To prove what nice guys we are, we won't fight back". Uh huh.

[rory_20_uk]

As opposed to your strategy of "To prove what nice guys we are, we won't fight back". Uh huh.

Nope, never said that. But then strawmen are easier, eh?

~:smoking:

[Rodion Romanovich]

Legio, you've got to stop with the inflammatory rhetoric, such as "concentration camp". You have a good basis to argue on, you don't need to weaken your position by restorting to extreme hyperbole. As far as I know, there have been no gas showers, no firing squads, no mass starvations in Gitmo. If you are aware of the circumstances, then please, by all means, share the evidence you possess. Otherwise, stick to making the arguments that you can support (which are sound.... I don't happen to agree with you, but there is substance there...)

So what do you call a camp such as Guantanamo? Remember not only the nazi camps were concentration camps, colonialists and others used them a lot way before the nazis. The definitions seems to be a camp where innocent people without trial are put into misery, suffering, possibly also torture and murder. Inflamatory rhetoric?!! My ancestors have seen the entire continent of Europe drenched in blood several times because of ignorance and dogmatic wishful thinking, and my ancestors have been victim of it. For me to see such things happening again without doing what I can (and as I'm not American I can't do anything but talking I'm afraid), would be honorless and cowardly. There are points when you know a leadership has passed the point of losing it's last reason. All this time the American people and others have waited for the sign that it's deliberate malevolence and not just accidents, and here it is. The Bush administration actively defending a concentration camp and all the ideals of nazism except the anti-semitism. Well, who knows when that too comes into the picture? After the Bush administration has removed all democratic rights so you can't protest about it, just like Hitler did?

[caravel]

Whether the Bush administration are evil or not remains to be seen. The fact remains that holding people in a prison camp without trial, because they might be linked to terrorism belongs in the first part of the last century not this one. These kinds of policies create divisions and set a bad example, to the country that the US and it's allies claim to be "liberating". How can you try to propograte "freedom" and "democracy" on one hand, and yet also be running what does to the rest of the world amount to a "concentration camp".

[Avicenna]

"It was not always a given that the United States and America would have a close relationship," he [Bush] said

:laugh4:

[Blodrast]

It's not about not fighting back, it's about respecting basic human and civil rights. They are entitled to a trial, a court, etc, etc. Then IF they are found guilty, shoot 'em, or do whatever you want to do with them. We all know that even courts of law make mistakes - rare, but it does happen, and innocent people suffer. In this case, there wasn't even this much - how do you know those people are all guilty of terrorism ??

[Don Corleone]

Wow....

[Don Corleone]

Make that a triple post...

[Don Corleone]

Oops, double post.

[Don Corleone]

It's not a strawman argument. People are opposed to the idea of military tribunals because we're not granting constitutional protections, or Geneva protections, to the terrorists we're picking up in caves here and there. Yet, the simple question of jurisdiction indicates if we did that, we couldn't possibly try them, as we have no right to enforce our criminal codes on Afghans, Iraqis, et. al., for acts committed outside our borders. We'd be forced to let them go. And that doesn't even begin to get into the whole question of Miranda rights, rules of introduction of evidence, exculpatory evidence and the rest. The CIA has to come forward and provide the defense with any information they believe they need to provide an adequate defense? If I were in Al Queda, wouldn't I 'get caught' on purpose, just to have a trial to get a peek into their files?

You have to think about the logical, however unintended consequences of the policies you're advocating.

Strawman, no, I'm afraid it's the only result of 'granting them constitutional protections'. You do realize one of the parts of RICO, which deals with Mobsters, says that when the DA can prove the defendants will use the information they gather in their defense to further break the law or hinder the governments ability to uphold the law, then they can suspend them... and most mobsters in fact ARE US citizens. Why haven't you been crying about this for the past 40 years?

[Don Corleone]

Well, hopefully THIS doesn't get posted 6 or 7 times.

Legio, if you want to decry the terrorist state of America and concentration camps, be my guest, but it only serves to make me take your arguments less seriously.

Blodrast, yes, they're entitled to trials. They're getting them, they're called military tribunals. What they're not entitled to is the same type of trial your average petty thief gets where he gets all the info the prosecution currently has on the matter. Nor should they be, as I mentioned above, even mobsters, when shown to be acting in conjunction to use their trial to further disrupt the law can see their habeus corpus rights, et. al., suspended.

All, would love to continue, but I've got to hit the highway before traffic gets too bad. Have a 4 hour drive and it's the Indepence Day holiday weekend. Will try to sneak in later to chat it up some more.

Cheers!

[rory_20_uk]

It's not a strawman argument. People are opposed to the idea of military tribunals because we're not granting constitutional protections, or Geneva protections, to the terrorists we're picking up in caves here and there. Yet, the simple question of jurisdiction indicates if we did that, we couldn't possibly try them, as we have no right to enforce our criminal codes on Afghans, Iraqis, et. al., for acts committed outside our borders. We'd be forced to let them go. And that doesn't even begin to get into the whole question of Miranda rights, rules of introduction of evidence, exculpatory evidence and the rest. The CIA has to come forward and provide the defense with any information they believe they need to provide an adequate defense? If I were in Al Queda, wouldn't I 'get caught' on purpose, just to have a trial to get a peek into their files?

You have to think about the logical, however unintended consequences of the policies you're advocating.

Strawman, no, I'm afraid it's the only result of 'granting them constitutional protections'. We don't even do

Picking up terrorists in caves. First off, not all were by any means AK-47 wielding terrorists in caves. Or anywhere else for that matter. Remember the ones that have been released with no charge? Great big hole in your argument there.

America is not fighting a just war against perfidious evil. It is making a hell of a lot of mistakes and arresting the wrong people.

Let them go? Give them to the hague to try. You know? The international tribunal.

Evidence is not all admitted into the open. You think that the CIA has never given evidence before? :inquisitive:

You can see the the consequence of the policies that you are advocating.

There are ways of fighting a war without a breach of all the suspects' rights. Yes it requires others, and may not capture all assilants. But it does give the crusade a moral standing, and does protect the many people that are currently destroyed based in bieng in or close to the wrong place at the wrong time.

~:smoking:

[yesdachi]

Don’s back and trying to double his post count all in one thread!
Good to see you again.

[Devastatin Dave]

Until lamp shades made from genuine Islamofascist hide exports from Gitmo, and Chimneys fill the Cuban air of ashes flowing down on all the happy little commies working in the sugar cane fields for Uncle Castro, I'll reserve the right to laugh at those that call this place a "concentration camp". Most down there have never had it better.

[rory_20_uk]

, I'll reserve the right to laugh at those that call this place a "concentration camp". Most down there have never had it better.

Sensory depravation etc etc "never had it better"... :inquisitive:

~:smoking:

[Lemur]

Just to throw an irrelevant clarification into the muck:

Concentration camps (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazi_concentration_camps) should be distinguished from extermination camps (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_camp).

[Aenlic]

Until lamp shades made from genuine Islamofascist hide exports from Gitmo, and Chimneys fill the Cuban air of ashes flowing down on all the happy little commies working in the sugar cane fields for Uncle Castro, I'll reserve the right to laugh at those that call this place a "concentration camp". Most down there have never had it better.

Yes, of course! It all becomes clear to me now. We're keeping some 450 "detainees" without benefit of legal advice, without contact with their families, and - up until the other day - without even the right to appear in front of a duly constituted court conforming to a bare minimum of international or or even military law (in fact they weren't even going to be allowed to appear in front of the pre-SCOTUS decision Kangaroo courts which were set up to try them)... all for their own good. It's all for their benefit! They're happy where they are, the savages! How could I have been so blind!

So what if not all of them are even terrorists. We're pretty sure we have some terrorists in the group! Well, OK, the same people who were sure there were WMD's in Iraq are sure there are terrorists in the group. And since they say it's true, it must be true. :no:

[Devastatin Dave]

Just to throw an irrelevant clarification into the muck:

Concentration camps (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazi_concentration_camps) should be distinguished from extermination camps (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_camp).
Man, I don't know what hurt worse. The uncontrollable reaction of my eyes rolling into the back of my head because of this ridiculous hair splitting post of yours that caused me momentary blindness or the painful gut laugh that bellowed out of my delicate diaphram on the fact that you're again sticking up for the terrorists. You should have atleast some guilt for my pain both in my eyes and stomach.:laugh4:
I love you Lemur, kisses...:knuddel:

[Devastatin Dave]

Yes, of course! It all becomes clear to me now. We're keeping some 450 "detainees" without benefit of legal advice, without contact with their families, and - up until the other day - without even the right to appear in front of a duly constituted court conforming to a bare minimum of international or or even military law (in fact they weren't even going to be allowed to appear in front of the pre-SCOTUS decision Kangaroo courts which were set up to try them)... all for their own good. It's all for their benefit! They're happy where they are, the savages! How could I have been so blind!

So what if not all of them are even terrorists. We're pretty sure we have some terrorists in the group! Well, OK, the same people who were sure there were WMD's in Iraq are sure there are terrorists in the group. And since they say it's true, it must be true. :no:
Now you're gettin' it!!!:2thumbsup:

[Lemur]

Hey Dave,

I don't see how my ridiculous post supports terrorists in any way, shape or form. Just figured if you kids were going to go mewling about concentration camps, you might as well get the terms correct.

Getting called a defender of terrorism by the guy who accused Navarros of being a liberal is sort of nice, though. Keep up the slander! Excelsior!

[Blodrast]

I agree with rory the doc and Aenlic.
Part of what they said was exactly what I was trying to post when Ser Clegane closed the other thread...:sad2: when I was trying to reply to you, Dave.

One of the points is indeed that guilt has not been established for all of them.
What about the Brits that were mentioned in the other thread, who turned out not to be terrorists, but they lost two years of their lives nevertheless (however "good" they may have had it in there...) ?

Hey Don, it is indeed good to see you're back posting in the Backroom. Have a nice Independence Day weekend ! :2thumbsup:

[Crazed Rabbit]

A very bad decision, for several reasons.

First, the Court had no jurisdiction for trying this case, because of a law Congress passed in 2005 (The Detainee Treatment act, I think) that specifically took away jurisdiction. That the court had already begun hearing Hamden does not matter, by precedent. It was beyond their authority to consider this case- yet they did so anyway.

Secondly, the majority did not allow Bush to give the prisoners - for whom the Geneva convention does not apply - the trials he wanted (isn't the left always yammering about how these people aren't being tried?) because they could see no reason not to do it with military tribunals, and worried about the mere possibility that Hamden might not be present at all stages of his trial. They lack experience in when these procedures would be necessary.

But I guess logic and the rule of law matter not when the left can give a kick in the pants to Bush.

Crazed Rabbit

[Xiahou]

Well, hopefully THIS doesn't get posted 6 or 7 times.

Legio, if you want to decry the terrorist state of America and concentration camps, be my guest, but it only serves to make me take your arguments less seriously.

Blodrast, yes, they're entitled to trials. They're getting them, they're called military tribunals. What they're not entitled to is the same type of trial your average petty thief gets where he gets all the info the prosecution currently has on the matter. Nor should they be, as I mentioned above, even mobsters, when shown to be acting in conjunction to use their trial to further disrupt the law can see their habeus corpus rights, et. al., suspended.

All, would love to continue, but I've got to hit the highway before traffic gets too bad. Have a 4 hour drive and it's the Indepence Day holiday weekend. Will try to sneak in later to chat it up some more.

Cheers!
I agree with most of that Don- but I'd like to make several distinctions...

I dont think it's accurate to say that they're entitled to trails- although we both agree they arent entitled to civillian trials. I would say they are no more subject to trial than any other prisoner captured in a warzone during any other war. Typically, they are held until the war is over- yes, this even included innocent civillians who were inadvertently swept up among combatans. Now, the trouble in this conflict is that it's even more difficult than usual to see when the conflict will end, so this would mean that prisoners could be held for decades or more.

So in fact, I do agree that in this case it's a good idea to at least give them reasonable hearings to make sure that the people who are there at least really deserve to be there. Also, of course, those suspected of war crimes should be tried for them as appropriate. Also, the fact that several hundred prisoners have been already released suggests to me that steps are being taken to try and sort the innocent civillians from the rest rather than some sort of failure.

The results of our views are the same, I just have a slightly different perspective.

[Rodion Romanovich]

I agree with most of that Don- but I'd like to make several distinctions...

I dont think it's accurate to say that they're entitled to trails- although we both agree they arent entitled to civillian trials. I would say they are no more subject to trial than any other prisoner captured in a warzone during any other war. Typically, they are held until the war is over- yes, this even included innocent civillians who were inadvertently swept up among combatans. Now, the trouble in this conflict is that it's even more difficult than usual to see when the conflict will end, so this would mean that prisoners could be held for decades or more.

So in fact, I do agree that in this case it's a good idea to at least give them reasonable hearings to make sure that the people who are there at least really deserve to be there. Also, of course, those suspected of war crimes should be tried for them as appropriate. Also, the fact that several hundred prisoners have been already released suggests to me that steps are being taken to try and sort the innocent civillians from the rest rather than some sort of failure.

The results of our views are the same, I just have a slightly different perspective.

I agree, for POWs the following rules apply: prisoners of war are given trials as soon as possible unless the manpower, time and money that would be lost on giving trials would jeopardize the war effort. If they're found to be enemy combattants they are to be kept until the end of the conflict, then released. If they are innocent they are to be released immediately. Only if they're criminals can they be kept for a longer period of time. The USA doesn't lack manpower or money to give these people who were once innocent family fathers, someone's friend, someone's husband, a trial. There's no emergency that calls for holding that right back. Until found guilty they must be kept under decent conditions, not in torture or anything like what's seen in Guantanamo.

The Bush administration is an illegal government that carries out inhumane crimes against mankind, and now they've removed every doubt that it was caused by mistakes - now it's perfectly clear it's a deliberate malevolent struggle towards more evilness and more bloodshed. The Bush administration is trying to bring the USA to the levels of China or below (it's the same control over the people and lack of freedom, but still with higher levels of crime than China - so you're having disguised dictatorship without the only benefit it has). With this step they've justified their own overthrowing.

There are a few things you don't do as a leader of a democratic country. One of the things you never do is to defend concentration camps!

Since the situation in Guantanamo isn't within my responsibility sphere of rebellion I can't, and won't, do anything about this emergency situation and constitutional crisis in the USA: But I can at least say that if anything like this would be done by the leaders of my own country the leaders responsible for actively defending holding of such a concentration camp would become one head shorter pretty quickly (if they refuse to leave the post in peace within a short period of time, that is), just like I would have sacrificed my life to kill Hitler, Stalin and many others in history. We have enough historical examples to go from to know when hell is on it's way and therefore we're able to react quickly, before the leader has gained enough secret police powers to stop people from killing them when they go insane.

[Lemur]

Evidence (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/06/30/AR2006063001737_pf.html) that the vast majority of Americans have their heads screwed on straight:


The issue is not without complexity for Republicans. A Washington Post-ABC poll this week suggested that while Americans continue to favor holding suspects at the U.S. military installation at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, they are leery of an administration policy that has resulted in almost all of the 450 detainees being held without charges. Of those polled, 71 percent said the detainees should be either given POW status or charged with a crime.

[Rodion Romanovich]

Evidence (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/06/30/AR2006063001737_pf.html) that the vast majority of Americans have their heads screwed on straight:


The issue is not without complexity for Republicans. A Washington Post-ABC poll this week suggested that while Americans continue to favor holding suspects at the U.S. military installation at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, they are leery of an administration policy that has resulted in almost all of the 450 detainees being held without charges. Of those polled, 71 percent said the detainees should be either given POW status or charged with a crime.

Very good news indeed :2thumbsup: , and expected of course - it's very seldom the people that are the guilty. Let's hope the constitutional crisis will be solved by next election. If the Democrats don't use Guantanamo against the Republicans next election then there's a constitutional crisis unless the two party deadlock can be broken. If the Democrats don't use Guantanamo against the Republicans in the next election debates then neither party should be voted for if a constitutional crisis is to be avoided.

[GoreBag]

Keep up the slander! Excelsior!

Technically libel, I believe.

[Lemur]

Technically libel, I believe.
:laugh4: :2thumbsup:

[Perplexed]

I love how people can distinguish a "terrorist" from a "freedom-fighter" through the nature of his belief and the color of his skin. It makes life so much simpler, doesn't it?

[Brenus]

“I love how people can distinguish a "terrorist" from a "freedom-fighter" through the nature of his belief and the color of his skin. It makes life so much simpler, doesn't it?”
Nope, it is not based on the colour of the skin, but by against whom they fight. The mudjahidins (mujahideen sp?) were freedom fighters against the Russian and are now terrorists… In Nicaragua, the Sandinistas were terrorists and the Contras Freedom fighters… You see, it is easy.:2thumbsup:
Others examples:
We do preventive strike, they cowardly commit a surprise attack, we defend our traditions, they are still enslave in Middle Ages habits and refuse modernity, we believe, they are fanatics...
It si fun: Try it. We change opinion, they flip-flop... We change our alliances, they betrayed...:laugh4:

[Perplexed]

“I love how people can distinguish a "terrorist" from a "freedom-fighter" through the nature of his belief and the color of his skin. It makes life so much simpler, doesn't it?”
Nope, it is not based on the colour of the skin, but by against whom they fight. The mudjahidins (mujahideen sp?) were freedom fighters against the Russian and are now terrorists… In Nicaragua, the Sandinistas were terrorists and the Contras Freedom fighters… You see, it is easy.:2thumbsup:
Others examples:
We do preventive strike, they cowardly commit a surprise attack, we defend our traditions, they are still enslave in Middle Ages habits and refuse modernity, we believe, they are fanatics...
It si fun: Try it. We change opinion, they flip-flop... We change our alliances, they betrayed...:laugh4:

I hope this is a joke.

[rory_20_uk]

I hope this is a joke.

I don't think it's funny. More worrying. The first casualty of war is the Truth.

~:smoking:

[Aenlic]

Anyone else catch Lt. Cmdr Swift on C-Span this morning? He was the JAG office military defense lawyer for Hamdan in this case. Graduate of the U.S. Naval Academy. A very eloquent and impressive gentleman. After listening to him, I can see why the SCOTUS ruled as it did. He makes some very cogent arguments and knows his stuff. Apparently he majored in military history at the academy before going to law school and joining the JAG.

He talked about the history of military commissions and the origins of the UCMJ after WWII. Lots of great information.

Did you know, for example, that the concept of "parole" originated with the military during war? The idea was that you gave enemy prisoners their parole with the understanding that they would not then return to the battlefield to fight.

He made some other good points, as well. For example, Mao wrote that one of the ideas of an insurgency is to force the enemy to overreact and commit atrocities or crack down, thus garnering more recruits for the insurgency. (That one probably just went right over a few heads, didn't it?)

He also said that the entire history of the U.S. in regards to law and justice was one of ensuring rights; but that the Bush administration had been trying to remove rights via the "military commissions" by effectively jumping back in time 55 years to before the UCMJ, bypassing it.

He also said, quite eloquently, that we are engaged in a war on terror which is effectively a war against a tactic not a war against a nation state or a particular enemy. And to win that war, we have to win hearts and minds, to convince people not to engage in that tactic. We have to make sure that we remain on the side of fairness and the rule of law and justice. If, he said, we succumb to the temptation to step beyond the rule of law and reach outside the idea that we stand firmly on the side of universal rights and fairness, then we can't win the hearts and minds of others, because we'll have lowered ourselves to the level of the terrorists and accepted the fight on their terms instead of our own.

[Perplexed]

Well that sounds hopeful...

[rory_20_uk]

I'd hope that othrs in power are at least clever enough to realise that.

But still they've not been doing it since Vietnam!

~:smoking: