[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Mail]  [Sign-in]  [Setup]  [Help]  [Register] 

Republicans Save EV Subsidy . . . And in Other News, it Will Get Dark Tonight

Studies Show Wtc Building 1,2 & 7 Could Not Have Fallen – Why Does The U.S. Government Still Lie About 9/11?

Evangelical leader asks how white Christians can support Trump

New Documents And Testimony Shows Officers Lied About Their Role In An Arrested Teen's Death

Big Pharma’s control over the news

This Year’s Flu Shot Admittedly Only 10% Effective but the Propaganda Says Get it Anyway

Orwell’s Dystopian CCTV Surveillance State Comes to Life in China – Who’s Next?

Lead BLM Investigator Blows Whistle, Exposes Government Conspiracy Against The Bundy Family

Martial Law In America: Cook County Commissioner Asks The U.N. To Send Troops To Chicago

Musician Arrested, Strip Searched, Thrown in Jail for Singing Without A License

VA knowingly hires doctors with past malpractice claims, discipline for poor care

Scared Cops Are Scary

Political Power

Phone conversation of the day (Humor)

Since Feeding the Homeless is Now Illegal, A Group Carried AR15s to Give Out Food—It Worked

Track Palin facing assault and burglary charges

Cannabis oil being used to help pets with pain and anxiety

Trump dislikes being investigated; so did Al Capone

Marijuana companies

The World Is Waiting For The Sunrise

Navajo Code Talker Teddy Draper Sr. Dies in Arizona at Age 96

SHOCK: State Rep Kills Himself Over Sexual Misconduct Allegations.

Mother charged in baby’s death in Rockville

Trump Nominates (Obama) LGBT Activist to Head EEOC — Which Shouldn’t Even Exist

Good Cop, Bad Cop

Deutsche Bank Queried for Info Possibly Tied to Flynn

Cyprus is at the center of a circle of corruption surrounding Trump

America’s Longest-Serving Bomber Sets New Record For Most Smart Bombs Dropped On An Enemy

Investors Are the Most Bearish Since Great Financial Crisis

Alabama Senate Race: MILITARY BALLOTS May Give Roy Moore the Victory

Net neutrality is now officially on life support. HereÂ’s what happens next

DOJ Wants Protesters & Reporter Convicted For 'Hiding Behind The First Amendment'

Former Facebook Executive: ‘You Don’t Realize It, But You Are Being Programmed’

Bundy case defendants turn tables on FBI, demand compensation

‘Jingle Bells’ rooted in racism, Boston University professor says

Honolulu Backs Off Order for Medical Marijuana Users to Turn in Guns

Weapons Went From The CIA To ISIS In Less Than Two Months

“We Came From Different Parts Of The Country”: Possible Voter Fraud In Alabama Senate Race Exposed

Will The Globalists Use The New Net Neutrality Rules To Shut Off Access To Alternative News Websites?

Unlike Nixon, Trump Will Not Go Quietly

Big Brother installing surveillance cameras in places of worship

NFL fan turnout so bad that Fox Sports is soliciting actors to play fans, fill seats at Sunday’s pre-game show

Las Vegas Massacre Coverup: Two Hours Of Surveillance Footage From The Bellagio Hotel Was Erased And Possibly Swapped Out

‘Snowflake Students’ Force University to Apologize for Saying Snow is ‘White’

Mainstream Media Now Urging Parents to Give 3-Year-Old Kids Dangerous Drugs for Depression

Deputy AG Rod Rosenstein Says Doesn’t Support Getting Warrants!

The Whole POINT of the Internet of Things Is So Big Brother Can Spy On You

40 Years on the Road: A Report

Putin: Trump-Russia 'collusion' talk undermining US system

Malzberg | Minister Quanell X reactions after going through a police "Shoot, Don't Shoot" exercise


Status: Not Logged In; Sign In

The Establishments war on Donald Trump
See other The Establishments war on Donald Trump Articles

Title: General says he'd deny 'illegal' order for nuke strike
Source: Fox News
URL Source: [None]
Published: Nov 20, 2017
Author: Oliver North
Post Date: 2017-11-20 16:22:19 by tpaine
Keywords: None
Views: 204
Comments: 24

General says he'd deny 'illegal' order for nuke strike

Fox News military analyst Oliver North reacts on 'Fox & Friends.'

Just a day after the U.S.’s top nuclear commander said he would resist President Trump’s order if he called for an “illegal” nuclear launch, a fiery debate emerged about the president’s authority to order the firing of a warhead.

Brian McKeon, a senior policy adviser in the Pentagon during the Obama administration, said a president's first recourse would be to tell the defense secretary to order the reluctant commander to execute the launch order.

"And then, if the commander still resisted," McKeon said as rubbed his chin, "you either get a new secretary of defense or get a new commander." The implication is that one way or another, the commander in chief would not be thwarted.

Air Force General John Hyten, commander of the U.S. Strategic Command (STRATCOM), started the debate when he told an audience at the Halifax International Security Forum in Nova Scotia, Canada that he had thought a lot about what to say if he received such an order.

“And if it’s illegal, guess what’s going to happen? I‘m going to say, ‘Mr. President, that’s illegal.’ And guess what he’s going to do? He’s going to say, ‘What would be legal?’ And we’ll come up with options, of a mix of capabilities to respond to whatever the situation is, and that’s the way it works. It’s not that complicated.”

Hyten said running through scenarios of how to react in the event of an illegal order was standard practice, and added: “If you execute an unlawful order, you will go to jail. You could go to jail for the rest of your life.”

It's hard to overstate how thoroughly the U.S. military has prepared for doomsday -- the day America gets into a nuclear shooting war. No detail seems to have been overlooked. There's even a designated "safe escape" door at the nuclear-warfighting headquarters near Omaha, Nebraska, through which the four- star commander would rush to a getaway plane moments before the first bomb hit.

Procedures are in place for ensuring U.S. nuclear weapons are ready for a presidential launch order in response to -- or in anticipation of -- a nuclear attack by North Korea or anyone else. There are backup procedures and backups for the backups.

Bruce Blair, a former nuclear missile launch officer and co-founder of the Global Zero group that advocates eliminating nuclear weapons, said the Strategic Command chief might, in effect, be bypassed by the president.

A president can transmit his nuclear attack order directly to a Pentagon war room, Blair said. From there it would go to the men and women who would turn the launch keys.

The renewed attention on these questions reflects unease -- justified or not -- about Trump's temperament and whether he would act impulsively in a crisis.

This past week's Senate hearing was the first in Congress on presidential authority to use nuclear weapons since 1976, when a Democratic congressman from New York, Richard L. Ottinger, pushed for the U.S. to declare it would never initiate a nuclear war. Ottinger said he wanted to "eliminate the prospect that human ignorance and potential human failure in the use of nuclear materials, especially nuclear weapons, will lead to the destruction of civilization."

Forty-one years later, the U.S. hasn't ruled out first-strike nuclear options and is unlikely to do so during Trump's tenure. This troubles experts who worry about a president with the sole -- some say unchecked -- authority to initiate nuclear war.

The committee chairman, Sen. Bob Corker, R-Tenn., said he was not targeting Trump. But he has publicly questioned whether Trump's aggressive rhetoric toward North Korea and other countries could lead the U.S. into a world war. In the end, Corker's hearing produced little impetus for legislation to alter the presidential authorities.

James Acton, co-director of the nuclear policy program at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, saw politics at play.

"But I think it's a genuinely important subject, and I think it's one we should be debating irrespective of who the president is," he said


Poster Comment:

Brian McKeon, a senior policy adviser in the Pentagon during the Obama administration, said a president's first recourse would be to tell the defense secretary to order the reluctant commander to execute the launch order. "And then, if the commander still resisted," McKeon said as rubbed his chin, "you either get a new secretary of defense or get a new commander." The implication is that one way or another, the commander in chief would not be thwarted.

False implication. --- This is yet another effort to tar Trump as a madman.. ---

Post Comment   Private Reply   Ignore Thread  


TopPage UpFull ThreadPage DownBottom/Latest

#1. To: All (#0)

The renewed attention on these questions reflects unease -- justified or not -- about Trump's temperament and whether he would act impulsively in a crisis.

This is yet another obvious effort to tar Trump as a deranged madman..

It's amazing that these clowns think such constant attacks are credible.

I think everyone could agree that Trumps speaking style (and his twitters) are not politically correct, and a bit weird... But trying to say these are signs he "would act impulsively in a crisis"? Bull...

tpaine  posted on  2017-11-20   16:47:43 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#2. To: tpaine, Dr Strangetrump, Big Win, *Neo-Lib Chickenhawk Wars* (#0)

hondo68  posted on  2017-11-20   17:30:12 ET  (1 image) Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#3. To: hondo68 (#2)

Dr. Strangetrump?

Great ending to one of the best tragically-comic movies of all time.

You one of the poor souls infected with Trump Derangement Syndrome?.

tpaine  posted on  2017-11-20   18:26:21 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#4. To: tpaine, DC Turkey Hotel, Mitch McConnell, Rience Priebus (#3)

You one of the poor souls infected with Trump Derangement Syndrome?.

Who wouldn't love The Donald for using US taxpayer dollars to put up a couple of turkeys in a DC Hotel? https://twitter.com/WhiteHouse/status/932648144348868610

We're only 20 trillion or so in debt, and the sky's the limit!

Drain the swamp. They could have stayed in the Lincoln Bedroom for free!

Or better yet, chop their heads off and get Javanka to cook them up.

hondo68  posted on  2017-11-20   19:16:56 ET  (1 image) Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#5. To: tpaine (#0)

General says he'd deny 'illegal' order for nuke strike

Of course he will refuse to obey an illegal order. Even Privates are taught in basic training that they have a DUTY to disobey illegal orders. If the military demands this of a private,WTH would they not demand it of a General Officer?

Why is this even still in the news?

In the entire history of the world,the only nations that had to build walls to keep their own citizens from leaving were those with leftist governments.

sneakypete  posted on  2017-11-20   19:51:32 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#6. To: sneakypete (#5)

Of course he will refuse to obey an illegal order. Even Privates are taught in basic training that they have a DUTY to disobey illegal orders. If the military demands this of a private,WTH would they not demand it of a General Officer?

We are in violent agreement.

Vicomte13  posted on  2017-11-21   10:09:03 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#7. To: Vicomte13 (#6) (Edited)

Of course he will refuse to obey an illegal order.

If Trump reassigns the guy because of that statement the press will have a field day, claiming Trump expects his generals to obey illegal orders.

But it is disturbing that, in a time of a nuclear crisis, some general is going to second guess the President and decide for himself what is a legal order and what isn't.

misterwhite  posted on  2017-11-21   11:29:06 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#8. To: misterwhite, y'all, sneakypete (#7)

Even Privates are taught in basic training that they have a DUTY to disobey illegal orders. If the military demands this of a private,WTH would they not demand it of a General Officer? ---- Sneakypete

Misterwhite ---- it is disturbing that, in a time of a nuclear crisis, some general is going to second guess the President and decide for himself what is a legal order and what isn't.

It's disturbing that political operatives are urging general officers to question the mental competency of the commander in chief (and his military advisors) about nuclear crisis decisions.

tpaine  posted on  2017-11-21   13:44:11 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#9. To: misterwhite (#7)

some general is going to second guess the President and decide for himself what is a legal order and what isn't.

In the end, everybody has to make that call about every order. Usually it's easy. Sometimes - and the deployment of nuclear weapons is one of those times - it's not.

If you're undertaking an act that involves the mass death of human beings, your soul is in the hazard. So is your own life, at the hands of human tribunals if you are judged a war criminal (this usually requires your side to lose, but in a divided country, the political opposition could regain power and then come after you.

Essentially, if you are ordered to kill people, you had better have thought it out beforehand, and you had better decide for yourself every time you do it, because get it wrong, do it unjustified, and you're going to Hell, boy.

Vicomte13  posted on  2017-11-21   14:37:31 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#10. To: misterwhite (#7) (Edited)

But it is disturbing that, in a time of a nuclear crisis, some general is going to second guess the President and decide for himself what is a legal order and what isn't.

If the order comes from the commander in chief and it is authenticated by the secretary of defense, it is a LEGAL ORDER. If this is not the case, then it is an illegal order to be disregarded. SIMPLE.

There is a definite protocol that must be followed at all levels from the crew members up to and including the President. I can detail the protocol to you, but then I must shoot you….just kidding.

The aircrew I was assigned to for eight years lived 24/7 every third week in an alert bunker within a few yards of a B-58 Hustler loaded with five nukes and we were ready to get airborne in a few minutes on the way to our assigned targets.

Everyone at all levels from the air crews up to an including the President operates under the “Two-Man Policy.” That is to say that two people must validate or issue a launch order before any launch is executed. My navigator and I had to validate a launch message before our pilot was authorized to take off. We ignored an “illegal” order at least once during a tour of alert duty and sometimes as many as two or three. These were issued to keep us on our toes and ready to immediately react. There were always two individuals on duty at our Command Post and when they received an alert for an incoming message….they would sound klaxons and we would man our aircraft with engines started and awaiting a message. If the message was invalid [illegal] we would shut down the engines and return to the alert barracks. Had the message been valid [legal] we would have launched and proceeded a holding point awaiting another message to proceed on to our targets.

Bruce Blair, a former nuclear missile launch officer and co-founder of the Global Zero group that advocates eliminating nuclear weapons, said the Strategic Command chief might, in effect, be bypassed by the president. A president can transmit his nuclear attack order directly to a Pentagon war room, Blair said. From there it would go to the men and women who would turn the launch keys.

Bullshit. Click on Protocol….this is essentially accurate.

Highlighted from the link …

As commander-in-chief, the president is the only individual with the authority to order the use of nuclear weapons. A two-man rule applies, however: the National Command Authority comprising the president and Secretary of Defense must jointly authenticate the order to use nuclear weapons to the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. The order would then be transmitted over a tan-yellow phone, the Joint Chiefs of Staff Alerting Network, otherwise known as the "Gold Phone", that directly links the NMCC with United States Strategic Command Headquarters at Offutt Air Force Base in Nebraska.

Poster’s comment from the thread …

Brian McKeon, a senior policy adviser in the Pentagon during the Obama administration, said a president's first recourse would be to tell the defense secretary to order the reluctant commander to execute the launch order. "And then, if the commander still resisted," McKeon said as rubbed his chin, "you either get a new secretary of defense or get a new commander." The implication is that one way or another, the commander in chief would not be thwarted.

Bad implication!

McKeon didn’t only “rub his chin,” he pulled this out of his ass. The commander in chief CAN be thwarted….by the secretary of defense.

Gatlin  posted on  2017-11-21   16:16:34 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#11. To: hondo68 (#2)

“Truth is treason in the empire of lies.” - Ron Paul

Those who most loudly denounce Fake News are typically those most aggressively disseminating it.

Deckard  posted on  2017-11-21   16:24:12 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#12. To: tpaine, misterwhite (#8)

It's disturbing that political operatives are urging general officers to question the mental competency of the commander in chief (and his military advisors) about nuclear crisis decisions.

No,it's not.

Most of our presidents have been rank amateurs when it comes to understanding military and national security matters. General officers have spent decades focused on nothing else.

Do NOT forget that it is highly likely most General Officers think that civilian political advisors are cretins with the same general level of understanding military operations as a rabid rat with syphilis. Maybe even less knowledge.

You can tell them anything,but that doesn't mean you can make them believe what you say. If there is anyone on the planet more self-confident in their own abilities and judgements than senior career military officers with stars on their shoulders,I have never met or heard of them. They have spent decades learning and understanding the consequences of using these weapons that only a fool would think one of them would just say "Yessir,yessir,3 bags full sir,FIRE THE NUKES!" without carefully considering all the known facts and most of the suspicions.

In the entire history of the world,the only nations that had to build walls to keep their own citizens from leaving were those with leftist governments.

sneakypete  posted on  2017-11-21   17:09:13 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#13. To: Gatlin (#10)

If the order comes from the commander in chief and it is authenticated by the secretary of defense, it is a LEGAL ORDER.

Yes,and no. It is STILL not a legal order unless the President and his staff have consulted with the Chief of Staffs or the US Military and they agreed with the decision.

This is the ultimate "committee decision".

In the entire history of the world,the only nations that had to build walls to keep their own citizens from leaving were those with leftist governments.

sneakypete  posted on  2017-11-21   17:13:20 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#14. To: sneakypete (#13) (Edited)

Yes,and no. It is STILL not a legal order unless the President and his staff have consulted with the Chief of Staffs or the US Military and they agreed with the decision. This is the ultimate "committee decision".
I don’t know where you are getting this from, Pete….that the President and Secretary of State cannot execute or launch nuclear weapons unless the Chiefs of staff have agreed with the decision. I will be please to see a reference that requires the JCS approval.

Until then, I will continue to believe that the JCS is merely a body of senior uniformed leaders in the United States Department of Defense who simply advise the President of the United States and the Secretary of Defense. Again, the JCS is merely an advisory group are not any part of the National Command Authority (NCA). The NCA is the ultimate source of lawful military orders and there is no statutory requirement for the NCA to have the JCS agree with a decision to execute or launch nuclear weapons.

The National Security Act of 1947 designated the Joint Chiefs of Staff as planners and advisers, not as commanders of combatant commands. In spite of this, the 1948 Key West Agreement allowed members of the Joint Chiefs of Staff to serve as executive agents for unified commands, a responsibility that allowed the executive agent to originate direct communication with the combatant command. Congress abolished this authority in a 1953 amendment to the National Security Act.

Today, the Joint Chiefs of Staff have no executive authority to command combatant forces. The issue of executive authority was clearly resolved by the Goldwater- Nichols DOD Reorganization Act of 1986: "The Secretaries of the Military Departments shall assign all forces under their jurisdiction to unified and specified combatant commands to perform missions assigned to those commands..."; the chain of command "runs from the President to the Secretary of Defense; and from the Secretary of Defense to the commander of the combatant command."

The NCA comprises the President of the United States (as commander-in-chief) and the Secretary of Defense jointly, or their duly deputized successors, i.e. the Vice President and the Deputy Secretary of Defense. The NCA is single source for issuing an execution launch order of nuclear weapons.

Of course the JCS advises the President and the Secretary of Defense and naturally they would have consulted the JCS along with multiple other agencies before launching nukes. However, the NCA does NOT require an agreement from the JCS to execute or launch nuclear weapons.

10 USC Ch. 5: JOINT CHIEFS OF STAFF

Gatlin  posted on  2017-11-21   18:19:13 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#15. To: Gatlin, just following orders (#14)

If Dear Leader Kim Jong Un ordered you to turn onto the railroad track, you would!

hondo68  posted on  2017-11-21   21:13:26 ET  (2 images) Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#16. To: hondo68, tater (#15) (Edited)

If Dear Leader Kim Jong Un ordered you [tater] to turn onto the railroad track, you would!

In defense of tater; he is a self-professed teat sucker living on the good grace of American taxpayers; he would lay down with any government that provided him free shelter, clothing and food.

buckeroo  posted on  2017-11-21   21:36:30 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#17. To: Deckard (#11)

I expect that a real general would walk out of the room.

Vicomte13  posted on  2017-11-22   18:16:21 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#18. To: Gatlin (#10)

If the order comes from the commander in chief and it is authenticated by the secretary of defense, it is a LEGAL ORDER.

Maybe.

It is putatively legal under the laws of the United States.

But that's not the end of the discussion if it happens. If the American nuclear attack is in violation of international law and constitutes a war crime, merely complying with the lawful (within the US system) order does not protect the war criminal from being tried and executed for the crime against international law and the law of war.

Also, the President and the SecDef could be mad, or could be treasonous. So complying with their order would not be lawful even if it appeared to be lawful when issued.

Of course, under such a circumstance, the US government would not prosecute the military people who obeyed what they thought to be a lawful order, but the individuals might be tried and convicted by international tribunals.

After all, the fact that what the Nazi prison guards was doing was completely lawful under the laws of Germany at the time does not save them from trial and execution under international law.

Essentially, if you launch nuclear weapons, you had better win, and you had better not get too comfortable about foreign travel afterwards.

Vicomte13  posted on  2017-11-25   16:18:23 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#19. To: Vicomte13 (#18)

If the order comes from the commander in chief and it is authenticated by the secretary of defense, it is a LEGAL ORDER.

Maybe.

It is putatively legal under the laws of the United States.

There is no “maybe” about it and there is nothing “putatively” legal about an order if it comes from the Commander in Chief, is authenticated by the Secretary of Defense and is not “manifestly” or “clearly” illegal. It is not “commonly accepted, supposed, assumed to exist or to have existed [putatively].” It is “emphatically” accepted as a legal order if it comes from the Commander in Chief, is authenticated by the Secretary of Defense and is not “manifestly” or “clearly” illegal.
Also, the President and the SecDef could be mad, or could be treasonous. So complying with their order would be lawful if it appeared to be lawful when issued and was not “manifestly” or “clearly” illegal.
If you check, you will find that under international and U.S. law, the order must be “manifestly” or “clearly” illegal, not just debatable or of arguable legality. What this means is that the person ordered to launch or to plan the launch must know that the order did not come from the President, was not authenticated by the Secretary of Defense and was “manifestly” or “clearly” illegal in order not to comply with it.
After all, the fact that what the Nazi prison guards was doing was completely lawful under the laws of Germany at the time does not save them from trial and execution under international law.
I will take exception to that characterization. Those laws issued to prison guards who were convicted for war crimes were “manifestly” or “clearly” illegal even though there were “lawful” under the laws of Germany at the time. That is why they were convicted and that is why there were not saved from trial and were executed under international law.
If the American nuclear attack is in violation of international law and constitutes a war crime, merely complying with the lawful (within the US system) order does not protect the war criminal from being tried and executed for the crime against international law and the law of war.
Again I cite that Under international and U.S. law, the order must be “manifestly” or “clearly” illegal, not just of debatable or arguable legality.
But that's not the end of the discussion if it happens.
Ah, but this the end of the discussion for me here because this thread is about General Hyten saying he'd deny 'illegal' order for nuke strike and this thread is not about international law or what constitutes a war crime.

I have no desire to go into that discussion and If you want to discuss violation of international law and what constitutes a war crime….that probably should be the subject for new thread.

Gatlin  posted on  2017-11-25   21:05:25 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#20. To: Gatlin, *Neo-Lib Chickenhawk Wars* (#19)

hondo68  posted on  2017-11-25   21:43:55 ET  (1 image) Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#21. To: Vicomte13 (#18)

You sound like a liberal regularly. Now you're a globalist too.

A K A Stone  posted on  2017-11-26   8:24:06 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#22. To: A K A Stone (#21)

You sound like a liberal regularly. Now you're a globalist too.

If Hillary were elected, and appointed a crony, and went berserk and she and the SecDef ordered a nuclear strike on Israel, the argument made here is that the American generals and servicemembers who received the order MUST launch, because the order they have received is legal.

If you want to call me a globalist for stating that if the President and SecDef go crazy and follow the letter of the law to order a launch, that this order is LEGAL and MUST (and SHOULD) be followed by the American military - thereby committing a massive crime against humanity - well, I frankly would not be suprised if you did so at all.

You will judge the case on the party and political motivations of the players. Flip the circumstances and you should be able to see the problem with that.

I certainly do.

As far as me being a globalist, of course I'm a globalist, indeed a universalist: I'm a Catholic. Catholics are the Mark 1 Mod 1 globalists since the Apostles spoke all of the languages of all of those present at the first Pentecost.

Vicomte13  posted on  2017-11-26   21:52:13 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#23. To: Vicomte13 (#22)

I called you a globalist because you think we have to consult or obey the antichrist UN.

A K A Stone  posted on  2017-11-27   7:01:48 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#24. To: A K A Stone (#23)

I called you a globalist because you think we have to consult or obey the antichrist UN.

The UN? No. The universal law of God? Absolutely yes.

Vicomte13  posted on  2017-11-27   10:26:48 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


TopPage UpFull ThreadPage DownBottom/Latest

[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Mail]  [Sign-in]  [Setup]  [Help]  [Register] 

Please report web page problems, questions and comments to webmaster@libertysflame.com