Join 3,512 readers in helping fund MetaFilter (Hide)


Canadian Lawyers Charge Bush with Torture
December 1, 2004 6:45 AM   Subscribe

LAWs instructions for starting criminal procedures against Bush Today in Vancouver, Lawyers Against the War filed torture charges against George W. Bush under the Canadian Criminal Code. The charges were laid by Gail Davidson, co-chair of Lawyers against the War--LAW, under provisions enacted pursuant to the U.N. Torture Convention, ratified by both Canada and the United States. The charges concern the well known abuses of prisoners held by US Armed Forces in the Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq and the Guantanamo Bay prison in Cuba. The charges were accepted by the Justice of the Peace and referred for a hearing to decide whether Bush should be required to appear for trial. The Attorney General of Canada's consent is required within eight days for proceedings to continue, and the question of Bush's diplomatic immunity will have to be resolved by the court.
posted by sunexplodes (66 comments total)

 
"The Attorney General of Canada's consent is required within eight days for proceedings to continue."

This is a non-starter, because that is not going to happen.
posted by smackfu at 6:54 AM on December 1, 2004


While this is certainly interesting, and I appreciate that they're trying, I feel embarrassed for them at the same time. As if anyone was going to take this seriously...
posted by Plinko at 6:59 AM on December 1, 2004


Yes, smackfu and plinko, best just to forget about the whole thing, right?

Remember, this is a guy who thinks that a 51% victory is a mandate and that he has "earned political capital." If people just stay home and do nothing they can expect the worst.

I feel embarassed for you, plinko.
posted by jon_kill at 7:05 AM on December 1, 2004


I'm sure Herman Goering thought it wasn't going to happen either.
posted by Reverend Mykeru at 7:12 AM on December 1, 2004


Yes, smackfu and plinko, best just to forget about the whole thing, right?

Right, because a canadian court of law is a proper venue for this type of case, and a great place to start proceedings that will be respected by the world.

I vote for embarassment.
posted by mathowie at 7:14 AM on December 1, 2004


See also
posted by PinkStainlessTail at 7:15 AM on December 1, 2004


I'm sure Herman Goering thought it wasn't going to happen either.

He's still alive?
posted by yerfatma at 7:21 AM on December 1, 2004


Couple of interesting links: Bush convicted of war crimes at mock trial, Abu Graib torture complaint names Rumsfeld
posted by Doohickie at 7:22 AM on December 1, 2004


Right, because a canadian court of law is a proper venue for this type of case, and a great place to start proceedings that will be respected by the world.

Well, not that it'll go anywhere past filing and some quiet laughter in a room in the courthouse somewhere, but I don't see why a Canadian court of law is any less valid a place for hearing any case than anywhere else is. I don't think "the world" has some idea that Canadian courts are not respectable. And I definitely don't think that it's embarassing to have citizens that are attempting to uphold the laws for everyone who enters the country. Think about it if it were someone who wasn't the head of state of the major world power. Some guy on vacation from Rwanda or something.

I'm sure there's some secret treaty somewhere that says we will never prosecute a member of the American government. It is, in the end, probably a waste of time. But I don't think that it is embarassing for them to at least give it a try.
posted by blacklite at 7:27 AM on December 1, 2004


Anyplace is a great place for this to start. Best would have been in the United States.
posted by xammerboy at 7:28 AM on December 1, 2004


Well, it doesn't seem all that odd to me. You could certainly argue that there is a case to argue here. Torture certainly occurred, and there is some evidence that it was officially sanctioned.

Torture is against international law. Henry Kissanger is unable to travel to some countries because of fear of arrest.

Of course we all know that it wil never go any further, and Bush Jr will never have to answer for any of his actions (or inactions). Shame, that.
posted by salmacis at 7:28 AM on December 1, 2004


Best would have been in the United States.

That's like asking the Serbs to prosecute Milosevic though.
posted by salmacis at 7:30 AM on December 1, 2004


I don't see any point in limiting the amount of dissent directed at Bush. Some people can do less, some people can do more. To say that a Canadian court isn't an appropriate venue is to diminish the opinion of the Canadian people.

He's here in my country. He's in the city where I grew up as I write this. If he can comprehend any inkling of how much we disagree with him, that'll be great.

I don't understand why this isn't appropriate.
posted by jon_kill at 7:43 AM on December 1, 2004


Oh, and the day will come when Bush will be in Kissinger's boat. If, after th 2009 inauguration, our goverment declares him persona non grata, that will be the second-best decision they've ever made. The first-best goes without saying.
posted by jon_kill at 7:45 AM on December 1, 2004


Aren't the Germans doing something similar?
posted by fadeout at 8:47 AM on December 1, 2004


It's a rhetorical gesture. Clearly, the appropriate venue for Canadian lawyers to make a rhetorical gesture is, indeed, a Canadian court.

I don't see why people dismiss it. Obviously, the people filing this understand it as a rhetorical gesture--they don't think that the Mounties are going to ride down to DC and haul W back up beyond the 40th for trial.
posted by Sidhedevil at 8:47 AM on December 1, 2004


I don't understand why this isn't appropriate.

I'm not saying Canadia doesn't have real courts, but that this is a pointless exercise. What do you think it will accomplish?
posted by mathowie at 8:47 AM on December 1, 2004


Also, it reminds me of small towns refusing to acknowledge the Patriot Act in the states. While I agree with the sentiment, it's the wrong place and wrong time to do anything about it, like this, which will just make Canada the butt of jokes across American airwaves today. No doot aboot it.
posted by mathowie at 8:49 AM on December 1, 2004


If he can comprehend any inkling of how much we disagree with him, that'll be great.

Sadly, he can't. And it's not like his advisers will tell him, or anything. He's the boy in the bubble.
posted by amberglow at 8:50 AM on December 1, 2004


What do you think it will accomplish?

This probably isn't the smartest move since the western provinces are just about to begin shipping beef across the border again.

Shouldn't somebody be kinda worried about the effects of "gestures" like these on a trade partnership that is VASTLY more vital to Canada than it is to the States?
posted by TetrisKid at 8:56 AM on December 1, 2004


While I agree with the sentiment, it's the wrong place and wrong time to do anything about it, like this, which will just make Canada the butt of jokes across American airwaves today.

Oh, well then. We wouldn't want that to happen.
posted by 327.ca at 8:57 AM on December 1, 2004


I think its disgusting that there is not a full international investigation going to take place (admittedly I may be speaking too soon after the red cross report).

I won't hold my breath of course...
posted by fadeout at 8:59 AM on December 1, 2004


LOL! You people are fucking hilarious!

This is going to happen as much as all those protests stopped the war!

FIGHT THE MAN!
posted by Steve_at_Linnwood at 9:00 AM on December 1, 2004


Matt, are you suggesting that people shouldn't make statements they feel are right and important, just because other people might make fun of them?

The Boston Tea Party, for example, didn't end unjust taxes on the American Colonies. But it was an effective rhetorical gesture--even though the British press made fun of it.

And, face it, there is something funny about a bunch of rich white guys dressing up like Indians and throwing tea into the harbor. Still, it helped to rally public opinion Stateside.

So here are a bunch of Canadian lawyers who have the opportunity to use the Canadian legal system to make a statement they feel is right and important. Should they refrain because Rush Limbaugh's going to make fun of them on the radio?

I worry, #1, that the bullies have scared you into submission.
posted by Sidhedevil at 9:11 AM on December 1, 2004


Didya hear about the bunch of Greek lawyers threatening to sue Oliver Stone for his movie "Alexander" if he didn't add some note saying it was a fictional account of his life? Basically a defamation of character lawsuit for a guy who's been dead about 2300 years. I think the Greeks had a better chance of winning their case than these guys against Bush, and the Greeks would need Alexander to appear in person to win.

It's a nice symbolic effort, but anyone who thinks it has any chance... wow.



Now, had they sued because it's goddamned awful they might have had a case...
posted by GhostintheMachine at 9:13 AM on December 1, 2004


Hey guys, Steve-at-Dickwood just pooped on this thread. I guess that means we should stop talking. Cuz he's always right.
posted by bardic at 9:17 AM on December 1, 2004


Not worth doing because it won't result in his imminent arrest? Protests weren't worth doing because they didn't stop the war?

Come on! Some people still believe in doing things as a matter of principle.

This is a form of protest, and if it results in Fox news cracking jokes, at least it would get some Americans asking the question, well, did he commit war crimes? Even if just one percent of America said, hey, they never charged any other of our presidents with war crimes, and these are our friendly neighbors--1% of America could change the result of the next election.
posted by kevinsp8 at 9:17 AM on December 1, 2004


if it results in Fox news cracking jokes, at least it would get some Americans asking the question

Exactly. Thank you.
posted by 327.ca at 9:20 AM on December 1, 2004


if it results in Fox news cracking jokes, no one with a sense of humor would laugh.
posted by three blind mice at 9:24 AM on December 1, 2004


LOL! You people are fucking hilarious!

This is going to happen as much as all those protests stopped the war!

FIGHT THE MAN!


LOL! You are fucking hilarious!

This is going to happen as much as all those wars found WMDs and stopped Afghani women from being raped!

FREEDOM!
posted by XQUZYPHYR at 9:26 AM on December 1, 2004


You're making a mistake in assuming Americans actually care what Canadians think. You live in a quasi-closed society where the Govmt. controls a true media monopoly, which is far more sinister than any amount of market share Murdock has because at least he actually competes against other sources.

Trust me, all this will result in is a lot of dogsledding, milk in a bag, igloo, and mountie jokes.
posted by TetrisKid at 9:29 AM on December 1, 2004


will just make Canada the butt of jokes across American airwaves today.

&

Trust me, all this will result in is a lot of dogsledding, milk in a bag, igloo, and mountie jokes.

Um... you do realize that the USA is the most consistent butt of jokes throughout Canada, both off and off the airwaves, right? We laugh daily at how ridiculous your country is. (I'm laughing right now.) I doubt that it affects how you go about your business.
posted by dobbs at 9:32 AM on December 1, 2004


You live in a quasi-closed society where the Govmt. controls a true media monopoly

Well, another way of putting it is that taxpayers control one television and radio network (the CBC) which operates in a free-market environment alongside commercial networks.

We do this as a matter of cultural self-defense against the crap tsunami washing northward on the airwaves.
posted by 327.ca at 9:37 AM on December 1, 2004


What do you think it will accomplish?

as others have already stated, the current American attitude on war crimes is "they're not war crimes when we commit them". other countries, free to think otherwise, have all the right to proceed as they see fit. another famous American war criminal, Henry Kissinger, cannot travel freely unless he wants to end up like America's buddy, mr Pinochet. you know, mr Pinochet, the nice America-loving gentleman whose secret police trained dogs to rape women? well, he traveled to England and had to stay there a few years in house arrest before a shameful decision allowed him to go back to Chile.
no American court will ever admit American war crimes in the foreseeable future, and it is highly unlikely that Mr. Rumsfeld will end up on trial at the Hague as he deserves. Let Canada do as Canada sees fit. If Mr Bush ends up, in a few years, losing the ability to travel freely abroad without risking arrest, he won't miss it much anyway (his brother Neil, on the other hand, would miss it a lot, being an expert at Saudi ass-kissing and Asian brothelgoing, but I digress).

it's sad that even a decent, serious American like our Number One misses the point of how much of a laughinstock post-Abu Ghraib, post-"no wmds in sight", post-Chalabi America actually is. it's not about Americans making fun of Canada. it's about the whole world being either amused or disgusted whenever the subject of America's invasion-happy foreign policy is mentioned.
you're badly missing the point, Matt. with the exception of scary places like Sharon's Israel (which by all accounts became long ago America's 51st State) and Putin's Russia, the world is laughing at Bush's America.
no matter how many jokes the Steve at Dimwoods of America make, the actual joke's on you.


oh, sorry, I forgot Poland.

__________

LOL! You people are fucking hilarious!
This is going to happen as much as all those protests stopped the war!


yeah, God forbid the protests actually managed to stop the war, you know, that HUGE Iraqi arsenal of WMD's would still be in Saddam's hands. and torture would go on at Abu Ghraib.
*snicker*
but yeah, Stevie, you got your 100,000 Iraqi corpses. happy now? is that enough Muslim blood to avenge the WTC 3,000 dead? want more? does all that blood being shed in your name make you feel funny down there, Stevie?
posted by matteo at 9:57 AM on December 1, 2004


It'll establish a precedent, mathowie. There is value in that.
posted by jon_kill at 9:58 AM on December 1, 2004


"You're making a mistake in assuming Americans actually care what Canadians think. You live in a quasi-closed society where the Govmt. controls a true media monopoly, which is far more sinister than any amount of market share Murdock has because at least he actually competes against other sources."


Huh? TetrisKid you demonstrate much ignorance with this statement...Canada does have a "state-run" media organ, called the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation (similar to the BBC. And try to find someone more people trust worldwide than the Beeb...). But we also have two other national networks: CanWest Global & CTV. AND we can usually get American media bundled into our cable programming...so who's getting a wider, more diverse selection of opinions? And others have already pointed out that the CBC competes for viewers right along with these commercial outlets.
And what does "quasi-closed" mean? Something that is not really closed? So, it's "open?" That's damning.

Smarten up, "'Kid," your heartland, home-grown, college-educated stupidity is pretty embarrassing for Your Fellow Americans.
posted by Al_Truist at 10:04 AM on December 1, 2004


it is never pointless to call a spade a spade.
posted by quonsar at 10:07 AM on December 1, 2004


it is never pointless to call a spade a spade.

quonsar: here-here.
posted by Al_Truist at 10:09 AM on December 1, 2004


Also, it reminds me of small towns refusing to acknowledge the Patriot Act in the states. While I agree with the sentiment, it's the wrong place and wrong time to do anything about it....

Pray, when and where would the right time be?

If we've learned anything from and since the movements of the 1960s, it's that politics ultimately really is all local. That's the base on which the Republicans have build their revolution, coupled with the innovation of realizing that "local" could mean "this church". This breaks it back out of the church, and into the real community, at least: If localities refuse to honor PATRIOT, it makes it that much harder for whatever federal agency gets the dirty work that week to get its warrants and perform its raids; hopefully it has, at a minimum, the salutory effect of making some ATF or Treasury agent think about what s/he's doing there. Most likely it will also serve to make at least some of the people who live there aware that the Fed is doing all this shit on its own for its own reasons that have no bearing in Tinytown Station, VT.

Furthermore, it's the local divisions that bring parties down. Hell, the Republican party's weakest spot right now is their New England delegation, who are loathed with a seething fire by the Republican leadership (and especially those two uppity R[INO]-Senators from Maine -- how dare they continue to speak with Jim Jeffords!).

I admit, my first thought about this is that it won't be taken seriously by anyone in the US. But maybe it will serve the end of getting through to just a few people what the real stakes are, here. (As though we haven't already lost our gamble with world opinion...)

On preview: I somehow doubt Canadians care much what Americans think of this. I don't have the impression they expect us to hear anything they say.
posted by lodurr at 10:10 AM on December 1, 2004


I somehow doubt Canadians care much what Americans think of this.

I'm Canadian and I care very much about what Mefites think about this. I think you're right that "politics ultimately really is all local." It's through conversations like this that ideas grow.

On the other hand, I think Canadians generally wouldn't expect much response from the US, and frankly don't really care. An attempt by Canadian lawyers to make the Bush administration responsible for its war crimes would be as much a message to the rest of the world as to the USA.
posted by 327.ca at 10:15 AM on December 1, 2004


Canada does have a "state-run" media organ

It's state-funded, but not state-run, in the final analysis.

I find the CBC to be more critical of the sitting government, whomever that may be, than CTV, oddly.
posted by solid-one-love at 10:18 AM on December 1, 2004


It's state-funded, but not state-run, in the final analysis.

yes. my bad. got sucked into the 'Kid's language.
I stand corrected.
posted by Al_Truist at 10:27 AM on December 1, 2004


Hey, bardic—you don't get to do that yet.
posted by kenko at 10:32 AM on December 1, 2004


Yet another Get Doug's Hopes Up About The International Shaming Of Bush And Then Totally Disappear news item.

lodurr:
What you said is true, a lot of Americans block this kind of thing out and react with, "Well, who cares what they think?", same as with the GlobalVote stuff. But really, if America sees itself as the guardian of the world, ready to navigate us globally towards the future, I think as many countries (or "potential liberation zones") should try as many ways as possible to make their voice heard in American politics. It's a sad thing for me to pin my political hopes on those outside the country, but. I still do.
posted by dougunderscorenelso at 10:33 AM on December 1, 2004


I think I'm a pretty typical Canadian in most respects, so I'll share my take on it:

I couldn't give two shits for what the USA thinks of Canada for doing this. Hell, I can't even muster up a fart for it.

I am disgusted by the Bush administrations war on Iraq. It was a wholly unnecessary rogue-state action that should have been so thoroughly condemned by the international community that the USA was ostracized.

I am delighted that we've a couple publicity-hound lawyers who are doing this. I know it's not going anywhere, but it sends a very strong message that at least some Canadians aren't going to take it up the ass for George. Maybe it'll be the start of the international community growing some backbone.

And given the theft of billions of dollars of Canadian money by the USA during the softwood disagreement, which the WTO has ruled in Canada's favour, and which the USA refuses to return to us, I am all in favour of telling our biggest trading partner to fuck itself in the ass: we're going with China and Europe.

Yes, I believe I have fairly typical views.

You US Americans wouldn't believe how deep the antipathy toward your government runs in Canadians.

Please note that in most regards it is the administration that is despised, not the citizens themselves. Other than an appalling lack of knowledge about the rest of the world, y'all are an alright bunch of people.
posted by five fresh fish at 10:36 AM on December 1, 2004


It's good to know my taxes are helping some activists advance their agenda. Canada is sure to extract immense benefit from this.
posted by Krrrlson at 10:39 AM on December 1, 2004


if America sees itself as the guardian of the world, ready to navigate us globally towards the future

Why on earth should America see itself this way? There is nothing apart from a few decades of military adventurism that supports this notion.

I'm not criticizing you, doug. But it's too easy to confer special status on the US and the real question is "why?"
posted by 327.ca at 10:41 AM on December 1, 2004


There is another audience to this protest that hasn't been addressed here. Namely Paul Martin. This action also sends a little reminder to Mr. Martin that most Canadians prefer our Prime Minister take the mag dog approach when dealing with the American President. We know the USA goverment has it's interests and not ours in mind. Canadians hated Brian's buddy-buddy relationship with the Presidents especially when contrasted with Pierre's "I've been called worst things by better people" and to a lesser extent Jean's. Paul is a mite too "friendly".
posted by Mitheral at 10:53 AM on December 1, 2004


Mitheral,

I would've characterised Mulroney's relationships with the PsOTUSA as more "lap dog," or perhaps "rent boy," but I agree with you: Paul Martin's "good for business" (both links from our State-funded "media monopoly")
posted by Al_Truist at 11:08 AM on December 1, 2004


327:

A) I don't know why.
B) I don't see it this way.
C) Dude, it's really actually like this with some people. I was recently arguing online against our sociopathic "we are the REAL country" viewpoint when a person I previously respected said this:

America must take a leadership role. No international system will work without an American leadership role. We are the Hegemon and we work for freedom and peace so there is no reason not to rally behind us. The European Union would fall apart without America. We built Germany into the economic power that it is. And our free trade allows those countries to be the socialist havens that they choose to be. We keep China from expanding their territory. We kept Pakistan and India from waging a nuclear war. Mexico isn't like the rest of central America because it shares our border. It isn't arrogance. It is the truth. We aren't the world police but without our solid investment into democracy many regions of the world would be in shambles.

If we stopped bothering everyone and just left them alone: Their economies would collapse. Our aid would stop. Our protection would end. Democracies would be usurped by dictatorships and nobody would do a thing. You forget about the fallen human condition and it's lust for power. Only in America do you have the checks and balances and a representative democracy of the people and the power that can keep these things from happening. If we shut down and become fortress America the world will be dying at the closed gates.


I don't know why the US believes it has special status, but it's a driving force in our current political situation and debates over international treaties and conventions. But some people here, and some who are in power, are seriously behind this idea.
posted by dougunderscorenelso at 11:13 AM on December 1, 2004


Yes, I believe I have fairly typical views.

Enh, I think your views are more moderate than those of many Canadians. I, for example, am in favour of total withdrawal from NAFTA followed by a 200% export tariff on raw logs, petroleum products and electric power until the US stops screwing around. And we can use our federal surplus to pay workers who might be out of work for the three or four days that the US would be able to stand it before they cried "uncle".

They can take all of the life-giving resource exports they want (y'know, the ones that they'd literally die without and can't get elsewhere) as long as they don't play silly fuckers with those exports that they think compete too heavily with their own industries.
posted by solid-one-love at 11:23 AM on December 1, 2004


Off-the-wall queston (from someone operating on four hours sleep, so be nice):
Can American citizens sue BushCo for ... whatever? It seems there are a number of approaches you could take regarding the Admin's lying, misuse of public funds, abuse of war powers, etc. Not to mention the number of illegalities in their personal business dealings. (Oops, forget the latter. I keep forgetting: Whitewater bad, Haliburton good.)
posted by NorthernLite at 11:54 AM on December 1, 2004


US public opinion aside, what would be the fallout if President Bush were convicted? Would that encourage indictments of others (say, Halliburton executives) involved in the war? What would be the civil liabilities be once criminal culpabilities were established? Could corporations with Canadian subsidiaries be forced to make reparations?
posted by joaquim at 12:04 PM on December 1, 2004


it is never pointless to call a spade a spade.

What quonsar said. This shit should not be forgotten and if it takes Canadians to remind us then I'll take it.
posted by nanojath at 12:45 PM on December 1, 2004


Sounds like everyone agrees: He's obviously guilty, but too powerful for the rest of us to do anything about it. He's truly living the American dream.
posted by weezy at 12:46 PM on December 1, 2004


US public opinion aside, what would be the fallout if President Bush were convicted?

I'm pretty sure he wouldn't be able to go into Canada to get cheap prescription drugs.

I don't think they could compell Bush to stand trial, and he never would.
posted by nanojath at 12:47 PM on December 1, 2004


He's obviously guilty, but too powerful for the rest of us to do anything about it.

The bigger they are, the harder they fall. Bush talks a good line about morality, etc., but his day will come. What worries me more are the 51% who voted for him.
posted by 327.ca at 1:00 PM on December 1, 2004


This should happen.
But, alas, it won't.

I mean, Peter Tatchell couldn't even arrest Robert Mugabe, you really think Canada's going to try and extradite the President of the United States? I'm sure Bush has the US Supreme Court on speed-dial, and they won't be keen.

OTOH, try to arrest him while he's in Canada ... oh, boy, that wouldn't be good ...

I say wait until he's out of office, lure him to Canada with a sweet book-signing tour for his inevitable memoirs, then grab his ass the moment he's over the border. I fear Canada probably won't go for a swift and brutal "military tribunal" which he would so fittingly deserve ...

Still, it's always nice to dream.
posted by kaemaril at 1:45 PM on December 1, 2004


If Clinton can be forced to testify, why not Bush?

Personally I think the US is in social decline, long-term or not, who knows.

And what we should the embarrassed about? That Ukraine takes more pride in the process of Democracy then we do.

He's obviously guilty, but too powerful for the rest of us to do anything about it.

there are, of course 2 sets of laws in this country. Which is why we should de-emphasize the importance of politicians, if they are the servents-of-the-people then we should treat them like "the people", putting them on pedestal only encourages bad behavior and an overly developed since of self-importance.
posted by edgeways at 1:52 PM on December 1, 2004


I'm not saying Canadia doesn't have real courts, but that this is a pointless exercise. What do you think it will accomplish?
posted by mathowie at 8:47 AM PST on December 1


You can always hope...
posted by Doohickie at 2:43 PM on December 1, 2004


You can always hope...

LOL, the BritBrit reference is hysterical!
posted by stinkeye at 3:16 PM on December 1, 2004


He's obviously guilty...

Sounds like Bush's attempts to create a fascist justice system are succeeding.
posted by Krrrlson at 3:33 PM on December 1, 2004


I think it's obvious that nobody at all thinks that the Canadians can force Bush from the White House, or anything of the sort, but I'm really glad people are doing this, if only because I'd love to take a look through those documents. Getting everything codified, in an actual court of law, would kick ass.
posted by 235w103 at 7:33 PM on December 1, 2004


From BC's Chief Judge via "Ask the Chief Judge" at chiefjudge@provincialcourt.bc.ca: This attempted charge is not an isolated incident; a number of informational proceedings have been filed, in Vancouver, Kelowna, and elsewhere in the province, all with the same intent.

However, none of these can be considered significant events, as the Crown has the power to stay the proceedings indefinitely (the trial equivalent of shelving a bill). In other words, it's not news.
posted by mek at 8:03 PM on December 1, 2004


Well there is one great hope for the George W Bush scenario. He was voted in on a zero-year...He's been re-elected. There's still a possibility that the Curse of Techumseh still might bag one more victim!!
posted by Epitath at 10:12 PM on December 1, 2004


There's still a possibility that the Curse of Techumseh still might bag one more victim!!

Sorry, Ronnie broke that one.
posted by davelog at 7:29 AM on December 2, 2004


« Older Up to 100 million dead within weeks....  |  Haggis Hunt 2004/2005.... Newer »


This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments