// you're reading...

Uncategorized

Islamophobia De Jure: Holy Land Foundation Case a Travesty

Just in case you happen to think that the ‘war on terror’ is no more because the Obama administration won’t use that Bushian phrase, think again. The legal and policy structures that made the war on terror so objectionable are still in place, and they are still trampling on Arab and Muslim rights. In this most recent case, an unfair government prosecution was enabled by the USA PATRIOT Act and the Clinton-era Anti-Terror and Effective Death Penalty Act (AEDPA).

U.S. District court judge Jorge Solis’s sentencing of the founders of the Texas-based Holy Land Foundation for Relief and Development shocks the conscience. Even worse, it is a reminder that the vilification of Palestinians in this country is still going strong.

Two of the heads of the once largest Muslim charity were sentenced to 65 years in prison. Three others were sentenced to between 10 and 15 years in prison each. That is nothing short of preposterous.

Federal prosecutors have been targeting Arab and Muslim charities to the undeserved advantage and privilege of Israel even as it openly violates international law. The legal tools they use call into question basic rights as enshrined in the United States Constitution and the Geneva Convention.

Even if you take the inherently anti-Muslim law underlying their prosecution for granted, how can 65 years be a just sentence? The prosecution failed to connect causally even one HLF dollar to one act of terror. The court needed only to connect them to Hamas, which is no problem since the group dominates Islamic charity to the Palestinians. Without being able to link them directly to one act of violence, these sentences are extreme and disproportionate.

More important, the basis for the case rests on an inherently discriminatory legal structure – one that really puts Palestinians in a position of inferiority in this country.

Under the PATRIOT Act, the government criminalizes “material support” to groups deemed as terrorists by the State Department. Yet, the groups deemed terrorist by the State Department represent American foreign policy rather than a universal definition of unjust violence. International law, for instance, offers legal justification for the occupied to violently resist their occupiers – yet American law criminalizes just that.

The legal theory they were prosecuted on is that giving money to an orphanage affiliated with Hamas frees up money for Hamas to spend on weaponry. The government alleged that Holy land Foundation money was also diverted to the families of suicide bombers, as if those checks, and not the crushing Israeli occupation were the reason.

It is absurd that giving money to Palestinian charities affiliated with one of the largest political parties, the one that won the most recent parliamentary elections (which the United States pushed for) and operates as a quasi-government in Gaza, is a criminal act. For one thing, more than a third of the Palestinians would be “affiliated” with the party, making this law overbroad. If anything, the law should be narrowly construed to criminalize donations to support acts of violence against civilians.

Hamas has and does commit acts of violence. That is true, and it has often been cruel and directed at Israeli civilians. But, like every other country, they have also done good with their social organizations and humanitarian work. Hamas has functioned as a government in Gaza. It makes no sense that all the money spent on good is negated by their State Department designation, especially when their work is so widespread throughout the Palestinian territories.

Aha, you say, but American foreign policy should prevail above all since national interests are so important.

However, American law is on the whole unfair because it privileges Jewish groups that give money to Israeli settlers by letting their donors claim tax exemptions for their donations. The settlements run directly against American foreign policy and national interests, and are illegal under international law.

Settlers are armed to the teeth and frequently beat and kill unarmed Palestinians. A UN report documented 222 attacks in the first half of 2008. That was more than one attack per day. Yet, they are not deemed terrorists by the State Department, so tax write-offs can be given.

Despite what federal prosecutors think and the State Department designates, Palestinian groups emerge in a context of violence – the Israeli military occupation of the Palestinian territories has endured for more than 4 decades. Every military occupation in history has spawned a resistance. In the Holy land Foundation case, it has been shown that American law turns a blind eye to the crimes of occupation – the collective punishment, the closures, checkpoints, curfews, and the imprisonments without trial, torture and extrajudicial assassinations.

This legal imbalance essentially tolerates the kinds of crimes Israel perpetrates in Gaza, and is therefore morally baseless. And it could be argued that Israel’s crimes are as or even more damaging to American interests than are Hamas’s. But that is besides the point.

The “material support” laws also should raise constitutional questions.

Since American law privileges the Israeli Jewish narrative and gives benefits to those violating international law, there should be equal protection issues. The Constitution demands that classes of people not be unfairly discriminated against by the law, yet anti-terror legislation has overwhelmingly punished Arab Muslims. There is undoubtedly a disparate impact (one standard of equal protection violations although a contested one). And since almost all of the State Department designations are of Muslim groups — there is one Jewish one — one could argue there is discriminatory intent (the other standard).

A fair law would criminalize all contributions to support acts of violence or contravene international law, no matter the race or ethnicity of the contributor.

I know this sounds absurd since American foreign policy is not really subject to constitutional scrutiny in practice, and the constitution only really protects people in the country. The problem is when foreign policy is domesticated, it reflects with bias against citizens and non-citizens of countries not aligned with the United States. The USA PATRIOT Act dues just that.

Thus, it also raises a First Amendment problem. The freedom of association is provided for in the Constitution. What this Holy land Foundation ruling says is that Americans cannot associate with hospitals serving their families abroad because other certain parties may benefit, even if the benefit is indirect. Why should anti-terror law trump the constitution here?

One may argue there is a compelling government interest that makes the protection of rights too costly to justify.

What is the government’s interest in denying donations to social charities and to medical services? How does that imperil the security of the United States? No Palestinian faction has declared war on the United States.

Even if it empowers Hamas, it may be in American interests. How? If Hamas proves to be more in America’s interests than an illegitimate Palestinian Authority by, for instance, helping realize the new American peace initiative’s goals, then the Holy Land Foundation
founders are being punished despite contributing to the American foreign policy agenda. This hypothetical demonstrates the slippery subjectivity of anti-terror law.

These laws result in absurd cases. Several years ago, a Dearborn man was deported for giving money to an orphanage. It was run by Hizbollah. But he gave it to the orphanage because his nephews and nieces were forced to live there after Israel killed their parents. How does this make sense?

A few weeks ago, government prosecutors dropped the case against two former AIPAC officials who received and transmitted classified information. The judge’s leniency on this espionage case manifested in a series of early decisions that made the case harder to prosecute. They were treated with kiddie gloves for one of the highest offenses in the land – one with centuries of precedent.

In the Holy land Foundation case, they threw the book at them for crimes that did not even harm the United States, on a legal bases that is a largely a leftover of the unpopular Bush administration. The State department designations and other elements only go as far back as Clinton. Yet, the court will ruin the lives of these men. I recognize this is a moral argument and not a legal one. Arab-Americans and Muslims will only feel alienated by such systematic, bold-faced hypocrisy.

Had the AIPAC officials actually been CAIR employees, and the Holy Land Foundation been a Jewish group sending night vision goggles to settler extremists, the outcomes would have been reversed.

The discrepancy is intolerable. It shows the inherently prejudicial nature of American law during the war on terror. If the Obama administration was wise, they would seek to introduce sanity and fairness into the law. The post-’war on terror’ war on terror should be prosecuted in more logical and narrowly-construed ways. Broad punitive measures resemble collective punishment and manifest in unfair, discriminatory practices. That is all to reminiscent of the Bush legacy we’d all do well to undo.

Did you like this? Share it:
Filed Under  , , , ,

Discussion

97 Responses to “Islamophobia De Jure: Holy Land Foundation Case a Travesty”

  1. People who accuse others of "double standards" are almost always guilty of ignoring at least the context of the two situations, if not the facts. They also implicitly admit that the situation cannot be evaluated in their favor by its own merit. The justification for maintaining a high priority and critical eye upon "Muslims who give to charities" is that some of these charities actively support terrorism against the U.S. or its allies, and an important question is whether the donors know it or not. And some of these "charities" aren't charities at all, but merely vehicles for extortion by terror groups like Hezbollah and Al Qaeda. Anything real about "Jews who directly support a racist hate group and terrorist organization" is a mere shadow by comparison, as 99+% of the time it is jihadi Muslims who are busy killing and terrorizing or plotting to kill and terrorize Muslims and non-Muslims in terror attacks.

    Posted by Solomon2 | June 1, 2009, 7:44 pm
  2. programmercraig – I did refer to you the second time. Why does it matter? Seriously, quit being so nitpicky. This is about HLF – why do you guys turn it around into something so irrelevant, what a familiar strategy *referring to the prosecutors on the HLF case*

    Posted by Lena | June 1, 2009, 7:52 pm
  3. Actually, in the U.S. the job of determining "whether a case is just" – that is, whether a prosecution is warranted – is that of the prosecutor, as checked by the grand jury. The accused gets his day (or year) in court, almost always with competent representation. Convictions in the U.S. are scarcely arbitrary affairs. Nor are they comparative ones, but each case is decided on its merits. Throw out an accusation against someone else at your sentencing? Alert the prosecutors and see if the evidence merits bringing them to court – that doesn't merit pardoning your guilt, though your punishment may be alleviated by cooperation with the prosecution – if you can provide any evidence of your accusations, that is.

    Posted by Solomon2 | June 1, 2009, 7:55 pm
  4. I must have missed the part where it was proven that these charities gave money to support terrorism (I.e. actual support in terms of recruitment / buying / selling weapons). And your attempts at putting Hizbollah in the same league as Al-Qaeda are laughable. Most European governments as well as those in other parts of the world, do not regard the political or charitable wings of Hamas and Hizbullah as terrorist infratsructure and many have already begun talking with them. I'd also like to ask where you got the figure of 99% from. From the various terror groups in Latin America to neo-nazis in Russia, terrorist attacks by Muslims make up nowhere near the figure you quoted.

    Posted by Shafiq | June 1, 2009, 9:28 pm
  5. I don't need a lecture on being "pro" anything from a guy who spends his time here attacking anyone that disagrees with you with insults and the bizarre strawmen you set up when you can't respond with anything remotely resembling sense to reasoned arguments.

    Posted by Sean2009 | June 1, 2009, 9:30 pm
  6. Firstly, show me where I have defended the mass murder of innocents. Show me the evidence or admit you're a liar. It is you that justified and wrote a lame apology here for Israel's use of white phosphorus against schoolkids. As for Hamas being the alleged recipient of money from the defendants in the Holy Land case, the government did not present an iota of evidence that a dime of that money went to Hamas. If it had any such evidence, it would have presented it. Instead, it asserted that the purchase of soccer balls, books and food for Palestinian charities somehow freed up money for use by Hamas in terrorist attacks. They based this on the naked assertions, again without evidence, of an agent of the Israeli secret police, the Shin Bet, who was allowed to testify anonymously that these charities were associated with Hamas. This assertion was rejected by an official from the State Department: The defense countered with the former No. 2 intelligence official at the State Department, Edward Abington. He told jurors that although he got daily CIA briefings for years while he was stationed in Jerusalem as consul general, he never was told that the Palestinian charity committees Holy Land gave money to were part of Hamas. ” target=”_blank”>http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/dn/la… Even if what the Shin Bet agent asserted was true, it still does not prove that buying soccer balls somehow frees up money for use in terror attacks, as this is just sheer speculation and you would need to able to materially justify that with solid proof for such an assertion to stick in any court where the rules of evidence were being obeyed, which clearly wasn't the case here. Otherwise, it is just guilt by association. I once dated a girl whose cousin was in the mafia. If I bought her a gift, does that mean I am guilty of freeing up money for the mafia? My father knew some big wig in the New York mafia as well, but I forget who. Am I automatically an associate of the mafia because a relative of mine knew a mafiosi? This is the kind of perverted logic used in this case and anyone defending it is either a nutcase or dishonest.

    Posted by Sean2009 | June 1, 2009, 9:54 pm
  7. Firstly, show me where I have defended the mass murder of innocents. Show me the evidence or admit you're a liar. It is you that justified and wrote a lame apology here for Israel's use of white phosphorus against schoolkids. As for Hamas being the alleged recipient of money from the defendants in the Holy Land case, the government did not present an iota of evidence that a dime of that money went to Hamas. If it had any such evidence, it would have presented it. Instead, it asserted that the purchase of soccer balls, books and food for Palestinian charities somehow freed up money for use by Hamas in terrorist attacks. They based this on the naked assertions, again without evidence, of an agent of the Israeli secret police, the Shin Bet, who was allowed to testify anonymously that these charities were associated with Hamas. This assertion was rejected by an official from the State Department: The defense countered with the former No. 2 intelligence official at the State Department, Edward Abington. He told jurors that although he got daily CIA briefings for years while he was stationed in Jerusalem as consul general, he never was told that the Palestinian charity committees Holy Land gave money to were part of Hamas. ” target=”_blank”>http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/dn/la… Even if what the Shin Bet agent asserted was true, it still does not prove that buying soccer balls somehow frees up money for use in terror attacks, as this is just sheer speculation and you would need to able to materially justify that with solid proof for such an assertion to stick in any court where the rules of evidence were being obeyed, which clearly wasn't the case here. Otherwise, it is just guilt by association. I once dated a girl whose cousin was in the mafia. If I bought her a gift, does that mean I am guilty of freeing up money for the mafia? My father knew some big wig in the New York mafia as well, but I forget who. Am I automatically an associate of the mafia because a relative of mine knew a mafiosi? This is the kind of perverted logic used in this case and anyone defending it is either a nutcase or dishonest.

    Posted by Sean2009 | June 1, 2009, 9:54 pm
  8. People who accuse others of "double standards" are almost always guilty of ignoring at least the context of the two situations, if not the facts. They also implicitly admit that the situation cannot be evaluated in their favor by its own merit. Thanks for your brilliantly-reasoned proof of the non-existence of double standards: one has only to assert their existence to prove their non-existence. The justification for maintaining a high priority and critical eye upon "Muslims who give to charities" is that some of these charities actively support terrorism against the U.S. or its allies, and an important question is whether the donors know it or not. I don't see where the government, or you, have offered up a single shred of solid evidence to support this assertion, and no, a successful witch hunt and show trail doesn't count as "evidence." It is crystal clear, however, that money that is sent to Israeli settler groups with the express purpose of helping those groups expand the settlements, is illegal as the settlements themselves are illegal. There is no need to prove connections to settler violence or anything else, the money is being used for an illegal purpose and yet donors get a tax write-off. And some of these "charities" aren't charities at all, but merely vehicles for extortion by terror groups like Hezbollah and Al Qaeda. Can you name some of these charities and list the evidence you have they are giving money to terrorist groups? Anything real about "Jews who directly support a racist hate group and terrorist organization" is a mere shadow by comparison, Even if that were true, the fact remains the terrorist JDL is allowed to openly solicit funds on its wesbite, through Paypal no less. Hamas has never attacked anyone in the US, but the JDL has. An unbiased enforcement of our laws would have the government shut down and arrest those raising funds that are clearly being solicited directly for the JDL, and not some Jewish charity that maybe, might, kinda, sorta be connected to them because some guy in the JDL is related to someone in the Jewish charity in question. No, this is a direct and provable connection. You have only to visit their website. as 99+% of the time it is jihadi Muslims who are busy killing and terrorizing or plotting to kill and terrorize Muslims and non-Muslims in terror attacks. Most of the time, it is the United States and its allies that is killing people or fomenting ethnic and religious conflicts in Muslim countries like Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan or Pakistan.

    Posted by Sean2009 | June 1, 2009, 10:09 pm
  9. How does making accusations against the US and Israel constitute justifying terrorism? This is Bush-level horseshit that anyone who doesn't swallow neocon and Zionist propaganda without question is a supporter of terrorism. Sorry, but some of us are still capable of examining the facts and drawing our own conclusions. Too bad you can only believe what the Israeli government and the media tell you to believe.

    Posted by Sean2009 | June 1, 2009, 10:14 pm
  10. Convictions in the U.S. are scarcely arbitrary affairs. I suspect these men would disagree with you: ” target=”_blank”>http://www.thejusticeproject.org/profiles/ ” target=”_blank”>http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/18/us/18dna.html?_… Paul Craig Roberts demolishes the idea of American "justice" here: ” target=”_blank”>http://www.counterpunch.org/roberts03112009.html

    Posted by Sean2009 | June 1, 2009, 10:20 pm
  11. Convictions in the U.S. are scarcely arbitrary affairs. I suspect these men would disagree with you: ” target=”_blank”>http://www.thejusticeproject.org/profiles/ ” target=”_blank”>http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/18/us/18dna.html?_… Paul Craig Roberts demolishes the idea of American "justice" here: ” target=”_blank”>http://www.counterpunch.org/roberts03112009.html

    Posted by Sean2009 | June 1, 2009, 10:20 pm
  12. This is about HLF – why do you guys turn it around into something so irrelevant… I left about 10 replies to you specifically about HLF. Instead of replying to them, you chose to defend an accusation you made against other commenters where you accused them of being "ignorant". And you incorrectly named me as one of the commenters you were making that accusation aganst. what a familiar strategy Isn't it, though? You ignore what people say and instead make personal attacks on people you disagree with. that's called "ad hominem". And then you accuse other people of doing the same thing? lol.

    Posted by programmer craig | June 2, 2009, 2:01 pm
  13. Firstly, show me where I have defended the mass murder of innocents. Show me the evidence or admit you're a liar. It is you that justified and wrote a lame apology here for Israel's use of white phosphorus against schoolkids. You demand evidence and then provide it in the same paragraph? lol. Your comparison to the legal use of a smoke munition during a military operation to the deliberate mass murder via suicide bombing of innocent Israelis including children who were on their way to school is a defense of that deliberate mass murder of the innocent, Sean. If you don't like the fact that you are engaging in such behavior, then stop doing it. Not my problem. I'm just making observations of the obvious, here.

    Posted by programmer craig | June 2, 2009, 2:06 pm
  14. How does making accusations against the US and Israel constitute justifying terrorism? Is it that hard to understand, Sean? When you claim that the victims of terrorism are just as guilty of terrorism, themselves, as the terrorists who victimize them, you are justifying terrorism. I really can't think of an easier way to explain it. Sorry if even the completely obvious is beyond your capacity to understand. But I don't believe that to be the case… i think you know full well what the net effect of your behavior is, and that you nengage in that behavior deliberately. This is Bush-level horseshit that anyone who doesn't swallow neocon and Zionist propaganda without question is a supporter of terrorism. Irrelevant distraction. Cheap.

    Posted by programmer craig | June 2, 2009, 2:34 pm
  15. Sorry, but some of us are still capable of examining the facts and drawing our own conclusions. Who is "us", Sean? Are there a large number of Americans who incapable of differentiating right from wrong? Too bad you can only believe what the Israeli government and the media tell you to believe. Ad hominem. Cheap.

    Posted by programmer craig | June 2, 2009, 2:36 pm
  16. Pretty lame response, Sean. Even for you! Solomon2 gave you a well-reasoned reply and your reaction is to throw links at him rather than debate the issue? Cheap.

    Posted by programmer craig | June 2, 2009, 2:39 pm
  17. I must have missed the part where it was proven that these charities gave money to support terrorism (I.e. actual support in terms of recruitment / buying / selling weapons). You must have missed the fact that such is un-necessary. Giving money to terrorist groups is illegal in the US, whether those terrorist groups call themselves a "charity" or not. If they are on the bad-evil-terrorist-group list as defined by the US Government, it is illegal in the United States to provide support to them.

    Posted by programmer craig | June 2, 2009, 10:42 am
  18. Period. Case closed. Literally.

    Posted by programmer craig | June 2, 2009, 2:43 pm
  19. And your attempts at putting Hizbollah in the same league as Al-Qaeda are laughable. Why is that? Hezbollah has been murdering, kidnapping, hijacking and otherwise victimizing Americans for nearly 30 years. Most European governments… Who cares? What they do or don't do is none of my concern. Why do you keep referening "all the other kids…" like that, Shafiq? You trying peer pressure on us? lol. Won't work. The US has no peers at the moment, and the candidates that are emerging for that status are bound to make the US look agelic, by comparison. Most European governments as well as those in other parts of the world, do not regard the political or charitable wings of Hamas and Hizbullah as terrorist infratsructure and many have already begun talking with them.

    Posted by programmer craig | June 2, 2009, 2:47 pm
  20. And your attempts at putting Hizbollah in the same league as Al-Qaeda are laughable Then laugh at this: " target="_blank"><a href="http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0908746.html” target=”_blank”>http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0908746.html In the US, providing support for any of those groups is a serious felony. Note the presence of most Palestinian terror groups on that list – including HAMAS – and note alos the prsenece of Hezbollah and Al Qaida on that list. Funny, right?

    Posted by programmer craig | June 2, 2009, 11:06 am
  21. I don't need a lecture on being "pro" anything You are right, you don't. Because you have no interest in trying to be pro-active about anything, do you? Your objective is to tear down those you oppose, rather than to build up those you claim to support. Which is why you could caree less about Palestinian terrorism, despite the observable fact that it has achieved nothing good for Palestinians. from a guy who spends his time here attacking anyone that disagrees with you with insults and the bizarre strawmen you set up when you can't respond with anything remotely resembling sense to reasoned arguments. Lol. What else am I supposed to do, on a blog such as this where even the bloggers themselves do nothing but attack in the ost offesnive manner possible? Are you trying to claim this is a place where people come to debate ideology? Yeah. Right. I bet half these fuckers would kill anyone who disagrees with them, if they thought they could get away with it. Not exactly an environment conducive to free exchange of ideas, is it?

    Posted by programmer craig | June 2, 2009, 3:13 pm
  22. But the failures that led to the abuse of detainees were a collective failure of the officer corps to prepare its soldiers for low-intensity combat and the proper treatment of detainees in a non-linear environment. So the US response to terrorism is what caused the terrorism in the first place, eh? That's some sound reasoning you've got goin on there, Sean. I bet you are a solid C student. Maybe even B-.

    Posted by programmer craig | June 2, 2009, 4:13 pm
  23. programmer – do you get paid for being annoying? lol

    Posted by Lena | June 2, 2009, 10:26 pm
  24. shafiq, you write:

    "I think you should re-read his post. He accused her of being irresponsible and did not say she deserved what she got. Nor did he excuse (or even try to) the actions of the Iranian state"

    Really? You have a very interesting and unusual definition of the word "excuse" then (or maybe it's of "try").

    He wrote: "Iran has every reason to be suspicious."

    That's basically the textbook definition of excusing the actions of the Iranian state.

    You should re-read his post, because that's hardly the only instance of apologia (it's the theme of the entire post!)

    Meanwhile, as for Lena – if you don't care about the credibility of the people you think are making arguments on your side, that's your business. But most people would find this kind of flip flop completely distasteful and hypocritical, at a minimum.

    Whatever.

    Posted by whoops | June 2, 2009, 10:43 pm
  25. What are you tallking about??? Who's side am I taking? I am responding to the HLF verdict and sentencing, regardless of what position or credibiility that you think the people on this blog take!!!

    Posted by Lena | June 3, 2009, 7:37 pm
  26. XKHNiM hxzczogulcwy, [url=http://yrxxsydbotcg.com/]yrxxsydbotcg[/url], [link=http://nnovxlzcmbuq.com/]nnovxlzcmbuq[/link], http://ilbcgjarjrzv.com/

    Posted by musalhgj | June 29, 2009, 3:42 am
  27. Nise site., kamagra kaufen, 2553, Ativan, ikak, Zolpidem, :]]], viagra bestellen, =-PP, Cigarettes, 8015,

    Posted by Phentermine | June 29, 2009, 8:01 am
  28. Nise site., Buy Cigarettes, 88008, comprare cialis, >:OO, Clonazepam, %-PPP, Cialis, 34318, cialis billig, %-D,

    Posted by Ativan | June 29, 2009, 10:19 am
  29. Nise site., kamagra billig, 5757, Tamiflu, 880, Ambien, cbrz, Buy Cialis, 42957, Cheap Ativan, csdmx,

    Posted by Alprazolam | June 29, 2009, 11:08 am
  30. Your Site Is Great!, Cheap Valium, 838549, kamagra billig, 8961, Buy Viagra, lft, cialis on line, ebrdh, Ultram, 8P,

    Posted by Cheap viagra | June 29, 2009, 11:27 am
  31. Nise site., Tamiflu
    , ikrft, Cheap Phentermine, 562442, Cheap Klonopin, 776788, Cheapest Cialis, 675, Cheap Tramadol, 8(((,

    Posted by Phentermine | June 29, 2009, 12:49 pm
  32. Thank You!, Buy Klonopin, lgydh, Viagra, =-))), Buy Viagra, 159, Zolpidem, cjnyms, viagra, wsibom,

    Posted by Lorazepam | June 29, 2009, 1:10 pm
  33. Nise site., Buy Phentermine, zbrfu, Ambien
    , ajz, Cheap Ativan, wdhpk, Buy Xanax, rddtne, Buy Viagra, ksf,

    Posted by Diazepam | June 29, 2009, 5:43 pm
  34. I like your work!, Phentermine, tkyogg, cialis, aezh, Buy Viagra, >:-], Cheap viagra, 618329, kamagra, eki,

    Posted by Cialis | June 29, 2009, 5:47 pm
  35. Thank You!, comprare viagra, wacoaj, Phentermine, waxrs, Buy Klonopin, 3411, Tramadol
    , 8291, Xanax
    , uab,

    Posted by Valium | June 29, 2009, 7:07 pm
  36. I like your work!, Marlboro Cigarettes, =-PP, Valium
    , osbe, Cheap Phentermine, zaz, Cialis
    , >:)), Viagra, 568,

    Posted by kamagra | June 29, 2009, 8:17 pm
  37. Your Site Is Great!, Cigarettes
    , zmvku, Ativan, nsq, Cheap Ambien, 440425, Cheap Klonopin, qcy, Phentermine, tzn,

    Posted by Buy Ambien | June 29, 2009, 9:09 pm
  38. Best Wishes!, Buy Phentermine, ogcb, Buy Cialis, sodicp, Valium, 435, Cheap Ambien, 745, Buy Ambien, gryw,

    Posted by Buy Cialis | June 29, 2009, 10:49 pm
  39. Nise site., kamagra en ligne, 6667, Phentermine
    , wyadq, Buy Klonopin, hzsupv, Clonazepam, 150583, Cigarettes, =-]]],

    Posted by Buy Cialis | June 30, 2009, 5:47 am
  40. Thank You!, Clonazepam, %[, Viagra
    , wudx, Cheap kamagra, 022, Cheap Phentermine, 055268, Cialis
    , 910231,

    Posted by Klonopin | June 30, 2009, 6:39 am
  41. I like your work!, Cialis, 8-[, Buy Klonopin, :]], cialis billig, 659, Ambien
    , 8063, Ativan, mlvob,

    Posted by Ativan | June 30, 2009, 8:23 am
  42. Thank You!, Cheap Ativan, %-D, Adipex, :PPP, Klonopin
    , 475687, Xanax
    , =]], Buy Ambien, 307552,

    Posted by Cialis | June 30, 2009, 10:39 am
  43. Your Site Is Great!, Buy Ambien, mjvrep, Buy Phentermine, rvrh, Clonazepam, =]]], Klonopin
    , 9197, Xanax
    , >:-O,

    Posted by Cigarettes | June 30, 2009, 11:06 am
  44. Your Site Is Great!, viagra, qvtdye, Ativan, 8380, Buy Viagra online, :DD, Buy Cialis Online, 8-PP, Buy Cialis Online, 8),

    Posted by Buy Viagra | June 30, 2009, 11:39 am
  45. Best Wishes!, Buy Viagra, 160, cialis billig, dgllk, Buy Klonopin, >:DDD, viagra, %-))), Xanax, hwtei,

    Posted by kamagra | June 30, 2009, 12:46 pm
  46. Your Site Is Great!, kamagra kaufen, :-O, Cigarettes, 8]], Ambien
    , 25535, Cheap Valium, 036, Cheap Ativan, %))),

    Posted by Buy Viagra | June 30, 2009, 3:21 pm

Post a comment

Connect With Us Ya Hmeer!

resume resume

Recent Posts

So, Who’s the Threat to America Again?
August 20, 2012
By Guest
Where Do We Keep Islamophobia?
August 15, 2012
By Shubnum
Lobbying Versus Advocacy
August 1, 2012
By Mehrunisa
On the destruction of Speaker’s Corner
July 17, 2012
By Abubakr
Stateless & Speechless, A Palestinian Regains Speech
July 12, 2012
By Hanitizer
White, Black American groups ‘swap’ summer interns
July 10, 2012
By Guest
The Costs of Stripping
June 25, 2012
By Mehrunisa
Be The Fundamental Pizza of a Man
June 25, 2012
By Guest
In US, They Want Fun, Fun Fun
June 23, 2012
By Sana
I Ain’t Afraid of No Regime
June 15, 2012
By Husam
ADC: Arab American Professionals’ Gateway to DC
June 12, 2012
By Hanitizer
Influence And Freedom
May 23, 2012
By Guest
Will Sacha Baron Cohen Bring His Muslim Bashing To An End?
May 22, 2012
By Hanitizer
On Chafed Oddballs, Siberian Socialites and Missed Opportunities
May 5, 2012
By Guest
A Single Roll of the Dice
April 23, 2012
By Guest