World Politics

[Bala Verde]

That is the reason you do not have the judicial system involved in trying war criminals - and why we do not appoint attorneys and have a trial when holding prisoners of war.

I mentioned earlier we have the best legal system, however, it is designed to handle criminals with the borders for individualized, and occasionally small group, crimes.

So are you saying trying war criminals - in violation of for example the Geneva Convention - has nothing to do with the judicial system, the rule of law or basic rights that are accorded to the suspects?

Anyway, if the US were serious about 'war crimes', they would have joined and ratified the Rome Statute establishing the ICC.


About Fair Trial provisions

The Court observes that the protection of the International Covenant
of Civil and Political Rights does not cease in times of war, except
by operation of Article 4 of the Covenant whereby certain provisions
may be derogated from in a time of national emergency.

The ICJ decision on the 'Legality of the construction by Israel of a wall in the Occupied Palestinian Territory' as well as the 'legality of the use of Nuclear weapons' (quote above) stressed that human rights apply in peace time as well as during the course of wars and occupations.

Given that fair trial provisions are at the heart of humanitarian international law as well as human rights law, it is in effect a minimum guarantee from which a state cannot derogate, not even in times of emergencies. Add to that that the USA has consistently shown to value fair trial provisions (see even Hamdan v Rumsfeld), it can certainly not just deviate (legally) from what itself believed to be acceptable conduct or customary law.

In a way, there is nothing special about this case. He will be tried like any other criminal, and if errors have been made throughout the investigation, his detention or prosecution, then that could potentially have an adverse effect on the desired outcome. But that's the law.

The administration should have done a better job handling the 'case of the century' then how they handled it.

 

[CentralCaliBike]

So are you saying trying war criminals - in violation of for example the Geneva Convention - has nothing to do with the judicial system, the rule of law or basic rights that are accorded to the suspects?

Anyway, if the US were serious about 'war crimes', they would have joined and ratified the Rome Statute establishing the ICC.


About Fair Trial provisions



The ICJ decision on the 'Legality of the construction by Israel of a wall in the Occupied Palestinian Territory' as well as the 'legality of the use of Nuclear weapons' (quote above) stressed that human rights apply in peace time as well as during the course of wars and occupations.

Given that fair trial provisions are at the heart of humanitarian international law as well as human rights law, it is in effect a minimum guarantee from which a state cannot derogate, not even in times of emergencies. Add to that that the USA has consistently shown to value fair trial provisions (see even Hamdan v Rumsfeld), it can certainly not just deviate (legally) from what itself believed to be acceptable conduct or customary law.

In a way, there is nothing special about this case. He will be tried like any other criminal, and if errors have been made throughout the investigation, his detention or prosecution, then that could potentially have an adverse effect on the desired outcome. But that's the law.

The administration should have done a better job handling the 'case of the century' then how they handled it.

I have some knowledge of the ICJ - it is extremely political in nature, it has an agenda and fortunately has no teeth.

As for the case itself - I predict that the case will still be in trial long after the current president has left the White House, unless the defendant demands a quick trial because they know that most of the evidence will be excluded.

 

[Bala Verde]

I have some knowledge of the ICJ - it is extremely political in nature, it has an agenda and fortunately has no teeth.

Just like the US supreme court?

As for it's supposed 'lack of teeth', it deals with the area of international law which inherently lacks the backing of a superior authority. That doesn't mean it has no influence. As a matter of fact most of its decisions have actually been complied with by the parties requesting a settlement. On top of that, through its opinions, it elucidates the contemporary status of international law. You might not take it seriously, states do.

 

[Anonymous]

So are you saying trying war criminals - in violation of for example the Geneva Convention - has nothing to do with the judicial system, the rule of law or basic rights that are accorded to the suspects?

Anyway, if the US were serious about 'war crimes', they would have joined and ratified the Rome Statute establishing the ICC.


About Fair Trial provisions



The ICJ decision on the 'Legality of the construction by Israel of a wall in the Occupied Palestinian Territory' as well as the 'legality of the use of Nuclear weapons' (quote above) stressed that human rights apply in peace time as well as during the course of wars and occupations.

Given that fair trial provisions are at the heart of humanitarian international law as well as human rights law, it is in effect a minimum guarantee from which a state cannot derogate, not even in times of emergencies. Add to that that the USA has consistently shown to value fair trial provisions (see even Hamdan v Rumsfeld), it can certainly not just deviate (legally) from what itself believed to be acceptable conduct or customary law.

In a way, there is nothing special about this case. He will be tried like any other criminal, and if errors have been made throughout the investigation, his detention or prosecution, then that could potentially have an adverse effect on the desired outcome. But that's the law.

The administration should have done a better job handling the 'case of the century' then how they handled it.

You might want to read the 911 commission report. The original is nearly 600 pages but here is the executive summary;

http://govinfo.library.unt.edu/911/report/911Report_Exec.pdf

KSM is not like "any other criminal."

 

[Bala Verde]

You might want to read the 911 commission report. The original is nearly 600 pages but here is the executive summary;

http://govinfo.library.unt.edu/911/report/911Report_Exec.pdf

KSM is not like "any other criminal."

And why not? I only quickly skimmed the exec summ and there is one section (p4) that is relevant perhaps?

Al-qaeda possesses:

- Leaders with skills to assess, plan, evaluate major operations
- a personnel system to recruit, indoctrinate, train new recruits
- communications to enable planning major ops
- an intelligence effort to obtain info
- the ability to move people of large distances
- the ability to raise money

If you didn't know we were talking about 'terrorists' the report could have been describing any (large) criminal organization, involved in human trafficking, drugs, money laundering, illegal weapons procurement and sales, slavery, prostitution, as well as guerrilla warfare against legitimate states...

Or even non-criminal organizations like the US armed forces, UN peacekeeping forces, para-military organizations, Corporations etc.

 

[CentralCaliBike]

And why not? I only quickly skimmed the exec summ and there is one section (p4) that is relevant perhaps?

Al-qaeda possesses:

- Leaders with skills to assess, plan, evaluate major operations
- a personnel system to recruit, indoctrinate, train new recruits
- communications to enable planning major ops
- an intelligence effort to obtain info
- the ability to move people of large distances
- the ability to raise money

If you didn't know we were talking about 'terrorists' the report could have been describing any (large) criminal organization, involved in human trafficking, drugs, money laundering, illegal weapons procurement and sales, slavery, prostitution, as well as guerrilla warfare against legitimate states...

Or even non-criminal organizations like the US armed forces, UN peacekeeping forces, para-military organizations, Corporations etc.

They sent non-citizen persons into the country with the hidden purpose to attack the United States, as a result the Constitution and, historically, the rules of warfare, do not provide them the rights to due process afforded to our common criminals.

 

[CentralCaliBike]

Just like the US supreme court?

As for it's supposed 'lack of teeth', it deals with the area of international law which inherently lacks the backing of a superior authority. That doesn't mean it has no influence. As a matter of fact most of its decisions have actually been complied with by the parties requesting a settlement. On top of that, through its opinions, it elucidates the contemporary status of international law. You might not take it seriously, states do.

The political agenda of the ICJ has a basic bias against the United States. I see no reason to abdicate sovereignty of the Constitution in favor of a group that has voiced a disdain for our political form of government and system of laws.

 

[Bala Verde]

They sent non-citizen persons into the country with the hidden purpose to attack the United States, as a result the Constitution and, historically, the rules of warfare, do not provide them the rights to due process afforded to our common criminals.

How is that different from the following scenario:

A Canadian citizen kills a US citizen on his 'vacation' in the US. Let's even increase the similarities. A Canadian serial killer enters the US and violently murders 31(00) people before he gets caught.

In any case, he will be tried according to the prevailing laws, most likely in the US if he's apprehended there, and he will be accorded all the rights a suspect in that case has.

In the end, 'terrorists' killed people, damaged property, perhaps laundered money, obtained weapons illegally. They thus violated existing laws, and therefore criminal law suffices to get any of them convicted. There is no need to strip them of any of their rights to do justice.

The only reason to actually call them terrorists, is to try and place them outside the existing framework that ensures their rights. It's like saying that [fill in race/religion/ethnicity] are not human enough to be treated like human beings.

In any case, human rights still apply - as I said before - in all cases universally, even when 'at war' (if that can actually be maintained, for a war only exists between states and is fought out between state agents) Hence, fair trial provisions still apply. It doesn't matter if they are or are not US citizens.

 

[CentralCaliBike]

How is that different from the following scenario:

A Canadian citizen kills a US citizen on his 'vacation' in the US. Let's even increase the similarities. A Canadian serial killer enters the US and violently murders 31(00) people before he gets caught.

In any case, he will be tried according to the prevailing laws, most likely in the US if he's apprehended there, and he will be accorded all the rights a suspect in that case has.

In the end, 'terrorists' killed people, damaged property, perhaps laundered money, obtained weapons illegally. They thus violated existing laws, and therefore criminal law suffices to get any of them convicted. There is no need to strip them of any of their rights to do justice.

The only reason to actually call them terrorists, is to try and place them outside the existing framework that ensures their rights. It's like saying that [fill in race/religion/ethnicity] are not human enough to be treated like human beings.

In any case, human rights still apply - as I said before - in all cases universally, even when 'at war' (if that can actually be maintained, for a war only exists between states and is fought out between state agents) Hence, fair trial provisions still apply. It doesn't matter if they are or are not US citizens.

If this was a case for the judicial system we should have the police in Afghanistan looking for terrorists rather than the military - not sure we would have any volunteers and I do not think any would come back alive but it is the way to go if you think this is a case for the court system.

 

[Bala Verde]

The political agenda of the ICJ has a basic bias against the United States. I see no reason to abdicate sovereignty of the Constitution in favor of a group that has voiced a disdain for our political form of government and system of laws.

Any proof of that perceived bias? Or could it be that (in some of) the cases it decided against the US, the US violated existing international law which it has accepted in its own practice and it is therefore bound to. In other words, could they ever be right!

The international law that is older than the (Constitution of the) US and which in fact has given rise to the so cherished concept of sovereignty. The international law the US has committed itself to since its own inception. To put it simply, if you are 'against international law' you are in effect against 'sovereignty'. You can't cherry-pick the laws that you like best.

To illustrate, I mentioned the US supreme court. It is composed of several individuals, just like the ICJ. Do you believe those members interpret the law entirely outside of their own individual and cultural making, as empty shells, like preprogrammed robots? Or do you think that they have their political/social/cultural/human identities that make possible any type of interpretation and decision-making.

Scalia, Sotomayor, Thomas, Alito etc.... They are quite the selection of unbiased legal experts.

The decisions reached in the US supreme court are not less valid because you don't like (some) of the individuals that come to these verdicts. Again, following your reasoning, can the US supreme court actually ever come to the right conclusion? Or is any decision they make, and which you (don't) approve of, always an expression of their inherent bias against or in favor of something?

If they come to the 'right' conclusion, they are the saintly upholders of the constitution of the US. If they are 'wrong', they must be biased...

 

[schopenhauer]

How is that different from the following scenario:

A Canadian citizen kills a US citizen on his 'vacation' in the US. Let's even increase the similarities. A Canadian serial killer enters the US and violently murders 31(00) people before he gets caught.

In any case, he will be tried according to the prevailing laws, most likely in the US if he's apprehended there, and he will be accorded all the rights a suspect in that case has.

In the end, 'terrorists' killed people, damaged property, perhaps laundered money, obtained weapons illegally. They thus violated existing laws, and therefore criminal law suffices to get any of them convicted. There is no need to strip them of any of their rights to do justice.

The only reason to actually call them terrorists, is to try and place them outside the existing framework that ensures their rights. It's like saying that [fill in race/religion/ethnicity] are not human enough to be treated like human beings.

In any case, human rights still apply - as I said before - in all cases universally, even when 'at war' (if that can actually be maintained, for a war only exists between states and is fought out between state agents) Hence, fair trial provisions still apply. It doesn't matter if they are or are not US citizens.

Are you really this fucking stupid?

 

[CentralCaliBike]

The international law that is older than the (Constitution of the) US and which in fact has given rise to the so cherished concept of sovereignty. The international law the US has committed itself to since its own inception. To put it simply, if you are 'against international law' you are in effect against 'sovereignty'. You can't cherry-pick the laws that you like best.

I never suggested that I completely disfavored International Law - I happen to believe that the ICJ has an ax to grind I do not trust it to follow International Law when it gets in the way of what they want to do (the same may be true for most jurists).

To illustrate, I mentioned the US supreme court. It is composed of several individuals, just like the ICJ. Do you believe those members interpret the law entirely outside of their own individual and cultural making, as empty shells, like preprogrammed robots? Or do you think that they have their political/social/cultural/human identities that make possible any type of interpretation and decision-making.

Scalia, Sotomayor, Thomas, Alito etc.... They are quite the selection of unbiased legal experts.

The decisions reached in the US supreme court are not less valid because you don't like (some) of the individuals that come to these verdicts. Again, following your reasoning, can the US supreme court actually ever come to the right conclusion? Or is any decision they make, and which you (don't) approve of, always an expression of their inherent bias against or in favor of something?

If they come to the 'right' conclusion, they are the saintly upholders of the constitution of the US. If they are 'wrong', they must be biased...

I happen to believe that the United States judicial officers are also subject to bias which is clearly apparent in various rulings, however, they are the product of our political system and to some extent a reflection of the will of the people - when they go overboard the political spectrum changes and the make up of the court will change as well.

On the other hand, the ICJ has no responsibility to (or political concern for) the citizens of the United States . Their power is centered with general assembly of the united nations with each of the members of the security counsel getting to appoint a judge for nine year terms. When they find against the United States it gains them prestige and support regardless of the basis for the opinion and, often their decisions lack a basis with regards to the laws of the country they rule against, or even established international conventions.

 

[CentralCaliBike]

Any proof of that perceived bias?

http://lawofnations.blogspot.com/2005/01/bias-and-decline-at-international.html

http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=642581

http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=629341

http://www.jstor.org/pss/2110296

A little light reading - if you want the full analysis you will have to purchase a couple of well written books.

 

[schopenhauer]

http://lawofnations.blogspot.com/2005/01/bias-and-decline-at-international.html

http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=642581

http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=629341

http://www.jstor.org/pss/2110296

A little light reading - if you want the full analysis you will have to purchase a couple of well written books.

He may be able to purchase books, reading them, well that's another matter

 

[Bala Verde]

If this was a case for the judicial system we should have the police in Afghanistan looking for terrorists rather than the military - not sure we would have any volunteers and I do not think any would come back alive but it is the way to go if you think this is a case for the court system.

Just like the US police goes abroad to apprehend potential Canadian serial killers who could pose a threat to US citizens in the near future? Or just like the military was involved in the arrest and prosecution of Timothy McVeigh?

The US military is an all-volunteer army, so there is certainly no lack of volunteers to do dangerous things.

I don't see how the arrest of a suspect/criminal by different government agencies or officials would affect his basic rights. KSM was caught through a joint effort of ****stan's intelligence agency and the CIA.

Secondly, Bush's statements before Operation Enduring Freedom addressed to the Afghanistan and Taliban:

-- Deliver to United States authorities all of the leaders of Al Qaeda who hide in your land.
-- Release all foreign nationals, including American citizens you have unjustly imprisoned.
-- Protect foreign journalists, diplomats and aid workers in your country.
-- Close immediately and permanently every terrorist training camp in Afghanistan. And hand over every terrorist and every person and their support structure to appropriate authorities.
-- Give the United States full access to terrorist training camps, so we can make sure they are no longer operating.

shows explicitly an appreciation of international law, in that it 'politely' asks for extradition of suspects. (and moreover, before the invasion in Afghanistan, the US tried to rally support - which they received - to legitimize the subsequent invasion). The US has many extradition treaties with other countries. It is interesting to note then for example how the US appreciates Human Rights and especially the jus cogens prohibition on torture:

It shall be the policy of the United States not to expel, extradite, or otherwise effect the involuntary return of any person to a country in which there are substantial grounds for believing the person would be in danger of being subjected to torture, regardless of whether the person is physically present in the United States.SOURCE

It would be slightly hypocritical to not extradite US citizens to countries were they could face torture, whereas the US subsequently requests extraditions to commit acts of torture.

Obviously, a request for extradition is only made in order to pursue a legal path to prove the suspect's involvement in a criminal act or to convict the criminal for the crime he committed. Legal justice is sought after. Otherwise one might as well just shoot him on the spot when he is found in Afghanistan or when his extradition request leads to his arrival in the US.

It thus seems rather strange that initially a public request for extradition is made in order to hold suspects legally accountable, only to do a 360 and pervert all laws that protect these suspects after the invasion of Afghanistan.

 

[CentralCaliBike]

Just like the US police goes abroad to apprehend potential Canadian serial killers who could pose a threat to US citizens in the near future? Or just like the military was involved in the arrest and prosecution of Timothy McVeigh?

The US military is an all-volunteer army, so there is certainly no lack of volunteers to do dangerous things.

Completely different legal rules of engagement - US police are not going to be going up to Canada to arrest someone, they rely upon the Canadian police to do so (then we wait, sometimes for decades - Ng) to extradite. Do you really think that the Afghanistan police would have arrested KSM?

I don't see how the arrest of a suspect/criminal by different government agencies or officials would affect his basic rights. KSM was caught through a joint effort of ****stan's intelligence agency and the CIA.

Once a criminal has been arrested they have to be brought before a magistrate immediately (in California this means 48 hours, excluding weekends and holidays). At the court hearing the defendant has to be appointed an attorney. The defendant is entitled to a hearing within 10 court days (it does not matter if the witnesses are half way across the world). Failure in any of the above could result in dismissal of charges and/or release from custody.

 

[schopenhauer]

just like the us police goes abroad to apprehend potential canadian serial killers who could pose a threat to us citizens in the near future? Or just like the military was involved in the arrest and prosecution of timothy mcveigh?

The us military is an all-volunteer army, so there is certainly no lack of volunteers to do dangerous things.

I don't see how the arrest of a suspect/criminal by different government agencies or officials would affect his basic rights. Ksm was caught through a joint effort of ****stan's intelligence agency and the cia.

Secondly, bush's statements before operation enduring freedom addressed to the afghanistan and taliban:



Shows explicitly an appreciation of international law, in that it 'politely' asks for extradition of suspects. (and moreover, before the invasion in afghanistan, the us tried to rally support - which they received - to legitimize the subsequent invasion). The us has many extradition treaties with other countries. It is interesting to note then for example how the us appreciates human rights and especially the jus cogens prohibition on torture:



It would be slightly hypocritical to not extradite us citizens to countries were they could face torture, whereas the us subsequently requests extraditions to commit acts of torture.

Obviously, a request for extradition is only made in order to pursue a legal path to prove the suspect's involvement in a criminal act or to convict the criminal for the crime he committed. Legal justice is sought after. Otherwise one might as well just shoot him on the spot when he is found in afghanistan or when his extradition request leads to his arrival in the us.

It thus seems rather strange that initially a public request for extradition is made in order to hold suspects legally accountable, only to do a 360 and pervert all laws that protect these suspects after the invasion of afghanistan.

+1
-----------

 

[schopenhauer]

completely different legal rules of engagement - us police are not going to be going up to canada to arrest someone, they rely upon the canadian police to do so (then we wait, sometimes for decades - ng) to extradite. Do you really think that the afghanistan police would have arrested ksm?



Once a criminal has been arrested they have to be brought before a magistrate immediately (in california this means 48 hours, excluding weekends and holidays). At the court hearing the defendant has to be appointed an attorney. The defendant is entitled to a hearing within 10 court days (it does not matter if the witnesses are half way across the world). Failure in any of the above could result in dismissal of charges and/or release from custody.

+2
----------------

 

[Bala Verde]

Completely different legal rules of engagement - US police are not going to be going up to Canada to arrest someone, they rely upon the Canadian police to do so (then we wait, sometimes for decades - Ng) to extradite. Do you really think that the Afghanistan police would have arrested KSM?

Oh the painful wait to execute a criminal, the US must have suffered! To explain the long wait:

Ng was initially not extradited because he could face the death penalty, and Canada - having abolished the DP - was asked not to cooperate because it was alleged to violate its obligations under the 'right to life' provision. (see also Kindler v. Canada). Subsequently, when it was said not to violate Canada's obligations under the right to life provision, Ng charged that extradition would amount to cruel and inhuman punishment - prohibited under the anti-torture provision - since capital punishment would be delivered by asphyxiation. Extradition under that provision would amount to a violation of the anti-torture provision, because asphyxiation is supposed to be cruel and inhumane treatment. The US would also not extradite anyone who would face torture or inhuman and cruel treatment (see before).

Fortunately, US v Burns (2001) overturned both decisions in that it ruled that a state like Canada not only has a negative obligation to refrain from actively executing people, but also a positive obligation under the 'right to life' provision to prevent people from being executed elsewhere.

In any case, what do the rules of engagement have to do with the subsequent treatment of an arrested suspect?

Secondly, the arrest of KSM worked in cooperation with Pakistani officials. No need for military intervention or occupation.

Thirdly, if Canada had refused, would the US attack Canada?

Again, calling someone a terrorist is passing moral judgment to facilitate certain action, that would normally be considered unlawful. In this case, to facilitate military intervention because of 'terrorist' threats.

Once a criminal has been arrested they have to be brought before a magistrate immediately (in California this means 48 hours, excluding weekends and holidays). At the court hearing the defendant has to be appointed an attorney. The defendant is entitled to a hearing within 10 court days (it does not matter if the witnesses are half way across the world). Failure in any of the above could result in dismissal of charges and/or release from custody.

Then they better make sure they have the case properly thought out if they want to have him convicted for illegal or criminal acts. The US was well equipped to execute the (secret) extraordinary rendition program, and they could get a suspect interrogated and tortured anywhere in the world within 24 hours.

But seriously, the US, as any other country, has the right to derogate from certain provisions in the light of emergencies and threats to national security. There is a protocol that any country should follow to temporarily suspend certain (not all, amongst them torture and certain fair trial provisions) rights, which the US did not do. Its not even a complicated protocol.

Secondly, the response needs to be proportionate and reasonable. Indefinite detainment is not proportionate nor reasonable. If you want to build a case, go ahead, but to keep someone in prison for 8 years before even letting him know what the charges are, the denial of choice of own counsel, access to info, behind closed door proceedings, are neither. On top of that, the US is under the obligation to periodically review its derogations and present reasons to prolong the situation of derogation.

In reply to your ICJ 'bias' arguments, 2 out of 4 articles/arguments were identical, and inaccessible. A third article/argument only displayed the first page. Did you read what they said, what conclusions they came to and how, or did you just go by the title?

 

[CentralCaliBike]

Oh the painful wait to execute a criminal, the US must have suffered! To explain the long wait:

Ng was initially not extradited because he could face the death penalty, and Canada - having abolished the DP - was asked not to cooperate because it was alleged to violate its obligations under the 'right to life' provision. (see also Kindler v. Canada). Subsequently, when it was said not to violate Canada's obligations under the right to life provision, Ng charged that extradition would amount to cruel and inhuman punishment - prohibited under the anti-torture provision - since capital punishment would be delivered by asphyxiation. Extradition under that provision would amount to a violation of the anti-torture provision, because asphyxiation is supposed to be cruel and inhumane treatment. The US would also not extradite anyone who would face torture or inhuman and cruel treatment (see before).

As an aside - your definition of torture might change if you ever watched the Ng tapes (the ones he and his partner made while murdering a number of women).

In reply to your ICJ 'bias' arguments, 2 out of 4 articles/arguments were identical, and inaccessible. A third article/argument only displayed the first page. Did you read what they said, what conclusions they came to and how, or did you just go by the title?

It is tempting to question your abilities to navigate the internet and assimilate information. If you clicked on the links and actually read you might not have made a statement that anyone here would see is incorrect. The information was in abstract format but it left a clear statement of the research findings.

 

[auscyclefan94]

how dose this thread in the fricken CAFE get to 67 pages. thsi is a cycling forum and i thought you would be more enthused to post about cycling than Obama.

 

[CentralCaliBike]

how dose this thread in the fricken CAFE get to 67 pages. thsi is a cycling forum and i thought you would be more enthused to post about cycling than Obama.

If it was about cycling it would not be in the cafe

 

[auscyclefan94]

If it was about cycling it would not be in the cafe

i don't get wat your saying

I'm saying this is a cycling forum, with the cafe, you'd think people to pst in here every so often but for a thread in here in a CYCLING FORUM that amazes me

 

[badboyberty]

i don't get wat your saying

I'm saying this is a cycling forum, with the cafe, you'd think people to pst in here every so often but for a thread in here in a CYCLING FORUM that amazes me

...but it's the off season, now all we can do is have religious/political arguments and post pictures of unicorns. Beats talking about people dressed up as mustard bottles and skinny guys swimming with dolphins.

 

[auscyclefan94]

...but it's the off season, now all we can do is have religious/political arguments and post pictures of unicorns. Beats talking about people dressed up as mustard bottles and skinny guys swimming with dolphins.

i just find it funny though. i'm not having a go at anyone.