BN.com Gift Guide

Lawless World: America and the Making and Breaking of Global Rules from FDR's Atlantic Charter to George W. Bush's Illegal War

Overview

Sixty years ago, the United States and Great Britain spearheaded efforts to create a new world order based on international rules. Today these two nations are leading the charge to disregard the very global safeguards they once fought to establish. In this eye-opening book, international lawyer Philippe Sands explains why this radical policy shift has occurred and how it will affect twenty-first-century world politics.

Using the events of September 11 and the subsequent “war on ...

See more details below
Available through our Marketplace sellers.
Other sellers (Hardcover)
  • All (29) from $1.99   
  • New (2) from $10.00   
  • Used (27) from $1.99   
Close
Sort by
Page 1 of 1
Showing All
Note: Marketplace items are not eligible for any BN.com coupons and promotions
$10.00
Seller since 2011

Feedback rating:

(17)

Condition:

New — never opened or used in original packaging.

Like New — packaging may have been opened. A "Like New" item is suitable to give as a gift.

Very Good — may have minor signs of wear on packaging but item works perfectly and has no damage.

Good — item is in good condition but packaging may have signs of shelf wear/aging or torn packaging. All specific defects should be noted in the Comments section associated with each item.

Acceptable — item is in working order but may show signs of wear such as scratches or torn packaging. All specific defects should be noted in the Comments section associated with each item.

Used — An item that has been opened and may show signs of wear. All specific defects should be noted in the Comments section associated with each item.

Refurbished — A used item that has been renewed or updated and verified to be in proper working condition. Not necessarily completed by the original manufacturer.

New
New York, NY 2005 Hard cover First American ed., 1st Printing. New in new dust jacket. Sewn binding. Cloth over boards, index. 324 p. Audience: General/trade. Sixty years ago, ... the United States and Great Britain spearheaded efforts to create a new world order based on international rules. Today these two nations are leading the charge to disregard the very global safeguards they once fought to establish. In this eye-opening book, international lawyer Philippe Sands explains why this radical policy shift has occurred. Read more Show Less

Ships from: Lynchburg, VA

Usually ships in 1-2 business days

  • Canadian
  • International
  • Standard, 48 States
  • Standard (AK, HI)
  • Express, 48 States
  • Express (AK, HI)
$26.95
Seller since 2014

Feedback rating:

(5)

Condition: New
New first edition, first printing hardcover and dust jacket in excellent condition. Protective mylar cover. 1.2 x 9.78 x 6.38 Inches 352 pages Sixty years ago, the United ... States and Great Britain spearheaded efforts to create a new world order based on international rules. Today these two nations are leading the charge to disregard the very global safeguards they once fought to establish. In this eye-opening book, international lawyer Philippe Sands explains why this radical policy shift has occurred and how it will affect twenty-first-century world politics. <P> Using the events of September 11 and the subsequent "war on terror" as justification, the Bush administration has turned its back on many international agreements governing basic human rights, war, torture, the environment, and free trade, with Tony Blair often colluding. Focusing on watershed events such as the repudiation of the Kyoto Protocol and the abuses at Guant&#225;namo Bay and Abu Ghraib, Sands argues that the United States and Britain are undermining international law at the precise moment when it has become most essential. <P> Crisp, impassioned, and hard hitting, <I>Lawless World</I> is at once an expos&#233; and an indictment of a catastrophic realignment of the laws that govern international affairs. Read more Show Less

Ships from: Arlington, TX

Usually ships in 1-2 business days

  • Canadian
  • International
  • Standard, 48 States
  • Standard (AK, HI)
  • Express, 48 States
  • Express (AK, HI)
Page 1 of 1
Showing All
Close
Sort by
Sending request ...

Overview

Sixty years ago, the United States and Great Britain spearheaded efforts to create a new world order based on international rules. Today these two nations are leading the charge to disregard the very global safeguards they once fought to establish. In this eye-opening book, international lawyer Philippe Sands explains why this radical policy shift has occurred and how it will affect twenty-first-century world politics.

Using the events of September 11 and the subsequent “war on terror” as justification, the Bush administration has turned its back on many international agreements governing basic human rights, war, torture, the environment, and free trade, with Tony Blair often colluding. Focusing on watershed events such as the repudiation of the Kyoto Protocol and the abuses at Guantánamo Bay and Abu Ghraib, Sands argues that the United States and Britain are undermining international law at the precise moment when it has become most essential.

Crisp, impassioned, and hard hitting, Lawless World is at once an exposé and an indictment of a catastrophic realignment of the laws that govern international affairs.

Read More Show Less

Editorial Reviews

Publishers Weekly
Sands, a British international lawyer and law professor, delivers a cool, reasoned lashing to the Bush administration for leading-and to Tony Blair for colluding with-a "full-scale assault" on the international rule of law, in this richly detailed survey of modern international legal disputes. Since FDR and Churchill signed the Atlantic Charter after WWII, putting in place a rules-based system limiting the use of force, protecting human rights and promoting fair economic liberalization, the world has seen a transformation of international relations, Sands explains, most dramatically marked by Bush's decision to "go it alone." Tracking the current administration's "efforts to rewrite international law into irrelevance," Sands covers the Pinochet case, the creation of the International Criminal Court, U.S. abandonment of the Kyoto Protocol on global warming, the U.S.'s selectively multilateralist policy vis- -vis global free trade, and the "disgraces" of Guant namo, Iraq and Abu Ghraib. The author also presents a series of dense but lucidly written legal stories to illustrate how the Bush administration's unilateralism has had egregious consequences for 21st-century efforts to make the world safer, cleaner and more just. (Nov.) Copyright 2005 Reed Business Information.
Kirkus Reviews
Where were you when Pinochet was arrested and charged with genocide?If you are a part of the "select world of international law," writes London-based attorney Sands, then "October 16, 1998, is the closest you will get to a JFK or a John Lennon moment." The ailing Chilean dictator had traveled to London in the belief that he enjoyed diplomatic immunity, but the Spanish judge who ordered his arrest--thereby involving three sovereign nations--begged to differ. To trust Sands's account, Pinochet's arrest made dictators around the world sweat, to say nothing of enablers such as Henry Kissinger, who protested the British government's action. "What Kissinger really objects to--although he cannot bring himself to say it in so many words-is the loss of sovereign and executive power, and its subjection to the limits of law by an independent judiciary," Sands writes. So it is with the Bush administration, staffed by people such as John Bolton, who has declared that international treaties "are not legally binding," and Richard Haass, who advocated an "a la carte multilateralism" by which the U.S. could pick and choose which laws to obey. Ironically, Sands shows, much international law is fully within the spirit of the United Nations as envisioned by Roosevelt and Churchill, who seemed unworried about yielding power to international bodies; but Kissinger's fear has become an article of American faith, a blanket refusal to allow international courts to have jurisdiction over American citizens. Congress even passed a law allowing the president "to use all means necessary and appropriate" to free any American detained or imprisoned by the International Criminal Court, which presumably includes invadingthe Hague. Such lawlessness as the invasion of Iraq, the Abu Ghraib affair and the authorization of torture by subcontractors, Sands suggests, is therefore likely to go unpunished. Solid work. Those worried that the U.S. has become a rogue nation won't sleep any easier after reading this book.
Read More Show Less

Product Details

  • ISBN-13: 9780670034529
  • Publisher: Penguin Group (USA)
  • Publication date: 10/20/2005
  • Pages: 352
  • Product dimensions: 6.14 (w) x 9.30 (h) x 1.28 (d)

Meet the Author

Philippe Sands is an international lawyer, professor at University College London, and a practicing barrister. Sands has been involved in many of the recent high profile cases in the World Court and elsewhere, including representing the interests of the British detainees at Guantánamo and the efforts to extradite Augusto Pinochet to Spain. He has written for the Los Angeles Times and The Washington Post, taught at NYU and Boston College, and appears regularly on CNN and the BBC.

Read More Show Less

Read an Excerpt

Lawless World


By Philippe Sands

Viking Adult

ISBN: 0-670-03452-5


Chapter One

International Law: A Short and Recent History

The best defence of our security lies in the spread of our values. But we cannot advance these values except within a framework that recognizes their universality. If it is a global threat, it needs a global response, based on global rules. -Tony Blair, March 5, 2004

Although international law has a long history, it is only in recent years that it has emerged as a more regular feature of modern political life. Diplomatic immunities, genocide and other international crimes, trade wars, global warming, the detainees held at Guantánamo Bay, the war in Iraq, the abuses at Abu Ghraib prison, have brought the politics of international law into everyday life. This is particularly so in Britain, a middle-ranking power which relies on respect for international laws. In the weeks before the Iraq War in March 2003, British prime minister Tony Blair pledged his adherence to international rules: British troops would be committed to a war in Iraq only if international law allowed, and the conditions of any occupation would respect global rules. Blair had little option. He faced festering public disquiet about the treatment of British detainees at Guantánamo, the lack of respect for the Geneva Conventions, and his government's silence.

Tony Blair's public commitment was a necessary response to a growing concern that Britain was on the verge of a second Suez, using force with little international support and dubious legality. In 1956 Prime Minister Anthony Eden did not bother to seek an official opinion from his attorney general and overrode the objections of Sir Gerald Fitzmaurice, the senior legal adviser at the Foreign Office.

Eden chose instead to rely on the more supportive views of Professor Arthur Goodhart, former professor of jurisprudence at Oxford and master of University College, which had been set out in a letter to the London Times. Blair at least did consult with his attorney general, Lord Goldsmith QC, on several occasions, although it is not clear that he got the same advice on each occasion.

In March 2003 the government took the unprecedented step of publishing the attorney general's late-formed view that the use of military force did not require an explicit Security Council mandate. This unusual step was needed for political reasons: to address public and media concerns, to encourage wavering Labour MPs to vote for war, and to persuade Britain's chief of defence to commit troops. It may have succeeded on the latter two counts, but it failed in the court of public opinion: letters appeared in the press, and notable public figures weighed in on the illegality of the war. The attorney general's argument continues to be the subject of almost unprecedented media and parliamentary attention. Lord Alexander, a conservative and highly respected former head of the Bar Council of England and Wales, thought the attorney general's advice "risible" and said so publicly. Issues concerning the legality of the Iraq War will dog the reputation of the prime minister and his attorney general for years to come. Peter Hennessy, the British political commentator, described the issue as "the great faultline beneath the Blair premiership," which "syringed the trust out of the Prime Minister's office."

By December 2004 more than six hundred detainees were still held at Guantánamo Bay, including four Britons. Only a small number of these individuals had been charged before military commissions. Until the U.S. Supreme Court intervened in June 2004 to declare their right of access to U.S. federal courts, for more than two and a half years they had no access to legal representation, nor to any court of law or tribunal. Lord Steyn, a serving judge in Britain's highest court, the House of Lords, described detention under these conditions as a "stain on American justice," wholly contrary to international law. Steyn also called on the British government to do more to protect the international rights of its citizens. His intervention was unparalleled, a reflection of concern at the very highest levels of the British legal establishment. A few months later, in December 2004, the Judicial Committee of the House of Lords ruled that a law enacted after 9/11 permitting the indefinite detention without charge of nonnationals alleged to be involved in international terrorism was in clear violation of Britain's international treaty obligations.

In the United States there had been less public interest in the finer detail of the legality of the Iraq War or the conditions of detention at Guantánamo. That changed dramatically in March 2004, when the Western world's attention was focused on international rules by the publication of photographs depicting graphically the abuse of Iraqi and other Muslim detainees at Abu Ghraib prison in Baghdad. The Geneva Conventions became the subject of angry exchanges at hearings in the U.S. Senate. There followed the publication of a leaked Pentagon memorandum which appeared to authorize the use of torture, contrary to America's obligations under the 1984 Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment. Actions taken in the aftermath of 9/11 were now raising serious questions about American commitment to basic rules of international law, including human rights and the treatment of detainees. Do those events signal the abandonment by Britain and the United States of their commitment to the post-Second World War legal and institutional arrangements which they, more than any other countries, put in place? What does this say about the future of international law in the twenty-first century?

The British public has become accustomed to issues of international law affecting political discourse. This flows from membership in the European Community and obligations under the European Convention on Human Rights. Both international conventions have had a significant effect on British life. In the view of a sizable minority of the population, that effect gives rise to calls for withdrawal and the reclaiming of British sovereignty. But these international rules are seen as being in some way special, and not a part of the general rules of international law which have emerged since the Second World War.

The change in British public interest in international law dates back to October 1998, when I was at the University of London's School of Oriental and African Studies. My areas of focus included the environment-still a relatively new subject- and international courts and tribunals. International courts had been a very specialized topic but then began attracting greater attention with the impact of human rights courts (including the European Court of Human Rights) and the World Trade Organization's new system for resolving trade disputes. In July 1998 agreement had been reached on the creation of a permanent International Criminal Court. This attracted great attention in the media. I was maintaining a discrete practice as a barrister, specializing in international law. The field was of little practical interest to most of my colleagues in my barristers' chambers, many of whom maintained a polite but distant bemusement regarding this area of the law. Occasionally an international legal issue would break into public consciousness. There would be debate, for example, on sovereignty and whether or not some new EC treaty amendments should be ratified, or whether the new Labour government's proposal to incorporate the European Convention on Human Rights into English law would change Britain's constitutional order and further diminish its sovereignty. But the vast majority of the many developments in international law which had occurred since the 1940s were ignored. They were not subject to any real public scrutiny, either in Parliament or in the media.

Important international treaties were not even being discussed in cabinet: I remember watching Question Time on television one autumn evening in 1997 and being struck by the fact that Jack Straw, who was the home secretary at the time, had no knowledge of the controversial intergovernmental negotiations for a proposed new treaty which would regulate global investments (the so-called Multilateral Agreement on Investment, which collapsed later in 1998 in the face of objections from a coalition of governments and nongovernmental organizations [NGOs]). A cabinet minister later confirmed that this treaty, like most, was never discussed or even mentioned. International law was a tightly guarded secret, monopolized by a small elite of foreign offices and civil servants, a handful of transnational corporations and NGOs such as Amnesty International and Greenpeace, a small number of academics, and an even smaller number of lawyers in private practice.

Judging by media attention and dinner party chat, that situation has changed significantly over the past few years. To pinpoint a precise date for the change I would say October 16, 1998. This was the day on which the former president of Chile, Senator Augusto Pinochet, was arrested while recuperating in a private London clinic from back surgery. His arrest followed a request by Judge Baltasar Garzón, an independent Spanish criminal prosecutor, who was seeking Pinochet's extradition to Spain to face criminal charges for violating international laws between September 11, 1973, when he seized power from Salvador Allende in a coup d'état, and March 1990, when he relinquished Chile's presidency. The arrest was to raise a fundamental question of international law: Was Pinochet entitled to claim immunity from the jurisdiction of the English courts on the grounds that the alleged crimes were committed while he was Chile's head of state? Politically, the question was of vital importance because it signaled a move away from the old international legal order, which was essentially dedicated to the protection of good relations between states. During the legal proceedings which were held before various English courts over the next two years, obscure rules of international law moved into the mainstream of political and public debate. The rules, the judges, and the lawyers were scrutinized and discussed in the press, and the debate became a global one. From London to Santiago, from Kingston to Reykjavík, the media covered the case in the minutest detail. The courtrooms were packed with local and international journalists, and they had many questions. What rules of international law permitted Britain to exercise jurisdiction over a Chilean at the request of Spain? Where did the rules of international law come from? How were they enforced? How were they to be interpreted? What if different countries applied them differently? How did international law balance the interest of a sovereign state not to have its former head of state subjected to the indignity of criminal proceedings abroad with the interests of victims and the need to end impunity for the most serious international crimes?

The House of Lords' first judgment, on November 25, 1998, was broadcast live on the BBC and CNN and transmitted on radio broadcasts around the world, the first time this had ever happened. The following day the judgment led the front pages of virtually every newspaper in the world. It was a landmark day: under international law the former head of state of one country could not claim immunity from the jurisdiction of the courts of another country to avoid facing charges that he had committed the international crime of torture. In the end the decision of the House of Lords was based on a single treaty, the little-known (but now mightily important) 1984 Convention against Torture. The case gave rise to copycat litigation, new constraints on the actions of governments, and an unparalleled interest in international law. The 1984 convention became significant five years later in the controversies over the detention camps at Guantánamo Bay and Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq.

The Pinochet case was significant for another reason. It coincided with greater attention to other rules of international law which had been put in place over the past fifty years, and which increasingly (but silently) impacted on people's daily lives. Rules of international law which had been adopted since the end of the Second World War have provided the foundations for globalization. By the late 1990s there had been a sustained period of economic liberalization, and this was now marked by large demonstrations in Seattle and elsewhere against globalization and the rules of the new World Trade Organization. These, it was said, would prevent countries from applying their own health, environmental, and labor standards. They were a new form of colonialism. During the 1990s, following the collapse of the Soviet bloc and the end of the cold war, the international community created the new International Criminal Court (after fifty years of discussion) to end impunity for the most serious international crimes, including genocide and war crimes. It was during this period, in 1999, that President Milosflevic of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia became the first serving head of state to be indicted by an international criminal tribunal, in The Hague. But it was also a time when sharp disagreements emerged between states as to how far the rules of international law should go. Negotiations for a global agreement on foreign investments collapsed. The United States withdrew from the negotiations to prevent global warming, as well as from other international treaties and negotiations. In the aftermath of the 9/11 attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, attention was focused on the rules of international law to combat terrorism, as well as on the conditions of detention of prisoners at Guantánamo Bay and other camps in Afghanistan and Iraq. Throughout this period there was also sustained public debate on the continued validity and effectiveness of the rules prohibiting the use of armed force, which had been forged in the aftermath of the Second World War, and the adequacy of a United Nations organization also created in the aftermath of the Second World War. The events in the Balkans in 1992, Rwanda in 1994, the Great Lakes region in Africa since 1997, Kosovo in 1999, Afghanistan in 2001, and, most bitterly, in the spring of 2003 in Iraq raised serious questions about the adequacy of international rules to protect fundamental human rights and to use force in self-defense or under the aegis of the United Nations Security Council.

International rules are now frequently seen as providing an independent benchmark against which to assess the justification of behavior-and in particular the behavior of states-which is politically or morally contentious. When I first studied the subject in the early 1980s, taught by a diminutive and remarkable Yorkshireman named Robbie Jennings, who went on to become a judge at the International Court of Justice, international law was presented as a topic which only one or two of the three hundred students attending the international law lectures at Cambridge would ever come across in real life. We were taught that international law governs relations between states at the international level with little, if any, impact on citizens or on local issues.

Before the Second World War international rules had been minimal in content, and addressed only a small number of areas of human activity. The two main sources of international legal obligation were-and continue to be-treaties and customary law. But there were very few treaties, and the practice of states which gave rise to customary law was difficult to discern. Beyond the League of Nations and the International Labor Organization-both established in 1919 by the Treaty of Versailles, which brought the First World War to an end-there were almost no international organizations. Apart from the Central American Court of Justice, created in 1908, the first truly international court was the Permanent Court of International Justice in The Hague, related to the League of Nations. In 1927, in a dispute between France and Turkey, the court declared, without pause or embarrassment, that states were basically free to do anything that was not expressly prohibited by international law. This was a world of sovereign freedom, with few international rules to constrain the behavior of governments.

(Continues...)



Excerpted from Lawless World by Philippe Sands Excerpted by permission.
All rights reserved. No part of this excerpt may be reproduced or reprinted without permission in writing from the publisher.
Excerpts are provided by Dial-A-Book Inc. solely for the personal use of visitors to this web site.

Read More Show Less

Table of Contents

1 International law : a short and recent history 1
2 Pinochet in London 23
3 A new international court 46
4 Global warming : throwing precaution to the wind 69
5 Good trade, bad trade, cheap shrimp 95
6 A safer world, for investors 117
7 Guantanamo : the legal black hole 143
8 Kicking ass in Iraq 174
9 Terrorists and torturers 204
10 Tough guys and lawyers 223
App. I Atlantic charter (1941) 240
App. II Charter of the United Nations (1945) 242
App. III Universal declaration of human rights (1948) 246
App. IV Geneva convention III relative to the treatment of prisoners of war (1949) and Geneva protocol I (1977) 250
App. V Convention against torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment (1984) 257
App. VI Rome statute of the International Criminal Court (1998) 262
App. VII The North American Free Trade Agreement (1994) 272
App. VIII The agreement establishing the World Trade Organization (1994) 275
App. IX UN framework convention on climate change (1992) and the Kyoto Protocol (1997) 277
Read More Show Less

Customer Reviews

Be the first to write a review
( 0 )
Rating Distribution

5 Star

(0)

4 Star

(0)

3 Star

(0)

2 Star

(0)

1 Star

(0)

Your Rating:

Your Name: Create a Pen Name or

Barnes & Noble.com Review Rules

Our reader reviews allow you to share your comments on titles you liked, or didn't, with others. By submitting an online review, you are representing to Barnes & Noble.com that all information contained in your review is original and accurate in all respects, and that the submission of such content by you and the posting of such content by Barnes & Noble.com does not and will not violate the rights of any third party. Please follow the rules below to help ensure that your review can be posted.

Reviews by Our Customers Under the Age of 13

We highly value and respect everyone's opinion concerning the titles we offer. However, we cannot allow persons under the age of 13 to have accounts at BN.com or to post customer reviews. Please see our Terms of Use for more details.

What to exclude from your review:

Please do not write about reviews, commentary, or information posted on the product page. If you see any errors in the information on the product page, please send us an email.

Reviews should not contain any of the following:

  • - HTML tags, profanity, obscenities, vulgarities, or comments that defame anyone
  • - Time-sensitive information such as tour dates, signings, lectures, etc.
  • - Single-word reviews. Other people will read your review to discover why you liked or didn't like the title. Be descriptive.
  • - Comments focusing on the author or that may ruin the ending for others
  • - Phone numbers, addresses, URLs
  • - Pricing and availability information or alternative ordering information
  • - Advertisements or commercial solicitation

Reminder:

  • - By submitting a review, you grant to Barnes & Noble.com and its sublicensees the royalty-free, perpetual, irrevocable right and license to use the review in accordance with the Barnes & Noble.com Terms of Use.
  • - Barnes & Noble.com reserves the right not to post any review -- particularly those that do not follow the terms and conditions of these Rules. Barnes & Noble.com also reserves the right to remove any review at any time without notice.
  • - See Terms of Use for other conditions and disclaimers.
Search for Products You'd Like to Recommend

Recommend other products that relate to your review. Just search for them below and share!

Create a Pen Name

Your Pen Name is your unique identity on BN.com. It will appear on the reviews you write and other website activities. Your Pen Name cannot be edited, changed or deleted once submitted.

 
Your Pen Name can be any combination of alphanumeric characters (plus - and _), and must be at least two characters long.

Continue Anonymously
Sort by: Showing 1 Customer Reviews
  • Anonymous

    Posted July 13, 2005

    Shows how the attack on Iraq was illegal

    Philippe Sands, a Professor of Law at University College London, has written a book that should have affected how we voted in the general election. How could we have voted to re-elect as Prime Minister a man who should be tried and sentenced for the war crime of waging an illegal war of aggression? Sands opens with a brief introduction to the story of international law since 1945. He then looks at the Pinochet case, the creation of the International Criminal Court in 1998, the Kyoto Protocol, the rules imposing global free trade and protecting overseas investments, `the utter lawlessness at Guantánamo Bay¿ (as Lord Steyn, the law lord, rightly called it), the illegal attack on Iraq, and the systematic torture carried out under US government orders at Abu Ghraib and other torture chambers. Sands shows how capitalism uses international law as cover for what it wants to do - invade and threaten other countries, and protect companies¿ investments by overriding the national independence and sovereignty of countries protecting their industries, services and people. But the UN Charter, with its strong defence of peace between sovereign nations, does not suit capitalism¿s interests. So the Bush administration is trying to create a new legal regime allowing the US state to do exactly what it wants. A group of international lawyers, including Professor Sands, wrote to Blair in March 2003 saying, ¿There is no justification under international law for the use of military force against Iraq. ¿ Neither Security Council resolution 1441 nor any prior resolution authorizes the proposed use of force in the present circumstances.¿ Sir Jeremy Greenstock, Britain¿s Representative to the UN, stated of 1441, ¿There is no `automaticity¿ in this Resolution.¿ Even John Negroponte, the US Representative to the UN, said it contained no `hidden triggers¿. Nor did a summation of resolutions 660, 678, 687 and 1441 authorise the attack on Iraq, despite Jack Straw¿s claims. Iraq had attacked nobody and threatened nobody. It possessed no WMD, as Bush and Blair knew from what their intelligence services, the UN, the IAEA, Mossad and Iraqi defectors had been telling them for years. Blair, Straw and Hoon should all be facing trial on charges of criminal conspiracy to commit aggression, not facing the electorate.

    Was this review helpful? Yes  No   Report this review
Sort by: Showing 1 Customer Reviews

If you find inappropriate content, please report it to Barnes & Noble
Why is this product inappropriate?
Comments (optional)