They Always Get Their Man

Cohen: Despite No Mention Of Victims, Bodies Or American Targets, A Jury Speedily Convicted Jose Padilla

(CBS)  Attorney Andrew Cohen analyzes legal issues for CBS News and CBSNews.com.

---

The government today got what it wanted and fought so relentlessly to achieve when a federal jury convicted former "dirty bomb" suspect Jose Padilla of participating with two other men in a terror conspiracy in the years before the Twin Towers fell. Now, after five years of tortuous legal wrangling and dubious constitutional maneuvers, the feds can at last claim victory in their long-running tango with the man who was first introduced to us on television in 2002 as the "face of terror."

All three defendants, Padilla and his two confederates, Adham Amin Hassoun and Kifah Wael Jayyousi, were convicted of all three charges against them and each now faces the possibility of spending the rest of their lives in federal prison, probably the Supermax facility in Colorado which seems to house the most sinister terror suspects our country has been able to convict over the years. They certainly can and will appeal these verdicts but their chances of winning on appeal are as slim as were the odds that the feds were going to allow any of these guys to walk out of court had they been acquitted.

With stunning speed — they deliberated for less than a day and a half after a trial that lasted three months and involved three defendants and mountains of complex evidence — the seven men and five women of the jury signaled definitively that they believe the narrative federal prosecutors had offered them in bits and pieces and through evidence that was not nearly as strong as expected: The trio walked and talked like terrorists during the 1990s, tied themselves to terror-related causes, and otherwise found themselves in the wrong places, like Afghanistan, at the wrong time — when Osama bin Laden was hanging out there with a nascent al Qaeda.

It apparently did not matter to these jurors that none of the facts alleged against the defendants took place after Sept. 11, 2001 (or at all during the 21st century), and that no people were ever murdered or injured as a result of any of the conversations that took place between the conspirators. In fact, no specific people ever were mentioned as possible targets — certainly not any Americans here at home. It was a case without victims or bodies.

It was a case without a specific target. It was a case from the 1990s that was tried more than a decade later — and yet tried with stunning success.

Jurors learned that of the more than 300,000 intercepted telephone conversations reviewed by federal authorities, only seven involved any conversations between Padilla and the other men. They convicted him anyway. They learned that the feds never thought enough of the trio to indict and prosecute them before 2000, when the surveillance ended. They convicted them anyway. They learned that there were questions about the validity of the terror camp application form that Padilla was said to have signed — the clearest proof that he actually attended the training camps. They convicted him anyway.

While fairly noble and not entirely illogical, the defense theme — don't let prosecutors force you to look at pre-9/11 conduct through the lens of the post-9/11 present — was an abysmal failure in the eyes of these jurors. They didn't want to hear explanations about context and perspective. They were not interested in nuances.

You knew the men were in trouble when during closings arguments, one of the defense attorneys had to explain to jurors how they should interpret the laughter one of the defendants displayed during one of the wiretapped phone calls. If you are focusing upon such little battles at the end of the case, chances are you are going to lose the war.

And when you try to convince a group of Americans that three zealous Muslim men were essentially forming their own little version of the Red Cross — or the Red Crescent — to fight against infidels overseas, it's usually going to end as badly as it did for these defendants.

Few people who have followed this case closely were surprised by the guilty verdict. But almost everyone was shocked at the speed with which jurors were willing to end this long, hard-fought, often-nasty trial.

The verdicts mean that government tribunes now can declare that three dangerous criminals have been taken off the streets — having become dangerous in 2004 when they weren't in 2000 — and that the ranks of the terrorists have been thus depleted. The feds no longer have to figure out creative and extrajudicial ways to put Padilla on ice; they no longer have to apologize for bringing such a paltry case against the man after having raised him to up terror star status when they rushed onto the airwaves back in 2002 to label him a "dirty bomber."

What is the lesson in all of this? It depends entirely upon your point of view. For me, these verdicts are a reminder that the government usually gets its man, by hook or by crook, and that the feds were banking on precisely this sort of a sympathetic jury when they changed from Padilla Plan A (hold him as an "enemy combatant" until someone told them they couldn't) to Padilla Plan B (bootstrap him to an existing, low-level terror cell case that never would have made headlines otherwise). It's good to the be King; good to be able to figure out a detour around a road block raised by the Constitution; good to have options against men who have none.

So now Padilla, finally, will go away, this time probably for good. But his legal legacy will last long after people forget who he is or what he did (or, more accurately, what he did not do). He is a dirty bomber who never bombed, a conspirator who only rarely conspired, a terror supporter whose support was so minimal that it never worried law enforcement officials at the time he was offering it.

The government got its man, a fellow the evidence suggested was more "slow" than a "star." The only judgment left is whether, in the end, it all was worth the effort.

[cbs_oliver]

I think that the jury found it more convenient and more safe to endorse the government''s narrative than the defenses narrative.

One or more of the jury would likely have had their personal life destroyed or maybe even been killed if they had failed to convict Padilla.

They must have thought about this - privately at least.

I would not be suprised if a review of the jury selection process showed they were screened to be compliant and easily intimidated.

Even otherwise brave people might quake and break at the prospect of being a target of right wing rage.

[secundus2]

Cohen would like to substitute his judgment for that of the jurors. Perhaps we ought to have trial-by-newspaper-columnist instead of trial by jury in the US constitution. We don''t. Cohen is not some sort of superior being endowed with the authority to overturn jury verdicts when he finds them disagreeable because jurors are such poor slobs in his lofty view. This is mere arrogance, and his aim is to promote distrust of constitutional norms. Padilla will surely have his appeals

[creeper00]

Mr. Cohen,

What else would you expect from the "Justice" Department of an administration that disregarded alarms raised by two regional FBI offices in the months before 9/11?

The rules changed on 9/11 and they''re now being applied retroactively to Padilla. It''s a shame they''re not also being applied to the higher-ups at the FBI who ignored the warnings.

[yohnvilson]

You''re right. Analysis should never be written by people who disagree with what happened. Who does he think he is, drawing his own conclusions from a case he watched all along?

[rafterman1]

===Cohen is not some sort of superior being endowed with the authority to overturn jury verdicts when he finds them disagreeable because jurors are such poor slobs in his lofty view. This is mere arrogance, and his aim is to promote distrust of constitutional norms.===

Wow, I was thing the exact same thing of Bush when he pardoned Libby.

[sharncedar]

Prosecutors and judges in this country can convict the tooth fairy. They can get any verdict they want out of any jury - the jury is systematically cowed by a sequence of limitations and intimidations and becomes absolutely pliable. There are many systems in place to create unresisting juries, if you even notice during jury selection they take the poorest, most pliant and fearful of authority kind of people. These people are putty in the hands of a judge, who appears like some awesome authority figure.

There are only two places in modern America in which vestiges of democracy remain - the elections of government and the jury. Thus these are the places where the sick, greedy freaks who run our society invest a whole lot of coercion and deceit.

[libsluvsuvs]

Per Cohen and the liberal masses, Padilla should be instead be shown some compassion and understanding.
DO THEY REALLY CARE???

[libsluvsuvs]

Hey why worry..lets just listen to the enligthened liberals..if we get attacked..blame bush..if we dont get attacked blame bush..if we have a nice day blame bush..

how can you win with that logic.

[oakishpines]

'' ... the u.s. civil war was a wierd ironiy, a civil war fought to save the slaves of a few folk that invested all their money to be treated to non-charity and all their votes so as to be treated to taxation at gunpoint ... they should have chased through gardens and criticised naked lazy ignorant profane blemished kids to screaming and crying and behaving and danced get well feed world songs and medical you are here map song dance skit kits rallied around the sick beds drifting th e tens millions spore bloome weed dragon trail fikle first aid lunch farm cottage studio trail groups ... ''

'' ... eternal story boards swimming in oceans of eternal story boards ... ''

'' ... god is a bunch of three year old girls that give their bombs to men to tax the world and save all the girls ... ''

'' ... there should be tens millions front pages and busses in the world, but only three hundred people to populate them all, just teasing ... there should be only tens millions to populate them, just teasing again ... ''

[hiddenhorse]

Who were the jurors?
Who was the judge?
Who were the prosecutors?

We need to get them off the streets and out of office.

They are sick, dangerous, mentally ill people clinging to each other and their depraved thoughts. What is not obvious about that?

[rafterman1]

===Per Cohen and the liberal masses, Padilla should be instead be shown some compassion and understanding===

I don''t give a s h i t about Padilla, but I do care about the sanctity of our judicial system. I do not want America''s judicial system to become another banana republic where verdicts are predetermined by the government.

Cohen understanding of the law, shows he should go back to law school. What a waste!

[taddles-2009]

"Cohen understanding of the law, shows he should go back to law school. What a waste!
Posted by KEITHGARDNER at 11:09 PM : Aug 16, 2007"


Says a 4th grade moron who''s understanding of the law is non-existent at best. Nothing like the commentary of right wing idiots and Bush a$$ licking pi$$ boys to really square the details.

[fascistusa]

Always get their man...

Unless he''s on dialysis.

Living in a cave.

Or ALREADY DEAD FOR THE PAST 3 YEARS...

ZEITGEISTmovie.com

[gleather1]

Mr. Cohen seems to be a great supporter of those like Padilla. I''ve read about the Padilla case and it seems to me that there certainly was evidence that he was conspiring to commit crimes. Mr. Cohen''s article makes this sound like the guy is just a loyal American railroaded by the government and wrongly convicted. He also evidently doesn''t fully understand that conspiracy is, in fact, a crime. Mr. Cohen''s headline caption "Cohen: Despite No Mention Of Victims, Bodies Or American Targets, A Jury Speedily Convicted Jose Padilla" is misleading. Padilla was, in fact, involved with plots to kill people. Does Mr. Cohen wish to turn Padilla loose and wait until he commits the crimes he conspired to carry out? I''m not sure who poses the greatest danger to our country here; i.e., Padilla or Cohen.

[mcvet]

Does Mr. Cohen wish to turn Padilla loose and wait until he commits the crimes he conspired to carry out? I''''m not sure who poses the greatest danger to our country here; i.e., Padilla or Cohen.


Posted by gleather1 at 05:53 AM : Aug 17, 2007

Huh?? Take the Swastika Off and read it again Sparky. You are so cold blood fascist you can''t see anything. The Man CLEARLY says and says it as loudly as it can be said, that OUR justice System is broken. If we do NOT trash this Southern Fascism we have hanging over us, we will become no better than those we profess to be better than. We MUST maintain our Constitution and it''s protections!! We MUST assure EVERY accused person is given a FAIR and impartial trial... otherwise lets just give the Police hooda and sheets... let''s just give up to the Fascist view of life. Sieg Heil Y''all.

[drinuk]

At least they held a trial, blowing their heads off prior to lining the pockets of several law firms would have been more prudent and in keeping with the current administrations mindset.

[ozonmojo]

More than half of the strength and tenacity of the Jihadists is Americans like Cohen,who are no doubt absolutely patriotic but have to make a living out of journalism.

[mimi611]

Maybe when it''s your sorry a.. they railroad, you will view the terrorist Bush a little differently.

[godseyesore-2009]

Read my lips, bush legacy continues and will bite us all...even blind republicans who kiss his big lying stuttering lips.

[mygramma]

Cohen is absolutely right. These men were railroaded and the integrity of our judicial system further eroded by unethical right wing federal prosecutors who can now take their defeat of principles of justice to a career in a lucrative law firm.

Like Rafterman1 I don''t give a crappola about Padilla, but I care a great deal about the rule of law. We are in big trouble when morons like Bush and his cronies can undermine the basic principles for which this country once stood tall and proud.

[gladetryst]

It''s not all right-wingers, left-wing people certainly aren''t above using government detours to get their way. Both parties just want power.

But I agree that justice is being eroded surprisingly quickly. A bit alarming really.

[cbs_oliver]

It would be an interesting research project to interview neighbors of the jury members and find out what they say they think about the verdict and how they say they would have felt if the verdict had been different.

It would be interesting to do the same for the OJ Simpson jury and a jury in the South for a KKK killing from the sixties or fifties.

[clestes-2009]

This travesty should go to the Supreme Court. these guys were no threat. The CIA itself said so in 2000. What happened to change these bumblers into skilled terrorist?

[random_radar]

This case is important because if the government can get this conviction, they can get any of us for anything. I guess its time for all of us to stop saying anything unless we want to spend the rest of our lives in the Supermax in Colorado.

[mudrose-2009]

This case is important because if the government can get this conviction, they can get any of us for anything. I guess its time for all of us to stop saying anything unless we want to spend the rest of our lives in the Supermax in Colorado.
Posted by random_radar

Then don''t talk terror.

[mudrose-2009]

Like Rafterman1 I don''''t give a crappola about Padilla, but I care a great deal about the rule of law. We are in big trouble when morons like Bush and his cronies can undermine the basic principles for which this country once stood tall and proud.
Posted by mygramma

Bush and Co. are not undermining the rule of law at all. The grant of executive power gives the president the right to conduct wireless surveillance without a warrant, despite FISA. Up and until FISA became a statute, which was Congress''s way of limiting the executive power of the President in 1978, and Lord only knows why they would do that with Carter in place since he was such a ***, any President could conduct wireless surveillance without a court order. Even the Courts today will attest that FISA still takes a back seat to Executive Power. This right was granted to the executive in Article II, Section I of the Constitution. So Bush is not and has not be in violation of the rule of law, which is the Constitution. You have been misinformed.

[notblue]

Twelve jurors thought they were a threat. What would all you leftwing losers say if this guy and his cohorts were able to carry out the death and destruction they were planning? Probably how the hated Bush and his Administration failed to stop them, that''s the mentality of the left in this country!

[mudrose-2009]

Read my lips, bush legacy continues and will bite us all...even blind republicans who kiss his big lying stuttering lips.
Posted by godseyesore

I say we toss you along with Padilla in the clinker and for good measure leave a dirty bomb there too.

[secundus2]

Two brief responses:

Federal prosecutors and judges don''t convict; juries convict. Federal prosecutors sometimes lose, as they did in the terror case of al-Arian, who pleaded guilty to one charge in order to avoid re-trial.

Any president has constitutional authority to grant pardons (which most have used unwisely, but that'' just my political opinion); Mr. Cohenon the other hand, has no authority constitutional or otherwise, nobody voted for him for any office and his opinions carry no responsibility or consequences with them. Why doesn''t he file an *amicus* brief
in the Padilla appeal and give up his lucrative, publicity-seeking job at CBS? If he is so certain that justice miscarried in this case, he could work on Padilla''s appeal *pro bono.* The fact is he is a newspaper hack trying to stir up disrtrust of the jury system in terror cases, but he doesn''t like military tribunals either.

[libsluvsuvs]

"It apparently did not matter to these jurors that none of the facts alleged against the defendants took place after Sept. 11, 2001 (or at all during the 21st century), and that no people were ever murdered or injured as a result of any of the conversations that took place between the conspirators. In fact, no specific people ever were mentioned as possible targets %u2014 certainly not any Americans here at home. It was a case without victims or bodies."

the typical REACTIVE MINDSET...after the all-so-real incident on 9/11. do you think we can still maintin such a mindset. What happened to Padilla should set as a example on how to be PROACTIVE. it is a fact that our enemies has a very UNCONVENTIONAL METHODS..that they ARE HERE LIVING AMONGST US..that they are in here with one and one INTENT AND THAT IS TO CAUSE ENOUGH MAYHEM AND INCONVIENIENCE ON THE POPULACE TO SWAY PUBLIC OPINION TO THIER OWN ADVANTAGE..and they will USE AND ABUSE and HIDE behind freedoms and rights BESTOWED upon LAW ABIDING AMERICAN CITIZENS.

[perception5]

Americans would like to know if the Democrats and the ACLU plan on submitting an "appeal" of this convicted terrorist?

[one_american]

Attorney Andrew Cohen - Defender of Terrorists.

Just when I think you can''t get any sleazier, you jump the shark. Again.

[rafterman1]

===The grant of executive power gives the president the right to conduct wireless surveillance without a warrant, despite FISA.===

No, it doesn''t. It is in violation of both the written Constitution and the spirit of it.

The real travesty of this is, not the actual prosecution itself, which was done right, but the three years leading up to it, when Padilla, a US citizen, was locked up at Guantanamo, tortured and with no charges. So now what? We have a legal prosecution, but we tell him the three years of illegal detention before that don''t count, enjoy life in prision? That isn''t the America I used to know before the neocons infected it.

Padilla was a US citizen, yet disappeared for three years. So, what''s to stop Bush from doing this to someone who isn''t a Muslim? Nothing, that''s what. Slippery slope, slippery slope...

[wogerwabbit]

"it is a fact that our enemies has a very UNCONVENTIONAL METHODS..that they ARE HERE LIVING AMONGST US"

indeed... they''re called neocons

[one_american]

Maybe if Jose Padilla were sentanced to house arrest, and ordered to live with Andrew Cohen, who would have to take responsibility for him - would Cohen grow to understand just how flawed his thinking is?

Think about it, Andrew. You apparently have no qualms about loosing criminal minds, even would-be terrorists with the intent to kill onto the general public - how about a taste of your own medicine?

[rafterman1]

===Maybe if Jose Padilla were sentanced to house arrest, and ordered to live with Andrew Cohen, who would have to take responsibility for him===

Why is it that every time a liberal expresses concern for the sanctity of our democracy, you neocons manage to turn it into loving the enemy? In case you didn''t get it the other 50 times it was mentioned, I''ll say it again. We are not concerned with Padilla or his feeling or his "cause". We only care about how our system works and is it Constitutional, both in the letter of the law and in spirit. The ends never justify the means.

[fryedbread]

It''s sad when a victory for our government comes with a loss for Justice.

Where do we live?

[mudrose-2009]

===The grant of executive power gives the president the right to conduct wireless surveillance without a warrant, despite FISA.===

No, it doesn''''t. It is in violation of both the written Constitution and the spirit of it.

Padilla was a US citizen, yet disappeared for three years. So, what''''s to stop Bush from doing this to someone who isn''''t a Muslim? Nothing, that''''s what. Slippery slope, slippery slope...

Posted by Rafterman1
Part I
It is an exclusive presidential prerogative vested in the president by Article II, Section 1 of the Constitution. And, for constitutional purposes, the joint resolution that passed with but a single dissenting vote by Congress on Sept. 14, 2001, was "the equivalent of a formal declaration of war". Section 1811 of the FISA statute recognizes that during a period of authorized war the president must have some authority to engage in electronic surveillance "without a court order," ultimately the test being whether the legitimate government interest involved in discovering and preventing new terrorist attacks that may endanger tens of thousands of American lives outweighs the privacy interests of individuals who are communicating with al Qaeda terrorists.

[mudrose-2009]

Part II

During the course of our travels on airplanes and trains, people have accepted intrusive government searches of their luggage and person without the slightest showing of probable cause. People in the streets of our cities use cell phones to communicate with each other and we don%u2019t have to try very hard to hear some segment of their private lives unfolding in the public square.

It is not the President, but Congress that is trampling on the rule of law first, by creating the FISA statute which attempts to reduce the president''s constitutional authority, and secondly, by inserting judges into the intelligence-gathering business where they do not belong. Even the courts have acknowledged that "the president does have the authority" and "FISA cannot encroach" on the president''s constitutional power. Every modern president and every court of appeals that has considered this issue has upheld the independent power of the president to collect foreign intelligence without a warrant. Please keep this in mind next time you hear Congress telling you that they are protecting our rights. They aren''t. Nor are they protecting our national security either.

[libsluvsuvs]

Why is it that every time a liberal expresses concern for the sanctity of our democracy, you neocons manage to turn it into loving the enemy? In case you didn''''t get it the other 50 times it was mentioned, I''''ll say it again. We are not concerned with Padilla or his feeling or his "cause". We only care about how our system works and is it Constitutional, both in the letter of the law and in spirit. The ends never justify the means.

Posted by Rafterman1 at 01:35 PM : Aug 17, 2007
+ report abuse

******
As far as I am concerned the system DID work. He was found guilty by a JURY SYSTEM. What else do you need?? he was placed in a process and he was found guilty....maybe you should re-think your cause because you are slowly wandering off it. Padilla was hoping to get off using a technicality...pretty much the OJ Simpson episode. A very dangerous man with a very dangerous plan is removed.

[mudrose-2009]

It''''s sad when a victory for our government comes with a loss for Justice.

Where do we live? That''s quite a warped statement.
Posted by fryedbread

[rafterman1]

===As far as I am concerned the system DID work. He was found guilty by a JURY SYSTEM. What else do you need??===

I need to know why the f*ck the government didn''t do this in the first place instead of making him disappear without rights for three years. That''s what I need. Again, Padilla is an AMERICAN CITIZEN. He may have gotten what he deserved in the end. But he did not get due process.

[rafterman1]

===was "the equivalent of a formal declaration of war".===

No, it was not. Neocons think it is (and Bushie likes to think he''s a "wartime" president), but we have not had a formal declaration of war since December 8th 1941. Bushie is trying to grab power that does not belong to him. The Constitution does not work with "equivilents" and "maybes" and "sort of like".

[tburzio]

Check the precedents set by President Lincoln, where you find members of Congress and the Press arrested, and you will see that current rules are as light as a feather in comparison. Yes, the President has the right to arrest people without trial, even when not granted this power by the Congress. The Constitution is not a suicide pact.

[mudrose-2009]

===was "the equivalent of a formal declaration of war".===

No, it was not. Neocons think it is (and Bushie likes to think he''''s a "wartime" president), but we have not had a formal declaration of war since December 8th 1941. Bushie is trying to grab power that does not belong to him. The Constitution does not work with "equivilents" and "maybes" and "sort of like".

Posted by Rafterman1

What''s it take for you to get the point here a building to fall on your *** head. The Constitution, ya know that instrument you so knowingly and ignorantly like to interpret, does give him the right as Commander in Chief. You can deny it all you want. You can say that the war authorization given him by Congress was not a war aughorization and you can deny it until you are blue in the face. But it is well within his executive power. For nearly 200 years it was understood by all three branches of government that the grant of "executive power" to the president included control over intelligence gathering, especially in "wartime". It is an exclusive presidential prerogative vested in the president by Article II, Section 1 of the Constitution. Get a life or get yourself a Constitutional Lawyer to interpret that which you don''t understand. Sheesh!

[rafterman1]

Mudrose, it is not the president''s right to LOCK UP AMERICAN CITIZENS FOR THREE YEARS WITHOUT CHARGES.

And what, so you are a constitutional lawyer? No, I didn''t think so. Hilarious that you would play that card, coming from the idiot who thought earlier because you saw the word "socialist" in Nazi National Socialists, that made Hitler left wing. Hilarious getting a lecture from you about not understanding something.

[mudrose-2009]

Mudrose, it is not the president''''s right to LOCK UP AMERICAN CITIZENS FOR THREE YEARS WITHOUT CHARGES.

And what, so you are a constitutional lawyer? No, I didn''''t think so. Hilarious that you would play that card, coming from the idiot who thought earlier because you saw the word "socialist" in Nazi National Socialists, that made Hitler left wing. Hilarious getting a lecture from you about not understanding something.

Posted by Rafterman1

No point in speaking to a brick wall. Enjoy yourself and your fantasies.

[libsluvsuvs]

===As far as I am concerned the system DID work. He was found guilty by a JURY SYSTEM. What else do you need??===

I need to know why the f*ck the government didn''''t do this in the first place instead of making him disappear without rights for three years. That''''s what I need. Again, Padilla is an AMERICAN CITIZEN. He may have gotten what he deserved in the end. But he did not get due process.


Posted by Rafterman1 at 01:55 PM : Aug 17, 2007
+ report abuse

*******

Mr. Rafterman..by your cyber name it seems like you watched or played enough war games in your lifetime to know the tactical importance of detaining padilla. (dont get too cocky with the time "it took" in here..hell it takes me 4 hours just to register my car at the DMV..dont ask too much from the govt.) I am sure that he was interrogated and squeeze for all the information that he has.(how do you think we get intel on our enemies??send them questionaires and a return stamped envelope?) AGAIN, I AM FU*KING TELLING YOU..HE IS AN ENEMY COMBATANT...AN ENEMY COMBATANT..AN ENEMY COMBATANT AND NOT A CURIOUS LITTLE GANGBANGER WHO JUST HAPPEN TO BE IN THE WRONG PLACE IN THE WRONG TIME. You are using the wrong people to defend. You are using the wrong situations to express your concerns about your day to day legal matters.
So when we get osama, are you going to ask a speedy trial for him?? get Johnny Chochran??

[libsluvsuvs]

I guess you have to give up your rights in order to be free.
And we cannot have peace without war.
War is peace
Tyranny is freedom.

Got it, thanks!

Posted by johndevinejr at 03:55 PM : Aug 17, 2007
+ report abuse

*****
well the day you betray your country by aiding the enemy to destroy my arse IS THE YOU PRETTY MUCH WAIVED YOUR RIGHTS...AND TRUST ME..PADILLA DID NOT DO IT FOR YOU TO BE FREE..

If you want a world without war and an everlasting flow of peace..then brother you are in the wrong plant with the wrong kind of species..best you stick with smoking your dope, be happy and listen to john lennon all day.