JONATHAN TURLEY
BIOGRAPHICAL INFORMATION
Professor Jonathan Turley is a nationally recognized legal scholar who has written extensively in areas ranging from constitutional law to legal theory to tort law. He has written over three dozen academic articles that have appeared in a variety of leading law journals at Cornell, Duke, Georgetown, Harvard, Northwestern, University of Chicago, and other schools.
After a stint at Tulane Law School, Professor Turley joined the George Washington faculty in 1990 and, in 1998, was given the prestigious Shapiro Chair for Public Interest Law, the youngest chaired professor in the school’s history. In addition to his extensive publications, Professor Turley has served as counsel in some of the most notable cases in the last two decades including the representation of whistleblowers, military personnel, judges, members of Congress, and a wide range of other clients. He is also one of the few attorneys to successfully challenge both a federal and a state law — leading to courts striking down the federal Elizabeth Morgan law as well as the state criminalization of cohabitation.
In 2010, Professor Turley represented Judge G. Thomas Porteous in his impeachment trial. After a trial before the Senate, Professor Turley (on December 7, 2010) argued both the motions and gave the final argument to all 100 U.S. Senators from the well of the Senate floor — only the 14th time in history of the country that such a trial of a judge has reached the Senate floor. Judge Porteous was convicted of four articles of impeachments, including the acceptance of $2000 from an attorney and using a false name on a bankruptcy filing.
In 2011, Professor Turley filed a challenge to the Libyan War on behalf of ten members of Congress, including Representatives Roscoe Bartlett (R., Md); Dan Burton (R., Ind.); Mike Capuano (D., Mass.); Howard Coble (R., N.C.); John Conyers (D., Mich.); John J. Duncan (R., Tenn.); Tim Johnson (R., Ill.); Walter Jones (R., N.C.); Dennis Kucinich (D., Ohio); and Ron Paul (R., Tx). The lawsuit was before the United States District Court for the District of Columbia.
In November 2014, Turley agreed to serve as lead counsel to the United States House of Representatives in its constitutional challenge to changes ordered by President Obama to the Affordable Care Act. The litigation was approved by the House of Representatives to seek judicial review of the claims under the separation of powers. On May 12, 2016, the federal court handed down a historic victory for the House and ruled that the Obama Administration violated the separation of powers in ordering billions to be paid to insurance companies without an appropriation of Congress.
Other cases include his representation of the Area 51 workers at a secret air base in Nevada; the nuclear couriers at Oak Ridge, Tennessee; the Rocky Flats grand jury in Colorado; Dr. Eric Foretich, the husband in the famous Elizabeth Morgan custody controversy; and four former United States Attorneys General during the Clinton impeachment litigation. In the Foretich case, Turley succeeded recently in reversing a trial court and striking down a federal statute through a rare “bill of attainder” challenge. Professor Turley has also served as counsel in a variety of national security cases, including espionage cases like that of Jim Nicholson, the highest ranking CIA officer ever accused of espionage. Turley also served as lead defense counsel in the successful defense of Petty Officer Daniel King, who faced the death penalty for alleged spying for Russia. Turley also served as defense counsel in the case of Dr. Tom Butler, who is faced criminal charges dealing with the importation and handling of thirty vials of plague in Texas. He also served as counsel to Larry Hanauer, the House Intelligence Committee staffer accused of leaking a classified Presidential National Intelligence Estimate to the New York Times. (Hanauer was cleared of all allegations).
Among his current cases, Professor Turley represents Dr. Ali Al-Timimi, who was convicted in Virginia in 2005 of violent speech against the United States. In 2020, the federal court found that there merit in the challenges raised by Professor Turley and his co-counsel Tom Huff. Accordingly, the judge ordered his release to protect him from Covit-19 while the Court prepared a decision on the challenges. Pursuant to a court order, Dr. Al-Timimi was released from the Supermax in Colorado and the two drove across the country so that he could be placed into home confinement. He also represented Dr. Sami Al-Arian, who was accused of being the American leader of a terrorist organization while he was a university professor in Florida. Turley represented Dr. Al-Arian for eight years, much of which was in a determined defense against an indictment for criminal contempt. The case centered on the alleged violation of a plea bargain by the Justice Department after Dr. Al-Arian was largely exonerated of terrorism charges in Tampa, Florida. On June 27, 2014, all charges were dropped against Dr. Al-Arian. He also represented pilots approaching or over the age of 60 in their challenge to the mandatory retirement age of the FAA. He also represented David Murphee Faulk, the whistleblower who disclosed abuses in the surveillance operations at NSA’s Fort Gordon facility in Georgia.
Professor Turley also agreed to serve as lead counsel representing the Brown family from the TLC “Sister Wives, a reality show on plural marriage or polygamy. On December 13, 2013, the federal court in Utah struck down the criminalization of polygamy — the first such decision in history — on free exercise and due process grounds. On September 26, 2014, the court also ruled in favor of the Browns under Section 1983 — giving them a clean sweep on all of the statutory and constitutional claims. In April 2015, a panel reversed the decision on standing grounds and that decision is now on appeal.
Professor Turley was also lead counsel in the World Bank protest case stemming from the mass arrest of people in 2002 by the federal and district governments during demonstrations of the IMF and World Bank. Turley and his co-lead counsel Dan Schwartz (and the law firm of Bryan Cave) were the first to file and represented student journalists arrested without probable cause. In April 2015, after 13 years of intense litigation, the case was settled for $2.8 million, including $115,000 for each arrestee — a record damage award in a case of this kind and over twice the amount of prior damages for individual protesters. The case also exposed government destruction and withholding of evidence as well as the admitted mass arrest of hundreds of people without probable cause.
Professor Turley also served as the legal expert in the review of polygamy laws in the British of Columbia (Canada) Supreme Court. In the latter case, he argued for the decriminalization of plural union and conjugal unions. In 2012, Turley also represented the makers of “Five Wives Vodka” (Ogden’s Own Distillery) in challenging an effective ban on the product in Idaho after officials declared the product to be offensive to Mormons. After opposing to the ban on free speech and other grounds, the state of Idaho issued a letter apologizing for public statements made by officials and lifting the ban on sale for “Five Wives Vodka.”
Turley has served as a consultant on homeland security and constitutional issues, including the Florida House of Representatives. He also served as the consultant to the Puerto Rico House of Representatives on the impeachment of Gov. Aníbal Acevedo Vilá.
Professor Turley is a frequent witness before the House and Senate on constitutional and statutory issues as well as tort reform legislation. That testimony includes the confirmation hearings of Attorney General nominees Loretta Lynch and William Barr as well as Supreme Court nominee Neil Gorsuch. Professor Turley is also a nationally recognized legal commentator. Professor Turley was ranked as 38th in the top 100 most cited “public intellectuals” in the recent study by Judge Richard Posner. Turley was also found to be the second most cited law professor in the country. He has been repeatedly ranked in the nation’s top 500 lawyers in annual surveys (including in the latest rankings by LawDragon) – one of only a handful of academics. In prior years, he was ranked as one of the nation’s top ten lawyers in military law cases as well as one of the top 40 lawyers under 40. He was also selected in the last five years as one of the 100 top Irish lawyers in the world. In 2016, he was ranked as one of the 100 most famous (past and present) law professors.
Professor Turley is one of only two academics to testify at both the Clinton and Trump impeachment hearings. In December 2019, Professor Turley was called as the one Republican witness in the House Judiciary Committee impeachment hearings. He appeared with three Democratic witnesses. Professor Turley disagreed with this fellow witnesses in opposing the proposed articles of impeachments on bribery, extortion, campaign finance violations or obstruction of justice. He argued that these alleged impeachable acts were at odds with controlling definitions of those crimes and that Congress has historically looked to the criminal code and cases for guidance on such allegations. The committee ultimately rejected those articles and adopted the only two articles that Professor Turley said could be legitimately advanced: abuse of power, obstruction of Congress. Chairman Jerrold Nadler even ended the hearing by quoting his position on abuse of power. However, Turley opposed impeachment on this record as incomplete and insufficient for submission to the Senate. He argued for the House to wait and complete the record by seeking to compel key witnesses like former National Security Adviser John Bolton. His testimony was later relied upon in the impeachment floor debate by various House members and he was cited by both the White House and House managers in their arguments before the United States Senate in the Trump impeachment trial, including videotaped remarks played at the trial.
Professor Turley’s articles on legal and policy issues appear regularly in national publications with hundreds of articles in such newspapers as the New York Times, Washington Post, USA Today, Los Angeles Times and Wall Street Journal. He is a columnist for USA Today and writes regularly for the Washington Post. In 2005, Turley was given the Columnist of the Year award for Single-Issue Advocacy for his columns on civil liberties by the Aspen Institute and the Week Magazine. Professor Turley also appears regularly as a legal expert on all of the major television networks. Since the 1990s, he has worked under contract as the on-air Legal Analyst for NBC News, CBS News, BBC and Fox News. Professor Turley has been a repeated guest on Sunday talk shows with over two-dozen appearances on Meet the Press, ABC This Week, Face the Nation, and Fox Sunday. Professor Turley has taught courses on constitutional law, constitutional criminal law, environmental law, litigation, and torts. He is the founder and executive director of the Project for Older Prisoners (POPS). His work with older prisoners has been honored in various states, including his selection as the 2011 recipient of the Dr. Mary Ann Quaranta Elder Justice Award at Fordham University.
His award-winning blog is routinely ranked as one of the most popular legal blogs by AVVO. His blog was selected as the top News/Analysis site in 2013, the top Legal Opinion Blog in 2011 as well as prior selections as the top Law Professor Blog and Legal Theory Blog. It was also ranked in the top 20 constitutional law blog in 2018. It has been regularly ranked by the ABA Journal in the top 100 blogs in the world. In 2012, Turley has selected as one of the top 20 legal experts on Twitter by Business Insider. In 2013, the ABA Journal inducted the Turley Blog into its Hall of Fame.
Professor Turley received his B.A. at the University of Chicago and his J.D. at Northwestern. In 2008, he was given an honorary Doctorate of Law from John Marshall Law School for his contributions to civil liberties and the public interest.
For further information: Mr. Seth Tate – 202-994-0537
Icon made by DinosoftLabs from Flaticon
The Nuns didn’t scare religion out of me. I made the improper(in their eyes) habit of asking the wrong question in religion class. I still ask those questions, but I am still a believer. I just have a problem with some of the bishops and Cardinals and some of the Popes!
Interestingly almost every pagan I know was raised either Catholic or extreme protestant fundamentalist. In the case of those who were Catholic I notice the ceremonies recreate the rites in great detail. There are high priest and priestess who run things and tell everyone else what to do. There are elaborate ceremonies which must be followed exactly. There are pieces of knowledge that only followers who’ve been appointed by the leadership are allowed to learn. It is a massive hierarchy with rigid rules of obedience. As far as I can tell, members have exactly recreated the church, just changing to gods and goddesses and they do allow women priests.
Susan:
“I have to wonder if a formal study has ever been done on how many adults who are now either non-religious or no longer Catholic had to attend Catholic church and/or school as kids. I was stuck with both as a kid; rejected it all by the time I was 18.”
*************
Never heard of one but there is plenty of anecdotal evidence out there for your proposition. I bet that would be an interesting study, too.
martha h:
“OT THAT? RESPONSIBLE GRADUAL WITHDRAWEL – BASICALLY NO DIFFERENT THAN MCCAIN OR BUSH IS IT?
….. Just months ago, Obama clamored for an “immediate” withdrawal, regardless of the situation on the ground; today, his withdrawal would be “gradual.” Maybe he was channeling Hillary Clinton, or maybe he finally realizes that very few people—except the MoveOn crowd—want an immediate withdrawal. His website, I should note, still touts an “immediate” withdrawal.”
*************
One last post just to correct the falsehood you mouthed from the National Review website –god forbid you have an original thought in your own head. Let me start by quoting the exact passage from the website of Obama:
“Obama will immediately begin to remove our troops from Iraq. He will remove one to two combat brigades each month, and have all of our combat brigades out of Iraq within 16 months. Obama will make it clear that we will not build any permanent bases in Iraq. He will keep some troops in Iraq to protect our embassy and diplomats; if al Qaeda attempts to build a base within Iraq, he will keep troops in Iraq or elsewhere in the region to carry out targeted strikes on al Qaeda.”
For those of you in conservative la-la land you may see an conflict between his statement in Unity, N.H. and the website. For the rest of us who can read and comprehend the langauge, we see that there is no conflict. Upon election Obama will immediately START the gradual withdrawal over 16 months which appears to most people to be a responsible timetable, and he will keep some troops there to oversee operations and protect installations. He never said “immediate withdrawal.” That is pure fiction by the National Review as mouthed by the apparatchik we know as martha h. (I’d call her a liar but that would imply intent to deceive, and as we have seen martha h has little intent to do anything save disagree with us grasping at the false talking points of her masters on the right) If you’re going to plagiarize at least get the name of the fool your mimicking for us so we can rebut the charges, or is that not sporting in the neo-con world you hail from.
Mespo wrote:
rafflaw:
I had the Sisters of Mercy. They were equally humorless.
*************
I have to wonder if a formal study has ever been done on how many adults who are now either non-religious or no longer Catholic had to attend Catholic church and/or school as kids. I was stuck with both as a kid; rejected it all by the time I was 18.
rafflaw:
Save your typing. Martha H has drunk the kool-ade and will not be dissuaded. Some people never get it, and they always question everyone else’s patriotism. They are fools and they tend to stay that way. We’ll just soldier on allowing her to wallow in her hate. BTW violating our civil rights is a crime with sanctions varying depending on the injury sustained. TITLE 18, U.S.C., SECTION 242. More pertinent Bush is likely guilty of war crimes with national and international sanctions available.
Mary Leon wrote:
Do they follow the teachings of Jesus? Love their enemies, do good to those who disagree and hate them? Try talking with others through diplomatic means before any blood is spilled? Share the wealth of this country, (the richest country that ever was on earth) with everyone they can–by way of feeding the hungry and making sure everyone can see a doctor when they need to?
*****************
I haven’t noticed either Bush or Cheney following any of those particular teachings. They seem to have a huge problem with the idea of sharing the wealth, but have NO problems TAKING it though. Including starting wars to get it from other countries. Is that version of Christianity (the taking part) from the Old Testament or the New? I always get them mixed up.
Martha H.,
Thank you for calling me a child. It has been many, many years since I have been called a child. I am a bit confused with your postings, however. You seemed to have your facts screwed up. Since when is wanting peace unpatriotic? Only since the Bush Crime Family Administration was appointed into power. What is this crap about every war is a war of choice? We did have a choice in Iraq and your appointed President made the wrong choice. We had no choice in WWII because of Pearl Harbor.
Iraq has more oil reserves than Kuwait and Kuwait already does business with Daddy Bush. Have you ever heard of the Project for the New American Century? You may want to check them out. Before they closed down their website you could find their plan to invade Iraq if they had a big event to convince the American people. I wonder what that evernt was??? Could it be 9/11? Georgie didn’t listen to Germany, or France who knew better not to get involved in Iraw, even though they joined us in Afghanistan.
I guess it is just a coincidence that gasoline cost me $1.60 when Bush was appointed and I just paid $4.19 yesterday. I almost forget, I am a Patriot because I make sure my country is following its own laws and the world’s laws. George W. vilated FISA with his illegal warrantless wiretapping program. Prof. Turley and Mespo can correct me if I am wrong, but I believe that would be a felony. George W. ordered torture of detainees in our control which violated U.S. law and international accords. I could go on, but my Mom just told me that it is time for all children to be in bed. Peace.
Yet Another Obama 180, This Time on Iraq
Recent statements & acitons indicate that Senator Obama plans to aggressively move to the middle on Iraq in the coming months. This is a good political move for Obama, if only because he’s finally starting to recognize reality.
However, it’s no surprise that he will continue to try and have it both ways: moderating his withdrawal language without giving any credit to surge/Petraeus advocates.
Standing alongside Hillary (Friday in Unity, NH), Obama said:
“We can follow a policy that doesn’t change whether violence is up or violence is down, whether the Iraqi government takes responsibility or not; or we can decide that it’s time to begin a responsible, gradual withdrawal from Iraq.”
GOT THAT? RESPONSIBLE GRADUAL WITHDRAWEL – BASICALLY NO DIFFERENT THAN MCCAIN OR BUSH IS IT?
….. Just months ago, Obama clamored for an “immediate” withdrawal, regardless of the situation on the ground; today, his withdrawal would be “gradual.” Maybe he was channeling Hillary Clinton, or maybe he finally realizes that very few people—except the MoveOn crowd—want an immediate withdrawal. His website, I should note, still touts an “immediate” withdrawal.
Regardless, within a month Obama will throw the left wingers under the buss on Iraq. He will say he was ill-informed and/or uninformed as to the situation and that new information means any withdrawel must be gradual. What the heck; who else are the lefties going to vote for in the Fall? Nader?????
Who said Iraq wanted our help?
Saddam’s people pleaded with the world, anyways those that escaped with their lives.
Who said there were weapons of mass destruction aimed at our allies in the Middle East?
Bill Clinton did, along with Al Gore, Hillary Clinton and almost every leader of the free world.
If it was so dangerous, why didn’t Iran, Saudi Arabia, Syria, Jordan, Oman, etc… decide to invade Iraq together to stop Saddam Hussein?
Each of those countries were convinced Saddam had and would use his WMD if any of them attacked him, but your ignorance of the region astounds me. Syria was his ally, Jordan supported him out of fear, Iran had fought a 12 year war to a standstill wit him, and Saudi Arabia did not have the ability to wage war along a 1,000 mile front with him.
Why didn’t the United Nations believe that Bush needed to invade Iraq, and therefore would not commit troops to help him?
The UN has no militarily trained “troops”. They have a force of blue helmeted thugs that rape & demand payments for protection or they stand around as innocents get slaughtered like in rwanda, nigeria, etc. What on earth do you think the UN is? It is nothing but a bunch of political animals with a few ten thousand blue helmeted peace keepers that would have been killed on the spot by Saddam even if they cuold have been convinced to fight for something other than the woman, booze, and money they fight for now. The UN DID manage to pass 17 UN resolutions demanding Saddam comply. If you want a UN you better have someone behind it enforcing it or it is a waste of time.
Why does everyone hate the United States now?
I think the most haters of America in the world live right here in big houses with big cars big salaries, huge egos, and nothing to do but bitch.
Why do millions believe Bush invaded Iraq to get their oil?
Because lunatics like you have been saying it for 7 years, despite it being a bald face lie.
I believe in God.
So did Saddam Hussain & Adolf Hitler.
I have a clear conscience.
Most children nowadays have been brought up without one so that means nothing.
I am Patriotic.
Like hell you are; you are giving aid and comfort to those that are trying to kill our sons & daughters that are fighting for others freedom every day.
I love this country and I hate what has happened to it over the past 7 years.
Then leave. It would be better without children like you.
But I am wise enough to understand why this invasion happened. I can understand the evil that comes from this White House administration. History will prove that I and others were right.
Ya, sure, you betacha. I have some land to sell you in Florida also if you believe all that. What crock.
Bush invaded Iraq to get their oil so he, Cheney and their oil friends could make tons of money in profits, plus Blackwater and KBR Halliburton (both Neo-Con corporations) have already made Billions from their no-bid contracts.
Oh, now its the oil. Why didn’t we just take Kuwaits oil? We had 100,000 troops there and could have just taken it. Why didn’t we take Saudi Arabia’s oil? We also had 400,000 troops there in 1991 and didn’t take it did we?
You are believing in a war of Choice, not a war of Necessity.
Get a clue: ALL wars are choice.
This war is all about getting oil and making money. Bush could care less how many people die. All he cares about is the money, and you are ignorant enough to believe he invaded Iraq to spread freedom and democracy all over the Middle East.
You have so many screws loose I pity you.
I feel sorry for you, because you will find out the truth one day, and you will know that all these people died for your president’s love of the almighty dollar and that you supported Bush’s agenda and therefore you supported the deaths of innocent people.
What is it like to think you know everything? I realized when I was 15 that I didn’t know everything. I guess you must either be 14 yet or you never grew up.
rafflaw:
I had the Sisters of Mercy. They were equally humorless.
Mary Leon,
The Republicans and the Neo-Cons use religion as a shield and have no intention of living under those religous precepts. The only question you have to ask them is WWJT? Translated, Who Would Jesus Torture?
Mespo,
While we are on the topic of religion, the good Benedictine Nuns that I had in grade school were not as amused as you were with my wit! But thank anyways.
mespo and rafflaw:
No, I have never heard of the “sorriest American” club until today. I will happily be a member.
I would add that by believing in God, through His words is how I was able to recognize Bush and Cheney for what they really are–wolves in “designer” sheeps’ clothing.
Sure, they can be pro-life (yet they sure love that death penalty), frown on stem cell research, hate gays and lesbians and believe that they and ONLY they are the only ones going to Heaven. But I say that no matter how much they go to church and profess to be christians their actions speak louder than any words can.
Do they follow the teachings of Jesus? Love their enemies, do good to those who disagree and hate them? Try talking with others through diplomatic means before any blood is spilled? Share the wealth of this country, (the richest country that ever was on earth) with everyone they can–by way of feeding the hungry and making sure everyone can see a doctor when they need to? Do they follow the law of the land–the US Constitution–and abide by its fair and separate balance of powers? Do they do what is right for the people that live in the United States? Do they make sure there are good schools for educating our children? Do they believe in a fair tax system? Do they care about the “have nots”? Do they fairly treat prisoners–as in the Geneva Convention?
By watching and observing this White House administration, I can safely say that NO, they do not follow the teachings of Jesus. And no matter what happened with any other president in our country’s history, from scandals to assassinations, there has NEVER been a sitting president who deliberately and willingly invaded a country; and who deliberately and willingly tried to destroy our US Constitution–until NOW.
rafflaw:
“And I didn’t have to drive drunk and snort cocaine before deciding to believe.”
**********
I believe too, but I question why He didn’t give me the wit to say that first? I am still laughing as I type.
Hey Martha H.,
Can I get into the “sorriest American” club too?? It seems no matter which topic(s) you are writing about, the facts somehow do not seem to get in your way. Congrats on your factoid blindness. And one other thing Martha H., I, like Mary Leon, believe in God. And I didn’t have to drive drunk and snort cocaine before deciding to believe.
Mary Leon:
Forgive me for responding to the foolish comment before your sane one. In any event, you, like most thinking people, have it right. It took some citizens years to figure out that Bush was a con man without peer. But most people have the concept now. It was always about oil and defense spending with Saddam Hussein serving as the stooge to fool the incredibly stupid conservatives who supported this guy. Bush was always the company man– a sort of Manchurian candidate from Wall Street by way of the Pentagon. People like our own martha h are the sad ones who willing give their children to this war-machine-for profit on notions of patriotism. The ironic thing is that true patriots abhor this little man with his big war. I doubt you will see a conversion from martha h; she has too much invested in this fight to even consider she is wrong. I have always believed that blindness is the worst disability that could befall someone, even more so when the blinding is self inflicted by wishful or delusional thinking. By the way, have your received your “sorriest Americans” membership card yet? I am anxiously awaiting mine.
martha h:
“i doubt if there were ever two sorrier examples of americans than you two.”
************
I consider this observation an honor almost as prestigious as being on Nixon’s hit list. Please continue in the knowledge that, like you (unless you take me up on my offer to aid you in your trip to Australia), I am not going anywhere. And by the way, using your kids service to support your preposterous position that this is a war about freeing Iraqis and not about oil may assuage your conscience, but it also places you squarely beneath contempt for the million or so Iraqis we have “freed” from life on this planet.
Who said Iraq wanted our help? Who said there were weapons of mass destruction aimed at our allies in the Middle East? If it was so dangerous, why didn’t Iran, Saudi Arabia, Syria, Jordan, Oman, etc… decide to invade Iraq together to stop Saddam Hussein? Why didn’t the United Nations believe that Bush needed to invade Iraq, and therefore would not commit troops to help him? Why does everyone hate the United States now? Why do millions believe Bush invaded Iraq to get their oil?
I believe in God. I have a clear conscience. I am Patriotic. I love this country and I hate what has happened to it over the past 7 years. But I am wise enough to understand why this invasion happened. I can understand the evil that comes from this White House administration. History will prove that I and others were right–Bush invaded Iraq to get their oil so he, Cheney and their oil friends could make tons of money in profits, plus Blackwater and KBR Halliburton (both Neo-Con corporations) have already made Billions from their no-bid contracts.
You are believing in a war of Choice, not a war of Necessity. This war is all about getting oil and making money. Bush could care less how many people die. All he cares about is the money, and you are ignorant enough to believe he invaded Iraq to spread freedom and democracy all over the Middle East.
I feel sorry for you, because you will find out the truth one day, and you will know that all these people died for your president’s love of the almighty dollar and that you supported Bush’s agenda and therefore you supported the deaths of innocent people.
mary leon, again i say the two of you are the sorriest example of americans there are. sons & daughters volunteer to fight in a war about freedom for others…….and you have the gall to come here and post that parents will change their minds about that fight when their sons or daughters are injured or killed in their quest to help others.
you have taught me and others here that there are no limits to the reaches of depravity of the left. god help you.
Those who support this war and have sons and daughters serving in Iraq will have a different opinion, if, God forbid, their son or daughter comes home from Iraq in a body bag. Tragically, some people can only see the truth when they are personally affected by it.