|
|
 Re: مذكرة الدفاع (Re: Nabeil Adeeb)
|
وهذا هو الجزء الثانى
وفى دعوى أوراق البنتاجون الشهيرة والتى تتلخص وقائعها فى أن دانيال إلسبرج ،والذى عمل مع وزارة الدفاع في فيتنام لمدة عامين، قد توصل إلى أن حرب فيتنام لا يمكن كسبها ، لأن سياسة الحكومة كانت تقوم على تصعيد الحرب ، مع الدعوة لسلام لم تكن جادة فى طلبه. قرر إلسبرج أن يقوم بنشر وثائق البنتاجون ،وهى عبارة عن تقرير يتكون من سبع مجلدات ، تحت عنوان العلاقات بين الولايات المتحدة وفيتنام 1945-1963م ،وهذا التقرير أعدته لوزارة الدفاع لجنة تضمنت 36 شخصاً من الخبراء العسكريين والمدنيين، المختصين في الشئون العسكرية و السياسية والتاريخية، و كان الإطلاع على ذلك التقرير البالغ السرية يكشف العديد من الأكاذيب التي تورطت فيها الحكومة الأمريكية.توضح الوثائق أن الحديث عن رغبة الحكومة في سحب القوات الأمريكية من فيتنام كان في واقع الأمر يتزامن مع وضع خطط لتصعيد القتال، وإرسال المزيد من الجند .سلم إلسبرج الوثائق لمحرر بصحيفة نيورك تايمز، والتي بدأت بنشر الوثائق على حلقات.
حاولت الحكومة وقف النشر عن طريق المحكمة فبدأت المعركة التى إنتهت بوصول النزاع للمحكمة العليا فجاء حكمها بعدم دستورية الحظر المسبق للنشر وجاء فيه ما يلى.
The dominant purpose of the First Amendment was to prohibit the widespread practice of governmental suppression of embarrassing information.. It is common knowledge that the First Amendment was adopted against the widespread use of the common law of seditious libel to punish the dissemination of material that is embarrassing to the powers-that-be. See T. Emerson, the System of Freedom of Expression, c. V (1970); Z. Chafee, Free Speech in the United States, c. XIII (1941). The present cases will, I think, go down in history as the most dramatic illustration of that principle. A debate of large proportions goes on in the Nation over our posture in Vietnam. That debate antedated the disclosure of the contents of the present documents. The latter are highly relevant to the debate in progress.
Secrecy in government is fundamentally anti-democratic, perpetuating bureaucratic errors. Open debate and discussion of public issues are vital to our national health. On public questions, there should be "uninhibited, robust, and wide-open" debate. New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254, 269-270.
I would affirm the judgment of the Court of Appeals in the Post case, vacate the stay of the Court of Appeals in the Times case, and direct that it affirm the District Court.
The stays in these cases that have been in effect for more than a week constitute a flouting of the principles of the First Amendment as interpreted in Near v. Minnesota.
MR. JUSTICE BRENNAN, concurring.
I
I write separately in these cases only to emphasize what should be apparent: that our judgments in the present cases may not be taken to indicate the propriety, in the future, of issuing temporary stays and restraining orders to block the publication of material sought to be suppressed by the Government. So far as I can determine, never before has the United States sought to enjoin a newspaper from publishing information in its possession. The relative novelty of the questions presented, the necessary haste with which decisions were reached, the magnitude of the interests asserted, and the fact that all the parties have concentrated their arguments upon the question whether permanent restraints were proper may have justified at least some of the restraints heretofore imposed in these cases. Certainly it is difficult to fault the several courts below for seeking to assure that the issues here involved were preserved for ultimate review by this Court. But even if it be assumed that some of the interim restraints were proper in the two cases before us, that assumption has no bearing upon the propriety of similar judicial action in the future. To begin with, there has now been ample time for reflection and judgment; whatever values there may be in the preservation of novel questions for appellate review may not support any restraints in the future. More important, the First Amendment stands as an absolute bar to the imposition of judicial restraints in circumstances of the kind presented by these cases.
II The error that has pervaded these cases from the outset was the granting of any injunctive relief whatsoever, interim or otherwise. The entire thrust of the Government's claim throughout these cases has been that publication of the material sought to be enjoined "could," or "might," or "may" prejudice the national interest in various ways. But the First Amendment tolerates absolutely no prior judicial restraints of the press predicated upon surmise or conjecture that untoward consequences may result.* Our cases, it is true, have indicated that there is a single, extremely narrow class of cases in which the First Amendment's ban on prior judicial restraint may be overridden. Our cases have thus far indicated that such cases may arise only when the Nation "is at war," Schenck v. United States, 249 U.S. 47, 52 (1919), during which times
"[n]o one would question but that a government might prevent actual obstruction to its recruiting service or the publication of the sailing dates of transports or the number and location of troops." Near v. Minnesota, 283 U.S. 697, 716 (1931).
Even if the present world situation were assumed to be tantamount to a time of war, or if the power of presently available armaments would justify even in peacetime the suppression of information that would set in motion a nuclear holocaust, in neither of these actions has the Government presented or even alleged that publication of items from or based upon the material at issue would cause the happening of an event of that nature. "[T]he chief purpose of [the First Amendment's] guaranty [is] to prevent previous restraints upon publication." Near v. Minnesota, supra, at 713. Thus, only governmental allegation and proof that publication must inevitably, directly, [403 U.S. 727] and immediately cause the occurrence of an event kindred to imperiling the safety of a transport already at sea can support even the issuance of an interim restraining order. In no event may mere conclusions be sufficient, for if the Executive Branch seeks judicial aid in preventing publication, it must inevitably submit the basis upon which that aid is sought to scrutiny by the judiciary. And, therefore, every restraint issued in this case, whatever its form, has violated the First Amendment -- and not less so because that restraint was justified as necessary to afford the courts an opportunity to examine the claim more thoroughly. Unless and until the Government has clearly made out its case, the First Amendment commands that no injunction may issue.
NEW YORK TIMES CO. V. UNITED STATES, 403 U.S. 713 (1971)
يقول العلامة هارولد لاسكي ( حرية أي شعب تتوقف علي نوع الأخبار التي تمده بها صحافته . ومن أجل هذا انتشر الإيمان بحرية الصحافة في أنحاء العالم المختلفة وطالب الناس بإطلاق حقها في نقد أي سلطة مهما يكن مقامها وأن تنشر أي معلومات تريد وأن تدافع عن أي برنامج ترضاه مادامت لا تنزل إلي حد القذف الجنائي ) .
ويقول اللورد الفريد ديننج في قضية steven v.sons limited ( إن القلق يزداد إذا امتدت يد الدولة وسيطرت علي الصحف لأنها بذلك – أي الدولة – تحول دون توجيه أي نقد لتصرفاتها وهذا النقد لأعمال الدولة وسياساتها وتعاملها مع المواطنين هو حرية التعبير التي يجب ألا يحرم منها المواطنون والصحفيون ) .
ويقول العلامة جورج ميسن وهو الذي كتب مسودة قائمة الحقوق في فرجينيا ( أن حرية الصحافة من أكبر حصون الحرية ولا تكبتها إلا حكومات مستبدة ) .
ويقول الرئيس الأمريكي جفرسن ( لو خيرت بين حكومة بلا صحافة وصحافة بلا حكومة لاخترت الثانية بلا تردد )
يقول القاضي
Thomas Clark in Sheppard v. Maxwell, 384 U.S. 333 (1966), wrote for the majority as
Follows:
A responsible press has always been regarded as the handmaiden of effective judicial administration, especially in the criminal field. An impressive record of service in this regard documents its function over several centuries. The press does not simply furnish information about trials, but guards against the miscarriage of justice by subjecting police, prosecutors and judicial processes to extensive public scrutiny and criticism. This court has, therefore, been unwilling to place any direct limitations on the freedom traditionally exercised by the news media for what transpires in the courtroom is public property.
لا بد لنا هنا أن نشير لأن كل هذه السوابق تتصل بسلطة القضاء في الحظر المسبق للنشر ونحن الآن بصدد سلطة حظر مسبق للنشر من جهة إدارية وليست قضائية.
من كندا ننقل الحكم الشهير فى
Supreme Court of Canada
SAUMUR v. CITY OF QUEBEC, [1953] 2 S.C.R. 299
ON APPEAL FROM THE COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH, APPEAL SIDE, PROVINCE OF QUEBEC
1952, Dec. 9, 10, 11, 12, 15, 16, 17, 1953, Oct. 6
PRESENT: Rinfret C.J. and Kerwin, Taschereau, Rand, Kellock, Estey, Locke, Cartwright and Fauteux JJ.
Constitutional law—Validity of municipal by-law—Prohibition to distribute pamphlets etc. in the streets without permission from chief of police—Whether interference with Freedom of Worship and of the Press—Whether criminal legislation—Statute of 1852 of Old Province of Canada, 14-15 Vict., c. 175—Freedom of Worship Act, R.S.Q. 1941, c. 307-B.N.A. Act, ss. 91, 92, 93, 127—By-Law 184 of City of Quebec —Noncompliance with Rule 30 of Supreme Court of Canada.
By an action in the Superior Court of Quebec, the appellant, a member of Jehovah's Witnesses, attacked the validity of a by-law of the City of Quebec forbidding distribution in the streets of the City of any book, pamphlet, booklet, circular, tract whatever without permission from the Chief of Police. The action was dismissed by the trial judge and by a majority in the Court of Queen's Bench (Appeal Side). In this Court the appellant declined to contend that the by-law was invalid because a discretion was delegated to the Chief of Police.
Held: (reversing the decision appealed from), that the by-law did not extend so as to prohibit the appellant as a member of Jehovah's Witnesses from distributing in the streets of the City any of the writings included in the exhibits and that the City, its officers and agents be restrained from in any way interfering with such distribution.
Per Kerwin J.:—Whether or not the Freedom of Worship Act whenever originally enacted (it is now R.S.Q. 1941, c. 307) be taken to super¬sede the pre-Confederation Statute of 1852 (14-15 Vict., c. 175), the specific terms of the enactment providing for freedom of worship have not been abrogated. Even though it would appear from the evidence that Jehovah's Witnesses do not consider themselves as belonging to a religion, they are entitled to "the free exercise and enjoyment of (their) Religious Profession ,and Worship" and have a legal right to attempt to spread their views by way of the printed and written word as well as orally; and their attacks on religion generally, and one in particular, as shown in the exhibits filed, do not bring them within the exception "so as the same be not made an excuse for licentious¬ness or a justification of practices inconsistent with the peace and safety of the Province", and their attacks are not "inconsistent with the peace and safety of the Province" even when they are directed particularly against the religion of most of the Province's residents. As the by-law may have its effect in other cases and under other
[Page 300]
circumstances, if not otherwise objectionable, it is not ultra vires the City of Quebec, but since it is in conflict with the freedom of wor¬ship of the appellant, it should be declared that it does not extend so as to prohibit the appellant as a member of Jehovah's Witnesses from distributing in the streets any of the writings included in the exhibits.
Furthermore, since both the right to practise one's religion and the freedom of the press fall within "Civil Rights in the Province", the Legislature had the power to authorize the City to pass such by-law.
Per Rand J.:—Since the by-law is legislation in relation to religion and free speech and not in relation to the administration of the streets, and since freedom of worship and of the press are not civil rights or matters of a local or private nature in the Provinces, the subject-matter of the by-law was beyond the legislative power of the Province.
Per Kellock J.:—The by-law is ultra vires as it is not enacted in relation to streets but impinges upon freedom of religion and of the press which are not the subject-matter of legislative jurisdiction under s. 92 of the B.N.A. Act.
Per Estey J.: Since the right to the free exercise and enjoyment of religious profession and worship is not a civil right in the province but is included among those upon which Parliament might legislate for the preservation of peace, order and good government, s. 2 of c. 307 of the Revised Statutes of Quebec, 1941, could not be enacted by the province under any of the ######### of s. 92 of the B.N.A. Act. By-law 184 is legislation in relation to and interferes with that right; it is therefore in conflict with the Statute of 1852 and authority for its enactment could not be given to the City by the Legislature. Even if s. 2 of c. 307 was intra vires, the by-law would be in conflict there—with and, therefore, could not be competently passed by the City because it was not authorized by the terms of its charter.
Per Locke J.:—The belief of the Jehovah's Witnesses and their mode of worship fall within the meaning of the expression "religious pro¬fession and worship" in the preamble of the Statute of 1852 and in s. 2 of c. 307 of the Revised Statutes of Quebec, 1941.
The true purpose and nature of the by-law is not to control the condition of the streets and traffic but to impose a censorship upon the dis¬tribution of written publications in the streets. The right to the free exercise and enjoyment of religious profession and worship without discrimination or preference, subject to the limitation expressed in the concluding words of the first paragraph of the Statute of 1852, is not a civil right of the nature referred to under head 13 of s. 92 of the B.N.A. Act, but is a constitutional right of all the people of the country given to them by the Statute of 1852 or implicit in the language of the preamble of the B.N.A. Act. The Province was not therefore empowered to authorize the passing of such a by-law restraining the appellant's right of freedom of worship.
The by-law further trenches upon the jurisdiction of Parliament under head 27 of s. 91 of the B.N.A. Act. It creates a new criminal offence and is ultra vires.
Per Rinfret C.J. and Taschereau J. (dissenting) :—The pith and substance of this general by-law is to control and regulate the usage of streets in regard to the distribution of pamphlets. Even if the motive of the City was to prevent the Jehovah's Witnesses from distributing their literature in the streets, that could never be a reason to render the by-law illegal or unconstitutional, since the City had the power to pass it: usage of the streets of a municipality being indisputably a question within the domain of the municipality and a local question.
Freedom of worship is not a subject of legislation within the jurisdiction of Parliament. It is a civil right within the provinces. The provisions of the by-law are not covered by the preamble to s. 91 of the B.N.A. Act, nor have they the character of a criminal law. Furthermore, even if the right to distribute pamphlets was an act of worship, freedom of worship is not an absolute right but is subject to control by the province.
|
|
 
|
|
|
|
|
| العنوان |
الكاتب |
Date |
| المحكمة الدستورية "نقرر دستورية تقييد حرية الصحافة" | Manal Awad Khugali | 09-09-09, 02:09 PM |
| Re: المحكمة الدستورية "نقرر دستورية تقييد حرية الصحافة" | Manal Awad Khugali | 09-09-09, 02:11 PM |
| Re: المحكمة الدستورية "نقرر دستورية تقييد حرية الصحافة" | فتحي البحيري | 09-09-09, 02:12 PM |
| Re: المحكمة الدستورية "نقرر دستورية تقييد حرية الصحافة" | Manal Awad Khugali | 09-09-09, 02:13 PM |
| Re: المحكمة الدستورية "نقرر دستورية تقييد حرية الصحافة" | فتحي البحيري | 09-09-09, 02:16 PM |
| Re: المحكمة الدستورية "نقرر دستورية تقييد حرية الصحافة" | Manal Awad Khugali | 09-09-09, 02:20 PM |
| Re: المحكمة الدستورية "نقرر دستورية تقييد حرية الصحافة" | سرى بخارى | 09-09-09, 02:49 PM |
| Re: المحكمة الدستورية "نقرر دستورية تقييد حرية الصحافة" | Muna Khugali | 09-09-09, 03:00 PM |
| Re: المحكمة الدستورية "نقرر دستورية تقييد حرية الصحافة" | Manal Awad Khugali | 09-09-09, 03:28 PM |
| Re: المحكمة الدستورية "نقرر دستورية تقييد حرية الصحافة" | Manal Awad Khugali | 09-09-09, 03:53 PM |
| Re: المحكمة الدستورية "نقرر دستورية تقييد حرية الصحافة" | وليد محمد المبارك | 09-09-09, 04:02 PM |
| Re: المحكمة الدستورية "نقرر دستورية تقييد حرية الصحافة" | ibrahim alnimma | 09-09-09, 04:13 PM |
| Re: المحكمة الدستورية "نقرر دستورية تقييد حرية الصحافة" | Manal Awad Khugali | 09-09-09, 04:13 PM |
| Re: المحكمة الدستورية "نقرر دستورية تقييد حرية الصحافة" | Manal Awad Khugali | 09-09-09, 04:18 PM |
| Re: المحكمة الدستورية "نقرر دستورية تقييد حرية الصحافة" | Manal Awad Khugali | 09-09-09, 04:21 PM |
| Re: المحكمة الدستورية "نقرر دستورية تقييد حرية الصحافة" | Manal Awad Khugali | 09-09-09, 04:23 PM |
| Re: المحكمة الدستورية "نقرر دستورية تقييد حرية الصحافة" | محمد نيالا | 09-09-09, 07:09 PM |
| Re: المحكمة الدستورية "نقرر دستورية تقييد حرية الصحافة" | Asaad Alabbasi | 09-09-09, 07:10 PM |
| Re: المحكمة الدستورية "نقرر دستورية تقييد حرية الصحافة" | Manal Awad Khugali | 09-09-09, 08:27 PM |
| Re: المحكمة الدستورية "نقرر دستورية تقييد حرية الصحافة" | Zakaria Joseph | 09-09-09, 08:37 PM |
| Re: المحكمة الدستورية "نقرر دستورية تقييد حرية الصحافة" | Manal Awad Khugali | 09-09-09, 08:52 PM |
| Re: المحكمة الدستورية "نقرر دستورية تقييد حرية الصحافة" | Manal Awad Khugali | 09-09-09, 09:37 PM |
| Re: المحكمة الدستورية "نقرر دستورية تقييد حرية الصحافة" | Manal Awad Khugali | 09-09-09, 09:43 PM |
| مذكرة الدفاع | Manal Awad Khugali | 09-09-09, 09:51 PM |
| Re: مذكرة الدفاع | Muna Khugali | 09-09-09, 10:58 PM |
| Re: مذكرة الدفاع | عبدالباقى الظافر | 09-10-09, 04:42 AM |
| Re: مذكرة الدفاع | الطيب شيقوق | 09-10-09, 06:42 AM |
| Re: مذكرة الدفاع | Nazar Yousif | 09-10-09, 07:35 AM |
| Re: مذكرة الدفاع | أحمد أمين | 09-10-09, 07:58 AM |
| Re: مذكرة الدفاع | Mohamed Yassin Khalifa | 09-10-09, 09:43 AM |
| Re: مذكرة الدفاع | Manal Awad Khugali | 09-10-09, 10:48 AM |
| Re: مذكرة الدفاع | Manal Awad Khugali | 09-10-09, 10:52 AM |
| Re: مذكرة الدفاع | Manal Awad Khugali | 09-10-09, 11:03 AM |
| Re: مذكرة الدفاع | Manal Awad Khugali | 09-10-09, 11:13 AM |
| Re: مذكرة الدفاع | Manal Awad Khugali | 09-10-09, 11:18 AM |
| Re: مذكرة الدفاع | Manal Awad Khugali | 09-10-09, 11:21 AM |
| Re: مذكرة الدفاع | Manal Awad Khugali | 09-10-09, 11:28 AM |
| Re: مذكرة الدفاع | Manal Awad Khugali | 09-10-09, 11:36 AM |
| Re: مذكرة الدفاع | Manal Awad Khugali | 09-10-09, 11:49 AM |
| Re: مذكرة الدفاع | Manal Awad Khugali | 09-10-09, 12:00 PM |
| Re: مذكرة الدفاع | Muna Khugali | 09-10-09, 12:12 PM |
| Re: مذكرة الدفاع | Manal Awad Khugali | 09-10-09, 01:03 PM |
| Re: مذكرة الدفاع | Giwey | 09-10-09, 01:16 PM |
| Re: مذكرة الدفاع | Manal Awad Khugali | 09-10-09, 01:33 PM |
| Re: مذكرة الدفاع | Asaad Alabbasi | 09-10-09, 04:54 PM |
| Re: مذكرة الدفاع | عبد الرحيم حسب الرسول | 09-10-09, 10:14 PM |
| Re: مذكرة الدفاع | فيصل الباقر | 09-10-09, 11:21 PM |
| Re: مذكرة الدفاع | فيصل الباقر | 09-10-09, 11:43 PM |
| Re: مذكرة الدفاع | سعد مدني | 09-10-09, 11:32 PM |
| Re: مذكرة الدفاع | سعد مدني | 09-10-09, 11:42 PM |
| Re: مذكرة الدفاع | سعد مدني | 09-10-09, 11:48 PM |
| Re: مذكرة الدفاع | Nabeil Adeeb | 09-11-09, 02:15 AM |
| Re: مذكرة الدفاع | Muna Khugali | 09-11-09, 05:13 AM |
| Re: مذكرة الدفاع | omer osman | 09-11-09, 05:31 AM |
| Re: مذكرة الدفاع | Nabeil Adeeb | 09-11-09, 07:56 AM |
| Re: مذكرة الدفاع | Nabeil Adeeb | 09-11-09, 08:35 AM |
| Re: مذكرة الدفاع | سعد مدني | 09-11-09, 10:27 AM |
| Re: مذكرة الدفاع | Nabeil Adeeb | 09-11-09, 12:46 PM |
 Re: مذكرة الدفاع | حمور زيادة | 09-11-09, 03:12 PM |
| Re: مذكرة الدفاع | Asaad Alabbasi | 09-11-09, 04:42 PM |
| Re: مذكرة الدفاع | سعد مدني | 09-11-09, 08:16 PM |
| Re: مذكرة الدفاع | صديق محمد عثمان | 09-11-09, 10:26 PM |
| Re: مذكرة الدفاع | Muna Khugali | 09-11-09, 11:54 PM |
| Re: مذكرة الدفاع | Nabeil Adeeb | 09-12-09, 00:45 AM |
| Re: مذكرة الدفاع | Nabeil Adeeb | 09-12-09, 05:39 AM |
| Re: مذكرة الدفاع | wadalzain | 09-12-09, 09:46 AM |
| Re: مذكرة الدفاع | Muna Khugali | 09-12-09, 01:39 PM |
| Re: مذكرة الدفاع | د.محمد حسن | 09-12-09, 01:51 PM |
| Re: مذكرة الدفاع | Muna Khugali | 09-12-09, 01:59 PM |
| Re: مذكرة الدفاع | Nabeil Adeeb | 09-12-09, 02:41 PM |
| Re: مذكرة الدفاع | سعد مدني | 09-12-09, 02:44 PM |
| Re: مذكرة الدفاع | Manal Awad Khugali | 09-12-09, 02:52 PM |
| Re: مذكرة الدفاع | Nabeil Adeeb | 09-12-09, 03:59 PM |
| Re: مذكرة الدفاع | سعد مدني | 09-12-09, 08:46 PM |
| Re: مذكرة الدفاع | Nabeil Adeeb | 09-13-09, 00:16 AM |
| Re: مذكرة الدفاع | Sidgi Kaballo | 09-13-09, 02:17 AM |
| Re: مذكرة الدفاع | Manal Awad Khugali | 09-13-09, 09:44 AM |
| Re: مذكرة الدفاع | Manal Awad Khugali | 09-13-09, 10:35 AM |
| Re: مذكرة الدفاع | Nabeil Adeeb | 09-13-09, 02:34 PM |
| Re: مذكرة الدفاع | الفاتح يوسف جبرا | 09-13-09, 03:06 PM |
| Re: مذكرة الدفاع | Asaad Alabbasi | 09-14-09, 00:47 AM |
| Re: مذكرة الدفاع | Muna Khugali | 09-14-09, 01:13 PM |
| Re: مذكرة الدفاع | Manal Awad Khugali | 09-14-09, 02:13 PM |
| Re: مذكرة الدفاع | Nabeil Adeeb | 09-14-09, 02:28 PM |
 Re: مذكرة الدفاع | انعام حيمورة | 09-14-09, 10:16 PM |
| Re: مذكرة الدفاع | Muna Khugali | 09-15-09, 00:01 AM |
| Re: مذكرة الدفاع | Nabeil Adeeb | 09-15-09, 02:55 AM |
| Re: مذكرة الدفاع | Nabeil Adeeb | 09-15-09, 06:36 AM |
| Re: مذكرة الدفاع | Nabeil Adeeb | 09-15-09, 09:19 AM |
| Re: مذكرة الدفاع | سعد مدني | 09-15-09, 12:49 PM |
| Re: مذكرة الدفاع | Manal Awad Khugali | 09-15-09, 02:01 PM |
| Re: مذكرة الدفاع | Nabeil Adeeb | 09-15-09, 02:23 PM |
| Re: مذكرة الدفاع | Manal Awad Khugali | 09-15-09, 03:04 PM |
| Re: مذكرة الدفاع | Manal Awad Khugali | 09-15-09, 03:10 PM |
| Re: مذكرة الدفاع | Nabeil Adeeb | 09-16-09, 00:23 AM |
 Re: مذكرة الدفاع | الفاتح سليمان | 09-16-09, 01:17 AM |
| Re: مذكرة الدفاع | Muna Khugali | 09-16-09, 04:07 AM |
| Re: مذكرة الدفاع | انعام حيمورة | 09-16-09, 01:05 AM |
| Re: مذكرة الدفاع | محمد على طه الملك | 09-16-09, 11:01 AM |
| Re: مذكرة الدفاع | سعد مدني | 09-16-09, 06:40 PM |
 Re: مذكرة الدفاع | ASHRAF MUSTAFA | 09-16-09, 06:43 PM |
|
| |
فيس بوك
تويتر
انستقرام
يوتيوب
بنتيريست