Be Careful of the Means You Use

NOTE: This post is written from a perspective of an alien on Mars viewing the rapid developments on planet earth.

PS: Sudan being on the UN’s Human Rights Commision is a BIG joke!!

31 Responses to “Be Careful of the Means You Use”

1. Andrew Brehm on June 9th, 2006 3:57 am

   “seeing the West employ practices violating the Geneva Conventions and Declaration of Human Rights”

   I don’t know about human rights violations, but to violate the Geneva Conventions your enemy must be a party to them.

   The terrorists are not. Thus nothing anybody does to them would violate the Geneva Convention.

   If A, B, C, and D are entities in a war, and A and B are signatories to the Geneva Convention, and C and D are not, then

   A must adhere to the GV when fighting B.

   B must adhere when fighting A.

   Neither A nor B have to adhere when fighting C or D.

   The Taliban and Al-Qaeda for example specifically rejected the GV (and the rules thus don’t apply to their fighters).

2. Andrew Brehm on June 9th, 2006 4:00 am

   The US must adhere to the GV in Iraq because (first year) a legal occupier according to UN law must adhere (even if the enemy does not), and (since the end of the first year), the US are a guest of the Iraqi government and must adhere since the Iraqi governments wants them to (even if the enemy does not).

   BUT if individual soldiers violating the GV does not mean that their masters are, IF they are being prosecuted for violations. (The US prosecute.)

3. Andrew Brehm on June 9th, 2006 4:01 am

   BTW human rights are a joke.

   Does anybody think the supposed existence of “human rights” would protect me if I was in the hands of terrorists?

   If the Americans catch an enemy, the enemy is protected not by “human rights” but by the fact that the Americans don’t torture that many people anyway.

   If the enemy catches an American, there is no protection at all.

   So what exactly do “human rights” do?

4. Andrew Brehm on June 9th, 2006 4:14 am

   “Moreover the prisoners locked up in Guantanamo must be put under trial as soon as possible.”

   Why?

   Seriously, what is the benefit?

   The reason we put people in trial in a society is because we have found that it is better for society if innocent individuals are (ideally) never punished for other people’s crimes.

   The same discovery has been made (or simply accepted as true) for wars between societies.

   But the discovery has not been made (or accepted) for wars between a society that has accepted principles 1 and 2 above and a society that has not.

   Thus to demand that Gitmo prisoners stand trial would require making a case for why that would be beneficial (for the US and/or humanity).

5. Drima on June 9th, 2006 4:34 am

   Andrew,

   First, second and third comments NICE and thank you for highlighting those points.

   However fourth NO!

   “Thus to demand that Gitmo prisoners stand trial would require making a case for why that would be beneficial (for the US and/or humanity).”

   Locking up these people for so long without standing trial is pure crap. How can you be so sure all of them are guilty. Innocent until proven guilty is how it should be. It’s wrong and a crime to them and their families. I’m not talking about enemy combatants BTW as releaseing them would defintely not be beneficial to any of us.

   I honestly believe that such conventions and documents are nothing but a waste of time. I strongly agree with you in your 3rd comment. It is the enemies’ nature and not their signature to an agreement that will guarantee your safety.

6. Anonymous on June 9th, 2006 4:37 am

   The Sudanese Thinker
   Never mind Andrew trying to saturate your comments column with his pedantic drivel. He always does that and no-one ever discovered what it’s about - probably Tourette Syndrome or some such.

7. Drima on June 9th, 2006 4:38 am

   Torture in the long term is very harmfull. The French learnt this lesson from the days of their colonization of Algeria.

8. The Raccoon on June 9th, 2006 4:45 am

   Torture has also been discredited as a useful means of information extraction, quite a while ago now.

   Chemical interrogation + psychological pressure is the best method, at the best of my knowledge, to extract information from an unwilling prisoner. Coupled with modern technology for lie-detection, it works really really well, and don’t harm the prisoner.

   Torture is only useful if you want someone to confess to something they didn’t do - which is usually pointless from the POV of intelligence agencies in the West. It might be understandable if used for information extraction in field conditions with no time for a real investigation - but then it is risky, as nothing prevents the prisoner from lying.

   In other words, torture is not only inhumane and atrocious - it’s also useless and stupid.

9. Andrew Brehm on June 9th, 2006 5:12 am

   “Locking up these people for so long without standing trial is pure crap. How can you be so sure all of them are guilty. Innocent until proven guilty is how it should be. It’s wrong and a crime to them and their families. I’m not talking about enemy combatants BTW as releaseing them would defintely not be beneficial to any of us.”

   Oh, I don’t know whether they are guilty. I just don’t care.

   They are thousands of people in their situation all over the world. I don’t see why it is important to solve their problem first, specifically since that would endanger others as well. Afaik the prisoners in Gitmo are enemy combatants. But it’s really not a big issue, as their number is small.

   There is also the problem of what you do with these people if you do release them. The US released 15 Uigurs (sp?) a few weeks ago, and they could not be sent back to China (because China would execute them). I believe they ended up in Europe?

   Calling for a release or trial of Gitmo prisoners is one thing, but living with the consequences is quite another. MOST of these people would be executed if sent back to their countries of origin. Why is that so much better?

   “I honestly believe that such conventions and documents are nothing but a waste of time. I strongly agree with you in your 3rd comment. It is the enemies’ nature and not their signature to an agreement that will guarantee your safety.”

   Exactly. Specifically when the enemy didn’t even sign the document but loudly rejected it.

   “Never mind Andrew trying to saturate your comments column with his pedantic drivel. He always does that and no-one ever discovered what it’s about - probably Tourette Syndrome or some such.”

   Yes, that must be it. Why else would an anonymous poster not simply post arguments against the cases I made?

   My valued opponent is probably insane, or at least very very ill. That is so much easier than to study and outsmart him, isn’t it? Is that what you were thinking?

   Incidentally: it is YOU who never discovered what it’s about. OTHER PEOPLE did (compare Drima’s comments). You might perhaps want to look into that problem if it happens to you often.

10. Drewcatt on June 9th, 2006 6:03 am

    “I don’t know about human rights violations, but to violate the Geneva Conventions your enemy must be a party to them.”

    As a student of International Law, Human rights law, and a blasted lawyer I can tell you unequivocally that that statement is a LIE.

    The Geneva Convention, specifically the third and second conventions cover categories of peoples regardless of whether they are signatories to the Conventions.

    If that is the premise upon which you base your claims, then your entire argument is faulty.

    What you may want to argue is that terrorist as a class of combatants don’t fall under the definitions given under the Conventions. That point is debateable, but as worded, you are absolutely, positively wrong.

    As for your question as to what the hell are human rights anyway? If you have to even ask that question I feel sorry for you. That someone who would kidnap you and torture you would violate your rights is not the issue. They’re monsters. That you would take that to justify your treatment of them in the same manner makes you (and them) an animal no better than the enemies you claim to fight.

11. Andrew Brehm on June 9th, 2006 6:18 am

    “As for your question as to what the hell are human rights anyway? If you have to even ask that question I feel sorry for you. That someone who would kidnap you and torture you would violate your rights is not the issue.”

    That is exactly the issue. Nothing else is. A right that doesn’t help me when I need it is not worth anything.

    “They’re monsters. That you would take that to justify your treatment of them in the same manner makes you (and them) an animal no better than the enemies you claim to fight.”

    I didn’t justify anything. And yes, it would make me better. There is a difference between starting a certain behaviour and merely adapting to it. If you cannot see that difference, I cannot help you.

12. Andrew Brehm on June 9th, 2006 6:25 am

    “”I don’t know about human rights violations, but to violate the Geneva Conventions your enemy must be a party to them.”

    As a student of International Law, Human rights law, and a blasted lawyer I can tell you unequivocally that that statement is a LIE. The Geneva Convention, specifically the third and second conventions cover categories of peoples regardless of whether they are signatories to the Conventions.”

    Don’t tell me your credentials, quote the law in question instead, if you know it. What you are attempting is an argument based on authority (yours in this case) and it is a fallacy.

    The third Geneva Convention (prisoners of war), article 2 defined who is bound by it:

    * That any armed conflict between two or more “High Contracting Parties” is covered by GCIII;
    * That it applies to occupations of a “High Contracting Party”;
    * That the relationship between the “High Contracting Parties” and a non-signatory, the party will remain bound until the non-signatory no longer acts under the strictures of the convention. “…Although one of the Powers in conflict may not be a party to the present Convention, the Powers who are parties thereto shall remain bound by it in their mutual relations. They shall furthermore be bound by the Convention in relation to the said Power, if the latter accepts and applies the provisions thereof.”

    I am not a law student, but I can look up stuff in Wikipedia. That is worth more.

    The article states quite clearly, and I am sure you can verify that by reading the original text, that a signatory is NOT bound by the GV if the enemy is a non-signatory who doesn’t accept the rules of the GV. And that is exactly the case in Afghanistan and Iraq.

    Next time, don’t call your opponent a liar and list your credentials. Simply look up the text in question!

    The second convention (condition of wounded and shipwrecked at sea) has very little to do with the case here.

    Perhaps you meant the fourth convention (treatment of civilians)?

    And I quote Wikipedia:

    “Article 4 defines who is a Protected person Persons protected by the Convention are those who, at a given moment and in any manner whatsoever, find themselves, in case of a conflict or occupation, in the hands of a Party to the conflict or Occupying Power of which they are not nationals. But it explicitly excludes Nationals of a State which is not bound by the Convention and the citizens of a neutral state or an allied state.”

    To summarise:

    1. The third convention DOES exclude non-signatories (if they violate the GV rules, which in the two cases relevant here is exactly what has happened).

    2. The second convention is an extension of the first to war at sea. I cannot see how this is of much relevance here as we have had very few battles at sea in this war.

    3. The FOURTH convention is about categories of people (the second and third are not really). But it doesn’t apply to combatants (lawful or otherwise) but defines who is a protected person among civilians.

    Anything else?

    (You see the problem was that I actually read about that before I posted… I believe you might have forgotten that and instead relied on your credentials as a law student?)

13. Tsedek on June 9th, 2006 6:37 am

    I have never heard the defence of the US actually against claims that they must release Gitmo prisoners. Does anybody know why they say they gotta keep them locked-up?

    About the terrorist “class” of combatants. They are not. No “combatants” at all. Whoever INTENDS blowing up innocent civilians is lower than scum and not liable for ANY consideration of human rights.

    Tse.

14. Andrew Brehm on June 9th, 2006 6:43 am

    “I have never heard the defence of the US actually against claims that they must release Gitmo prisoners. Does anybody know why they say they gotta keep them locked-up?”

    Well, I mentioned the case of the Uigurs. They were apparently locked up because returning them to China would have killed them. But OTOH the US don’t have to defend anything. There is no law that forbids what they are doing.

    Anybody who would actually DEMAND that the US release the prisoners EVEN THOUGH they are a) _highly dangerous_ and b) _due to be executed in their home countries_ should probably check his soul for traces of inhumanity.

    I’d rather have dangerous people locked up then free. And I’d rather have potentially innocent people locked up then executed.

    “About the terrorist “class” of combatants. They are not. No “combatants” at all. Whoever INTENDS blowing up innocent civilians is lower than scum and not liable for ANY consideration of human rights.”

    I believe they would fall under the “until the non-signatory no longer acts under the strictures of the convention” clause; in which case the GV doesn’t apply to them any more.

15. Drima on June 9th, 2006 7:04 am

    You know what people, I’m gonna sit down and thoroughly start reading the Conventions and Declarations.

    Andrew,

    I do agree with you that it is the country’s nature and commitment to an agreement that is more important than the agreement itself. A signature won’t protect you but a country’s nature will. As such from that perspective such documents and conventions are a waste of time especially when countries don’t follow many things stated in them especially in times of war. Not only that but it is also a waste of time having them when countries only give a shit to use them as a means of accusing the enemy of being evil when infact the accuser is guilty of the same accusations.

    As such, tear them into pieces and save us this game of blaming and accusing one another OR START FOLLOWING THEM GOD DAMN IT!! Given the nature of country’s when in an intense conflict we all should stop being naive and know that no country gives a shit about adhering fully to them. So what’s more important

    A- Coming up with more agreements
    B- Making sure countries follow the current agreements (when we know they won’t)

    PEOPLE DON’T CARE HOW THEY WIN IN A CONFLICT, THEY ONLY CARE ABOUT WINNING.

    I don’t understand America’s use of torture. It spends so much money making precision guided missiles to avoid hurting civilians as much as possible. WHY USE TORTURE? WHY DETAIN PEOPLE FOR SO LONG WITHOUT GIVING THEM A TRIAL!

    Andrew… “Oh, I don’t know whether they are guilty. I just don’t care.”

    I’m sorry to say that I feel sorry for you.

    “There is no law that forbids what they are doing.”

    EXCUSE ME??? I believe there is. I have no facts to prove this but I do believe they are breaking some kind of law. No person can be locked up for so long without standing trial.

    I think I REALLY need to sit down and thoroughly start reading the Conventions and Declarations to decide for myself.

16. The Raccoon on June 9th, 2006 7:10 am

    I do doubt that the USA uses torture as such. The notorious cases are all about abuse of prisoners by bored shitheads with no regard for their fellow humans.

    See my post above regarding reasons of USA to use torture - as well as the probability of such an event.

    Laws. Pffffffft

17. Drima on June 9th, 2006 7:23 am

    That’s exactly my point Raccoon. Why does America have to resort to such practices?? I know the sickening shit that happens in the Middle East is much worse but why does America have to do it?? They should know better than to go down to that low level. If soldiers carried out such things then that shouldn’t reflect on the leadership as their actions would be illegal. However in this case even Rumsfeld publicly supported the use of torture. Why? It doesn’t make sense and it is very inhumane! Plus Raccoon, all the points you stated in your first comment make sense 100%…

    WHY??

18. Andrew Brehm on June 9th, 2006 7:39 am

    “Andrew… “Oh, I don’t know whether they are guilty. I just don’t care.”

    I’m sorry to say that I feel sorry for you.”

    You perhaps misunderstood. I meant I don’t care specifically about their case. There are so many victims of unjust treatment, and the prisoners in Gitmo are subject to some of the better arguments for why other cases should be treated with more urgency.

    If I had the time and money (and will) to do something against unjust imprisonment, these particular prisoners would be at the bottom of my list.

    As it stands the list doesn’t even exist. I make no excuses. I just don’t care.

    “”There is no law that forbids what they are doing.”

    EXCUSE ME??? I believe there is. I have no facts to prove this but I do believe they are breaking some kind of law. No person can be locked up for so long without standing trial.”

    You are talking about civil rights. But they don’t apply here.

    There simply is no world-wide authority besides the UN and treaties like the GV. The GV don’t apply here and the UN do not enforce a right to a trial. The committee responsible for these things is headed by countries famous for mistreating prisoners and showing no respect for human rights. So what law could there possibly be that would apply to the case in Gitmo?

    “PEOPLE DON’T CARE HOW THEY WIN IN A CONFLICT, THEY ONLY CARE ABOUT WINNING.”

    If that was true, the number of Palestinian Arabs would be lower now than it was 50 years ago. The world isn’t quite as bad (yet).

19. Drewcatt on June 9th, 2006 8:01 am

    Oh jesus Brehm, you realize we agree up until a point.

    I listed my credentials to spare us the need to go through a long drawn out debate. I simply don’t have the time that your concerns merit. Obviously I need to make the time.

    You’re absolutely right, the conventions make very clear who they cover. HOWEVER. The war on terror has cause not just the UN, but the US Supreme Court to re-evaluate the provision of the convention.

    The Conventions do require a High-Contracting Party (usually, but not always limited to States) to uphold the convention, but the recent debate has been whether or not parties that are not organized as governments would apply. Here we have an organization like al-Qaeda, not a government, but only a loose organization of individuals with an ideological (evil) goal. Are they covered by the Third Convention? Not explicitly.

    Heck, even under Article 4, you have to satisfy four conditions to even meet POW status. They would have to be part of a military hierarchy; they would have to have worn uniforms or other distinctive signs visible at a distance; they would have to have carried arms openly; and they would have to have conducted their military operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war. Al Qaeda is an international terrorist group and cannot be considered a state party to the Geneva Convention. Its members, therefore, are not covered by the Geneva Convention, and are not entitled to POW status under the treaty.

    On all this, we AGREE. As I said earlier, what you may want to argue is that terrorist as a class of combatants don’t fall under the definitions given under the Conventions.

    Where we disagree is on your broad statement that your enemy must be a PARTY to the Convention for it to cover him, and hopefully you would have proved the fallacy of that statement to yourself when you cited the third and fourth conventions. But just to be sure, let me explain.

    Furthermore, International Humanitarian Law, which includes not just the Geneva Convention, has not simply mandatory provision, but permissive ones as well which though they’re only binding on signatories, proscribe certain excesses against non-signatories.

    Unlawful combatants do retain rights under the Fourth Geneva Convention so that they must be “treated with humanity and, in case of trial, shall not be deprived of the rights of fair and regular trial”. The fourth also applies to civilian non-combatants who are affected by the conflict and due special protections as “protected persons.” Those provisions apply to all people.

    That’s from Hamdan v. Rumsfled, a case currently before the US Supreme court. How they rule on that is going to go a long way to deciding how the US treats the detainees at Guantanamo.

    Also, there is the question of reciprocity. Should the validity of human rights law be determined by those who would break it? In other words, why should signatories only be held responsible? If your starting point is that the law is their to protect people, and ALL people, then it shouldn’t matter who is committing the act, or whom tha act is being committed against. The Conventions and every other UN document reflect a certain need to compromise when a large number of disparate nations come together. Hence the signatory language, and the high-contracting party language.

    Ah, I’m running out of time here. Needless to say we agree that al-Qaeda as an entity doesn’t fit under the wording of the convention. However, the convention is only one document among a body of human rights law. Lastly, the body of intl law covers all people, not simply non-combatants. It extends to unlawful combatants as well.

    I hope I’ve made myself somewhat clearer.

20. Andrew Brehm on June 9th, 2006 8:55 am

    “I hope I’ve made myself somewhat clearer.”

    Yes, you have. Now I respect your criticisms.

    Note, however, that I was taking solely about the Geneva Convention not applying, not any other possible treaties, conventions, agreements etc..

21. Don Cox on June 9th, 2006 9:21 am

    “Moreover the prisoners locked up in Guantanamo must be put under trial as soon as possible.”____I disagree. I think they should be designated as prisoners of war and treated as such. That means they stay locked up until the war is over.

22. Drima on June 9th, 2006 10:01 am

    Excuse me for my ignorance but thanx to your new comments I gained a new wealth of information regarding all these “technical” facts on different treaties, documents etc. However I’m still against the fact that the US uses torture and outsources it. America is not excempt from treaties and documents banning such practices. Prison abuses in Iraq are a different story as they were carried out by sick individual soldiers. The practice of torture however is defended and actually pushed by the Bush administration. This is completely wrong. Why go down to that low level? Torture is ineffective when extracting information.

23. Drewcatt on June 9th, 2006 12:59 pm

    “Note, however, that I was taking solely about the Geneva Convention not applying, not any other possible treaties, conventions, agreements etc..”

    I know… which is why I should have explained myself better earlier. I apologize for that.

    Drima - the flip side of the torture coin is that in a situation where every scrap of information gathered is critical, why would you want to remove tools that could elicit that information from your arsenal?

    The ultimate question though is whether or not torture, or methods that are crueler than most, are more effective than other more mundane and humanitarian methods? The answer to that question is going to depend on who you ask I think.

24. The Raccoon on June 9th, 2006 6:50 pm

    International laws are a farce. The UN is a pitiful farce. Were Israel to obide by ALL the international laws and do what the UN says, we’d have about 5 million dead Jews more than what we have now. One of them would have been a Raccoon.

    Drewcatt -

    I have been taught basic interrogation technique (very basic, really - wasn’t my job). And I happen to have friends whose job IS interrogation. Torture is useless unless you want to get a false confession - true to 99% of the cases, according both to what I was taught and what my… more professional friends were taught.

    But then again, the very definition of torture seem to be being twisted by the psychotic left. Torture is interrogation using pain, plain and simple. Mild humiliation is not torture (swearing at inmates). Not providing a prisoner with a bed is not torture (unless the enviromental conditions are extreme). Putting a bag over a prisoner’s head is not torture.

    By contrast, pulling someone’s fingernails out IS torture. So is flaying. So is sexual abuse of prisoners. So is, say, forcing someone to shoot their wife.

    I have heard a rumor about some American official saying they got official premission to use torture… not sure what’s the exact case. Anyone knows?

25. Drima on June 10th, 2006 1:38 am

    If they’re going to be blasting Metallica & Slipknot music 24/7 into prisoners’ ears then I’m fine with that and such similar methodologies.

26. Anonymous on June 10th, 2006 3:39 am

    I would hope so since we blast Metallica into our own ears all the time. What torture are you referring to drima? There has been no proven allegations of torture sanctioned by the US. There has been some isolated incidents of abuse by individual troops but if you are talking about a force of over 500,000 that has moved through Afghanistan and Iraq in the last years and the best you can come up with is going back to Abu Ghraib, then I am not going to get too upset. The soldiers involved in that were already found, tried and punished.
    Prisoners in Gitmo do get trials. They get military tribunals. Some have been released because of lack of evidence and some have been found again on the field of battle.
    Al Qaeda’s training manual contains a section instructing their combatants on how to claim abuse and how to use the American legal system. We are just not going to let them.
    Prisoners are given everything they need to survive. Their cells and themselves are kept clean. They are fed 3 square meals a day in keeping with any religious restrictions. They have access to religious and educational materials. They are given exercise.
    Now personally, I don’t want to hear the guy we caught trying to bomb a group of children whine about the improper handling of a Koran, which turned out to be a false accusation also but if you want to advance their agenda, keep equating the bombing of a group of children on a school bus with the man who had a dog bark at him but I’m going to tell you to get a grip.
    And oh, by the way, that soldier with the dog was also convicted.
    t

27. Drima on June 10th, 2006 4:50 am

    T, I don’t have a problem with the Abu Ghraib incident. It pissed us all off when we saw the photos. However it was carried out by indecent soldiers whom as you said ended up punished. I still stand by what I have posted even though I have to admit that I rather put out my points very crudely and bluntly. As for the torture, I was refering to physical torture as Raccoon described.

28. Anonymous on June 10th, 2006 5:27 am

    drima,
    Just to make my position clear.
    I am against all physical torture and most mental. We just have to be better then that.
    I think the question arises when you have a Zarqawi and you know he has information that may save many, many lives but he is not going to willingly talk, what do you do? Where do you put your priorities?
    In the US, even the administration of truth serums, which cause no pain and no lasting effects, is considered a form of torture and banned. There has to be some way, short of physical coercion, that we can use to save lives.
    I think we need to define what we mean as torture. The barking dogs, the short skirts, the loud music, I’m sorry but I am just not going to take those allegations seriously.
    t

29. Drewcatt on June 12th, 2006 5:30 am

    Racoon. I think we agree on the actual ‘benefits’ of torture. I may not be trained in torture techniques, or interrogation for that matter, but it would seem to me that when in pain a person would say anything to avoid the pain. They wouldn’t necessarily say what was true, but would instead aim to please their captor.

    I could be very wrong about that.

    As for the Americans and an official approval of torture. There has obviously been no press conference where the President got up and declared that they were in fact torturing prisoners, but stories have surface about certain indecencies at Gitmo, the use of secret detention facilities throughout Europe, and others.

    In fact, now that I’ve started to think about it I think there was a story about a year ago where the US had admitted to using torture on muslim detainees from Iraq and. Afghanistan (the link is: http://www.forbes.com/work/feeds/afx/2005/06/24/afx2110388.html

    If you’re interested in keeping tabs on the US, US Watch does a good job of rounding up the majority of stories involving the US and detainee abuse.

    http://www.usawatch.org/archives/cat_us_torture.html

30. Drewcatt on June 12th, 2006 5:37 am

    Hey anonymous. The US doesn’t use the so-called ‘truth serum’ because its highly unreliable, and little more than a glorified sedative.

    In all seriousness, it does little more than make a captive droggy, and induces symptoms of drunkeness and fatigue. While that may lead some people to tell the truth, it won’t work in others.

    Like most sedatives/anaelthegics, sodium penthanol and the ilk do have lasting efects if applied over a long period of time.

31. The Sudanese Thinker » “NOT a fan of double standards within America’s foreign policy” on September 15th, 2006 2:39 pm

    […] What I am against is the dirty and deceitful manner in which Bush started the war. What I am against is the way Bush totally disregarded the UN. What I am against is the “blurry” pretexts this war is being fought under. What I am against is the absolute horrible mismanagement of this war. What I am especially against is the SICKENING, DISGUSTING and IMMORAL tactics employed by the Bush administration in their war against terror and tyranny. Guantanamo, secret CIA prisons and torture anyone? How about when Bush gave Israel one more extra week to bomb the crap out of Lebanon?! Cluster bombs anyone? […]

Leave a Reply

Name (required)

Email Address(required)

Website