« Global Terrorist Hydra Hits Egypt | Main | Hillary Changes Course. Will Enough Democrats Follow? »

July 25, 2005

Comments

good excerpts.

this country is fnck'd

It has been astonishing* how many right-wing bloggers have simply accepted the Plame Affair as a partisan attack on Bush via Karl Rove.

And presumably will continue to do so, until - Well, when? Is there anything that could happen that would persuade Bush's partisans that he has behaved very badly over this?

*I originally wrote _and disturbing_, but it's the right-wing bloggers who take condemnation of torture and other human rights violations to be merely a partisan attack on the Bush administration who disturb me. The Plame Affair just astonishes me.

Jes: "Is there anything that could happen that would persuade Bush's partisans that he has behaved very badly over this?"

In a word? No.

(An act of purest optimism to have posed the question in the first place.)

I couldn't help but skim the Redstate thread on the CSPAN hearings. To them, the fact that Col Lang opposed the war makes him a partisan hack. The die-hards are completely unable to think rationally about this subject. "Attack the messenger, ignore the message" and "Chalk it up to partisan bickering" are typical reactions to anything Plame related.

Wow! What a display of intelligence, eloquence and nuanced thinking we have here. I'm proud that these two men worked for us, aren't you?

The need for mutual trust and integrity that they talk about should be self-evident. How can we protect ourselves from the people who will say just about anything to score a minor "point" against the opposition and don't care about the consequences?

Thank you for the post, hilzoy. Interesting stuff, and well worth thinking about.

I agree that the outing of Valerie Plame was despicable. But, hypothetically speaking, suppose the CIA had been involved in the attempted coup against Chavez a couple of years back? And suppose someone leaked this information, including the names of CIA agents involved, to the press. I'd be happy about that and wouldn't want the leakers found. But most of the same arguments made by these two agents would apply then. I don't deny that we need the CIA or something like it and there are negatives to exposing an agent's identity--it makes it harder for the CIA to recruit assets in other countries. But in some cases I think exposure is justified, which is why I don't like the 1982 law. Is there a way of writing a law about outing CIA agents which would distinguish between cases like Valerie Plame and cases where some legitimate whistle-blowing is going on?

I found some of Lang's words a little bit creepy, frankly. "Sacramental", "a community of the alert and well-informed", etc.... To hear him talk the CIA is almost a religious order and the people it recruits as assets overseas tend to be boy scouts who'd do well on Jeopardy. Probably some of the people it recruits are heroes. Others are probably people who'd sell anything to anybody, and some are probably what we'd call terrorists, depending on who they blow up. Lang gives the game away when he cites the KGB as a model organization when it comes to instilling loyalty in its troops. It's a very limited sort of morality we're talking about here, folks, the kind of morality covert operators need to do what they're going to do, whether it is good or evil.

A good way to understand what happens when an agent's cover is blown is to read (or watch) Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Spy. The theme of "trust" (and betrayal) is woven into the story, too.

I believe that book is highly regarded in professional intelligence services.

And suppose someone leaked this information, including the names of CIA agents involved, to the press. I'd be happy about that and wouldn't want the leakers found.

I'm not sure I agree with this -- yes, I'd probably want to know about the nefarious actions of our agents, but I don't see why we'd need to be told their identities, especially if that might put people in danger or harm other, more legitimate actions.

And the problem with leaking directly to the press in any case is that the leaker is taking sole responsibility for what should and shouldn't be made public -- even when it's well-intentioned, it could be bad judgment.

But you're probably right that the interests of some of the people testifying may not entirely align with ours.

Part of the problem is that the racket from the left *is* in part motivated by a desire to get at Bush via Rove. The fact that Rove is guilty of significantly undermining US security (by his own admission) makes the attack particularly effective, but within the context of the level of partisanship prevailing in the US it's not too surprising to see the right circling the wagons. I think it's pretty clear at this point that even viewed through a partisan prism the right course of action for the GOP is to just take the hit for the sake of national security (not to mention justice) and move on to the next round of the fight. The fact that there are so many diehard defenders of Rove says something very bad about the current structure of the GOP, in particular its concentrations of power and the vindictiveness with which deviations from the party line are punished.

From a political tactics point of view the best course of action for the Dems is probably to try to keep the most strident accusations to a minimum and to push CIA insiders to the fore.

Unfortunately we do not live in a country where political considerations can be taken out of national security issues or issues of executive accountability. The independent counsel law was supposed to help address this problem, but that didn't work out too well under Clinton. I expect to see major smears directed at the special prosecutor in the coming weeks.

Very good observations, Andrew C. I agree. But for this --

"From a political tactics point of view the best course of action for the Dems is probably to try to keep the most strident accusations to a minimum and to push CIA insiders to the fore."

Why do you think this is the best course of action for the Dems? I'm actually torn on this issue...

On one hand I think the political environment might mean overt outrage and partisanship on the part of the Dems will actually work against them. It seems the more they complain, the more marginalized they become in the eyes of the millionaire pundits. Maybe it is best for whistleblowers (partisans themselves) to make the charges.

On the other hand, wtf does someone have to do around here to get an investigation? Unless the Dems speak loudly and often about how these issues, they won't reap the full advantage come election time. I mean, they have to position themselves as an alternative to the scandal-ridden Repubs. To do that, they need to be heard.

On the other hand, wtf does someone have to do around here to get an investigation?

Are you saying there's no investigation, or requesting a parallel one?

"Attack the messenger, ignore the message" and "Chalk it up to partisan bickering" are typical reactions to anything Plame related.
That's been the motto of Bush supporters for years, and it applies to much more than just Plame: O'Neill, Clarke, Rather, Newsweek, Amnesty, ICRC, Durbin, and on and on. It will be Fitzgerald's turn soon enough.

"Are you saying there's no investigation, or requesting a parallel one?"

Which investigation are you referring to? Fitzgerald? There is a reason she was outed. That reason needs to be investigated.

Andrew C: "Part of the problem is that the racket from the left *is* in part motivated by a desire to get at Bush via Rove."

Well, since all sorts of people are making a racket, it wouldn't surprise me to learn that all sorts of motives are represented. But for me, and I think for a lot of other people, partisan politics is not the main thing. -- I mean, I'd like to see Karl Rove get his as much as anyone, with the exception of people he has personally smeared. He has spent his life doing despicable things, and I'd love to see him finally get nailed for one of them. But that is absolutely not the main point.

"within the context of the level of partisanship prevailing in the US it's not too surprising to see the right circling the wagons." -- Maybe not surprising, but incredibly disheartening nonetheless. There are some things that matter more than partisan politics, and national security is one of them. And there are some moments when you (the generic 'you', not 'you, personally') should not just reflexively react to what you think the other side is doing, or parrot talking points, but actually think about what's right and try to do it. And this is one of those times.

The fact that people who supposedly care about winning the war on terror, protecting this country, and so forth don't see that outing an agent is wrong, that trashing someone who (unlike most of them) chose to risk her life in the service of her country is wrong, that playing 'I know all about espionage' to keep the heat off people who harmed our country's security for political gain is wrong -- well, I don't think that 'hey, some of their opponents are partisan' begins to explain it. No one with a shred of intellectual integrity or decency would jump on this bandwagon.

But for me, and I think for a lot of other people, partisan politics is not the main thing. -- I mean, I'd like to see Karl Rove get his as much as anyone, with the exception of people he has personally smeared. He has spent his life doing despicable things, and I'd love to see him finally get nailed for one of them. But that is absolutely not the main point.

Fascinating question: which thing is the main thing?

On the one hand, my partisan desire to get Rove for just about anything--at least, for anything that's really a bad thing--is HUUUUGE.

But on the other hand, my background in intelligence consists primarily of reading lots of Graham Greene and John Le Carre novels, and in their (shared) world, the one thing you absolutely don't do is reveal a covert agent's identity. If you do that, you will go to Hell. So the idea of a political operative, Republican, Democrat, Tory or Whig, casually outing a covert agent in order to score a political point that is really of rather trifling significance truly makes me see red.

That's what makes it an interesting question: which one weighs more heavily in the balance, getting Rove or getting the person who did this heinous thing? Not sure, but they both weigh a whole lot.

Which investigation are you referring to? Fitzgerald? There is a reason she was outed. That reason needs to be investigated.

Hey look! We're getting an investigation after all.

"Sen. Roberts doesn't have time to investigate the manipulation of prewar intelligence, the Niger forgeries or the Plame disclosure.

"But he does have time to investigate how the CIA uses 'cover' in its clandestine operations. And as part of his new exercise in water-carrying he will also investigate Patrick Fitzgerald's criminal probe.

"Note the specifics: I didn't say he'll be investigating what Fitzgerald's investigating; he's apparently found time to investigate the Fitzgerald probe itself. Roberts' spokesperson Sarah Little told Reuters that his 'committee would also review the probe of special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald, who has been investigating the Plame case for nearly two years.'"

Trickster: to me, national security is the main thing. Basic decency is the second main thing, and it makes me think: you do not, not, not destroy the career of someone who, as I said, decided to risk her life for her country, and you especially do not, not, not do it for stupid political reasons.

Getting Rove has two aspects, for me: one is the schadenfreude, the 'ha ha, the guy who thought it was OK to try to smear someone with a great record on kids' issues as a pedophile finally gets his'. This is dwarfed by everything else. The other, which is more serious, is that it might -- just might -- do something to harm what one might call Rove-ism: the idea that you can do literally anything to your opponents for political advantage. This, which I think of as distinct from the 'ha ha' part, falls under 'basic decency', and if I thought that this episode would actually mean the end of Rove-ism, I'd rank it a lot higher. As it is, though, I think it's likely to have a minor impact (if any) in that regard, so it comes in a distant third, as considerations go.

I mean, should we really have to be reminded that outing CIA officers is a big deal...

The Bush apologists know its a big deal.

But they have wrapped themselves in their Plame talking points, which they use like armor so that any facts and all reason bounce off harmlessly.

Let us remember that "Rove" is the nominal name we are using whether we are in it for the good of the Republic or for the cheap thrills of schadenfreude.

"Rove" does the express bidding of the smirking, winking, swaggering, gunslinging one with the deeply ingrown, messianic bitterness somebody bequeathed to him along the way. The one who shall not be questioned. The tough guy who tears up for the troops, like a Mafioso at the opera.

For me, Rove is just a means. The Republic will survive these earnest, corrupt children. But Bush must be punished.

Give us all the solemn pomp and circumstance of an impeachment. A person can bow his head at the gravitas of the situation and still without shame kick his heels up in joyful vengeance.

Get mad and get even. It's about time we relived the 1990s, this time for substantive reasons. So many enjoyed it the last time. They'll come out of their seats this time.

P.S. I have special plans for Grover Norquist; some sort of exquisite feathered public humiliation. I wonder where he'll hide. It'll be a private affair, fully outsourced and utterly unregulated ... no tax dollars or the heavy hand of government involved.

"Roberts' spokesperson Sarah Little told Reuters that his 'committee would also review the probe of special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald..."

So Roberts is going to investigate Fitzgerald? What the heck for? What's he going to do, slow down or stop the GJ by hauling Fitzgerald in for hearings?

Fitzgerald joins the ever-growing list of Republican public officials, Cabinet members, and judges- some of 'em conservative Republican public officials, Cabinet members, and judges - whom the GOP has gone after one way or another. The one common thread among them is that they were insufficiently loyal to George Bush and/or the fundamentalists.

Is the Party purging itself of everyone except Bush loyalists and fundamentalists?

What is that going to mean for the GOP when Bush's term is up?

How can you remake a Party to be all about an extremist religious fringe that comprises at most 25% of the electorate?

How can you remake a Party to be all about one man when that man can't legally stay in office after January 21, 2009?

Could one of the Republicans on this board take a stab at explaining what's going on here?

Orwell had a name for that armor, dmbeaster: crimestop.

the one thing you absolutely don't do is reveal a covert agent's identity. If you do that, you will go to Hell.

The special hell. The one reserved for child molestors, and people who talk at the theatre.

we take the security of those risking their lives on behalf of the United States seriously

Heh. Indeed. Maybe Marcinkowski believes the above statement, but the incident in the link says somebody else doesn't.

I have a hard time thinking that Plame was able to recruit anyone based on our past performances. I know I wouldn't be itching to flip my compadres if the feds were going to get me killed to sway a vote.

How can you remake a Party to be all about one man when that man can't legally stay in office after January 21, 2009?

he'll use his Political Capital and Wartime Popularity to bop around the country, giving rousing speeches to the faithful (just as he does now), but this time, it'll be on behalf of the chosen successor (Jeb? Cheney? Rice?) who will run on a platform of "GW2!!!"

hilzoy - I completely agree with you that the focus needs to be on the national security issue rather than the partisan one. The problem I see is that there is so much smoke and so many mirrors that the logical first reaction to a statement that a politician or operative has done something terribly wrong is to assume it's a lie (at least for those who are unable to simply file everything under 'not proven' until further information comes in, which I suspect is most people). We're way past the point where reasonable people can continue with the assumption that the Plame leak is a non-issue, but I do feel a certain amount of sympathy for those who assume the worst about the accuser. I was one of those with respect to the Lewinsky allegations, having been taken in previously by earlier accusations against the Clintons. By the time the smear machine found something that was actually true I had all but tuned them out, and it required DNA evidence to change my mind.

The flip side of this is that it's to both sides' advantage to amplify the nuttiest allegations of the other camp, precisely because it helps inoculate them against the lesser (but accurate) allegations. In the end it's democracy that takes the hit, no matter which side is throwing the punches.

Despite having expressed some sympathy for the other side (it's a liberal sacrament, donchaknow), I share the feeling that the people trying to deflect criticism from Rove and the other leakers are doing the country a grave disservice. The leakers need to be severely punished, not just for the offense they have committed, but also as a message to other potential leakers and to people whose trust that their identities will be protected is a prerequisite for cooperation with our intelligence services.

Trickster: But on the other hand, my background in intelligence consists primarily of reading lots of Graham Greene and John Le Carre novels, and in their (shared) world, the one thing you absolutely don't do is reveal a covert agent's identity. If you do that, you will go to Hell. So the idea of a political operative, Republican, Democrat, Tory or Whig, casually outing a covert agent in order to score a political point that is really of rather trifling significance truly makes me see red.

Yes, exactly. I find myself in general agreement with Donald Johnson, more often that not, and I take his point that there might well be a good reason to out a CIA agent's identity. And, of course, everyone is the hero in their own movie: to argue that it's okay to do it for good reasons is to argue that it's okay for anyone to do it so long as they claim their reasons are good.

Which is, of course, precisely what the Bush partisans are doing as they try to reframe the Plame Affair in terms of what Joseph Wilson said or did.

The only answer, I think - and it's my answer to Donald Johnson as well as to all the Bush partisans out there - is that if you work for the government, and you decide to out a CIA operative for what seem to you very good reasons, you can do so: but you then have to pay the price for doing so. If it seems sufficiently important to you that you are willing to lose your job, end your career, and risk a prison sentence, then make the sacrifice and do it.

But evidently, this isn't how Karl Rove feels, nor how anyone else in the Bush administration involved in the Plame leak and subsequent coverup feels. Punishing Joseph Wilson was not important enough to be worth the people who did it losing jobs, ending careers, or risking prison sentences.

Which is a fairly sure test that it shouldn't have been done at all.

Could one of the Republicans on this board take a stab at explaining what's going on here?

I can't speak for the Republican party (not that I ever could, but it's even more true now that I am no longer a Republican), but for myself: my only dissatisfaction with Fitzgerald's performance to date is how frickin' long it's taking. I realize this is an ongoing case and all, but we seem to learn about one new bit of data every three or four weeks. If that.

But on the other hand, my background in intelligence consists primarily of reading lots of Graham Greene and John Le Carre novels

I've also got almost exactly zero experience with intel data. I have reviewed quite a lot of data that was classified (as the controversial portion of the INR memo was) SECRET/NOFORN, and in my experience, I have never, ever seen the name or even the location of a covert asset. All that I, personally, have ever seen classified at that level was data that's been scrubbed to the point where it wasn't obvious who might have provided it. Can I conclude that the identity of covert agents would be classified at a higher level than that? No, but I'd guess that it would be.

The other thing that I'd project is that the letter and various public statements by several former CIA agents to the effect that Plame was in fact covert is only evidence if they're in a position to know. It's extremely hard for me to believe that on ongoing need-to-know for this sort of information would be granted.

Other than that, I'm reserving judgement until such time as the investigation is concluded.

Slarti: The other thing that I'd project is that the letter and various public statements by several former CIA agents to the effect that Plame was in fact covert is only evidence if they're in a position to know.

We're all in a position to know that Plame was covert. If she wasn't, the investigation ended just as soon as Fitzgerald confirmed this, because if she wasn't, no crime was committed by leaking her identity.

Of course, Bush partisans can continue to hope otherwise.

I agree that the outing of Valerie Plame was despicable. But, hypothetically speaking, suppose the CIA had been involved in the attempted coup against Chavez a couple of years back?

Uh...wouldn't that be, like, illegal? A leak that exposed illegal activity on part of any federal agent/actor is OK. Leaking information for political gain when the information leaked has nothing to do with illegal activity and also does actual harm is not OK.

I'm not comparing Plame to hypothetical CIA agents involved in overthrowing governments, Praedor. Plame's job really was to help defend the US from the WMD threat. I'm questioning a law that says you should never reveal the identity of a covert CIA operative. I think there have been real life cases where I probably would have cheered if CIA operatives had been exposed. If the law allows exposure when CIA agents are doing Bad Things, then I have no complaint.

If it doesn't, maybe Jesurgislac's position is the least bad option--the whistleblower should do the right thing and face up to the jail sentence. But I'd prefer, if possible, to have a system where whistle-blowers don't go to jail. How did the US survive before this 1982 law was passed?

As for the outing of Plame, asuming it was done by Rove or Libby for despicable reasons (as I tend to believe), then honest people across the political spectrum should rise up in outrage and demand the resignations of the people involved. You don't necessarily need a law in place to be able to tell right from wrong in a particular situation.

If it doesn't, maybe Jesurgislac's position is the least bad option--the whistleblower should do the right thing and face up to the jail sentence. But I'd prefer, if possible, to have a system where whistle-blowers don't go to jail. How did the US survive before this 1982 law was passed?

Ok, now I'm confused. If the whistleblower in accomplished an unauthorized disclosure of classified information that resulted in that information being completely compromised, that person can be punished with prison time, regardless of whatever 1982 law you speak of.

There is a reason she was outed. That reason needs to be investigated.

heet, I'm not sure why you think this requires a separate investigation. Given a disclosure of classified data, the severity of penalty is going to be directly related to the degree to which this disclosure was deliberate. I'm thinking the reason, if there is one, is going to get plenty of attention.

Slarti: I can't speak for the Republican party (not that I ever could, but it's even more true now that I am no longer a Republican)...

Whoa. When did this happen?

Whoa. When did this happen?

Oh, about the time I came back from vacation, Anarch. It's not that anything fundamental has changed, just that I see that endorsing either party by being a registered member is not something I care to do. Basically, both major parties have abandoned any appearance at actually running (or caring about running) the country in favor of throwing rotten produce at each other.

Regarding investigations, I think the more interesting question, and one that as far as I can tell is not being investigated, is: who forged the Niger documents and for what purpose? My understanding is that they were obvious forgeries, with such defects as the wrong name for a government minister. Josh Marshall has given us some details but the trail seems to be cold at the moment.

Those are interesting questions, ral, but completely unrelated to the Plame case as far as I can see. As are Joe Wilson's veracity, Karl Rove's Evilness Quotient, Valerie Plame's soccer-mom-ness...and pretty much everything else other than the circumstances surrounding the purported crime.

If the law allows exposure when CIA agents are doing Bad Things, then I have no complaint.

I disagree, in general. Balance is needed. (Where's Sandra Day O'Connor when you need her?)

The problem is that while the agent may deserve to be punished, the exposure may lead to very bad consequences for innocent people in all sorts of ways. Does that mean being in the CIA is a grant of immunity? I don't think it has to be. First of all, if the bad deeds are not criminal it is possible to punish offending agents administratively - discharge for example - without disclosing the identity. If the matter is a political one, like your example of overthrowing Chavez, it is the policymakers who ought primarily to be called to account. Speaking in general again, wouldn't the CIA officials who orchestrated such a coup generally be non-covert top officers? Porter Goss' job is not classified.

Outright criminality is a more difficult matter, but I wonder whether some cases at least can't be dealt with without revealing the CIA connection. If an agent murders someone that's murder. If the CIA connection becomes important surely there are ways of dealing with the case.

To Slartibartfast--

I'm not sure where I read about it--probably some lefty website--but I've picked up the impression that there was a law passed in 1982 that made it illegal to reveal the identity of a covert CIA agent.

To Bernard--

I suppose how I'd judge the morality of revealing a CIA agent's identity would depend on the circumstances. The problem is that the government is always going to claim that there are life and death reasons why this or that secret has to be kept secret--I'm not sure, but I imagine that there were claims that the publication of the Pentagon Papers would do irreparable harm to our national security.

but I've picked up the impression that there was a law passed in 1982 that made it illegal to reveal the identity of a covert CIA agent

If you're referring to the Intelligence Identities and Protection Act, it's not the only applicable statute.

slartibartfast-

"I'm thinking the reason, if there is one, is going to get plenty of attention."

I hope you are right.

[ ral: What was the origin of the documents? slarti: ... completely unrelated to the Plame case as far as I can see. ]

Unrelated to the prosecution of a crime (if crime there was), perhaps, but essential to understanding the larger picture.

After all, it was due to those documents' existence that Joseph Wilson was sent to Niger. As I understand the story, Amb. Wilson had not seen them when he made his trip, but they were the proximate cause of his going. It's a very tangled tale, and many red herrings have been paraded out.

I would say my question is strongly related to the matter of how a government (any government) should handle intelligence gathering, which seems to be the topic of this post. This is a very important national security issue in today's environment of terrorist threats.

Oh, about the time I came back from vacation, Anarch. It's not that anything fundamental has changed, just that I see that endorsing either party by being a registered member is not something I care to do.

Ah, gotcha. My condolences if appropriate; my cheers if appropriate; my silence if not.

But the real question is: did they make you give back your VRWC decoder ring? ;)

It's a very tangled tale, and many red herrings have been paraded out.

Which is why I think these two things, the Plame outing and the Niger hairball, should be considered separately.

Ah, gotcha. My condolences if appropriate; my cheers if appropriate; my silence if not.

I'm not sure which of the above is best, so your guess may well be better than mine. To me, it's more a sign that all of the things I disliked about politics that had me vote for Perot in 1992 have simply gotten worse.

But the real question is: did they make you give back your VRWC decoder ring?

Damned thing never worked right anyway. It's the ass-kicking boots that I'm more concerned with.

ral, IIRC, the forged Niger docs came in after the Wilson trip, which was based on other rumors. I think that makes the fake docs a response to, not cause of, the Wilson trip.

and in Guantanamo news, the D.C. Circuit has moved the oral argument up a month, and changed the panel. It's now set for September 8, before Sentelle, Randolph, and Rogers. 9:30 a.m.

It won't be easy to get a seat, but for those of you in DC, this will be first class entertainment.

For people with a more warped sensibility, the hearing on the motion to release the Uighur prisoners -- still held prisoner although the government has determined that they are not enemy combatants -- is set for August 1. The motion has been declassified, and I suppose the hearing will be open to the public.

Charley,

I'm not familiar with the matter of the Uighur prisoners. Can you provide details, or a link?

Thanks.

BY: Here's an http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2005/07/26/put_cleared_detainees_in_a_hotel_lawyer_says/>article.

Sabin, by the way, observes that his clients are in jail because the government fears they may have caught "cooties."

The prisoners are stuck in limbo because the United States fears the governments of China and Uzbekistan, which have a history of repressing Muslims, would kill them if they were sent home, but no other country wants them.

Doesn't sound anything like "cooties" to me. Still, it seems that holding people prisoner for their own good isn't what we want to be doing right now. If they want to go home, they ought to be allowed to. If there's truly nowhere they can go, then...I don't know; maybe, since we took them into custody to begin with, the burden of asylum lies on us.

Slart, the article has an Army Major saying

"They have been detained in here with some very bad people, under some very bad influences," Weir said. ''We can't just release them into a hotel amongst the civilians on the base. . . . We understand the point of what the lawyers are saying, but it's an impossibility."

I think we are talking about an ideological form of cooties here. In other words, in the view of the Army, we might very well have made these men dangerous by imprisoning them for four years. Go figure.

Once I finished reading that article I noticed the ads at the bottom of the page:

Ads by Google

----------------------------------------------------

"Club" Gitmo
"Club Gitmo" T's only $10 Novelty T-Shirts from BelleVegas
www.bellevegas.com

The Premier Prison Manual
"From an insider, this manual has all the answers"-Robert Shapiro,Esq
www.bureauofprisons.com

Guantanamo Shirt
Express your outrage - emblems, stickers, T shirts, and more!
www.EvolveFish.com
----------------------------------------------------

What a twisted world.

The comments to this entry are closed.

Blog powered by Typepad