|
|
|
|
|
| Ex-CIA agent: Waterboarding 'saved lives'
Posted: 12/12/2007 9:12:54 PM |
torture is illegal, waterboarding is torture, before Bush that was not even questioned, why is it being questioned NOW? because Bush allowed waterboarding, to save his ass and those in his administration, he cannot take back the waterboarding, BUT, he can change the definition of torture...way to go minions!
In the immortal words of Michael Corleone: "Who's being naive, Kay?"
Do you seriously think that GWB is the only president in modern history to okay interrogation techniques that some would consider 'torture'? On the 9/30/07 (yeah, just a couple of months ago) edition of Meet the Press, former president Clinton said:
"I think what happens is the honest truth is that Tim Russert, Bill Clinton, people filming this show, if we were the Jack Bauer person and it was six hours to the bomb or whatever, you don’t know what you would do, and you have to—but I think what our policy ought to be is to be uncompromisingly opposed to terror—I mean to torture, and that if you’re the Jack Bauer person, you’ll do whatever you do and you should be prepared to take the consequences. And I think the consequences will be imposed based on what turns out to be the truth."
So Clinton argues for a public policy of "no torture" - but behind the scenes a tacit approval of a "whatever means necessary" policy that would grant the president plausible deniability. Nice tip of the hand there, Bill.
If you don't believe that every president - and every head of state the world over - has secretly advocated such action in what is perceived to be the best interest of their people, you're as naive as Kay Adams was when she asserted to Michael that "senators and presidents don't have men killed"... prompting Michael's response, above... | |
|
grog27
|
Joined: 2/25/2005
Msg: 52 | |
| Ex-CIA agent: Waterboarding 'saved lives'
Posted: 12/12/2007 9:19:02 PM | "but then again i am one of those freakin republican conservatives that everyone hates these days."
Get off the cross, already! Somebody needs the wood!
(Really, the self-pity and overblown persecution complex is getting REALLY old. Get over it.)
"Cot-your anti-Semitic and America hating comments revolt me. You are the biggest ally that the terrorists have in this country. God bless the men and women of our military who fight and die every day that you have the right to be as ignorant as you are!"
Ditto for this one. What was that slogan again? Oh yeah; "A Mind is a Terrible Thing to Waste."
And as for this post:
"Wow- some people make no effort to hide their hatred for the Jewish people!!!"
Anybody have any idea at all what it's referring to?!? Certainly nothing in THIS thread. Just another example o someone not really having anything to offer and instead just pulling something out of their ass to try and throw the thread off topic. | |
|
| Ex-CIA agent: Waterboarding 'saved lives'
Posted: 12/13/2007 6:20:38 AM |
In the 1991 Gulf War, Iraq was not a signatory to the Geneva Convention.
Factually wrong.
U.S. Gathers Evidence of War Crimes by Iraqi Regime
The 1907 Hague Convention on the Laws of War and the four 1949 Geneva Conventions and their later protocols on the treatment of prisoners of war (POWs), the wounded, and civilians are the basic international agreements covering armed conflicts.
These conventions do not deal with the rights and wrongs of a conflict, Prosper noted, but "state there is a right way to wage war. There are rules that must be followed and respected to preserve legitimacy of the actions."
These documents, he said, spell out who are the belligerents, who are the civilians that should be protected, and how POWs are to be treated.
Both the United States and Iraq are signatories to the Geneva Conventions, he said, and the Hague Convention is a "customary law" which all nations are bound to follow.
http://usinfo.state.gov/dhr/Archive/2003/Oct/09-932878.html
As signatories, they are obliged to follow the documents they signed. They would be, and should be, prosecuted for any failure to do so. To not do so is to render the documents worthless.
As for the other sides brutality, that's secondary.
What counts is to do what is morally right, regardless of what the other side does. | |
|
| Ex-CIA agent: Waterboarding 'saved lives'
Posted: 12/13/2007 6:41:57 AM | As a retired armed-forces officer, I am entirely put off by the notion that spinmeisters are torturing the English language into contorsions and twists. I'm also put off, even more, by the evidence flooding in: we torture, and we have tacit approval from the highest levels of government to do so. This puts us in the company of scoundrels and despots and is a blight on our image of ourselves as a country governed by laws that we apply equitably.
At a visceral level, primarily learned and finely honed as an active duty officer, every officer I ever encountered engaged their bullshit detectors as soon as any government-weenie/patsy came at us with words carefully crafted to reverse the course of crap in our systems.
To sum, if it quacks like a duck...then you can assume the worst definition of the word, concept, policy, etc. It's torture. Nothing enhanced about it at all, except the ability to enhance some politician or policy wonk's ability to wriggle out of a trial for treason and pin it on someone else, usually an unsuspecting (or in some cases, a resigned) military officer. From the eyes of a military officer, it looks like Kiriakou was pushed to go public to take the heat off of someone else, and to put it onto perhaps an as-yet-unnamed scapegoat. Stand by: in a week or two the scapegoat will be revealed. | |
|
| Ex-CIA agent: Waterboarding 'saved lives'
Posted: 12/13/2007 6:42:28 AM | Lets not also remember that combatants must be in uniform and easily identified as combatants; violation as such means you are not longer covered.
This allows combatants on both sides to find, detect and destroy each other while civilians are protected.
If a combantant fires his weapon while in civilian dress they are no longer protected by such rights either as a solider or civilian. | |
|
| Ex-CIA agent: Waterboarding 'saved lives'
Posted: 12/13/2007 6:55:44 AM |
Lets not also remember that combatants must be in uniform and easily identified as combatants; violation as such means you are not longer covered.
Partially true...
However, under the Geneva Conventions, it's up to an independent judge to determine the status of the "detainees," not whoever detains them. As well, Canadian regulations on prisoner-of-war status dictate that detainees must be brought before a military tribunal to determine whether they're prisoners of war or not.
Even if they are found to be "unlawful combatants" they still have rights under international humanitarian law – to humane treatment, to a fair trial if charged with a crime, and not to be tortured.
To this end the following acts are and shall remain prohibited at any time and in any place whatsoever with respect to the above-mentioned persons:
(a) violence to life and person, in particular murder of all kinds, mutilation, cruel treatment and torture;
(b) taking of hostages;
(c) outrages upon personal dignity, in particular humiliating and degrading treatment;
(d) the passing of sentences and the carrying out of executions without previous judgment pronounced by a regularly constituted court, affording all the judicial guarantees which are recognized as indispensable by civilized peoples.
Violation of prohibitions
Violation of prohibitions are covered by Article 5, which states:
Where in the territory of a Party to the conflict, the latter is satisfied that an individual protected person is definitely suspected of or engaged in activities hostile to the security of the State, such individual person shall not be entitled to claim such rights and privileges under the present Convention as would, if exercised in the favour of such individual person, be prejudicial to the security of such State.
Where in occupied territory an individual protected person is detained as a spy or saboteur, or as a person under definite suspicion of activity hostile to the security of the Occupying Power, such person shall, in those cases where absolute military security so requires, be regarded as having forfeited rights of communication under the present Convention.
In each case, such persons shall nevertheless be treated with humanity and, in case of trial, shall not be deprived of the rights of fair and regular trial prescribed by the present Convention. They shall also be granted the full rights and privileges of a protected person under the present Convention at the earliest date consistent with security of State or Occupying Power as case may be.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/iraq/genevaconventions.html
So, as long as they are judged by someone independent and found to be "unlawful combatants", they are protected from torture.
They might wind up in front of a firing squad, depending on the judgment rendered against them, but that protection from torture still applies.
So waterboarding, especially done under conditions where no determination of eligibility has even been attempted, violates at least three points.
a) violence to life and person, in particular murder of all kinds, mutilation, cruel treatment and torture;
(c) outrages upon personal dignity, in particular humiliating and degrading treatment;
(d) the passing of sentences and the carrying out of executions without previous judgment pronounced by a regularly constituted court, affording all the judicial guarantees which are recognized as indispensable by civilized peoples. | |
|
| Ex-CIA agent: Waterboarding 'saved lives'
Posted: 12/13/2007 7:13:36 AM | | They are protected only if the have signed that part of the convention, in addition the lawful persons doing the judging need not be independent but merely the "lawful" judge operating with the rules of war. The post war review of the judges in question is what hurts. | |
|
| Ex-CIA agent: Waterboarding 'saved lives'
Posted: 12/13/2007 7:40:09 AM | A just nation provides justice for all, not just the ones we like.
It is what placed upon the pedestal that the neocons have knocked us off.
Torture IS A WAR CRIME! | |
|
| Ex-CIA agent: Waterboarding 'saved lives'
Posted: 12/13/2007 7:44:22 AM | outdoor, dancinfg with words does not make for an argument. The ex navy seal who subjected himself to the practice did so 36 times longer than this terrorist individual was subjected to, and in a much harsher way. Like I said before 24 minutes with a rag jammed in the mouth with actual water going down the throat = torture. But 40 seconds using the celephane method = not torture. My point is this is not an all or none issue. It would be like finding a problem with a prison and then jumping to get rid of the entire prison system.
So what do you opt for, go ahead. What tools of interrogation are you going to give in return for trying strip the CIA of its capability to interrogate?
You dont even need to get into the Geneva coverage argument. 40 seconds and celephane is not torture. | |
|
| Ex-CIA agent: Waterboarding 'saved lives'
Posted: 12/13/2007 8:03:11 AM | Of course we torture. Our history is full of torturers and murderers.
Canada sent an entire generation of Aboriginal children to live in reformatories where they were systematically molested, malnourished, neglected, beaten, tortured and outright murdered in an effort to assimilate and destroy the Indians culture. And what a fine job we did. Indian reservations now rank as 3rd world nations in terms of health and literacy. A once proud people, succumbing to a marginal existence of suicide and substance abuse. Today it's the poor have their children taken away from them and put in protective custody where they are raped. Or boot camps run by sadists. The message is clear. You will obey. Help us catch the bad guys and your children won't be raped.
Even Hitler didn't molest an entire generation of children to make his point. That's what we do. At Abu Ghraib. we sexually humiliate the Iraqis. Force them to wear dog collars and smear themselves in shit and leak the photos to the media. So the whole world can see Iraq is our bitch.
We talk a load of bs about how we tie people to tables and subject them to "coercive interrogation techniques". But we don't torture people. The Iraqis get the point. Don't get in the way of the white man or you'll find yourself in a rape room at the end of a long stick. Or going to the hospital to find your child was decapitated by a daisy cutter. "Collateral damage".
Once the dirty work's been done, you'll never hear about it again. Nobody talks about the incest happening on the Indian reservations. The domestic violence, the suicides, the substance abuse that has overwhelmed them. The Indians are too ashamed to talk about their conquest by a bureaucracy of perverts and sociopaths. We've committed some of the most foul and despicable crimes known to man. But all you see on the history channel is more hysteria about Hitler.
When it comes to questions about torture, and right v. wrong, the bottom line is this. The international system is an anarchy. There's no referee to call a time out when one side breaks the rules and begins torturing prisoners, bombing children, and raping captured combatants. Penalties are distributed after the war's end at the peace conference. Where the losing side is stripped of its wealth and resources, and their leaders replaced with a compliant regime.
All these laws against torture and genocide were written by the same governments who practice torture and genocide. So they can force other governments to play by their rules. When Saddam Hussein bombs a village that's been causing him trouble, he's a monster. When Bush kills 100,000 Iraqi civilians, he's a statesman bringing democracy and stability to a troubled region.
Even though our system of constitutional government has become a farce, both congress and the judiciary ignoring the crimes of the Bush administration, we hold it up as a shining example for the world to emulate. "Democracies don't go to war" they say. We will gang up on another country like Yugoslavia or Iraq. Tell the United Nations to go stuff themselves while we bomb another nation to rubble, build bases on their territory, rob them of their resources and execute their leaders. But democracies never go to war with one another.
The only referee in this conflict is our own conscience if we have one. Will Canada continue to hand captured combatants over to the American authorities or a puppet government to be tortured? Of course we will. We tortured an entire nation of people so we could rob them of their identity and their land. Because at the end of the day, we are not going to compromise our own self-interest. We won't cross the United States on any grounds. We'll let them do the dirty work, and turn a blind eye to their war crimes same as the American congress, the media, and most of the public are turning a blind eye.
When it's all over, Canada will supply our own crop of distinguished judges and academics to help them negotiate the terms of peace and surrender and pave the way for a better world. Because we are better than the Americans. We sent a token force to prevent a genocide in Africa. And when they were caught torturing an African boy to death, we disbanded the regiment. Hooray for Canada and our brave peacekeepers.
The corporate media do a good job of cheering on the war machine. they're owned by the same class of people who own the oil companies, the politicians, the think tanks, the distinguished private universities and the arms machine. All their eggs are in the same basket. Power at all costs. Cover your tracks.
Torture is getting a lot of attention because it's gross. It makes us all uncomfortable to think something like that could be happening to another human being. But when the Bush administration retaliated against a journalist, by unlawfully revealing his wife's CIA identity, that got a lot of attention as well. The violation of his freedom of speech, the way he was bullied and his wife was made the victim made us uncomfortable. But the administration will get away with it. None of the systems in place, the judiciary or the legislature, are prepared to stop them.
All that's left is the conscience of the people. And most of them are on board. Just like the Germans supported what the Nazis were doing. It's for the national good. They deserve it. Bush has found a scapegoat to further his cause and its terrorists. The American brags that he would force a terrorists head into a pot of boiling water. It doesn't matter that Bush has killed far more Iraqis than all the Americans killed by terrorists in all of time. It's not about revenge or beating them at their own game. It's about controlling that part of the world's natural resources. Protecting regimes that will do business on America's terms, and removing those who don't comply at all cost. | |
|
| Ex-CIA agent: Waterboarding 'saved lives'
Posted: 12/13/2007 8:13:12 AM |
I am not saying waterboarding should be a common prtactice but if we have reason to believe that a TERRORIST has information that can save American lives then we are compelled to get the information.
So it shouldn't be common practice even if it saves lives. But it should be used on terrorists abroad because it saves lives.
Now other than the colour of their skin can you tell me why something that would save lives for one shouldn't be used to save lives locally? I mean way more people are killed through homicide than through terrorism.
]Thanks to our Canadian "friends" but we will handle our national security, you handle yours.
Hey if you don't want to here international opinions, go to a republican forum. Don't cry about having to hear other peoples views on the internet, thats practically the point of the entire exercise.
Thanks to our Canadian "friends" but we will handle our national security, you handle yours. | |
|
| Ex-CIA agent: Waterboarding 'saved lives'
Posted: 12/13/2007 9:39:39 AM |
Thanks to our Canadian "friends" but we will handle our national security, you handle yours. Well, I live here and can honestly say--having been a security officer/manager for more than 6 years--we could use some good advice and apply that advice earnestly...maybe even from our Canadian neighbors. | |
|
| Ex-CIA agent: Waterboarding 'saved lives'
Posted: 12/13/2007 9:53:19 AM | I for one am grateful for Canadians and appreciate free speech as just another citizen of the free world. Not to mention they have seriously covered our backside in Afghanistan while we've become quagmired in Iraq. Their decision to remain out of Iraq should have been respected almost 5 years ago just as much as it should be now with indisputable hindsight showing they were the ones with their priorities straight.
Whatver its history torture is unAmerican, pure and simple. For those of you that don't think that simulation of drowning isn't torture I invite you take the test for yourselves. To suggest we can treat other world citizens cruelly and maintain the integrity of the Constitution is IMHO insane whatever the potnetial human cost.
We throw the noble principles of our founders out the window the "enemy" has achieved a colossal victory.
"... all men are created...." | |
|
| Ex-CIA agent: Waterboarding 'saved lives'
Posted: 12/13/2007 10:02:41 AM |
those of you that don't think that simulation of drowning isn't torture I invite you take the test for yourselves. Double-C, I have another scenario to administer the "Is it Torture, or is It Memorex" test:
Let's have a few experts try it on your son or daughter, or mother or father, and see how your gut speaks to you. I do also recognize that throughout the past 4 decades of what I consider an "intentional amoralizing" of the American public, some among us have indeed crossed that slippery slope into sociopathy. Those who are sociopaths--and many, many people at top positions worldwide could be, given what it takes to get to and remain in those positions of power, authority, influence and greed--will never feel anything close to empathy for another human being. | |
|
| Ex-CIA agent: Waterboarding 'saved lives'
Posted: 12/13/2007 2:13:16 PM | ^^^^
Ah, but we have already eliminated the litmus test based on emtion (i.e. family members) So if the moral legitimacy of a tecnique cannot be based on its potential to save loves one it cannot be judged when people refuse to have it done on their loved ones to prove a point (Charles line of reasoning message 19 and 20). And who by the way ever advocated it to be done on women or childred? In fact Ive covered that base in an earlier post.
But if it means a high level Al-Queda needs to be waterboarded to gain information, I'd have no problem with it. Sure it would I'd be tense and nervous. The only problem I would have is that I'm doing it because some of you are so against making a terrorist uncomfortable. I'd have a problem because some of you cant seem to realize that it's NOT AN ALL OR NONE ISSUE, and that 24 minutes with a rag jammed sdown the throat IS NOT the same thing as 40 seconds with using the cellephane method. Acoording to your reasoning maybe we should get rid of prisions and schools because we have problems with a few of them.
And Charles, the reason that it is not a good idea to use waterboarding widespread within the intelligence community or domestically is because widespread use would cause an image problem and the tool itself will become ineffective. Its like an x-ray machine- but if used more than an x number of times it coulfd potentially cause cancer..
You would actually incur more attacks if used in a widespread manner. Today we a re not attacked because we have waterboarded a few individuals. We hare attacked over ideological differences. Who is advocating the use of waterboarding non-discrimanetly, without regualtion, and without oversight? Noone who is for it. So trying to goad people into taking that stance is going to be a chore for you | |
|
| Ex-CIA agent: Waterboarding 'saved lives'
Posted: 12/13/2007 2:45:55 PM | 24 minutes with a rag jammed sdown the throat IS NOT the same thing as 40 seconds with using the cellephane method.
Whether it's 24 minutes or 40 seconds, torture is still torture and it is immoral and unjustifiable under any circumstances (even to save a family member).
An immoral choice cannot be made moral by "regulating" or "overseeing" it. Neither can it be made moral by appealling to intent.
Would al-Qaeda be justified, in your mind, in torturing American soldiers to find out where they are going to raid next (after all, they're just trying to save the lives of their people, right)? | |
|
| Ex-CIA agent: Waterboarding 'saved lives'
Posted: 12/13/2007 3:00:54 PM | well, we disagree. 40 seconds is coercion. 24 minutes is torture. A moral choice cannot be made an immoral choice just because you feel that a terroist cannot be under ANY level of duress. 40 seconds to me is an acceptable level and does not constitute torture
Again your using emotional reasoning that charles eliminated in message 19. Al-Queda can hardly be justified as anything. They are non state actors who have no legitimate goals- makeing civilian populations fearful is not a legitimate goal. | |
|
| Ex-CIA agent: Waterboarding 'saved lives'
Posted: 12/13/2007 3:07:01 PM |
Would al-Qaeda be justified, in your mind, in torturing American soldiers to find out where they are going to raid next (after all, they're just trying to save the lives of their people, right)?
no they dont torture Americans....they behead them like cowards and film it to show on their 6 o'clock news. | |
|
| Ex-CIA agent: Waterboarding 'saved lives'
Posted: 12/13/2007 4:02:39 PM |
Again your using emotional reasoning that charles eliminated in message 19.
There may, in fact, be an emotional component to it but the base premise is strictly logical.
If we are justified in using torture to save lives does that not then make saving lives a valid justification for anyone else as well?
If not then you are suggesting a "do as we say, not as we do" approach, in other words, if we do it then our reasons are justified because it is us doing it but no-one else has claim to that same justification because they aren't us.
They are non state actors who have no legitimate goals- makeing civilian populations fearful is not a legitimate goal.
In your mind they have no legitimate goals, others may (and do) disagree with you. There are plenty who agree with al-Qaeda's goals and methods and even more who agree with their goals but not their methods. That their goals are incompatible with yours does not, in and of itself, make them illegitimate (one example of an al-Qaeda goal that a great many would consider legitimate, while disagreeing with the method, is to bring an end to foreign interference and attempts to dictate policy in middle eastern countries).
In the final analysis, once you make an unacceptable practice legitimate for yourself, you make it legitimate for the same rationale for others. The only solution to the problem is "to be the change" and refuse to engage in actions towards others that you would decry being done to your own. | |
|
| Ex-CIA agent: Waterboarding 'saved lives'
Posted: 12/13/2007 4:10:40 PM | 1) torture is a crime, period.
2) torture DOESN'T work!
EVER!
The united states has not obtained any valuable information from torturing any of the enemy combatants. It doesn't work. You obtain lies.
Ask John McCain if torture works. Read the writings of Adm. Stockdale. 24 is a frigging TV show, in real life it doesn't work.
The British are well know to have the best intelligence in the world. They don't use torture.
AND, if saving lives was so important, then why the hell did your republican morons out Valarie Plame?
Ignorance is bliss! | |
|
| Ex-CIA agent: Waterboarding 'saved lives'
Posted: 12/13/2007 4:32:58 PM | Strategic information doesn't have a very long shelf life. When the Canadians catch a "terrorist" he's dropped off at the local police station where the cops go to work with a pair of pliers.
Whether or not you talk, you won't leave that room alive. You'll tell them nothing and die of shock. Or tell them what they know and get a bullet to silence your screams. Torture is dirty work. Chances are the torturer doesn't enjoy it and is looking forward to hiding the evidence of what has just done.
By the time you fly your terrorist back to Guantanamo, his associates already know the plan's been compromised and found a new place to crash.
Guantanamo and Abu Ghraib are about sending a message. This is what will happen if you oppose us. We will lock you up forever. Parade you around in your underwear and force you to sodomize each other, robbing you of your pride, your dignity, and your manhood. You will become a number, property of the United States of America. To be used whenever it suits us to humiliate your family and your nation. You will never see them again.
The rest don't survive their torture, and it's never talked about. That's what mass graves are for. To hide the evidence. | |
|
| Ex-CIA agent: Waterboarding 'saved lives'
Posted: 12/13/2007 5:24:49 PM | A question I've posed several times, and never have received a real answer on.
Let's change history for a moment. Just an mental experiment, to see what happens.
For one minute, let's pretend that 9/11 was planned and executed by a radical fundamentalist Jewish terrorist group like Kahane Chai .
Do you really think that the USA (or any country in the West) would be waterboarding them ? Do you think they'd be photographed naked ? Do you think that Orthodox Jews would be shaved ?
I think if you are honest with yourself, the answer would be no. The public outcry from the Jewish community would shake the foundations of power. Had it been the IRA, and Irishmen, it would have been exactly the same thing - or with any other "mainstream" group of ethnic or religious background.
Tim McVeigh blew up the Murrow Building, and killed 168 Americans. No one argued for him to be tortured or waterboarded to find out all he knew. He was offered every right that any other American citizen had.
Now ask yourself why Muslims get different treatment. | |
|
| Ex-CIA agent: Waterboarding 'saved lives'
Posted: 12/13/2007 5:30:00 PM | | Ever hear the saying: "Desperate times call for desparate measures!"? They would gladly murder civilians, yet there is some type of a problem with making them FEEL like they are drowning to get them to talk??? What is wrong with the world today??? | |
|
| Ex-CIA agent: Waterboarding 'saved lives'
Posted: 12/13/2007 5:30:23 PM |
the intelligence you get is unreliable and the damage to you in terms of giving terrorist recruiters a propoganda tool is too strong.
Interestingly enough, Kiriakou (sp) noted in the interview which I caught on NPR that the technique had definitely saved American lives, as it had provided good intel.
That's an argument for it in my book - along with minimal use in closely defined situations, and only by the CIA - with video, a doctor monitoring.....seems to me that 30 or 40 seconds of discomfort (albeit at an extreme level it would seem) is not a bad price to pay.
As for the person who mentioned Pol Pot - his 'soldiers' raped, killed people who were educated just for that reason, raped and generally ran amok. An evil man. | |
|
| Ex-CIA agent: Waterboarding 'saved lives'
Posted: 12/13/2007 5:35:16 PM |
For one minute, let's pretend that 9/11 was planned and executed by ...
To be fair, you also have to postulate that the group has been involved in international terrorism for over a decade; openly considered itself at war with the US; had a mature organization with money, experience, cells, military camps, and plenty of recruits; and had previously attacked the world trade center, a navy vessel, and other American targets.
None of those examples applies. The closest might be the IRA, but for the UK. Had their bombings in London been followed up by the equivalent of 9/11, it would not surprise me if the British would have then turned to enhanced interrigation. | |
|
|
| Page 3 of 41
|
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41 |
|
Home
login 
