Comments (229)

OneCrankyDom wrote on June 10, 2007 9:25 PM:

Still the CIA refuses to cop to these places except to say they were all closed when Bush made his speech about transferring the 12 to Gitmo. When asked if any had been opened since then they refused to answer the question. After years of watching this all develop what is we can say anymore except that it's pass time to change it.

profmarcus wrote on June 10, 2007 9:26 PM:

naturally the cia has disputed the report...
-----
The CIA has dismissed a Council of Europe report alleging that it ran secret jails for terror suspects in Europe after the 11 September attacks.

A CIA spokesman said the report was biased and distorted, and that the agency had operated lawfully.

[...]

Former Polish President Aleksander Kwasniewski, who served from 1995 to 2005, said on Friday: "There were no secret prisons in Poland."

Romanian senator Norica Nicolai, who headed an investigation into the allegations, also denied his country's involvement.

The secret detention facilities in Europe were run directly and exclusively by the CIA
Dick Marty

"All statements made by Dick Marty are totally groundless," he said.
-----
somehow, i think the report and dick marty got it right... neither poland nor romania want to admit to it, of course, but there's just too damn much evidence to the contrary...

http://takeitpersonally.blogspot.com/

profmarcus wrote on June 10, 2007 9:26 PM:

naturally the cia has disputed the report...

from the bbc
-----
The CIA has dismissed a Council of Europe report alleging that it ran secret jails for terror suspects in Europe after the 11 September attacks.

A CIA spokesman said the report was biased and distorted, and that the agency had operated lawfully.

[...]

Former Polish President Aleksander Kwasniewski, who served from 1995 to 2005, said on Friday: "There were no secret prisons in Poland."

Romanian senator Norica Nicolai, who headed an investigation into the allegations, also denied his country's involvement.

The secret detention facilities in Europe were run directly and exclusively by the CIA
Dick Marty

"All statements made by Dick Marty are totally groundless," he said.
-----
somehow, i think the report and dick marty got it right... neither poland nor romania want to admit to it, of course, but there's just too damn much evidence to the contrary...

http://takeitpersonally.blogspot.com/

stan wrote on June 10, 2007 10:09 PM:

the top story in the us media is Paris Hilton.

foobar wrote on June 10, 2007 10:25 PM:

A little tech help, please?

I don't know about anyone else, but I've not gotten any update on TPM-Muckraker's RSS feed since June 6. Below is the link to the feed, and the top story is "DoJ Document Dump Muckraking Thread" from June 6. Can someone confirm this for me, please? Thanks much.

http://feeds.feedburner.com/tpmmuckraker

Imelda wrote on June 10, 2007 10:59 PM:

Ceaucescu lives. Long live Ceaucescu!

Of course, he's now one of us.

Austin Cooper wrote on June 10, 2007 11:23 PM:

'the top story in the us media is Paris Hilton.'
stan

Yep. And, for the MSM, the fact that the detainees were all transferred to Guantanamo and (presumably these) secret prisons closed... well, that's all anyone needs to know about *this* story.

Time for the Tony Awards, and footage of Our Sainted Leader, running for President of Albania.

Code, bell = As in, Ask not...

Anonymous wrote on June 11, 2007 12:50 AM:

I call your attention to some fatal denials by the United States on the issue of unlawful combatants status. This may be of interest in light of the prisoner transfers from E. Europe in the wake of Hamdan; but the recent ruling that the US government had not adequately charged the prisoners as unlawful combatants under MCA.

QUOTE:
Unlawful Combatants: Baroness Williams of Crosby asked Her Majesty's Government: Whether "unlawful combatants" are being held at the United States base on Diego Garcia or on United States vessels around the island; if so, whether they are being held under control of Her Majesty's Government or of the United States; what is the legal basis on which they are held; and whether they are being granted the legal rights appropriate to their status.[HL2314]

Baroness Amos: The United States authorities have assured us that they are not detaining anyone they regard as an "unlawful combatant" in Diego Garcia or on any vessel in the British Indian Ocean Territory. The United States Government would need to ask for our permission to bring any such person to Diego Garcia and it has not done so.
ENDQUOTE
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200203/ldhansrd/vo030428/text/30428w01.htm

It appears the US has fatally walked into a trap: Not only did they deny they were engaged in illegal activity, but they move prisoners from E. Europe to Guantanamo; then for the third time, botched the issue by not following their own MCA procedures. Here are some questions for the US government, in light of the damaging denials which appear to have been proven false in light of what we know in Eastern Europe:

A. Were there misrepresentations to Her Majesty's Government by US government officials?

B. In light of the Parliamentary INquiry in 2003, and what we know in re Guantanamo/MCA and Eastern Europe, is there a cause of action by the UK Parliament to issue indictments against US government officials for false statements to Parliament?

C. Does the US Stand by its assertions of 2003 that there are no unlawful combatants at Diego Garcia, Eastern Europe, or in any other location on any naval vessel?

D. Is the US NAVY sure of its assertions on its point in light of the issues of Romania, closely linked with the Black Sea where ships do float?

It's clear the US has lied about rendition, prisoner abuse, and not followed Geneva in re MCA. The GTMO Court has rejected the US governments position. It remains to be explained why, in apparent violation of human rights, the UK Parliament, with knowledge of the US government deception, has not followed up on this parliamentary question/inquiry of 2003.

If the prisoners were not charged as unlawful enemy combatants -- as was required -- what is to be said of the treatment of the prisoners of war as described on this thread in TPM? It appears there's only one reasonable conclusion: The US did not comply with Geneva when it failed to charge the prisoners of war; and it abused them in violation of Geneva.

Time to talk to Brad Berenson and Mary Walker at DoD to discuss whether they have some "other views" on the revelations from Eastern Europe; or whether they want to recant their comments made publicly connected with PBS Frontline and DoD planning groups designed to circumvent Geneva, as reported in the open media.

You'll also note the UK confirmed in 2003 that there was no witness protection program to protect witnesses who had observed Afghans illegally killed in violation of the laws of war. Time to find out if the US government has a similar policy of "doing nothing" about protecting witness of war crimes; or whether, as it appears, witnesses have been retaliated against, as evidenced by the cover ups and planting of evidence in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Guantanamo.

How much evidence has the WH been made aware of war crimes, but has refused to direct investigations and prosecutions because the prosecution and investigation would implicate the President; and what effort has the US President directed to dissuade Members of Congress for impeaching, to distract attention from 5 USC 3331 prosecutions that prosecutors could have started against this sitting President for war crimes in Eastern Europe?

Anonymous wrote on June 11, 2007 1:29 AM:

Here are the assertions that there was no witness protection program in re Afghanistan:

--------------
QUOTE:
28 Apr 2003 : Column WA58
Afghanistan: Witness Protection

Lord Avebury asked Her Majesty's Government: What proposals they have for a witness protection programme for individuals with knowledge of the murders of prisoners of war in Afghanistan, detailed in the report by Physicians for Human Rights.[HL2303]

Baroness Amos: None. The protection of possible witnesses would be a matter for the Afghan authorities.

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200203/ldhansrd/vo030428/text/30428w01.htm
----------------

What kind of witness protection should legal counsel in DoJ have sought for US-related entities, personnel, and contractors; or did they face threats of something if they dared talk about the illegal war crimes?

IN light of Blackwater's lawsuit for $10M it appears the US contractors are not facing any meaningful sanctions for war crimes; but appear to have been carte blanche to retaliate against witnesses, others, or those who attempt to inquiry into alleged war crimes by Blackwater.

How does the US government reconcile the apparent disconnect between two NATO allies -- " a special relationship" -- on the same subject: War crimes, prisoner detention, prisoner treatment, and evidence preservation?

The US approach seems to be contrary to Geneva; and not consistent with its "closest" ally supposedly rewarded for keeping silent about the Blackwater rendition flights into the UK. In light of the Council on Europe's damaging findings in re rendition in Eastern Europe, that the US or the UK has a credible plan in place to retain, preserve, and collect evidence of war crimes. The CIA denials appear to be sufficient evidence that these allegations, contrary to Geneva requirements, have not been timely investigated, further evidence of alleged war crimes by WH Counsel, DoJ Staff, contractors, and other intermediaries using NSA information to engage in warrantless interrogations/prisoner abuse.

This says nothing of the Bybee memo, or chance that he could be prosecuted -- outside impeachment -- and found to have violated his attorney standards of conduct while in DoJ; and subsequently removed from the Federal Bench. It remains to be understood how many of his peers on the DC Bar Disciplinary Board have chosen not to investigate these serious allegations of war crimes because it would implicate them, not just for war crimes, but for subsequent inaction on 5 USC 3331 violations in re treaty enforcement obligations of US legal counsel inside and outside government, in re DC Bar Rule 1.6 and 1.16 compelling mandatory withdrawals.

These are very serious issues of war crimes. Legal counsel in the US needs to be confronted: When do they plan to issue indictments against this sitting President. Impeachment has been taken off the table; Senator Ashcroft stated that as long as impeachment was viable, prosecutors were not needed. Pelosi-Conyers' allegedly reckless decision to remove a legal option to preserve the Constitution means that legal counsel, not just the VP and President, could be prosecuted for failing to fully enforce Geneva and defend the Treaty obligations, as required per 5 USC 3331.

Time for some real leadership in the legal community: Which side are you on. We the People don't have to wait until 2008 or an impeachment: ON the table are the apparent decisions, orders, and direction of the Prudent and Members of Congress not to impeach and not prosecute, arguably subsequent evidence of war crimes punishable by the death penalty. IT remains to be seen how many private counsel have been tasked to dissuade discussion of these very serious legal issues attached to former WH counsel, DOJ Staff, and DOD General Counsel, and outside counsel related to Blackwater in re war crimes planning and Geneva violations.

These are serious issues of war crimes which attach to legal counsel: Did they fully do their job; were they reckless in asserting their duties; or did they ask that we believe they "thought' they were doing the right things. That assertion doesn't match what legal counsel reasonably knows: They chose to ignore Geneva, and make excuses to pretend they are above the law. No, the rule of law, not the GOP legal cousel, shall prevail.

DC legal counsel implicated: You shall assent to the law; or be lawfully destroyed through the judicial system and war crimes litigation. We the People shall be relentless: There is no statute of limigations. Congratulations, you are the lawful target for war crimes investigations, indictments, and prosecutions. You wished this.

PeeJ wrote on June 11, 2007 1:48 AM:

Please send this message to your representative.

Honorable Senator Nelson,

Please wake up and realize what the American people voted for last election.

We did not vote for you to lie to us. We did not vote for you to pursue your personal agenda. We VOTED FOR YOU TO REPRESENT US!

We have voted against an American theocracy as exists in Iraq.

We have voted against the United States being the "controller on the universe".

We have voted against your arrogance.

The American people are now in control. If you wish to ignore our will, so be it. You too will be judged a traitor for our "illegal occupation of Iraq". Do you understand the concept of "illegal"?

We know that Iraq had no involvement in 9/11. We KNOW the current administration has wanted to attack Iraq by their position papers at the Progress for the New American Century website.

Please look it up. Google PNAC, you'll find it.

The American people are tired of being considered idiots. Please read the Declaration of Independence. It is so much relative today than it has ever been. Just in case you've never read the Declaration of Independence, I will include it in the following text:

When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the Powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, having its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shown that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their DUTY, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security. Such has been the patient suffrance of these States; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present President of the United States is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.

He has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good. (Signing Statements)

He has forbidden his Governors to pass laws of immediate and pressing importance, unless suspended in their operation till his Assent should be obtained; and when so suspended, has utterly neglected to attend to them. (Veto of withdrawal from Iraq).

He has refused to pass other Laws for the accommodation of large districts of people, unless those people would relinquish the right of Representation in the Legislature, a right inestimable to them and formidable to tyrants only. (NSA spying).

He has called together legislative bodies at places unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the depository of their Public Records, for the sole purpose of fatiguing them into compliance with his measures. (The Iraq Study Group, the Energy committee).

He has dissolved Representative Houses repeatedly, for opposing with manly firmness his invasions on the rights of the people. (Investigations into the Justice Department).

He has refused for a long time, after such dissolutions, to cause others to be elected; whereby the Legislative Powers, incapable of Annihilation, have returned to the People at large for their exercise; the State remaining in the meantime exposed to all the dangers of invasion from without, and convulsions within. (Falsely promoted fear within the general populace and falsely presented voter fraud litigation to decrease participation in elections).

He has endeavored to prevent the population of these States; for that purpose obstructing the Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migration hither, and raising the conditions of new Appropriations of Lands. (Promoting amnesty for a lower class of slave labor).

He has obstructed the Administration of Justice, by refusing his Assent to Laws for establishing Judiciary Powers. (The Unitary Executive)!

He has made Judges dependent on his Will alone, for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries. (Justice department scandals, plus the loading of the Supreme Court).

He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harass our people, and eat out their substance. (Department of Homeland Security).

He has kept among us, in times of peace, Standing Armies without the Consent of our legislatures. (NOLA)

He has affected to render the military independent of and superior to the Civil Power. (Unitary Executive Theory).

He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his Assent to their acts of pretended legislation. (Military Tribunal Act).

For quartering large bodies of armed troops among us: (Military Tribunal Act).

For protecting them, by a mock Trial, from Punishment for any Murders which they should commit on the Inhabitants of these States: (Gitmo)

For cutting off our Trade with all parts of the world: (Only trading with countries subservient to our oil policy).

For imposing taxes on us without our Consent: (Income Tax)

For depriving us in many cases, of the benefits of Trial by Jury: (Habeas Corpus suspension)!

For transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended offenses: (CIA Black Sites).

For abolishing the free System of English Laws in a neighboring Province, establishing therein an Arbitrary government, and enlarging its Boundaries so as to render it at once an example and fit instrument for introducing the same absolute rule into these Colonies: (Immigration Reform)?

For taking away our Charters, abolishing our most valuable Laws, and altering fundamentally, the Forms of our Governments: (Habeas Corpus)!

For suspending our own Legislatures, and declaring themselves invested with Power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever: (Presidential signing statements).

He has abdicated Government here, by declaring us out of his Protection and waging War against us. (NOLA)

He has plundered our seas, ravaged our Coasts, burnt our towns, and destroyed the lives of our people. (NOLA)!

He is at this time transporting large armies of foreign mercenaries to complete the works of death, desolation and tyranny, already begun with circumstances of Cruelty & perfidy scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages, and totally unworthy the Head of a civilized nation. (Cheney's Halliburton Blackwater Troops).

He has constrained our fellow Citizen taken Captive on the high Seas to bear Arms against their Country, to become the executioners of their friends and Brethren, or to fall themselves by their Hands. (Cheney and Halliburtion's Blackwater Troops in NOLA)!

He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavored to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian (er, corporate entities). Savages, whose known rule of warfare, is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions.

In every stage of these Oppressions We have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury and veto. A Prince, whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people. (Impeach Bush)!

Nor have We been wanting in attention to our representative brethren. We have warned them from time to time of attempts by their legislature to extend an unwarrantable jurisdiction over us. We have reminded them of the circumstances of our emigration and settlement here. We have appealed to their native justice and magnanimity, and we have conjured them by the ties of our common kindred to disavow these usurpations, which would inevitably interrupt our connection and correspondence. Congress too have been deaf to the voice of justice and of consanguinity. We must, therefore, acquiesce in the necessity, which denounces our Separation, and hold them, as we hold the rest of mankind, Enemies in War, in Peace Friends.

Please, Senator Nelson, do the bidding of your constituents, and not the bidding of your stock options.

We need patriots, not assholes.

You decide what you want to be.

God bless,

Colossians 3: 23

PEACE! PLEASE?

JNagarya wrote on June 11, 2007 4:05 AM:

"A CIA spokesman said the report was biased and distorted, and that the agency had operated lawfully."

In view of the fact that the information is doubtless incomplete because there was no cooperation by the Nazis operating the system, it is accurate to say the report is "biased and distorted". But that's not the same as saying -- and they do not -- it is false.

They also have the opportunity of providing the information which would eliminate the biases and distortions. What are they waiting for? The courage of their convictions?

John Wilson wrote on June 11, 2007 5:33 AM:

Please. Back to the REAL news:

Paris Hilton
Shame.
She's being given special treatment
shame
She's not being given special treatment,
hundreds of cases like her's generally
get off after a few days.
Shame.
She gets off after a few days
Shame
Judge asserts himself: Throw her back in Jail.
Shame....

But on whom?

The problem: Jail overcrowding.
California needs more jails...so...
Hire illegal aliens to build 'em...and then
throw them into it.

Hey, it is an absolutely insane world...
why not?

Waiting for Ron Paul to announce Chaney
as his running mate...

I see a crack in the sky...

LWM wrote on June 11, 2007 7:30 AM:

More likely David Duke.

http://dneiwert.blogspot.com/2007/06/trouble-with-ron.html

http://www.whitecivilrights.com/...he-%20one_818.html

Jo wrote on June 11, 2007 7:31 AM:

"But you must remember, my fellow-citizens, that eternal vigilance by the people is the price of liberty, and that you must pay the price if you wish to secure the blessing. It behooves you, therefore, to be watchful in your States as well as in the Federal Government." -- Andrew Jackson, Farewell Address, March 4, 1837

Enough said.

Jo wrote on June 11, 2007 7:31 AM:

"But you must remember, my fellow-citizens, that eternal vigilance by the people is the price of liberty, and that you must pay the price if you wish to secure the blessing. It behooves you, therefore, to be watchful in your States as well as in the Federal Government." -- Andrew Jackson, Farewell Address, March 4, 1837

Enough said.

Jo wrote on June 11, 2007 7:31 AM:

"But you must remember, my fellow-citizens, that eternal vigilance by the people is the price of liberty, and that you must pay the price if you wish to secure the blessing. It behooves you, therefore, to be watchful in your States as well as in the Federal Government." -- Andrew Jackson, Farewell Address, March 4, 1837

Enough said.

Jo wrote on June 11, 2007 7:31 AM:

"But you must remember, my fellow-citizens, that eternal vigilance by the people is the price of liberty, and that you must pay the price if you wish to secure the blessing. It behooves you, therefore, to be watchful in your States as well as in the Federal Government." -- Andrew Jackson, Farewell Address, March 4, 1837

Enough said.

apeman wrote on June 11, 2007 8:26 AM:

Enough already.

ron wrote on June 11, 2007 8:30 AM:

I am ashamed to be an American! We went through World War II, of which I am a veteran, without resorting to these filthy, disgusting, abhorrent tactics which merely seek to demean the human condition without even the paltry promise of significant reward.

When a country allows men (if one can bestow that appelation on total cowards) who have themselves consciously avoided military service (champagne units excepted) to oversee the vast power which a military encompasses, tawdry results are almost predictable.

But perhaps the most unfathomable outcome is the reluctance...yea, avoidance...of determining and punishing guilt by the means provided in our legal system. My reluctant conclusion is that our once-great country is now nothing more than a shambles of contentious disagreement with no further hope of functioning as a coherent society. Perhaps our final national action should be to elect the Spirit of Tomas de Torquemada as our next president.

Irina wrote on June 11, 2007 9:52 AM:

Keep pushing for impeachment and war crime trials.

Has anyone seen Gen. Pace since Iran-Contra Gates' announcement firing him?

Gen. Pace stood up to Rumsfeld in a press conference and stated that any military officer witnessing abuse of prisoners had a duty to stop it then and there.

That courageous statement is how I will remember Gen. Pace.

Gates is also removing the Vice Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, we need to watch this situation since a number of Naval commanders have been removed from duty in the last 6 months.

SC: paint MUST I PAINT YOU A PICTURE - excellent article against the torture of Iraqi women

molly wrote on June 11, 2007 11:42 AM:

Gates is dirty and needs to be tried for war crimes just like the entire Bush cabal. Anthony Scalia who put the cabal into place for money needs to be removed from the superior court along with Alito and Roberts. They are all tools for corporations.

EH wrote on June 11, 2007 2:02 PM:

I like all the people who are posting huge articles here. Ever heard of getting your own blog? Are you trying to shut down the discussion by drowning it?

Anonymous wrote on June 11, 2007 2:29 PM:

Posted by: EH
Date: June 11, 2007 02:02 PM

Are you going to complain that "they're linking"? I'd rather see the content here than whining, "oh, stop linking; stop promoting your blog." If you don't like the content skip over it.

EH wrote on June 11, 2007 2:54 PM:

Nice job at marginalizing me ad hominem as a whiner. Don't complain when people with power do the same to you.

When you post, do you see the "URL:" field? That's where you put your link to your blog. What you're doing is what historically is called "overposting."

Anonymous wrote on June 11, 2007 6:35 PM:

Posted by: Irina
Date: June 11, 2007 09:52 AM
"Keep pushing for impeachment and war crime trials."

A decision of counsel to draft a memo is memorialized, this is not a belief, but a legal conclusion. The court reviews whether that legal opinion was reasonable, lawful, and connected with a lawful purpose. The question is whether the assertion of something as a "belief" was designed to hide the opposite legal conclusion and counsel well knew was illegal; or whether it was designed to mislead the jury through improper use of the media. Arguably, open statements that are not believable, and not protected, can be adjudicated to whether they were designed to stifle enforcement of Geneva. This raises the issue of whether counsel have sought to obstruct justice in re war crimes.

Indeed, let's talk about war crimes indictments against legal counsel, they have a duty to fully defend the Constitution, not make excuses as this legal community has done. There are two general ways to enforce the law: Through impeachment; or prosecutions. it has been firmly established that when impeachment is not an option, then prosecutions remain on the table. Yet, despite running to the defense of Libby, and madly scrambling with late night briefings, the legal community refuses to do the same to prosecute the President.

Look closely at the leaking legal community. Brad Berenson [Former WH Counsel; As interviewed on Frontline, PBS] and Mary Walker [DoD GC] appear to be talking about the same issues: Geneva, briefings, meetings, discussions with intelligence community, and legal reviews.

When we talk about prosecuting a sitting president, we are talking about reviewing the legal standards of the Constitution, his oath of office, and the statutory requirements. The President has one general power: Executive. If you read Article II, and compare with with Article I, you'll see that The Constitution has plural powers for the Congress; and a _single_ [non-plural] power for the Executive. This means one thing: The Constitution only delegated the President one power; and the Congress has the power to pass laws to impose _ministerial duties_ on the President in the form of FISA requirements, Geneva obligations, and other leadership responsibilities related to oversight, disciplining, and ensuring all people follow the law. Signing statements are, for some, a problem in that they "destroy" the Constitution; no, look at it the other way: Given the Constitution remains in full force, a signing statement and other refusal to impeach is not a "problem for We the People" but _evidence_ of illegal activity.

I take exception to Berenson's assertion that he 'believed" any of his activity was lawful while in the WH Counsel's office. On issues of war crimes, the issue is not whether legal counsel like Berenson "believed or did not believe" something was lawful; but the opposite: Whether, despite either legal training, they fully ensured the Constituting was protected; and that they exercised the professionalism expected of legal counsel.

The case can be made that Berenson's assertions on Frontline/PBS -- that he an other WH counsel "believed" they were following the law -- was not a reasonable report of actual WH Counsel discussions. Rather, it's more likely -- especially in light of the 4th Circuit Court decision on the right to Habeas -- that a grand jury could conclude that reasonable attorneys could never have "believed" anything about the law, but that they did the opposite: They came to a firm _legal position_ which was unlawful, known to contradict Geneva, and designed to violate the law.

Bradford Berenson's problem is, as Mary Walkers, is his fatal disclosures of things that he would have us believe cannot be discussed. Berenson appears to have naively thought that his remarks on PBS Frontline would stand on their own, and never get compared to any other lines of evidence. He miscalculated. Press reports openly discuss the other half of the seemingly twisting coin: Where Berenson talks about meetings on PBS, Mary Walker was there with the other half of the story -- she appears to have directed the effort to circumvent Geneva. As you read the PBS Frontline interview with Berenson, you'll have a chance to contrast his remarks with what he now know from Mary Walker.

The way forward is for the Grand Jury and war crimes prosecutors to ask: What was the reason that outside counsel, when they learned of the illegalities, did not press for prosecutions; but when one of their own was under indictment, they showed they could meet, discuss, organize, and timely respond. No reasonable attorney can argue that there is "no leadership" in the legal profession, while there must be leadership mobilizing multiple law firms to respond to support the Libby Sentencing Commission briefs.

It appears Berenson and Walker, along with many others in the American legal community have been allegedly reckless: they knew Geneva; appear to have met to discuss the standards; sought ways to ignore the law; created working papers and documented their legal conclusions [not beliefs] in writing; then were instrumental in carrying out these illegal orders. Bronson's' problem is simple: There is no statute of limitations for war crimes; his peers in DOJ OPR have free reign to gather evidence which he and other WH Counsel may have coordinated with DOJ OLC on; and the public is well able to understand the rude reality: The legal profession, including Berenson, appears to have not fully asserted its oath; but done the opposite: remains silent when they had a clear duty to speak, intervene, stop, and remove themselves from this illegal activity. this is not to say that Berenson is guilty of war crimes; but to suggest that concluding "nothing could be done" or "counsel cannot be examined" is premature. someone issued the memoranda; these are not political issues; and 5 USC 3331 imposed a legal duty on Berenson and other legal counsel to do the opposite of what they appear to have done: Fully assert their oath to defend the Constitution, and the Geneva Conventions.

When we talk about war crimes, we're talking about whether the United States wants to set the example, inspire confidence, and mobilize the world to believe that ts leaders are competent. The law is not something that is difficult: it is based on a simple principle, common to all things, including combat: The rules of reason. Berenson's problem is that he appears to have defied these rules; put aside his legal training; assented to something else; then asked us to look somewhere else. No, the spotlight is on Berenson in re alleged war crimes, illegal rendition, prisoner abuse, and directions given to Blackwater.

War crimes means there is no statute of limitations. Lawyers cannot distract the public with "what might happen in the next election"; rather, they have a problem: The evidence is fixed, or it has been destroyed; and the past cannot be changed. Whatever Berenson did or didn't do is stuck, locked, and nothing Berenson can say or do can change reality; he can only speak to change perceptions. This is Berenson's problem with the information surfacing about Eastern Europe, rendition, prisoner abuse, war crimes, and unlawful Geneva violations: There are memoranda; Berenson was there; there are briefing memos; and the notes were reviewed. Berenson's problem is that his clients are only part of the issue -- the larger issue is whether Berenson himself can adequately defend himself against 5 S USC 3331 indictments; or make a credible cause, which the Nazi Lawyers in WWII could not, that he should not be investigated, prosecuted, and convicted. Legal counsel in WWII Germany were executed, as could be legal counsel attached with this WH. That is a real possibility. It's premature to say that could not happen; we still don't know what Berenson and others documented in writing, or how they memorialized illegal conclusions of law.

War crimes is a difficult subject to talk about during a war, especially when the American legal counsel appears to have been complicity in drafting those unlawful orders and memoranda. Again, these are not issues of politics and impeachment, but issues of international war crimes to which Berenson appears to be in the middle. If we're going to talk about war crimes, prisoner abuse, rendition, then Congress needs to decide whether it will lead the fact finding; or leave the reviews to someone else, perhaps entities that are less inclined to have a deferential view to Congress. Each day that Berenson and Congress choose inaction, or not to fully assert their oath, is not a problem for the Constitution: Their action, if illegal or reckless, is evidence.

Berenson, Gonzalez, Bybee, Yoo, and Gonzalez appear t to have worked with Addington to implement prisoner abuse and illegal warfare. On the table are the Blackwater civil lawsuits which appear to be with one aim: that of silencing discussion of war crimes. Sidley Austin has been linked with Boeing, whose subsidiary has been the target of a civil lawsuit for alleged complicity with war crimes-rendition. the more we look into the e4 4th circuit ruling on habeas, the more we'll find a similar pattern of strange connections between the statutes and outside legal counsel: Where there clear requirements, counsel does not appear to have ensured those requirements were met. On the table is the review of Sidley Austins legal advice to the white House, if any, on issues of document retention; and whether the WH and Sidley Austin did or did not conspire to not ensure that the RNC e-mails were adequately archived. Sidley points to itself as an expert in document retention; whether the WH relied on that expertise, ignored it, or used the information to do the opposite remains to be understood.

Berenson's other problem is that his clients -- ATT, Sampson, Ralston -- have been linked with a common problem: Alleged efforts to not fully comply with the statutes related to data storage, statutory compliance, investigation cooperation, and other alleged illegal activity. Civil lawsuits against his clients are only half the story: The other issue is the prosecution that could be brought to bear if his clients are linked with prisoner abuse, illegal use of data for unlawful purposes, and Geneva violations.

The days of believing that legal counsel is passive observer, or merely an advocate for the client are not clear with Berenson. It's not clear whether he is a passive observer; or whether he has more skeletons in the closet. DoJ keeps talking about "other programs" which may or may not have been legal. Berenson needs to be called to account: What does he know about the other illegal activities; and did he resign as required under DC Bar rules 1.16/1.6; or does Berenson need to be prosecuted for 5 USC 3331.

One lesson of the US Atty firings is that counsel has been rewarded for inaction; and for attempting to enforce the laws on voting issues. It remains to be seen whether US Attorneys as the direction of the WH legal counsel -- including Berenson -- were instructed to take no action, as required, on war crimes; or whether Berenon and other legal counsel including walker agreed to illegal conduct, and then made those agreements secret through unenforceable gag orders. NSLs could have been issued to intimidate people to be quiet; and Berenson and Sidley Austin need to discuss whether they have worked with their peers in the legal community to issue subpoenas to silence public discussion of their alleged illegal war crimes involvement. It is one thing to talk about the "fine upstanding legal profession" as a basis to garner public confidence in one's profession; quite another to be complicit with war crimes and illegal direction to violate the very legal principles one supposedly took an oath to fully assert, follow, and enforce.

I'm not impressed with Berenson. He appears to be, like Specter, talking out of both sides of his mouth. Fortunately, given the fact that there is no statute of limitations on war crimes, Berenson may find himself the target of an eternal, massive, worldwide investigation to hunt down, prosecute, and adjudicate war crimes against legal counsel. Berenson's problem is that he cannot change the past; but appears interested in changing perceptions. That motivation, desire, and habit needs to be better understood, not only for purposes of war crimes, but to assess whether Berenson can be trusted to remain in a leadership opposition within the legal community and his law firm. Practice management means acting in a competent manner, especially when counsel has a duty to act as a responsible supervisor. Either Berenson is fully complying with this legal obligations and he has nothing to worry about; or he has a major legal issue which he and his firm appear interested in creating a smokescreen.
Berenson should be commended for having achieved what few legal counsel can claim: the ability to have had access to the President and Vice President. Open media reports in the Scooter Sentencing letters suggest the VP had an open door policy, as did Libby. Whether Berenson knew about this, took advantage of it, or failed to realize this policy remains to be understood. However, it does appear as though legal counsel did have the chance to voice their concerns; and were on no way under any drugs or influence through threats of bodily harm to do things they didn't want to do. Rather, ti appears they freely chose to ignore the laws of war; wrote polices and memoranda arriving at those legal conclusions; and implemented those polices.
In hindsight, Berenson may wish he'd done things differently. Whether the senate chooses to have confidence in what is arguably illegal; or whether it impeaches is of little interest: When Congress refuses to act on impeachment, it sends a signal that prosecutions must begin. Every action of Berenson which allegedly thwarts enforcement of the law; or attempts to dissuade attention on his alleged war crimes is not a problem: It is _evidence_ which will be used against him, if appropriate.

Brad Berenson's other problem is that unlike normal processes to resolve problems -- through either impeachment or prosecutions -- there is another forum to resolve issues: The open media. Today's public opinion appears to conclude that the legal profession is reckless, unreliable, complicit with war crimes, and untrustworthy. The bad news is the legal professing -- including Berenson -- appears to have fallen down on the job, not done what they needed to do, and would have us believe that nothing can be done. Wrong.
one the table for alleged war crimes are issues of indictments, prosecutions, and possible convictions of legal counsel. Either Berenson is innocent, or he is guilty. His problem is that he fatally opened his mouth, commented on issues related to rendition, and disclosed the existence of memoranda and briefings which Mary Walker and others have confirmed they created. Whether Berenson saw the same briefings, or attended the same meetings is secondary to the central problem: Whether there was or was not a common understanding between Berenson, Bybee, walker, Addington, and Yoo that they would listen to what the President directed; then craft legal memoranda to support what the President wanted _regardless the law_; or whether they were tasked to "find a way" to legalize what they knew, or should have known, were war crimes. Berenson's repetition on PBS of his "belief" about things appears to fatally lend weight to the conclusion that they well knew the activity was illegal, but they wanted to convince themselves that it "might" be legal. A grand jury is not likely to believe their 'assertion of belief" given the disclosures that Comey concluded various programs were not legal. Comey and Berenson cannot be both right, while contradicting themselves. It is more likely Berenson is lying about his "assertion of his belief"; and this contradiction can be used against him by a grand jury to impeach him as a witness; and possibly target him for 5 USC 3331 and war crimes. It remains to be seen.

Rest assured, when there is a discussion of this White house and this legal counsel, all Americans are advised to remain cautious and wary: we are not dealing with people who have well demonstrated their love of the law, but the opposite: An apparent desire to ignore the standards, then pretend that they believed what they were doing was for a good reason. The results of their allegedly reckless conduct is self-evident: Disaster in Iraq; world rebuke of the rendition effort; increased world animosity and contempt for the legal community and American model; and less confidence that the American legal profession can be trusted to constrain power, as the Founders intended. On the tale is the Constitution; and the legal community appears to be ready to light the match to save itself. It doesn't take much to examine legal counsel and pre-emptively assume their proximity to the Constitution is sufficient evidence to jail them for likely future violations.

Berenson and others appear to have been complicit with war crimes and pre-emptive war against countries based on fiction. Other nations and fighters -- under the principle of reciprocity and retaliation -- may assert the same standards and similarly pre-emptive attack the US. this is permitted under the laws of war. Any legal violation Berenson and other counsel have 'approved" could, if not prose prosecuted, be the basis for other fighters to use the same tactics against similarly situated Americans. Berenson's problem is that his short term goal of pleasing the President appears to have left All Americans exposed to lawful retaliation for the very abuses Berenson's and others appeared to have condoned. This is impermissible.

On the table are three options: Impeachment, prosecutions, or battle. We do not advocate violence; yet, Berenson and others appear to have incited the very violence Geneva prohibited. If the legal community will not follow the law, refuses to prosecute, and blocks impeachment, there is little the world can do to contain American power but to expand combat operations. If Americans do not wish to lose their sovereignty, then on the tale is the simple issue: Until you constrain your lawyers in court and through litigation, combat shall be used to target American interests around the globe. Berenson is arguably at the center of this decision: If eh obstructs enforcement of Geneva, this will inspire the combat forces to expand their abuses which Berenson appears to have condoned.

Berenson is stuck. The past cannot be changed. What can change is whether the legal community will awaken to the simple issue: their rules of reason have been turned against them; and the very system which inspires a "love" of the law has been shown to be contemptuous those basis principles. When reason is ignored, commanders have inadequate plans; when the laws are violated, planning milestones cannot be met. Lawyers cannot assert a principle while ignoring it; nor can the compel others to have faith in their vision when their vision defies their oath and the Constitution. The Constitution is not a mysterious thing: It is merely a reasonable solution to the abuses of 1776.

Today's leaders must decide whether they w8ill enforce the solutions of 1776; or whether a New Constitution must be drafted to impose new solutions to the allegedly reckless abuses Berenson and his "friends" in the legal community have created to circumvent the law. Either they Will assent to _this_ law; or they shall be jailed. All delays are evidence of 5 USC 3331 violations; and any action by Berenson to target, dissuade discussion, or issue subpoenas to silence discussion of his alleged complicity with war crimes are without effect.

For eternity all of the world will know Berenson's name; his alleged complicity with war crimes; and whether he did or did not freely surrender to the rule of law. War crimes can be adjudicated at a time, place, and manner of Our choosing. Brad Berenson, if complicit with war crimes, as he appears to be, is going to lose. He wished this. Time for the legal community to look inward, discipline your own; otherwise, We the People shall continue to document your inaction as evidence of additional 5 USC 3331 violations. Even a sitting President can be prosecuted; and even a majority in Congress can be made irrelevant when compared to the power of the Judicial System when permitted to be unleashed against allegedly recklessly legal counsel like Berenson, Yoo, Bybee, Addington, and Gonzalez. They had bad timing. They appear to have chosen to defy the law, but pretend there was a plausible reason for their conduct. Their stories do not add up. Ultimately, I would not be surprised to learn that Berenson, Yoo, Bybee, Gonzalez, and Addington were ultimately prosecuted for war crimes. The appear to have made some poor choices. They appear to have soon ample time to think about things while sitting in jail. This problem would be non-existent if they are executed.

Time for the legal community to wake up: We the People know full well about Geneva, 5 USC 3331, DOJ OPR, and the DC Standards of Conduct rules 1.6/1.16. If you do not police your own, grand juries can be empanelled to issue indictments against you for failure to enforce Geneva with legal action against your peers. Either you are going to defend this Constitution and assist with proseuctions, or you may be targeted for prosecution. Choose. Ultimately it will be the court to decide whether you can be remembered; or whether the only reasonable defense of _this_ Constitution is your execution. That is on the table, Brad Berenson.

TheraP wrote on June 11, 2007 9:16 PM:

I appreciate your suggestion, EH. I have wondered the same.

Sailmaker wrote on October 9, 2007 11:21 AM:

I have not seen any evidence that the black sites were actually closed: high level/value detainees were moved to Gitmo (KSM for example) but actual closing of the sites, no.

buy viagra wrote on October 9, 2007 12:17 PM:

cheap@viagra.com

tre gole wrote on October 9, 2007 12:38 PM:

Good job. I loved youre site, keep it up.

generic viagra wrote on October 9, 2007 2:52 PM:

cheap@viagra.com

cheap viagra wrote on October 9, 2007 6:49 PM:

cheap@viagra.com

discount viagra wrote on October 9, 2007 11:22 PM:

cheap@viagra.com

buy generic viagra wrote on October 10, 2007 1:48 AM:

cheap@viagra.com

purchase viagra wrote on October 10, 2007 5:13 AM:

cheap@viagra.com

buy cheap viagra wrote on October 10, 2007 7:36 AM:

cheap@viagra.com

buy viagra generic wrote on October 10, 2007 10:36 AM:

cheap@viagra.com

online viagra wrote on October 10, 2007 1:46 PM:

cheap@viagra.com

prescription viagra wrote on October 10, 2007 3:44 PM:

cheap@viagra.com

madrus mpeg cum animl wrote on October 10, 2007 5:00 PM:

Good job. I loved youre site, keep it up.

viagra generic wrote on October 10, 2007 8:55 PM:

cheap@viagra.com

buy levitra wrote on October 11, 2007 5:42 PM:

cheap@levitra.com

cheap levitra wrote on October 11, 2007 7:58 PM:

cheap@levitra.com

generic levitra wrote on October 11, 2007 10:05 PM:

cheap@levitra.com

order levitra wrote on October 11, 2007 11:34 PM:

cheap@levitra.com

generic viagra wrote on October 12, 2007 2:27 AM:

cheap@viagra.com

cheap viagra wrote on October 12, 2007 4:17 AM:

cheap@viagra.com

discount viagra wrote on October 12, 2007 5:40 AM:

cheap@viagra.com

buy generic viagra wrote on October 12, 2007 7:04 AM:

cheap@viagra.com

purchase viagra wrote on October 12, 2007 8:44 AM:

cheap@viagra.com

buy cheap viagra wrote on October 12, 2007 10:16 AM:

cheap@viagra.com

buy viagra generic wrote on October 12, 2007 11:37 AM:

cheap@viagra.com

online viagra wrote on October 12, 2007 1:21 PM:

cheap@viagra.com

prescription viagra wrote on October 12, 2007 3:10 PM:

cheap@viagra.com

viagra cheap wrote on October 12, 2007 5:24 PM:

cheap@viagra.com

viagra discount wrote on October 12, 2007 8:15 PM:

cheap@viagra.com

buy levitra wrote on October 13, 2007 1:13 PM:

cheap@levitra.com

cheap levitra wrote on October 13, 2007 3:05 PM:

cheap@levitra.com

generic levitra wrote on October 13, 2007 4:59 PM:

cheap@levitra.com

order levitra wrote on October 13, 2007 6:52 PM:

cheap@levitra.com

buy viagra wrote on October 13, 2007 9:12 PM:

cheap@viagra.com

generic viagra wrote on October 13, 2007 11:50 PM:

cheap@viagra.com

cheap viagra wrote on October 14, 2007 1:37 AM:

cheap@viagra.com

discount viagra wrote on October 14, 2007 3:25 AM:

cheap@viagra.com

buy generic viagra wrote on October 14, 2007 5:24 AM:

cheap@viagra.com

purchase viagra wrote on October 14, 2007 7:12 AM:

cheap@viagra.com

buy cheap viagra wrote on October 14, 2007 9:19 AM:

cheap@viagra.com

buy viagra generic wrote on October 14, 2007 11:40 AM:

cheap@viagra.com

online viagra wrote on October 14, 2007 1:10 PM:

cheap@viagra.com

prescription viagra wrote on October 14, 2007 2:42 PM:

cheap@viagra.com

viagra cheap wrote on October 14, 2007 4:25 PM:

cheap@viagra.com

viagra generic wrote on October 14, 2007 6:11 PM:

cheap@viagra.com

buy levitra wrote on October 15, 2007 8:53 AM:

cheap@levitra.com

cheap levitra wrote on October 15, 2007 10:22 AM:

cheap@levitra.com

generic levitra wrote on October 15, 2007 12:01 PM:

cheap@levitra.com

levitra online wrote on October 15, 2007 1:41 PM:

cheap@levitra.com

generic viagra wrote on October 15, 2007 5:24 PM:

cheap@viagra.com

cheap viagra wrote on October 15, 2007 7:39 PM:

cheap@viagra.com

sesso polacche wrote on October 15, 2007 10:09 PM:

Good job. I loved youre site, keep it up.

discount viagra wrote on October 15, 2007 10:12 PM:

cheap@viagra.com

buy generic viagra wrote on October 16, 2007 12:57 AM:

cheap@viagra.com

purchase viagra wrote on October 16, 2007 3:47 AM:

cheap@viagra.com

buy cheap viagra wrote on October 16, 2007 5:46 AM:

cheap@viagra.com

order online viagra wrote on October 16, 2007 7:12 AM:

cheap@viagra.com

cheap viagra uk wrote on October 16, 2007 8:29 AM:

cheap@viagra.com

sexi vip wrote on October 16, 2007 9:46 AM:

Good job. I loved youre site, keep it up.

online viagra wrote on October 16, 2007 9:53 AM:

cheap@viagra.com

online generic viagra wrote on October 16, 2007 11:25 AM:

cheap@viagra.com

viagra cheap wrote on October 16, 2007 12:47 PM:

cheap@viagra.com

buy levitra wrote on October 17, 2007 2:11 AM:

cheap@levitra.com

cheap levitra wrote on October 17, 2007 3:46 AM:

cheap@levitra.com

generic levitra wrote on October 17, 2007 5:08 AM:

cheap@levitra.com

order levitra wrote on October 17, 2007 6:45 AM:

cheap@levitra.com

buy viagra wrote on October 17, 2007 8:23 AM:

cheap@viagra.com

generic viagra wrote on October 17, 2007 9:52 AM:

cheap@viagra.com

cheap viagra wrote on October 17, 2007 11:20 AM:

cheap@viagra.com

discount viagra wrote on October 17, 2007 12:53 PM:

cheap@viagra.com

buy generic viagra wrote on October 17, 2007 2:19 PM:

cheap@viagra.com

purchase viagra wrote on October 17, 2007 3:53 PM:

cheap@viagra.com

buy cheap viagra wrote on October 17, 2007 5:44 PM:

cheap@viagra.com

buy viagra generic wrote on October 17, 2007 7:27 PM:

cheap@viagra.com

generic viagra uk wrote on October 17, 2007 8:58 PM:

cheap@viagra.com

pharmacy viagra wrote on October 17, 2007 10:26 PM:

cheap@viagra.com

viagra cheap wrote on October 17, 2007 11:53 PM:

cheap@viagra.com

viagra generic wrote on October 18, 2007 1:39 AM:

cheap@viagra.com

buy levitra wrote on October 18, 2007 4:10 PM:

cheap@levitra.com

generic levitra wrote on October 18, 2007 8:00 PM:

cheap@levitra.com

order levitra wrote on October 18, 2007 9:20 PM:

cheap@levitra.com

buy viagra wrote on October 18, 2007 10:55 PM:

cheap@viagra.com

generic viagra wrote on October 19, 2007 12:39 AM:

cheap@viagra.com

cheap viagra wrote on October 19, 2007 2:33 AM:

cheap@viagra.com

discount viagra wrote on October 19, 2007 4:51 AM:

cheap@viagra.com

buy generic viagra wrote on October 19, 2007 7:14 AM:

cheap@viagra.com

viagra price wrote on October 19, 2007 9:15 AM:

cheap@viagra.com

buy cheap viagra wrote on October 19, 2007 10:45 AM:

cheap@viagra.com

online viagra wrote on October 19, 2007 2:07 PM:

cheap@viagra.com

prescription viagra wrote on October 19, 2007 3:40 PM:

cheap@viagra.com

viagra cheap wrote on October 19, 2007 5:36 PM:

cheap@viagra.com

viagra generic wrote on October 19, 2007 7:57 PM:

cheap@viagra.com

buy levitra wrote on October 20, 2007 9:57 AM:

cheap@levitra.com

cheap levitra wrote on October 20, 2007 11:45 AM:

cheap@levitra.com

generic levitra wrote on October 20, 2007 1:07 PM:

cheap@levitra.com

order levitra wrote on October 20, 2007 2:32 PM:

cheap@levitra.com

buy viagra wrote on October 21, 2007 4:31 AM:

cheap@viagra.com

generic viagra wrote on October 21, 2007 6:23 AM:

cheap@viagra.com

cheap viagra wrote on October 21, 2007 8:11 AM:

cheap@viagra.com

discount viagra wrote on October 21, 2007 9:33 AM:

cheap@viagra.com

buy generic viagra wrote on October 21, 2007 11:04 AM:

cheap@viagra.com

purchase viagra wrote on October 21, 2007 12:42 PM:

cheap@viagra.com

buy cheap viagra wrote on October 21, 2007 1:58 PM:

cheap@viagra.com

buy viagra generic wrote on October 21, 2007 3:28 PM:

cheap@viagra.com

online viagra wrote on October 21, 2007 5:06 PM:

cheap@viagra.com

prescription viagra wrote on October 21, 2007 6:54 PM:

cheap@viagra.com

viagra cheap wrote on October 21, 2007 8:29 PM:

cheap@viagra.com

viagra generic wrote on October 21, 2007 9:52 PM:

cheap@viagra.com

buy levitra cheap levitra generic levitra levitra online order levitra wrote on October 22, 2007 12:45 PM:

cheap@levitra.com

buy levitra wrote on October 22, 2007 2:24 PM:

cheap@levitra.com

cheap levitra wrote on October 22, 2007 3:56 PM:

cheap@levitra.com

generic levitra wrote on October 22, 2007 5:33 PM:

cheap@levitra.com

order levitra wrote on October 22, 2007 7:03 PM:

cheap@levitra.com

buy viagra wrote on October 22, 2007 8:37 PM:

cheap@viagra.com

generic viagra wrote on October 22, 2007 10:07 PM:

cheap@viagra.com

buy generic viagra wrote on October 23, 2007 3:30 AM:

cheap@viagra.com

purchase viagra wrote on October 23, 2007 5:42 AM:

cheap@viagra.com

buy cheap viagra wrote on October 23, 2007 8:14 AM:

cheap@viagra.com

buy viagra generic wrote on October 23, 2007 10:20 AM:

cheap@viagra.com

online viagra wrote on October 23, 2007 11:56 AM:

cheap@viagra.com

prescription viagra wrote on October 23, 2007 1:35 PM:

cheap@viagra.com

viagra generic wrote on October 23, 2007 4:35 PM:

cheap@viagra.com

buy levitra wrote on October 24, 2007 8:05 AM:

cheap@levitra.com

cheap levitra wrote on October 24, 2007 9:36 AM:

cheap@levitra.com

generic levitra wrote on October 24, 2007 11:11 AM:

cheap@levitra.com

order levitra wrote on October 24, 2007 12:53 PM:

cheap@levitra.com

generic viagra wrote on October 24, 2007 4:00 PM:

cheap@viagra.com

cheap viagra wrote on October 24, 2007 5:27 PM:

cheap@viagra.com

discount viagra wrote on October 24, 2007 6:58 PM:

cheap@viagra.com

buy generic viagra wrote on October 24, 2007 8:48 PM:

cheap@viagra.com

purchase viagra wrote on October 24, 2007 10:12 PM:

cheap@viagra.com

buy cheap viagra wrote on October 24, 2007 11:34 PM:

cheap@viagra.com

buy viagra generic wrote on October 25, 2007 1:03 AM:

cheap@viagra.com

online viagra wrote on October 25, 2007 2:36 AM:

cheap@viagra.com

prescription viagra wrote on October 25, 2007 4:19 AM:

cheap@viagra.com

viagra cheap wrote on October 25, 2007 6:13 AM:

cheap@viagra.com

viagra generic wrote on October 25, 2007 8:10 AM:

cheap@viagra.com

buy levitra wrote on October 25, 2007 10:58 PM:

cheap@levitra.com

cheap levitra wrote on October 26, 2007 12:34 AM:

cheap@levitra.com

generic levitra wrote on October 26, 2007 3:28 AM:

cheap@levitra.com

order levitra wrote on October 26, 2007 5:30 AM:

cheap@levitra.com

buy viagra wrote on October 26, 2007 5:49 PM:

cheap@viagra.com

generic viagra wrote on October 26, 2007 7:34 PM:

cheap@viagra.com

cheap viagra wrote on October 26, 2007 9:04 PM:

cheap@viagra.com

discount viagra wrote on October 26, 2007 10:30 PM:

cheap@viagra.com

purchase viagra wrote on October 26, 2007 11:55 PM:

cheap@viagra.com

viagra price wrote on October 27, 2007 1:26 AM:

cheap@viagra.com

buy cheap viagra wrote on October 27, 2007 3:13 AM:

cheap@viagra.com

buy viagra generic wrote on October 27, 2007 5:02 AM:

cheap@viagra.com

viagra online wrote on October 27, 2007 7:02 AM:

cheap@viagra.com

viagra prescription wrote on October 27, 2007 8:59 AM:

cheap@viagra.com

viagra buy wrote on October 27, 2007 10:40 AM:

cheap@viagra.com

viagra generic wrote on October 27, 2007 12:18 PM:

cheap@viagra.com

buy levitra wrote on October 28, 2007 2:41 AM:

cheap@levitra.com

cheap levitra wrote on October 28, 2007 4:07 AM:

cheap@levitra.com

generic levitra wrote on October 28, 2007 5:27 AM:

cheap@levitra.com

order levitra wrote on October 28, 2007 6:55 AM:

cheap@levitra.com

buy viagra wrote on October 28, 2007 3:44 PM:

cheap@viagra.com

generic viagra wrote on October 28, 2007 5:03 PM:

cheap@viagra.com

discount viagra wrote on October 28, 2007 8:19 PM:

cheap@viagra.com

purchase viagra wrote on October 28, 2007 9:50 PM:

cheap@viagra.com

viagra price wrote on October 28, 2007 11:19 PM:

cheap@viagra.com

buy cheap viagra wrote on October 29, 2007 12:58 AM:

cheap@viagra.com

buy viagra generic wrote on October 29, 2007 2:53 AM:

cheap@viagra.com

online viagra wrote on October 29, 2007 5:05 AM:

cheap@viagra.com

viagra prescription wrote on October 29, 2007 7:36 AM:

cheap@viagra.com

viagra cheap wrote on October 29, 2007 9:59 AM:

cheap@viagra.com

viagra generic wrote on October 29, 2007 11:24 AM:

cheap@viagra.com

buy levitra wrote on October 30, 2007 1:54 AM:

cheap@levitra.com

cheap levitra wrote on October 30, 2007 3:45 AM:

cheap@levitra.com

generic levitra wrote on October 30, 2007 5:31 AM:

cheap@levitra.com

order levitra wrote on October 30, 2007 7:11 AM:

cheap@levitra.com

buy viagra wrote on October 30, 2007 6:20 PM:

cheap@viagra.com

cheap viagra wrote on October 30, 2007 9:23 PM:

cheap@viagra.com

discount viagra wrote on October 30, 2007 10:54 PM:

cheap@viagra.com

purchase viagra wrote on October 31, 2007 12:24 AM:

cheap@viagra.com

buy generic viagra wrote on October 31, 2007 2:07 AM:

cheap@viagra.com

buy cheap viagra wrote on October 31, 2007 4:05 AM:

cheap@viagra.com

buy viagra generic wrote on October 31, 2007 6:06 AM:

cheap@viagra.com

online viagra wrote on October 31, 2007 8:22 AM:

cheap@viagra.com

viagra prescription wrote on October 31, 2007 11:04 AM:

cheap@viagra.com

viagra discount wrote on November 17, 2007 5:17 AM:

cheap@viagra.com

viagra generic wrote on November 17, 2007 7:03 AM:

cheap@viagra.com

buy levitra wrote on November 18, 2007 2:53 AM:

cheap@levitra.com

cheap levitra wrote on November 18, 2007 4:54 AM:

cheap@levitra.com

generic levitra wrote on November 18, 2007 7:20 AM:

cheap@levitra.com

order levitra wrote on November 18, 2007 9:47 AM:

cheap@levitra.com

buy viagra wrote on November 18, 2007 2:02 PM:

cheap@viagra.com

generic viagra wrote on November 18, 2007 3:59 PM:

cheap@viagra.com

cheap viagra wrote on November 18, 2007 6:36 PM:

cheap@viagra.com

discount viagra wrote on November 18, 2007 9:43 PM:

cheap@viagra.com

buy generic viagra wrote on November 19, 2007 12:11 AM:

cheap@viagra.com

purchase viagra wrote on November 19, 2007 1:58 AM:

cheap@viagra.com

buy cheap viagra wrote on November 19, 2007 4:02 AM:

cheap@viagra.com

order online viagra wrote on November 19, 2007 5:40 AM:

cheap@viagra.com

cheap viagra uk wrote on November 19, 2007 7:09 AM:

cheap@viagra.com

online viagra wrote on November 19, 2007 8:37 AM:

cheap@viagra.com

viagra cheap wrote on November 19, 2007 10:19 AM:

cheap@viagra.com

viagra generic wrote on November 19, 2007 12:09 PM:

cheap@viagra.com

buy levitra wrote on November 20, 2007 7:34 AM:

cheap@levitra.com

cheap levitra wrote on November 20, 2007 10:05 AM:

cheap@levitra.com

generic levitra wrote on November 20, 2007 12:55 PM:

cheap@levitra.com

order levitra wrote on November 20, 2007 3:55 PM:

cheap@levitra.com