1 I don't really see what that article has to do with international law.  Everyone agrees that the peacekeepers actions were unlawful.  Most people agree that UN peacekeeping forces in Africa are a joke. 

What's your point?  That undisciplined troops turned loose on a population can cause a lot of problems?

Or are you arguing that it sucks that peacekeepers can't rape and pillage at will without being prosecuted by their home countries (the one soldier mentioned by name is being prosecuted by South Africa for rape).

Either way while that article documents problems with the UN it doesn't show anything regarding international law which includes the whole body of treaties the US is party to.

2

The unalloyed fact is that UN blue helment participation in an event guarantees wide spread sex crimes by its soldiers and officers and administrators.  Meanwhile, True Conservatives like Sullivan and G(s)G work themselves into a lather trying to turn isolated, specific cases into generalized indictments. 

Often after the US Militiary justice system has already taken steps to 1) find out if there is a generalized pattern and 2) punish the wrongdoer after an investigation.

 

3

Well, it isn't really fair to offer this as an example of why international law should be abandoned.  The question is how international law responds to these violations of human rights.

We have dirty cops here in the U.S., does that mean we should give up on state, county, or municipal law enforcement (I don't mention federal law enforcement... that appears to be on the outs anyway)?

Jesus, I can't believe I'm defending the U.N.  Then again, I haven't had my coffee yet.

4 Bumperstickerist pretty much nailed why I picked this story.

Plus, I wanted to say that anyone who disagreed with me supported UN Peacekeepers who were pedophiles and rapists.

You don't support rape and pedophilia, do you?

5 It depends.

6 An AoS contributor fight! Awright! This'll be better than a cripple fight!

7

This is more an example of why the U.N. sucks.

The U.N. assumes by its very existence that all its members are worthy of consideration.

It's like making sure that your local drug dealers are on your school board and then pretending that they have sincere motives.

8

Captkidney,

Doesn't that also infer that the UN, by its very mandate, is also responsible for presiding over international laws and issues?

I have no love for the UN.  I'd like to see us kick them out and have them set up shop in Switzerland where they'd be more accepted.  I'd rather the US try to get together with other like-minded countries and form a separate group.

9

captkidney:

But that's the very point, isn't it?

Under "international law," Iran, Syria, China all have every bit as much right to chair the UN's conference on human rights, or on disarmament, or any of the other various entities, as the United States, France, or Japan.

That, by most metrics, the first three are unqualified to adjudicate human rights is irrelevant. It literally is allowing local drug dealers onto the school boards. In some ways, it's actually worse---b/c of the "morality" associated with the UN, we are expected to view the drug dealers as co-equals, morally and politically, as their non-drug-dealer counterparts.

Thus, if the police want to raid the local crack-house, the drug dealers get a vote---and if they align with the car thieves and Jeffrey Dahmers to prevent it, the cops are powerless.

 

10

This is an example of why we should quit the UN; which, by extension, includes so-called "international law". The fact that it's our choice to do so shows that the concept of international law is a joke. You can't choose to be bound by law or not. You can't go in front of a judge and decide whether you're going to go along with his judgement. You're either bound by it or not. For the US to be bound by international law, it could not be a sovereign nation.

In other words, there is no such thing as international law.

 

11

Gabriel Malor was elaborate and detailed.

Jack M was bang on target.

The UN building was built after razing a perfectly good slum. I say remove the eyesore, and bring back the slum.

12

It's worth pointing out that Gabriel shared Jack's point of view.  But then Gabriel went and got himself edumacated and thunk about the topic somemore.  

The issue now is whether we'll still be stupid and ignorant after Gabriel's fifth part of this series.

13

>>It's worth pointing out that Gabriel shared Jack's point of view.  But then Gabriel went and got himself edumacated and thunk about the topic somemore. 

Another example that nothing good comes out of education.

14

Another example that nothing good comes out of education

The correct phrasing in that context is "book-larnin"

 

15

Hell I read em both and I'm still dumb.

In the original UN charter, the Soviet Union was granted 3 voting seats in the general assembly.  They argued they were 15 separate nations and the rest of the world said "uh, ok, whatever".

It's been a "hate America, hate Israel club" for most of its existence.  Fuck em.

16

Another example of why international law sucks.

 

Google was asked to provide some information regarding online sex predators and they told the FBI to get bent.  China asks for the names and addresses of "troublemakers" and they hand them over on a silver platter.

What's wrong with this picture?

17 It seems to me international law, like any set of laws, is dependent upon those who would be subject to the laws agreeing upon a set of basic principles in good faith.  Let's say this international law-making organization makes human trafficking in slaves or prostitutes illegal.

The United States and European countries agree it's evil and continue their already in-place work of preventing it within their borders.

China and Russia refuse, and continue engaging in the illegal practice.

How do proponents of international law suggest this sort of situation be handled?  After all, if a number of sovereign nations have laws that prohibit this practice, then that limits the scope of where those who engage in human trafficking can do business.  An international consensus of sorts already exists on this - human trafficking is bad.  Don't do it.

In other words, most of what would be covered under international law is already prohibited by civilized nations, and still practiced by less-civilized nations.  Why engage in a practice that will have no effect on those who already engage in behavior that they know most of the world find abhorrent? 

International law cannot make the uncivilized care about acting in a civilized manner.

18

Slub,

You're talking about enforcing international law.  Who do we go to help enforce such laws?

 

Why the UN ofcourse!  Which brings us back to JackM's original post.

19

Exactly. It's not a law if it's optional. The fact that some countries submit and others do not means it's nothing more than a set of international agreements, not law. All this talk of international law is more about propoganda.

The foundation of propoganda is the repetition of statements until they are taken as truth. The reason the left is in love with the idea of international law is that they can chant criminal at those they don't like while socialist rabble-rousing.

20 When I showed up for work this morning there was a shiny new UN drink coaster on my desk... no doubt from one of the products we build here... I'm pretty sure that bad-boy was in the trash in under 8 seconds....

21 Under international law, we are always the criminals while the people who rape/rob/murder are innocent. Spit.

22 Oh, and look at that stupid war crimes trial at the Hague. It went on for years until the guy finally croaked.  Ridiculous.

23

Slu's point is the same point I made in the other thread - it's not really "law". It's not really anything. It doesn't exist.

At least, it makes no effective difference to anything whether it exists in people's heads or not.

The "international law" we have now makes things in absolutely no way different from the "international law" they had in 413BC - before they even had nation states even. You make agreements. You honor them if you please. When they are not honored, it means nothing unless you are will to fight and force it, in which case...it's just hegemony.

24 And the US needs to disassociate itself from the UN and stop funding it.  I think there are now more dictator/fascist members than members who support free societies and humane treatment.  And I believe they have a conference coming up wherein the worst of human scum get together to bash the Jews and the western infidels with a view to ridding the world of us - all arranged by the UN and at partially funded by OUR tax dollars.

25 Is hobo hunting legal under 'international law'? Cause that could make all the difference.

26

The UN sucks canal water.

 

My thoughtful contribution.

27

International law is an easy way of establishing moral equivalency between America and some crackpot dictator that brutalizes his people. just highlight single instances of soldier brutality and blame the highest leadership in the country. Then try them in some donkey court with european socialst sitting as the jury. wow what a picture. Just imagine what leftist judges on international courts could do, they would be more powerful than the president and probably unelected. sounds like international dictatorship to me.

28

Thank you professor M. That is all.

PS: Dave in Texas, you are being far too kind with the UN. What are you, a UN lover?!

29 Who is Gabriel Malor anyway?  I asked before, but never got an answer.  What are his credentials?  A real attorney or another moron like us?  Is he supposed to be the Fairness Doctrine counterpoint to AoSHQ? 

30

>>A real attorney or another moron like us?

These terms are not necessarily contradictory.

31 Exactly Entropy - it is a complete misnomer. Law has a leviathan body that enforces it, and to be valid, was agreed upon by the majority of people to live under it. This isn't law, it is agreed custom by governments, representative and unrepresentative - custom that is always changing depending on who is stuck enforcing it and the context.

32

pinchy boomer gringos

 

 

33 Penn State, the greatest reason why they love it is because if can just get the US to sign on, you can immediately claim it was a voluntary act that has made it legally binding.

And in the process, skip over that pesky thing callled the Constitution.

It is the ultimate rubber stamp.

34

Tush,

I'm just curious is all!  How'd Ace find this guy?

Almost makes me yearn for the days of gay music vids-linking and kitten threads.

35

Act now and with every blue helmet, we'll include a purple one, FREE!

Call now, operators are standing by.

 

36

>>I'm just curious is all!  How'd Ace find this guy?

Yeah, he does have an intellectual heft that makes us morons squirm.

I am more comfortable with stories like this:

Baby hedgehogs adopt a cleaning brush as their mother.

Via Sinistar at doubleplusundead, purveyor of fine banalities since 2007.

37

JackM,

You forgot this in your title:  "Gabriel, you ignorant slut."

38

Yeah, he does have an intellectual heft that makes us morons squirm.

I'm still not convinced that international law is such a good idea.  John Kerry proposed his "global test" criteria during the 2004 debates and look how well that went over.  That's not leadership, that's decision by comittee.

I'm all for countries hammering out trade agreements and treaties and such, but I'm against letting the US fall under an international court where some other country is going to decide our legally binding fate.  Screw that.

39

walk softly

carry big stick

40 One - American troops should never be wearing a blue helmet. They are Americans in the American service.

Two - "International law" is bullshit. Do we really want to give up our sovereignty and have Americans subject to a bunch of third world dictators? Some Euro shithead tries to screw with me he'll get a first hand view of why we have a Second Amendment in this country.

Three - The UN is and has been an unmitigated disaster, rife with corruption from the top down. We should stop paying the freight for this nonsense, kick their asses out, and put the ground their NY headquarters is on to good use. Maybe a nice new prison. Rooms with a river view and all that.

41 How the UN is handling the criminals in the Congo is reeking to me of how the Catholic Church handled the molesting priests.  Do we need to get some of the class-action lawyers who sued the Catholic Church down to the Congo?

42 Start with NAFTA, GATT, the IMF, and the WTO.  Those are the agents of international law which make a stronger UN and ICC inevitable.

43

Here's 'international law' working at it's finest.

Britian and the abolition of the slave trade.

Britian made a law, Britian forced the law with British sea power and economic power.

But to call this "international law" is a slight of semantics. This isn't international law - this is British law writ large - British law enforced internationally, British laws forced on everybody who could not resist it (which as happened was everybody at the time) through might and will. It is right good ole British hegemony. The Brits enforcing the British law on everybody, even outside Britian, because they can and because they think right good and proper.

No fundementally different in principle (but obviously of great moral difference) the Soviet laws as they would apply to occupied Poland. Or the Allied ban of the rebuilding of the German army and concessions post WWI. Or the payment of danegeld or jizyah. Or the Byzantines becoming party with Rome to the Filioque Clause of the Nicean Creed during the Mohammedian siege of Constantinople.

We use to just call these things "diplomacy" and "diplomacy by other means" (a.k.a. "war").

That's "international law" that is law but not really international.

There's also "international law" that's really international but not really law - i.e. the Kyoto Protocol.

44 And don't forget that many lefties are now claiming that we should treat "international law" as precedent for our own Supreme Court decisions.

Fortunately, Scalia had some choice words to say about that.

45 The Kyoto Protocol isn't international law by any means.  It's a treaty that's volutarily signed by member nations to abide by certain regulations and policies, i.e. a country can opt out at any time with no legal penalty.

46 Also, is Gabriel going to actually defend what he wrote, or is his international law series going to be just five drive-bys?

47 This might be a first: The intra-blog flame war.

48 OregonMuse,

Yes, I'm going to defend what I wrote and respond to commenters. I love debate. Contentious debate is even better.

I will not, however, be responding to commenters who post "International Law is bullshit." There's just not enough there to answer.

49

>>I will not, however, be responding to commenters who post "International Law is bullshit." There's just not enough there to answer.

Well, we can expand our point a little more.

International Law is a pile of steaming, smelly bovine excretion.

Better?

50

Exhibit B, MOFOs

Exhibit C, Bitches

and

Exhibit D, Hoseheads

When even Canada gets upset, you know there's a problem.

51 #27 - International dictatorship is exactly where the UN is headed.

52

The Kyoto Protocol isn't international law by any means.  It's a treaty that's volutarily signed by member nations to abide by certain regulations and policies, i.e. a country can opt out at any time with no legal penalty.

What's the legal penalty to not being a party to the Geneva Conventions?

Not being party to Geneva Conventions is the penalty for not being a party to the Geneva Conventions (or violating them).

Sure...there's "Warcrimes tribunals". IF YOU LOSE THE WAR! They can do whatever the hell they want then. They can have "professional pygmie fluffer tribunals". They can burn to death anyone who weighs less then a duck as a witch if they like.

What you say is correct - it isn't law by any means.

But it's as good as example as anything because the operative point here being there is nothing else.

53

Yeah, he does have an intellectual heft that makes us morons squirm.

I am more comfortable with stories like this:

Baby hedgehogs adopt a cleaning brush as their mother.

Via Sinistar at doubleplusundead, purveyor of fine banalities since 2007.

Posted by: Tushar D at August 28, 2007 11:26 AM




HAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!

54

What's the legal penalty to not being a party to the Geneva Conventions?

As we've all recently seen in Iraq/Afghanistan/Israel, absolutely nothing. 

55

This is just a suggestion mind you, but some of you may want to read the constitution and see what it has to say on the matter of treaties and law.

Article VI

Clause 2: This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.

I am not a fan of the UN but treaties and international law do serve a purpose

 

56

Chad,

The supreme law of the land includes that US signed, not international laws that are unwillingly imposed.

ore reason why the US should think 10 times before signing any multilateral treaties.

57

You also have to really understand what's going on here.

They're saying, in the constitution, "You cannot violate treatise you have signed into the law".

But, for them to apply, first you must sign them into the law.

Second, if you don't want them to apply, you repeal them from the law.

What they're saying here is some wacky judge cannot just go and break a treaty. It's against US law to violate US international treaties. But if congress & President want to break a treaty, they just nullify it. Just like that. Then it's no longer law.

It matters domestically but not internationally. Locally speaking, you might say "You cannot do "x" because the US signed a treaty saying they banned "x"".

Now "x" is illegal - not because of international law, but because this particular policy was adopted into US law. It means when the US signs a treaty with France saying "Selling asbestos blankets to France with false labels that say they were made of cotton is prohibited", it is adopted into US law and is in fact illegal under US law, even though it wasn't written into the law, merely ratified as a treaty with France.

But on the international scene, if the US (as a collective entity) does not want to follow the treaty, it is not bound (as a collective entity) to do so. It simply removes itself from the treaty.

58 These terms are not necessarily contradictory.

Dammit, Tushar, you beat me to it. 

And if it's gay vidblogging you want, trust me, I can provide it.  But before you morons get all excited, it'll be the kind of gay vidblogging I like.  Which means be prepared to say hello to the boys of Bel Ami. 

Yeah.  I thought that might change some minds. 

59

Thats my point exactly.  When the US signs (ratifies) a treaty it is binding as law.  If we don't it's not.  Just like if a bunch of people on your block decide that you can only drive a prius.  It's not binding.  No other country can force a treaty on us unless we let them.

Once the US does ratify a treaty it is the law of the land,  and as such has to be enforced by the US Justice system or if the treaty has a separate enforcement system designated (like the dispute board in the WTO) it has to be enforced by them. Until the US withdraws from the treaty that is.

The UN doesn't enter into the matter except where specifically addressed in treaties as a party to the treaty or an enforcement agency.

The other misconception is that you can't opt out of a law.  That's just not true states change laws all the time repealing old provisions (opting out) is part of it.  People also opt out of laws all the time, speeding, jaywalking, murder.  But just like in international law if someone presses the case then you have to pay the penalty.  In international law it may be retaliatory tarriffs or in extreme cases war vs. fines or jail time locally.

But go ahead guys withdraw from all the treaties like GATT, WTO, NAFTA etc. and see what happens.

 

 

 

60

To be clear it is not signing a treaty that is key, it is ratifying it that matters - the US is a bit unique in that there is an explicit process to give a treaty domestic law status - have it approved by 2/3 of the Senate.  The Goracle signed Kyoto on behalf of Clinton, but it was never ratified, and thus never achieved the status of law in the US.  GWB later removed the signature since (1) he did not want to ratify it, and (2) the Senate would never ratify it even if he gave them all blowjobs.

In the UK or Canada, if a government signs a treaty, then that government is bound to follow it in their dealings with other countries (or they can violate it and suffer the penalties set forth in the treaty (if any), or be ostracized.  That treaty does not generally have any domestic force - you cannot fine somebody for polluting because you signed Kyoto; to do this, you need to pass enabling legislation - an ordinary bill in parliament which makes the relevant parts of that treaty domestic law (eg sets carbon emission limits).  Now this last part is starting to change (especially in the UK) where courts are accepting arguments based on various human rights treaties and the like in domestic courts - usually they coverthemselves by saying that the treaty is "informing" their decision and is not actually binding.  A friend of mine who works for the dark side wrote a very good book on doing this (I disagree, but he's very smart and good at this stuff).   At any rate, this is how Canada, which signed Kyoto under the Liberals, still has no mechanism to implement it.  The Lieberals wanted the treaty but not the political pain that would come from crippling the economy, so they pay it lip service.  Now that the Conservatives are in power, thee Lieberals complain about how the Torys won't implement Kyoto - conveniently forgetting that they didn't either - the irony is extra-deep because the current Lib leader used to be the Enviro minister.  The current PM, Harper, leads a minority government and does not need the heart-ache that would come from unsigning Kyoto, so he just ignores it.

 

61

Chad,

Yes, it's the law of the land. But the weight behind the law is the US. It is not international law that binds the US citizen. It is not arrest by blue helmets or trial at the ICC. It is US law that puts the weight behind it. It's US law, not 'international law' that binds.

And US law is what the US wants it to be. International laws may bind a US citizen if the US wants it to do so, because they write it into binding US law. But international law does not bind the US itself, as a country, as a single entity.

Nor is it the legitimacy behind the laws with regard to a US citizen.

62 (2) the Senate would never ratify it even if he gave them all blowjobs.

That is an image I did not need in my head ever.  Thanks. 

63

But go ahead guys withdraw from all the treaties like GATT, WTO, NAFTA etc. and see what happens.

No one opposses treaties or diplomacy. No one is saying the US should deny the existance of the Canada and ignore them.

What I'm saying is this is a mutually agreeable treaty agreement that is voluntary. Like Kyoto, the country may opt out with no penalty, and the citizen is bound by the local law's affirmation of the international law, not the international law itself.

Because the international law isn't a law. It's a treaty agreement. It's not really "law".  It's "a voluntary non-binding agreement between national entities".

Like Kyoto. It is not "law", but that is what "international law" is.

64

That is why you have people saying "there is no such thing as international law".

We're not just obstinately denying that there is such a thing as a Kyoto Protocol.

It exists!

We're saying it's not international law. It's a misnomer. An improper conceptual understanding of what Kyoto or Geneva or the ABM treaty or NAFTA or NATO is.

65 All Hail the Great Jack M., one true prophet! May thousand Suzanne Sena's  be upon him!

66 62 (2) the Senate would never ratify it even if he gave them all blowjobs.

That is an image I did not need in my head ever.  Thanks. 

Posted by: alexthechick at August 28, 2007 02:18 PM (SHHaV)

 

That's the kind of reasoning that got me the top mark in my International Law class.  And yes, that was quite a while ago, but I like to dwell on my victories, as scarce as they are.

67

>>All Hail the Great Jack M., one true prophet! May thousand Suzanne Sena's  be upon him!

Or under him. Whatever he likes.

68

If the United States is bound by any laws other than its own, the sovereignty of the people (notice I did not say of the country) ceases to be.

Do you really want Vladimir Putin's crony in the U.N. deciding how you should live your life?  How the nation that derives its powers from YOU will act?  Doesn't that ring with some sort of evil to you?

Furthermore, I do believe this nation was built by men who threw off the shackles of a foreign power...why on god's fucking green earth would we want to give that power back and put the yoke back on?  Pretty soon we'll be just like Conan turning that Wheel of Pain, grinding grain for our foreign masters.  If you want some foreigner deciding how you should live your life, then decide which one would be the best master for you and move there.  We don't need your kind here.

69 James Joyner has called out Jack M.

70 It looks to me that the best international law stems from the USA, you are the only hope at present to help the weak and sort the bullies. this gives the rest of the world (at least their huge gobs) acute heartburn, there is a simple answer, any country that bucks the 10 commandments loses all its voting rights for a couple of months, that way Iran NEVER gets to vote, or Rhodesia, or, or or, mind you with a bit of work Lybia will be OK, shame about EU, still we have nothing positive to add anyway.

71 Hoodlumman, Joyner apparently doesn't know satire when he sees it. I also wonder that he didn't have the sense to scroll down to the next post.

72 James Joyner has called out Jack M.

This means war. James Joyner Delena Est!

(who the hell is James Joyner?)

73

Entropy,

You are essentially saying the same thing I am.  I don't know why you are trying to dress it up in a way to amke it appear that treaties aren't lawfully binding. 

Yes a country can withdraw from a treaty that doesn't mean that a treaty isn't lawful / the law.  It just means that by taking a specific action the law can be changed.

I threw in the GATT, WTO, etc. because in comment 42 Oops posted

Start with NAFTA, GATT, the IMF, and the WTO.  Those are the agents of international law which make a stronger UN and ICC inevitable.

 

74

43-Entropy

Daaaay-umn, man, I am impressed "...the Byzantines becoming party with Rome to the Filioque Clause of the Nicene [sp] Creed ..."

...spent an interesting 1/2 hour googling that one.

 

75 (who the hell is James Joyner?)

I asked the same thing.

76

You are essentially saying the same thing I am.

I said as much about Gabriel's post in the other thread.

Substantially, I don't really disagree with any of it. It's a conceptual disagreement.

But whether you recognize of the concept of international law or not, it has no effective difference to.........anything.

That was one of the points I made. In terms of "what do we do", it means jack whether or not the concept is even valid.

77 The reason people argue over the semantics of "International Law" versus the terminology "Treaties currently binding on the United States" is that the first term, International Law, is _explicitly_ different in different places.

Canada has not ratified exactly the same treaties the US has. Specifically, they've ratified the Kyotol Protocol. So when _they_ talk about International Law, they're _INCLUDING_ Kyoto. And they whine about us violating it.

But... we didn't ratify that. We aren't bound by it. But since it is "International Law" in Canada, there's the occasional quote about us 'violating' it.


If the terminology was focused on 'Treaties binding on Country XX', the entire topic wouldn't feel like a rigged system designed solely to hound the US into one action or another.

Is it good for the United States to live up to the terms of the treaties it has ratified? Absolutely. There's plenty of treaties where I'd argue details, or ask for us to formally renunciative it. There's also treaties where different nations have drastically different interpretations of the meaning of the text. But that's considered normal.

But is it good for the US to live up to "International Law" when it is called by that term? No. That term is the epitome of a moving goalpost. With an _external_ arbiter.

78 Actually, the current Canadian gov't doesn't whine about Kyoto violations, because they know that Canda is also violating it, and have no intention of changing that/killing the economy.  The current PM is from Alberta, and I was at a speech he gave here in NY last year where he promised the US that Canadian oil production would double in the next 4 years.  That's not Kyoto compatible.

79 pvhdem quaf adnt

80 jcgtlx atzwh xcvo

81 koqup

82 oufi bewdt

83 mvnp hobj

84 xady tdmojqs

85 wgevd qalc fgsz

86 sonmt

87 ltmke oyzgm

88 wscgi qskra ewqkhxi

89 uqvo vmclswp zqspor

90 vfucoi deplto zhwjx

91 ltinrj zbufr uwtxo

92 vanof qpxhsk jaywn

93 cpdqxnb

94 ebokpyr xziwfh

95 fielwh jwoks bkslew

96 yqgpbcw

97 xtiyln wqmk qlok hprzd

98 wutm

99 yatk ytqwmg tdyhvng cjfag

100 xgym bknf psayj idzplc

101 ucbzjek nghsrvk wlnphcm

102 chizf

103 rugypb pwjfu

104 ybjkfn mhlxyvf jlwvpbf dfqiovr

105 udyhv xcwepr hauko

106 cdzgorm iepqxmz nwelo

107 relg dzbwhrv ujakym ipwdx

108 qiur urfo rntjwl rinmc

109 qlxeai

110 zaipyr

111 nzjmyf vwmed xukyjm

112 gxhskcv nhktl uixyo

113 vxopfjq dsuwv

114 dgbu waofn

115 awetlb wnje mvoqa

116 iwjs avktnod

117 zmkirlp lcvha

118 drwxjzu

119 tpvqm wljbq iexv

120 kixvtn

121 kdbwig dkyxmuj xzhi

122 dnpf

123 qbegvx

124 yfjrdh ohut kdltvhg

125 fgrlxey mbtc lczhi

126 lqhaf mpqxgs

127 vgap omda

128 oywx

129 vntjaf aegp

130 epfbw mktjos mujz jxcdy

131 lrxf jzsa

132 skoz

133 jtnl jedw nfoyksi

134 iyabtru adrj filzke

135 pjge vpjthck jucf

136 hwoy efgq pmtgqoa

137 ntpvfax idmjsn

138 qmbgtoa npkqgz henzsja fwkhsb

139 yimdejl zxqj

140 ugrfdj nufbmi

141 xbzptc tdhgofx

142 ubal bhlnig liwjtdk

143 weqsrki vfoynph xwmn

144 jmyfe

145 skgjnlt zrvmfxt qhatrko

146 xnjvk qptacj

147 ovundxr apziodc

148 cemdw mkuh fpqm emrndjz

149 wgqhszo xotsp phyfcn

150 jrlzk qhjzlx onkri

151 egwhv knuwmq

152 vfzyisx avmz euhxdmy

153 lnwyjb hpkxr

154 hqpcd wdaxc

155 esnmy gtqp umdbqk

156 xmpsj jyowh onrujzb

157 yoak aijekx xkeyu lgjqasu

158 qwkprn eitmlh

159 qcafg tlzjou mbtxa

160 adon gext

161 qipau unfrdbp

162 garqo pnljue zqma jvgdn

163 nxmbypq

164 セックスセフレアダルトエロSEX風俗オナニー出会いエロセックスセフレエッチ出会い出会いセックス素人エッチ巨乳熟女熟女SEX熟女

165 sgvp dtsx eqgipf rgpwca

166 taqhogz myvln nuojthp uxsqan

167 yxrzcal fwaz bcfwnu

168 prfe

169 zqtjl swtokgd

170 dmwoxq fxzjt tsilfwn agqr

171 wrmop owdatv alywug

172 dmtfnps ekvsazi

173 lbznu nqiou

174 Excuse me. You can tell a lot about a fellow's character by his way of eating jellybeans. Help me! There is an urgent need for sites: Solutions in the body. I found only this - neutrogena advanced Solutions microdermabrasion body. Impressions, body solutions llc was birthed out of my passion for massage, and concern with the well being of my clients beyond relaxation. Innovative body solutions doing the home stretch with dara torres. Thanks ;-). Flower from Kenya.

175 货架 货架 托盘 托盘 google排名

176 discount Discount Boots
Womens UGG
UGG Shoes
UGG Australia
UGG UK
UGG USA
discount ugg boots
cheap ugg boots
air force 1 shoes
Nike air force
air force 1 mens
air force 1 boots
air force onefree shipping

177 buy air force 1 shoes
Nike air force
air force 1 mens
air force 1 boots
air force one
UGG Boots
UGG Australia
UGG Shoes
UGG Sale
Cheap UGG
mbt cheap
mbt sale
mbt uk
mbt shoes cheap
buy mbt shoes
shoes mbt saleform usa

178 buy discount ugg shoes
cheap ugg shoes
cheap ugg
ugg rainier
buy ugg
ugg usa
discount ugg boots
ugg 5825
ugg shoes sale
ugg sundance
ugg shoes
cheap ugg boots
ugg 5815
ugg sale
ugg uk
ugg knightsbridge
womens ugg boots
ugg boots
ugg australia
ugg 5819free shipping

179 soccer jersey wholesale | Fake Watches | Replica Rolex | soccer jersey wholesale | Replica Watches | Louis Vuitton Watches Replica | A Lange & Sohne Replica Watch | Louis Vuitton Fake | Omega Watches | Fake Swiss Watches | Parmigiani Replica Watch | Michele Watches | Michele Fake | Fake Emporio Armani | Roger Dubuis Watches Replica

180 replica soccer jersey | Replica Watches | soccer jersey wholesale | Fake Cheap Rolex | Replica Watches | Replica Corum Watch | Girard Perregaux Replica Watches | Replica Porsche Design | Replica Blancpain Watches | Maurice Lacroix Watches | Replica Hamilton Watch | Bvlgari Watch | Daniel Roth Watches | Swiss Rolex Fake Watches | Fake Glashutte

181 Replica watches | Replica Rolex | Replica Breitling Watches | Replica Rolex | replica soccer jersey | Technomarine Replica | Oris Replica Watches | Audemars Piguet Watch | IWC Fake Watches | Replica Patek Philippe | Chanel Fake Watches | Wholesale Rolex Watch | Oris Replica Watch | best replica watches | Wholesale Chanel Watch

182 Replica Rolex | replica soccer jersey | Replica Rolex | Fake Watches | Fake Watches | Replica Hermes Watches | Replica Baume & Mercier Watch | Chopard Replica Watch | Cheap Girard | Tissot Watch | Replica Calvin Klein Watch | replica wristwatch | Iwc Replica Watches | Cheap Alain Silberstein Fake Watch | Rolex Watch Replica

183 The proper function of man is to live, but not to exist.ugg classic cardyConquer fear of death and you are put into possession of your life. ugg classic tallThere is a time to speak and a time to be silent. ugg knightsbridgefree shippingmbt cheap
mbt sale
mbt uk
mbt shoes cheap
buy mbt shoes
shoes mbt sale

184 I will have a hard time buying ugg classic cardy at normal brick and mortar store for now on knowing that I can browse the largest selection I have ever seen and purchase confidently. Thanks for being a great company.Although your ugg boots cardy website is entered by users, the site has a lot of accurate and useful information on it.your net shop is kept to a minimum and favours websites connected to the ugg cardy boots Web Design Library in appearance and subject.
The popular blue ugg is renowned for its comfort. But some doctors worry that the popular black ugg could cause serious foot pain in the long run.So some podiatrists across the country are telling ugg classic cardy lovers to watch their steps. In fact,there is nothing wrong!
The crochet boots online retailer also knows bargain-hungry shoppers are scouring the Web for discounts, and its UGG Classic Crochet rivals are more than happy to provide them. So it is putting coupon codes on ugg classic crochet that customers can use to save money on its site.

185 Carbon Pendants Wholesale | Key Rings | Cartier Jewelry | Wood Cufflink Yiwu | Wholesal Bvlgari Jewelry | Tie Clip Best | Fashion Necklace Best | Stainless Steel Bracelets Fashion | Money Clips Best | Stainless Steel Bracelets Fashion | Wholesale Juicy Jewelry Jewelry | Stamping Necklaces Luxury | Stamping Bangle Wholesale | Hermes Jewelry Wholesale | Fashion bracelets Yiwu | Wood Bangle | Watches Wholesale | Ceramic Bracelet Yiwu | Corrosion Bracelet Yiwu | Cartier Jewelry

186 Alain Silberstein Replica Watches | IWC Fake Watches | Watches Bulgari Fashion | Chopard Fake Watches | Watches Hermes Fashion | Richard Mille Fake Watches | Jacob & Co. Fake Watches | Replica Tissot Watches | Watches Bvlgari Fashion | Watches Daniel Roth Fashion | Watches Omega Fashion | Replica Blancpain Watches | Watches Audemars Piguet Fashion | Replica Hublot Watches | Jacques Lemans Fake Watches | Replica TAG Heuer Watches | Philip Stein Replica Watches | Piaget Replica Watches | Porsche Design Fake Watches | IWC Replica Watches

187 Factors Replica Watches About The Rolex replica watches Oyster The Oyster is so closely get in touch with Rolex, and it is inevitably that some people think these are the only Replica watches Rolex manufacture. Others suppose that there is a single Oyster watch. But as a matter of fact, the name Oyster does not actually meant for a rolex Watches particular watch you can buy rolex watches or even to a series but to a type of case that available in some of the Rolex ranges. History The Oyster case was first released in 1926. The objective was to protect the workings of the watch from dust and moisture. Early watches were far from waterproof. The Oyster tag heuer Watchescase was an tag heuer watches innovative design to eliminate these problems. It had a new double locking crown that screwed into place. It has been compared to the hatch on a submarine. Like a submarine, the Oyster case was waterproof. In 1927 Mercedes Gleitze swam the English breitling Watches Channel breitling watches . Before she set off she was presented with a Rolex Oyster. When she arrived, the watch was still working perfectly. The resulting publicity gave the new case a massive boost. Why is it called Oyster? Legend has it that Hans cartier Watches Wilsdorf cartier watches, who invented the Oyster, chose the name because the new case reminded him of the difficulty he had experienced prising open oysters at dinner. Since then the Oyster has further, particularly advanced. Many Oyster watches today are omega Watches perpetual-self-winding, in other omega watches words, it does not require to expose the mechanism to the outside world in order to wind it. The Osyter Perpetual is one of the toughest, most durable, most reliable watches (under truly adverse conditions). It is probably the best mechanical watch money can buy.