1

Fair point Gabe.

Now try this hypothetical on for size.

You are a newly minted  U.S. government defense attorney / international law attorney, whatever.

You argue your first cases in court.  You do your best, as best as your good faith and training and ethics will let you.

You keep your legal notes in your office.  All is legal and ethical in your mind.

Then several years later, somehow, the political and legal situation changes.

Suddenly, many very powerful NGO's and the Democratic controlled congress and the liberal half of the judiciary somehow get it in their head that old Gabriel Malor is someone they are going to take a great deal of interest in punishing.  Badly.  Why?   Because the cause you took in good faith is now going to be held against you.  Legally.

So now you are looking at potentially loosing your law license, and getting put on legal and political trial here in the U.S.  Mighty nasty civil and criminal penalties might get ya.  Not to mention all of the international courts will hound you for the rest of your life.  No more overseas trips for you!

Now.  Honestly ask yourself this:  Would getting rid of those legal notes of yours be something you could find to be condonable?

2 "I sincerely hope that the CIA gets smacked down hard for this one."

That's right.  We need our intelligence agencies on a short leash, constantly looking over their shoulders for fear of a politically-motivated gotcha or a leak of identities to the MSM. 

Maybe they do need to be held to account if they destroyed evidence, but I'm sure as hell not going to cheer about it. 

3 Gabe -- this tangentially related but, this is about the FBI - CIA agent who looked up Hezbollah"

Assistant U.S. Attorney Kenneth Chadwell didn't indicate why Nada Nadim Prouty, a Lebanese immigrant who once lived in Taylor, wanted the information or what she did with it. But he said four of the inquiries involved files containing the names of confidential FBI informants.

In another development, a federal official familiar with the case said the CIA had access to derogatory information about Prouty before the FBI hired her in **1999**, but failed to disclose it when the FBI contacted the CIA during a background check.

Had the information been disclosed, the official said, the FBI might not have hired her. More perplexing, the official said, is why the CIA hired Prouty away from the FBI.

The CIA declined comment.


http://www.freep.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20071206/NEWS06/712060341

4

Dissolve the CIA.

 

5 "Dissolve the CIA."

The creation of the Office of the DNI was probably the beginning of that process.  It's happening but will take a while.

6

Are there actually people out there who give a fuck about how we interrogate terrorists?

7

The CIA says that they had to be destroyed because (1) they posed a serious security risk to the agents who were recorded; (2) they no longer had intelligence value; and (3) they could expose agency officials to greater risk of legal liability.

The first excuse is a good one for holding the tapes close, not necessarily destroying them

"Two can keep a secret, if one is dead." I believe that is Franklin. The modern day equivalent is to shread the file. Files, regardless of their classification, can be had.

8 I think dig took this article down. CENSORED!

9

Don't know who to cheer for - I think the CIA has way too many partisan Democrats who put Bush-bashing above country or even their oath.  On the other hand, I don't think that major terrorism case belong in the courts, and frankly think that the Lynne Stewart case torpedoed the notion that you can trust a defence attorney with a security clearance (hell, I wouldn't trust a prosecutor like Patrick Fitzgerald with secret info).  On the other hand you have Brinkema, the Clinton appointee who bent over backwards and forwards to protect Mousousai at his trial, and who improperly let a juror who was ideologically opposed to the death penalty remain on the jury.  And then you have Malor giving us the benefit of his deep received wisdom.

FUCK. THEM. ALL.

With the barbed cock of Satan,

10 See, the CIA is a clandestine intelligence service in a time of war. Is oversight necessary? Of course. But expecting it to behave like a law enforcement agency and be held to that type of standard is, what's the phrase I am looking for?Oh yeah, fucking retarded.

BTW Gabe, what is the rationale for it being okay to hold out on Congress but not a judge?  The judge may not let the cat out of the bag herself but she will be bound to share it or dismiss charges if she sees certain things, right?

11 Muh ha ha ha ha haaaaaa

12 The shoe is on the other foot..., lying to a judge and Congress and then, years later, destroying the requested evidence is not the "best as my good faith and training and ethics" will allow. As I wrote earlier, lying to a judge is obstruction of justice. It's also a violation of the rules of professional conduct in every jurisdiction, meaning it opens up a lawyer to discipline from the bar. Your hypothetical is not even close to the situation that the CIA finds itself in.

captkidney, if we can have no secrets, we might as well do away with our intelligence agencies altogether, right?

Drew, Congress may hold individuals in contempt if it chooses, but I don't believe that holding out on it constitutes criminal obstruction of justice like holding out on a judge is. That's the difference. And no, a judge who bases a ruling on secret filings is not bound to share her reasoning.

Also, no one is asking the CIA to behave like a law enforcement agency (at least I'm not). I'm asking it to behave like an intelligence agency which truthfully responds to judicial subpoenas and Congressional inquiries. It does not have a get-out-of-jail-free card simply because it routinely works with state secrets.

13

I had so wanted to see those tapes on the New York Times website. Damn!

They'll move on to captured terrorists next, once they serve their purpose - poof, they're gone.

14 Tell me again how the CIA is not, publicly at least, a morass of bumbling Inspector Clouseaus?

15

They destroyed the tapes?...On orders from Chimpy McHitlerburton, no doubt.

They've been pretty successful, shifting the blame for their own f**kups, so far.

16

Could it be the CIA is finding out that it is not nice to pop NIE surprises on the President?

Sure there are a hundred reasons why that doesn't add up, chief among them that it will only reflect badly on Bush.  But in a political climate where everything anyone does is made to "reflect badly on Bush", there really isn't anything holding him back when a smackdown has to be delivered, is there?

17

"Also, no one is asking the CIA to behave like a law enforcement agency (at least I'm not). I'm asking it to behave like an intelligence agency which truthfully responds to judicial subpoenas and Congressional inquiries. It does not have a get-out-of-jail-free card simply because it routinely works with state secrets."

Their truthful response should be "fuck off, you're not cleared for this".   That you think otherwise proves what a naif you are.

18 I would respectfully suggest that the next republican president do exactly what the Clinton Admin did in '93.

Use government office fund-raisers to determine who in the executive branch are not loyal party members, and force as many as possible out of office.

Reno and Albright completely purged their departments ... the next President should do no less.

Get rid of the clintonistas and most of the problems are solved.

19 Albright?

Wouldn't that have been Warren Christopher?

20 "Need to Know" is not the same as "Desire to Know".

21 Yawn.

22

Yep, this is just unacceptable. I'm wondering if it played in role in Porter Goss's resignation. Especially since we've never had a clear explanation on why he stepped down.

Not only did they destroy evidence, they lied to the Court about the tapes. Which may lead to Moussaoui getting a new trial.

Frum quotes the author Gerald Posner who wrote that the interrogation shown in the tapes had Zubaydah reportedly giving out several phone numbers of people who helped him with this terror activities, including several Saudi princes and a Pakistani general.

All of the individuals met their deaths shortly thereafter. I.e, were later killed.

My guess is they destroyed the tapes not because of concerns that the interrogation techniques would have opened the agents up to charges but that the interrogation led to the deaths of the four individuals.

As Eisenhower said, "War will astonish you."

That's for sure.

 

23 Gabriel - Your idealism and naiveté leave me breathless!

24 Gabe...

And no, a judge who bases a ruling on secret filings is not bound to share her reasoning.

What if a judge is watching this tape and sees a CIA agent smacking the shit out this guy. Isn't she obligated to do something if she thinks a crime has been committed?

Also, no one is asking the CIA to behave like a law enforcement agency (at least I'm not). I'm asking it to behave like an intelligence agency which truthfully responds to judicial subpoenas and Congressional inquiries.

Sure they are. They are asking the CIA to produce information that could be used as evidence in a trial. The CIA doesn't collect evidence, they collect intelligence. Their sources and methods are very different

Information collected by CIA interrogations could never be used to convict someone in court because of how it is collected. Plus, you'll never be able to let these guys on a witness stand to testify and be crossed examined, if they would even testify against each other which I doubt.

All giving this kind of information to the courts does is provide cheap outs to terror defendants.."Zubaydah said he was innocent!" Well guess what, hardcore terrorists lie to interrogators. You can only draw conclusions on information like that can only be drawn from looking at the totality of information available to analysts. A judge, defense lawyers or a jury can't have that kind of access.

So all releasing this type of material does is let terror suspects walk and open agents up to potential criminal charges. Fantastic!

We can't keep pretending criminal proceedings are the right venue for dealing with foreign national terror suspects. I am not saying I have the answer or there's an easy one but it doesn't appear we are even trying.  The only person I've seen on this subject is Andy McCarthy at NRO.

Did the CIA break the law by doing this? Probably. I don't like it but you know what?  That's why you have a clandestine intelligence service...to do the things others can't.

And no I don't think they get a blank check (see my earlier comment about the need for political oversight).  Ultimately the blame lies with the feckless politicians who want someone to conduct this war but won't give them the tools or backing to actually do it.

25 ericH...

David Frum has a quote from Posner on that subject:

Zubaydah, wounded when he was captured in Pakistan, was fooled in a fake flag operation to believe that the Saudis held him.  Instead of being afraid of the ‘Saudis,’ he demanded to talk to three Saudi princes (one, the nephew of the King, who happened to be in the U.S. on 9/11).  He gave his interrogators the private cell phone numbers of all 3. He did the same regarding the chief of Pakistan's air force.

After the U.S. told the Saudis and Pakistanis of Zubaydah's finger pointing, all four men had tragic 'accidents.' 

If that's the case, I would say justice wasn't obstructed as much as delivered in very personal and deadly ways.

26 Arthur Andersen was not convicted in the Enron scandal.
I'm not sure how your comment about AA matters.

27

I have very mixed emotions about the CIA. I tend to believe that they are very political, and no friends of the Bush administration. Having said that, I'm reminded of this poem:

But it's Tommy this, and Tommy that, and Tommy fall be'end. 
 Yet it's "Please to walk in front, sir, when there's trouble in the wind.
 There's trouble in the wind, by boys, there's trouble in the wind.
 O it's "Please to walk in front, sir", when there's trouble in the wind.

We aren't no thin red heroes, nor we aren't no back guards too.
But single men in barracks, most remarkably like you.
And if sometimes our conduct ain't all your fancy paints.
Why, single men in barracks don's grow into plaster saints.

 For it's Tommy this, and Tommy that, and "chunk him out, the brute".
 But it's "Savior of This Country" when the guns begin to shoot.

28 Nom de Blog, Arthur Andersen was investigated for obstruction of justice when it began shredding documents during the SEC's investigation into its largest client, Enron. The accounting firm was charged with and later convicted of obstruction of justice by a jury in Texas. The conviction was later overturned by the Supreme Court because the jury instructions were faulty.

29 "Your hypothetical is not even close to the situation that the CIA finds itself in."

Well, OK.  If you say so, I guess it is true.

So since our pronouncements are facts, here is a pronouncement of mine.  You said: "I sincerely hope that the CIA gets smacked down hard for this one."

Well of course you would.  Your sympathies and loyalties lie with the judicial branch, so you support any and all attempts for them to expand their power and influence, regardless.  Much like Nixon improperly attempted to claim executive privilege in Watergate, you are improperly attempting to claim judicial privilege here.

Of course, keep in mind that if you get a job as a prosecutor, or a lawyer for the administration, you really aren't a member of the judicial branch, are you?  So your loyalties couldn't be to the state bar.  You'd have to represent the interests of that yucky co-equal branch of government known as the executive branch.

Good luck resolving your future ethical conflicts of interest.

Gosh!  Pronouncements are fun!

30

The CIA advised Congress (intelligence committee) four years ago that they had these tapes and intended on destroying them.  It is only a story now as part of the continuing effort to undermine the White House.

31

Forgive me for juming in late ...but I expect more from you than this Gabe.

The judge may be doing what he is supposed to do. Law. I have no problem with his doing that.

But so was the CIA doing they are supposed to do. Intelligence. And I have no problem with that either.

Justice isn't always about the fine details of legality.

You come down on the side of Law. I come down on the side of Intelligence.

In a real sense, this is "fog of war" stuff ...and I do have real issues with the "dot-every-i-cross-every-t" crowd exercising tort reform on a battlefield. Take those metaphors as you will; that's the way I see it.

And kudo's to the CIA for - for once - doing the right thing, and protecting their sources forever.

And all we are doing is proving the weakness and stupidity our enemies accuse us of if we honor this kind of surreal crap in a courtroom.

 

32

27 (lokki) ...I love you man.

Heh. GREAT QUOTE.

You know you're on a great blog when people start quoting Rudyard Kipling. Especially that Kipling.

...er, in a manly way of course. Not like Rosetta would (gawd! no).

 

33

Appearance of impropriety.  Tapes should not have been destroyed.  If high/friendly names were listed so be it.

The Truth does not scare me. It does scare the Government. 

Government scares me, Mormons not so much.

34 If high/friendly names were listed so be it.

That's a fantastic plan because we'll get so much cooperation from other governments once we start outing them for helping us at trials of terrorists.

35

33 (voter x): Political correctness. Vapid irrationalism as a way of not-thinking about the issues, regardless of hard reality.

PC scares me, war behaviour not so much.

36 Um Drew,  People named in a Terrorist's statement pobably should not be considered a friend, or trusted.

37 People named in a Terrorist's statement pobably should not be considered a friend, or trusted.

Um Voter X, that's why they were apparently killed. In my book that is pretty much the opposite of considering them 'a friend, or trusted'.

38 Drew, Voter X means the Saudi Prince and other grand high muckety-mucks who were protecting themselves by having the interrogatees murdered. Continued support for "our friends, the Saudis" is enabling wahhabist indoctrination at home and abroad. That's the fruit of Kissinger's realism.

I want to respond to your earlier post, Drew, but I'm now two hours from a final and I still have to study. Stop distracting me; my willpower is low.

39 Drew, Voter X means the Saudi Prince and other grand high muckety-mucks who were protecting themselves by having the interrogatees murdered.

Gabe,

I am not sure that's what he meant because the 4 who were killed weren't 'interrogatees' or in custody. They were people Zubaydah thought were his get out jail free cards.

The Saudis and the Pakis found out they had terrorist agents in their midsts and offed them.  Rember AQ hates the Saudi Royal family and the Pakistani government as much, if not more, than they hate us.

Of course those governments aren't 'friends' and Kissenger sucked (but that's a much longer post) but we do have some common interests. And at the moment they are the only game in town. It looks like they did some wet work for us (and themselves). Repaying them by broadcasting that to the world in open court isn't going to get us more help in the future.

Now go study and good luck.

40

You come down on the side of Law. I come down on the side of Intelligence.

Okay, but the government is supposed to come down on the side of Law.

Why did the CIA lie (if the account of what occurred is accurate) to the Judge and to the Commission about the tapes?

 

 

41 btw Gabe...

There are like 3 to 4 thousand Saudi Princes. It's not like every Prince is a high level guy with his hand on some lever of power. There are factions within the royal family and the government. It wouldn't be right to assume that the ruling group were in league with these 3 guys.

Now study.

42 I'll take another swing at it erich....

To protect sources. To protect methods. To protect information. To protect allies. To protect agents.

Are you seeing the picture?

"There is danger that, if the court does not temper its doctrinaire logic with a little practical wisdom, it will convert the constitutional Bill of Rights into a suicide pact."
                                                -Stuff Justice Jackson Actually Said
                                                 Terminiello v. Chicago

43 Gabriel Malor,

Next time it will be shorter if you just say "Yeah, that's right. My bad for insinuating a falsehood."

Arthur Andersen was found not to have been guilty of breaking the law by a competent court exercising appropriate jurisdiction. The fact that an investigation took place is irrelevant. The fact that they were found guilty at the trial court level is irrelevant.

For somebody who cares so much about the law you're playing fast and loose on this occasion.

44

To protect sources. To protect methods. To protect information. To protect allies. To protect agents.

Okay, but tell the Judge and the Commission that. I.e., claim national security concerns.

That's what the Administration has done re challenges to the wiretapping program.

 

45 Okay, but tell the Judge and the Commission that. I.e., claim national security concerns.

And set up a legal fight they won't win. Great plan.

They reported the tape to Congress and said they intended to destroy it. They should have just done it sooner.

46

TMF says: "Are there actually people out there who give a fuck about how we interrogate terrorists?"

I don't think that's the point, but it's not surprising to hear it from you and others.

I just don't think we can be lecturing the world about how wonderful democracy and freedom is, while at the same time, doing damn near anything we want, regardless of our own constitution and established laws...in the name of  what we refer to as "necessary" interrogations of who we think may be terrorists.

The world is watching and we look like hypocritical fools when this kind of thing happens. And when the President says he had no idea it was going on, it only compounds the situation by lessening our credibility.

 

47

And set up a legal fight they won't win. Great plan.

Jeezus, at the risk of sounding like a pompous fart, if the law says so, the government must follow the law.

It does seem to me though, that on second blush, we (okay I) need to scale back my statements. The CIA claims that they told Judge Brinkeman about the tapes. They also reportedly told the 9/11 Commission about audio tapes and transcripts and that they gave everything the Commission requested.

Like most stories, the initial reports are not the most accurate.

 

48 Drew,
I don't think they presented the tapes to Congress or to the 9/11 Commission, who asked for ALL evidence in 2004. They were made in 2002 and destroyed in 2005.

One of the real problems is that the tapes represent evidence, good or bad, that the defense will never see, which under our laws, they're entitled to review.

It's illegal to destroy such evidence.

49

In the future, how do we study the war on terror/past, if critical information is destroyed?

I for one would like to get a look at the Clinton N.I.E.'s that Sandy Burger borrowed then destroyed.

Burger was trying to protect the President, and by extension the faith in the U.S. Governmental system. Should he have gotten the pass that he got?

50 ericH says: "They also reportedly told the 9/11 Commission about audio tapes and transcripts and that they gave everything the Commission requested."

That's not true.

The commission asked for everything, but did not get the tapes.

The New York Times has discovered that the CIA destroyed “at least two videotapes” showing agents using severe interrogation techniques on terrorism suspects. Those interrogations were part of the evidence in the official 9/11 investigation, yet the CIA never told the 9/11 Commission of the existence of the tapes or transcripts. The agency cited a “serious security risk” for destroying the evidence.

Staff members of the Sept. 11 commission, which completed its work in 2004, expressed surprise when they were told that interrogation videotapes existed until 2005.

“The commission did formally request material of this kind from all relevant agencies, and the commission was assured that we had received all the material responsive to our request,” said Philip D. Zelikow, who served as executive director of the Sept. 11 commission and later as a senior counselor to Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice.

51 erich and Tom,

I get what you are saying. In my first comment on this subject I wrote:

Did the CIA break the law by doing this? Probably. I don't like it but you know what?  That's why you have a clandestine intelligence service...to do the things others can't.

And no I don't think they get a blank check (see my earlier comment about the need for political oversight).  Ultimately the blame lies with the feckless politicians who want someone to conduct this war but won't give them the tools or backing to actually do it.

I am not arguing the facts just making a different value judgment on what it means than you guys and Gabe are.

As for this Tom:

One of the real problems is that the tapes represent evidence, good or bad, that the defense will never see, which under our laws, they're entitled to review.

There was never any guarantee the defense would see it. The judge would have screened it first. Unless I've missed it, there's no proof that the tape held anything, the defense was just fishing.

By your definition of what the defense is entitled to we will never try any terror suspects in court (which for the most part is fine with me because I don't think foreign nationals accused of terrorist acts should be tried in civilian courts) because they can never see all the government material that is normally involved in a criminal prosecution. It the same reason home grown spies never go to trial for the death penalty, we can't let the evidence out in open court, so deals are cut.

52 Who here, if arrested as a "suspected terrorist," and after being interrogated while being taped, and being completely exonerated by those interrogations...found out the tapes had been destroyed before your defense council could review them...would say it the destruction didn't matter?

Because, as TMF says: "Are there actually people out there who give a fuck about how we interrogate terrorists?"

We're supposed to be better than the bad guys...and we're not acting like it.

53 In the future, how do we study the war on terror/past, if critical information is destroyed?

Wow Voter X you've really changed your tune. You should have taken up Gabe's lifeline (though as I pointed out it was incorrect).

I'll type this slowly so you can understand, the point of a war or national defense is not to provide fodder for historians, it's to protect the nation.

Burger was trying to protect the President, and by extension the faith in the U.S. Governmental system. Should he have gotten the pass that he got?

Do you really think they are the same? Really?  Protecting our ability to maintain the support of other governments and all the other positive benefits I've listed in several posts equal protecting the political legacy of one man and possibly his wife's elective viability? That's the case you are making?

54 Drew says: "To protect sources. To protect methods. To protect information. To protect allies. To protect agents."

Are you saying the identities of the taped agents and sources couldn't be altered or eliminated entirely? And why would we care about the "methods" if they're legal? And the information could easily be protected, just as other intelligence is right now.

C'mon...we see it every day.

55 Drew says: "There was never any guarantee the defense would see it. The judge would have screened it first. Unless I've missed it, there's no proof that the tape held anything, the defense was just fishing."

The defense is entitled to ALL evidence under our laws.

Just as the prosecution is also entitled to ALL defense related evidence.

You can't pick and choose what evidence you turn over...not if you're planning on being tried in an American court of law.

56 Drew,
By the way: Even in a military tribunal the evidence is the evidence, good, bad or ugly.

You don't get to pick, choose and destroy what you don't want the other side to see.

57 Who here, if arrested as a "suspected terrorist," and after being interrogated while being taped, and being completely exonerated by those interrogations...found out the tapes had been destroyed before your defense council could review them...would say it the destruction didn't matter?

Wow, stealing a few bases their Tom.

First of all he Zubaydah wasn't arrested, he was captured. Second of all he wasn't exonerated of anything. Do you even know who he is?

Now you might be making a strawman argument about some mythical American citizen swept up in a terror raid and that also steals a few bases. First, as far as we know it's happened once (to Padilla) and he wasn't 'exonerated' but rather convicted.

Just for the record, when it comes to US citizens, I am with Scalia in Hamdi.

58 Drew,
My question is straight forward and direct. And as for your comment: ..." mythical American citizen swept up in a terror raid..."

Well, exactly that has happened quite a few times over the past 7 years. Don't you read the newspapers?

You can play with it any way you want, but would you really want the evidence in your own interrogation to be destroyed a the whim of the interrogators?

Answer the question.

59 The defense is entitled to ALL evidence under our laws.

Just as the prosecution is also entitled to ALL defense related evidence.

Really? I am not a lawyer but that's a new one on me. I did not know that the prosecution gets discovery on the defense.  You may want to call the judge in this case and tell him he fucked up.

According to your theory, a defendant in a terrorist related case can demand to see all classified material the US government has that may be of help to them? 

Keep in mind there's no charge that the government used information from the tape to convict Moussaoui but rather:

Mr. Moussaoui’s lawyers had hoped that records of the interrogations might provide exculpatory evidence for Mr. Moussaoui — showing that the Al Qaeda detainees did not know Mr. Moussaoui and clearing him of involvement in the Sept. 11, 2001, plot.

Are you really for unlimited fishing in classified material by terror defendants?

60 I did answer your question Tom or do you not know what the Hamdi case was about?

61 Well, exactly that has happened quite a few times over the past 7 years. Don't you read the newspapers?

And besides the two cases I mentioned those other cases would be?

62 They told congress about the tapes, said they were thinking about destroying them, and had good reason to. I can't imagine why anyone is making a case about this. Good job, guys, protect your assets, why keep records like that around?

63 Drew says: " I did not know that the prosecution gets discovery on the defense."

Yes, they do.

As for other cases, you've go to be kidding.

We've had them from New Jersey to Miami.

The ones you site are merely the most notorious.

64

Tom:

We're supposed to be better than the bad guys...and we're not acting like it.

 

Are you kidding me?  The suspected terrorist’s head is still attached to his body, isn’t it?  We still haven’t strapped our women and children with bombs and marched them into groups of their women and children, have we?  We're still the ones trying to minimize civilian casualties, aren't we?

 

If you honestly believe that we’re not better than al Qaeda, then you're a moron.  The mere fact that this guy is getting a trial, rather than being tortured, tied up, and having his head sawed off on videotape is proof that we're better than them.

 

If you honestly believe otherwise, then there are certainly areas of Pakistan where you can live under aQ's more benevolent reign.

65 Tom,

The other cases from 'New Jersey to Miami' were handled by domestic law enforcement and they do have to play by certain rules, I never said otherwise. There are no cases of US citizens being detained by the CIA are there?

Are you too dense to see the difference between a domestic prosecution and an intelligence interrogation of a foreign national held outside the jurisdiction of the United States?

Now, how about an answer to my question:

Are you really for unlimited fishing in classified material by terror defendants?

66 Use government office fund-raisers to determine who in the executive branch are not loyal party members, and force as many as possible out of office.

President Clinton cleared house and he should have - you can't implement policy well or at all in some cases with your drones working against you. If the bureaucracy is opposed to every move you make you're going to have a heck of a time getting anything. This was one of President Bush's biggest mistakes, leaving these guys in their jobs. He should have cleaned house if for nothing else than to clear up the pot fumes.

67

Gabe:

a district court judge hearing a terrorism case ordered that the prosecution and the lead defense counsel be given security clearances so they could see secret CIA filings in the case.

 

As I said in the earlier thread, this was an astonishing violation of the separation of powers.  This Judge apparently thinks her robe includes a crown, so she can do whatever the hell she wants.  That includes usurping executive branch functions.

 

Judges don’t get to rule that they be given security clearance for themselves, let alone that security clearance be given to their clerks and a defense attorney representing a suspected terrorist.  It’s bad enough that our state secrets are often leaked to the New York Times.  This was not an order to produce a limited bit of information related to the lawsuit.  This was an order that the terrorists be provided security clearances so they can get access to whatever information they want directly.

 

If the CIA has reason to believe that secret material would be made public if it were provided in camera to Judge Brinkema then we are in deeper trouble I thought.

 

But the information isn’t just being provided in camera to Judge Brinkema.  She ordered that she, her clerk, the prosecutor, and defense counsel be given security clearance.  So a) the information will amost certainly be communicated from the defense attorney to the defendant, a suspected terrorist, who may communicate that information to the terrorist organizations he's suspected of being a member of; and b) the judge, clerk, and defense counsel will get security clearance, so they can access whatever information they want, regardless of whether it's relevant to the lawsuit.  Talk about giving the foxes free reign in the henhouse.

 

I agree it's a very bad idea to lie to a judge.  In this case, it seems more likely that the CIA people responding to the request for information simply didn't have all the facts.  And the Judge has thrown a hissy fit and gotten her skirt over her head over.

68 Let's get real.

Does anybody here really believe the tapes were destroyed because they were afraid of agents, etc. being exposed?

They did it because they didn't want anybody to see what interrogation methods were being used.

A bigger question is this: At what point did the CIA or the military become the arbitrator, deciding who gets to see what? The 9/11 Commission was told they were given "everything," but in fact, they were not.

Are we a nation governed by a constitution and laws or are we merely an extension of the military complex?

69 Thanks for playing Tom but I am going to wait for Gabe to come back. You're too dense to bother with.

70 Drew,
And if anyone knows "dense"...that would be you.

*Read up on the law when you get a chance.

71 Gabriel Malor,

Are you ever going to return to admit that your statement about Arthur Andersen was misleading and that your defense of your earlier misleading statement was horse shit?

P.S. I hope you did well on your exam. I don't give mine until next week but the students sure are eager to finish.

72 And if anyone knows "dense"...that would be you.

That's true Tom, I know it when I see it and you have it in spades.

73 MCPO Airdale - returning the favor:
Gabriel - "Your idealism and naiveté leave me breathless!"

As for the rest of you people bitching and moaning about the destruction of documents .... piss off. We're at fucking war, remember? The CIA Clandestine Service (not the desk jockeys in DC) is tasked with getting information that can save lives, for crissakes! Leave them the fuck alone to do what they have to do. If they have to torture some scumbag who recently lopped off the head of an innocent person with a dull knofe ... go for it! Get the information you need to keep them from killing more of us. What the hell is wrong with you people?

Do you seriously believe that handing over to some scumbag apologist for terrorists defense attorney information that could reveal the way we go about our business of intelligence is a smart thing to do? That failure to do so should result in sanctions? If so - the reputation of the legal "profession" is well earned.

Also, Gabe ... I don't recall you being so intensely disturbed over the case of a certain Democrat operative stealing classified documents from the National Archives and then destroying same.

74

I will make this very simple. I do not trust the C.I.A.  The recent track record is not a good one. Leaks, and more leaks.  Now the Prez has more shit to eat due to the C.I.A. 

 

 

75

Judge: Is there a tape?

CIA: Yes 

Judge: Will you produce it?

CIA: No, National Security operations make that impossible.

Gov. Att: These tapes are not vetted, and may prejudice the jury.

76

Tom:

*Read up on the law when you get a chance.

I've read up on the law.  Drew's right, and you're wrong.

At what point did the CIA or the military become the arbitrator, deciding who gets to see what?

I think you mean "judge," not "arbitrator."  But the CIA and military got to decide who sees what after Congress passed laws allowing the Executive Branch to declare certain things Confidential.  If you think they shouldn't be allowed to do so, then by all means, write your Congressman.

The 9/11 Commission was told they were given "everything," but in fact, they were not.

You're absolutely right.  Sandy Berger shoved some things down his pants to hide them from the Commission.

Are we a nation governed by a constitution and laws or are we merely an extension of the military complex?

"Military complex"?  You mean like a PX?  Or a gym?

77

Voter X:

I hear you when you say you don't trust the CIA.  But keep in mind the CIA is huge.  It seems very unlikely to me that the CIA and prosecuting attorneys actually made a conscious decision to lie to the Judge.  Much more likely that it went like this:

Judge: Is there a tape?

Attorney: [to Judge] I'll check.

[Days later]

Attorney: [to CIA peon]  Is there a tape?

CIA peon: I'll check.

[Days later.  CIA peon checks for tape.  Doesn't find one.]

CIA peon: [to Attorney]: I don't see any tapes.

Attorney: [to Judge] Nope.  There don't appear to be any tapes.

[months or years pass]

Defense attorney: Judge, it looks like there were tapes.

Judge: Check again, Attorney.

[Attorney checks again.  Different CIA peon goes up the chain of command and someone figures out that there was a tape.]

Attorney: [to Judge]  Woops.  We were wrong.  There was a tape, but it was destroyed years ago.

Judge: In that case, I get to ignore all of the laws passed by the Legislative Branch preventing me from accessing confidential information.  I also get to ignore all the procedures set up by the Executive Branch to protect confidential information.  I want to see whatever I want.  Immediately.  No, you don't get to run a security check on me, my clerk, or the defense attorney.  Because I said so.  [Judge Dredd voice] I am the law!

78 Bust them for destroying evidence. I'm sure they will take one for the team. Because you don't want that shit on You Tube. Sorry.

I think this torture lite stuff has become more trouble than its worth.

You figure they originally have a couple of teams and a few small prisons in E. Europe to do this stuff to get intel. That limited capacity by itself keeps the risk of torture spreading to electrocuting Kabul cab drivers to a minimum. Hey, were at war and these religious nutballs won't talk! The American people are demanding results! What's the CIA for if it can't break the law overseas once in while?

Forward to 2007. More press than you can imagine for how many water boardings? Less than 10?

Anyways, the Law is great. So when you're having a heart attack make sure your wife stops at every stop sign, doesn't turn on red, etc.

Oh, and BTW, the Law very often doesn't actually deliver any justice...they just reward the people with the stronger paperwork and fatter bank account.

79 Drew at 24 writes:

What if a judge is watching this tape and sees a CIA agent smacking the shit out this guy. Isn't she obligated to do something if she thinks a crime has been committed?

No, she has no more legal obligation than the rest of us when we witness a crime. Although, now that I think of it, a clever strategy would be to call the judge in an unrelated terror case and ask her to testify about what she saw in the video. I'm sure that's not possible, but off the top of my head, I can't say why.

They are asking the CIA to produce information that could be used as evidence in a trial. The CIA doesn't collect evidence, they collect intelligence. Their sources and methods are very different

Information collected by CIA interrogations could never be used to convict someone in court because of how it is collected. Plus, you'll never be able to let these guys on a witness stand to testify and be crossed examined, if they would even testify against each other which I doubt.

All giving this kind of information to the courts does is provide cheap outs to terror defendants.."Zubaydah said he was innocent!" Well guess what, hardcore terrorists lie to interrogators.
...
So all releasing this type of material does is let terror suspects walk and open agents up to potential criminal charges. Fantastic!

The information was not requested as evidence of guilt, but rather preliminary evidence (essentially background information on which other inferences and evidence rests).

And you're making an assumption that judges and juries would just throw up their hands and say "Well, Zubaydah said he was innocent!" which is a bit silly. In criminal courtrooms all across the country, defendants stand up and swear that they are innocent and, in fact, go on to introduce truckloads of evidence trying to prove it. That doesn't mean we should outlaw pleas of innocence in criminal court. The point of a trial is for a factfinder to see if the prosecution can convince beyond a reasonable doubt that a crime has occurred. Just because we want terrorists to be convicted, doesn't mean we get to deprive them of the opportunity to introduce a reasonable doubt.

We can't keep pretending criminal proceedings are the right venue for dealing with foreign national terror suspects. I am not saying I have the answer or there's an easy one but it doesn't appear we are even trying.

Al-Timimi isn't a "foreign national terror suspect." He was born in D.C. and taught in Falls Church. The criminal justice system is exactly the right place for dealing with him.

80 davis,br at 31 wrote:

The judge may be doing what he is supposed to do. Law. I have no problem with his doing that.

But so was the CIA doing they are supposed to do. Intelligence. And I have no problem with that either.

Justice isn't always about the fine details of legality.

You come down on the side of Law. I come down on the side of Intelligence.

I'm not convinced we can't have all the intelligence we want legally. As I wrote in the newest post on this topic, "Volumes of legislation provide the CIA plenty of legal cover for its activities. In fact, it has much greater latitude in its activities than others and greater protections from disclosure and liability than the rest of government; it therefore enjoys quite a lengthy leash."

More than that, if the CIA needs more leeway, it can ask. That you think it should be allowed to do this type of thing (destroy evidence) and I don't means that it's a policy question--the very thing we have a republican form of government to take care of. It doesn't get an exemption from control by Congress and the Executive just because it wants one.

This is related to what Drew and Voter X were talking about when they discussed whether the CIA should have claimed state secrets privilege instead of lying about the tapes. Drew didn't like the fact that the CIA might lose on that claim of state secrets. It sounds like he wants to change the law, and of course, that's the point of having Congress.

(Incidentally, Drew, the states secrets privilege is doing very well. It almost never gets overridden. In fact, it's so successfully been used by the Bush Administration that Arlen Specter and Ted Kennedy are pushing a bill that would change the law--which is entirely developed caselaw at the moment).

81  Drew at 59 writes (the first two sentences are quotes from earlier posts):

The defense is entitled to ALL evidence under our laws.

Just as the prosecution is also entitled to ALL defense related evidence.

Really? I am not a lawyer but that's a new one on me. I did not know that the prosecution gets discovery on the defense. 

"Discovery" is typically thought of in terms of civil cases, rather than criminal. In criminal cases, the defense is generally entitled to see what evidence is being used to convict him. For reasons of process (obviously), he must also make his evidence available to the court (and through the court to the prosecution).

The case you linked Drew is an amusing one, but not an unusual one. The defense had no obligation to show the prosecution the transcript before using it to impeach the testimony of the police detective.

The references to ALL evidence above are, to my knowledge, incorrect. The judge will get access to ALL the evidence in a case, but there are situations in which either the defendant or the prosecution will be kept from seeing particular evidence.

82 bruce at 73 writes:

Also, Gabe ... I don't recall you being so intensely disturbed over the case of a certain Democrat operative stealing classified documents from the National Archives and then destroying same.

I wasn't blogging back when Sandy Berger was doing his thing, so I'm not surprised that you can't recall me being intensely disturbed by it. You're a clever, clever man, bruce.

Of course, you kind of bring up a point in my favor. We rightly decried Berger's actions because we thought they were both taken for political purposes and to cover his on butt legally. That doesn't differ much from Rodriguez's rationale for destroying the interrogation tapes.

That isn't to say that the two events are identical. Obviously, Berger's sneaking about the National Archive as a mere citizen without portfolio (at the time, if I remember correctly) is not the same thing as the DDO acting in his official capacity. And of course, we don't like Berger and cover-ups that help Democrats, whereas we're much happier about potential lawbreaking that aids the War on Terror.

83  The Comish (sic) writes:

But the information isn’t just being provided in camera to Judge Brinkema.  She ordered that she, her clerk, the prosecutor, and defense counsel be given security clearance.

She only did that after the CIA denied her the chance to see evidence in chambers. It's not like she decided on a whim that the prosecution and defense should be able to dispute the CIA's filings in her courtroom. She has good reason to distrust those filings.

the judge, clerk, and defense counsel will get security clearance, so they can access whatever information they want, regardless of whether it's relevant to the lawsuit.

That's not how security clearances work. It's not a like a library card; the person must have a need to know the information that they seek. They can't just browse through the secure files.

84 Finally, anyone who used a variation of "how naive" to respond to my post get bonus points for originality and depth of argument. Thanks for contributing.

85
Unless those tapes in some way contained exculpatory evidence for Moussaoui  their destruction is irrelevant. Stop shilling for the NYT, malor.

86 出会いライブチャットチャットレディ出会い系出会い人妻フィリピンデリヘルチャットレディ車買取バイク買取アダルトライブチャット転職出会い

87 ¥»¥Ã¥¯¥¹¥»¥Õ¥ì¥¢¥À¥ë¥È¥¨¥íSEXÉ÷¯¥ª¥Ê¥Ë¡¼½Ð²ñ¤¤¥¨¥í¥»¥Ã¥¯¥¹¥»¥Õ¥ì¥¨¥Ã¥Á½Ð²ñ¤¤½Ð²ñ¤¤¥»¥Ã¥¯¥¹ÁÇ¿Í¥¨¥Ã¥ÁµðÆý½Ï½÷½Ï½÷SEX½Ï½÷

88 货架 货架 托盘 托盘 货架

89 links of london
london links jewellery
links jewellers
london links
links necklaces
links bracelet
links charms
links rings
links earrings

90 UGG Boots Sale
ugg shoes
ugg classic
cheap ugg
UGG UK
bape shoes
bape shoes sale
cheap bape shoes
UGG UK
UGG boots sale
UGG Classic
discount UGG
UGG Bailey Button
UGG Amelie Suede
UGG Bailey Button
UGG Classic Cardy
cheap UGG Cardy
UGG Classic Crochet
UGG Classic Mini
UGG Classic Short
UGG Classic Tall
UGG Coquette Casual
UGG Gypsy Sandal
UGG Halendi Sandal
UGG Hammond Slipper
UGG Infant's Erin Baby
UGG KnightsBridge
UGG Layback Slipper
UGG Lo Pro Button
UGG Matala Sandal
UGG Napoule Sandal
UGG New Arrival 5389
UGG New Short Boots

91 discounthair straighteners
ghd hair
chi hair straightener
ghd straighteners
chi straighteners
chi hair
chi hair iron
hair straighteners ghd
ghd hair straighteners
free shipping!

92 Buy discountnba shoes
cheap basketball shoes
mens basketball shoes
kobe shoes
kobe bryant shoes
lebron james shoes
free shipping!

93 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

94 discountugg boots sale
ugg shoes
tall ugg boots
ugg classic boots
nike shox
air jordan shoes
nike air max
nike air force one
bailey button ugg
rainier ugg boots
ugg classic cardy
ugg crochet boots
ugg mini
ugg classic short
classic tall ugg
ugg coquette
ugg baby boots
ugg knightsbridge
ugg lo pro
new ugg boots
ugg short boots
ugg nightfall boots
ugg skimmer
ugg sundance boots
ultra short ugg
ugg ultra tall
discount ugg slippers
ugg sandals
ugg halendi
ugg slippers
ugg layback
ugg matala sandal
ugg napoule sandal
ugg persephone
tasmina ugg
air force 1 shoes
jordan air shoes
nike shox shoes
air max nike
free shipping!

95 buy Discount Boots
Womens UGG
UGG Shoes
UGG Australia
UGG UK
UGG USA
discount ugg boots
cheap ugg bootsfrom usa

96
出会い出会い出会い出会い出会い出会い

97 Replica Watches | Replica Cartier | Replica Omega | soccer jersey supplier | Replica Watches | Replica Richard Mille Watches | Jacob & Co Watches Replica | Movado Replica Watches | Wholesale Daniel Roth Watch | Glashutte Replica Watch | Movado Replica | Fake Movado Watches | Wholesale Jacob & Co Watch | Gerald Genta Replica Watches | Breitling Watches Replica

98 Fake Watches | Replica watches | Replica Cartier | Fake Watches | replica soccer jersey | Fake Tag Heuer | Replica Tissot Watches | Replica IWC Watches | Japan Rolex Fake Watches | Christian Dior Replica Watch | Replica Parmigiani | IWC Watches | Baume & Mercier Replica Watch | Fake 2009 New Arrival Watches | Christian Dior Watches Replica

99 Replica watches | Replica Rolex | Fake Watches | Replica watches | Fake Watches | Seiko Watch | Fake Dolce & Gabbana | Replica Ebel Watches | Wholesale Breitling Watch | Wholesale Omega Watch | Replica Parmigiani Watches | Replica Corum Watches | Jacques Lemans Fake | Wholesale Oris Watch | Jaeger LeCoultre Replica

100 Replica watches | Replica Watches | Fake Cheap Rolex | Replica Breitling Watches | Replica Cartier | Louis Vuitton Replica Watch | Replica Titoni Watches | Replica Tag Heuer Watches | Patek Philippe Watch Replica | Fake Breguet | Fake Patek Philippe Watches | Cheap Tag Heuer | Fake Porsche Watches | Fake Ebel Watches | Blancpain Replica

101 UGG BOOTS

102 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

103 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.

104 Today ugg boots online have become a phenomenon.Every winter,the ugg classic crochet are one of the hottest goods in the market all over the world.So now don't be hesitation,own a pair of ugg usa immediately.

105 The womens mbtchallenges the hard to reach
muscles in your legs, but also works the abdominal, back, buttock, and thigh muscles.
With every stride, the instability activates the whole body in concert and tones as it
stimulates different areas.mbt
footwear have a curved pivot sole that copies walking on soft moss. The sole of
href=http://www.mbtshoesbuy.com/products_new.html>new mbt turns even, flat ground
into uneven terrain. The mbt anti shoes challenges the muscles to work harder with
every step you take. The unique curved sole works by providing instability and makes
the muscles of your body more engaged and also helps burn more calories.
The mbt shoes walking shoes have been
highlighted for its ability to cushion your feet while challenging your muscles.
Clinical studies suggest that regular use improves balance, posture and circulation.
mbt lami shoes re-establish
the natural conditions for standing and walking.You will get more results out of your
workouts ? MBT shoes have technology in the sole design that make your working more
efficient and burn more calories. With every step, the instability activates your
muscles and the whole body is stimulated as your walk more and more.Free Shipping
1Week on Select Styles Of discount
mbt Walking Shoes Reviews !

106 We supply authentic discount Lacoste Shoes
Lacoste Trainers
New Lacoste
Lacoste Sale
Mens Lacoste
camden lacoste trainers
lacoste trainers shoes
lacoste camden retro
camden lacoste trainers
lacoste carnaby shoes
lacoste carnaby retro
lacoste shoes sale
New Lacoste shoes
Lacoste shoes online
cheap Lacoste shoes
Lacoste shoe
mens lacoste shoes
Lacoste Shua Lace
Black Lace shoes
white Lace shoes
lacoste swerve shoes
White Lacoste shoes
Lacoste shoes sale
Cheap Lacoste shoes
Lacoste Women Shoes
Women Lacoste Shoes
Lacoste Shoes online
on line, cheap price,Top quality,Free shipping!

107 i just want to say,the article you write is great,today is my first visit here,and i'll come again to read your new blog.in our website,we sell all kind of nike air max,like nike air max 360 shoes and so on,the womens air max is so popular that you can view them and purchase.(air max)
http://www.my-nikeshoes.com/

108 Nike Air Max
hot sale nike shoes
nike air
buy Air Max shoes
nike max air

109 Chopard Replica bags | Luxury Breitling handbags | Replica Girard Perregaux Handbags | Luxury Panerai handbags | Replica Rado Handbags | Luxury Longines handbags | Replica Fashion Piaget handbags | Replica Roger Dubuis Handbags | A. Lange & Sohne Replica bags | Replica Montblanc Handbags | Replica Cartier Handbags | Replica Concord Handbags | Replica Fashion Bedat & CO handbags | Luxury Seiko handbags | Luxury Louis vuitton Belt handbags | Replica Montblanc Handbags | Strap Replica bags | Replica Louis Vuitton Handbags | Replica Fashion Graham handbags | Luxury Jaeger LeCoultre handbags | Bulgari Fake Handbags | U-Boat Replica bags | Replica Bvlgari Handbags | Luxury Jacob & Co. handbags | Girard Perregaux Replica bags

110 for old jewelry was really a repute logo and touch rings crafted out of the British.links of london friendship bracelet Native Americans were established jewelers even before the precious metal peopled them are also links of london sale considered classy.links of london sweetie Archaeological studies establish that silver was more extensively worn than gold in India. Most of the wearer in Indian silver cufflinks has not had too many variations among the numerous tribes. links of london ringThe tools were not vastly developed therefore the designs did not differ much.The records about the chronological changes are kept in the people.links of london necklaces Tiffany Frank Gehry is sallow and shiny, links of london banglelinks of london charms although the darker ones that outcome due to make new sterling silver jewelry.

111 Luxury Gucci Shoes handbags | Coach Fake Handbags | Marc jacobs Fake Handbags | Replica Burberry Handbags | Luxury Louis Vuitton Sport handbags | Best Fashion bags | Best Gucci News bags | Gucci Replica bags | Luxury Dior handbags | Best Fashion bags | Replica Fashion AH handbags | Luxury Hermes handbags | Luxury Gucci Watches handbags | Yves Saint Laurent Replica bags | Replica Dolce & Gabbana Handbags | Luxury Louis Vuitton Wallet handbags | Luxury Dior handbags | Best Miu Miu bags | Luxury Balenciaga handbags | Replica Fashion AH handbags | Replica Chanel Handbags | Replica Dolce & Gabbana Handbags | Gucci Replica bags | Luxury Prada handbags | Replica Fashion Louis Vuitton Beige Toile handbags

112 kids air max 360
kids air max 97
nike air max 180
nike air max 2009
nike air max 2010
nike air max 360 shoes
nike air max 87
nike air max 88
nike air max 89
nike air max 90
nike air max 91
nike air max 93
nike air max 95
nike air max classic BW
nike air max ltd
nike air max TN
womens air max 2007
womens air max 2009
womens air max 87
womens air max 90
womens air max 91
womens air max 95
womens air max 97
womens air max classic BW
womens air max ltd

air max
air max
air max
air max
air max
air max
air max
air max

113 keflex dosage

114 rulide 300mg

115 existencialista

116 kamagra online uk

117 nike air max 360 shoes
womens air max
nike air max
womens air max
nike air max 360 shoes
air max
kids air max 90
kids air max classic BW
kids air max 360
kids air max 97
nike air max 180
nike air max 2009
nike air max 2010
nike air max 360 shoes
nike air max 87
nike air max 88
nike air max 89
nike air max 90
nike air max 91
nike air max 93
nike air max 95
nike air max classic BW
nike air max ltd
nike air max TN
womens air max 2007
womens air max 2009
womens air max 87
womens air max 90
womens air max 91
womens air max 95
womens air max 97
womens air max classic BW
womens air max ltd

118 antabuse dosage

119 bromide pyridostigmine

120 acne treatment minocycline antibiotic

121 mysoline nasal spray

122 mysoline and migraine

123 doxycycline for dogs

124 phoslo 2001 mg

125 arequipa travel

126 trileptal what is it used for

127 nike air max 360 shoes
womens air max
nike air max
womens air max
nike air max 360 shoes
air max
kids air max 90
kids air max classic BW
kids air max 360
kids air max 97
nike air max 180
nike air max 2009
nike air max 2010
nike air max 360 shoes
nike air max 87
nike air max 88
nike air max 89
nike air max 90
nike air max 91
nike air max 93
nike air max 95
nike air max classic BW
nike air max ltd
nike air max TN
womens air max 2007
womens air max 2009
womens air max 87
womens air max 90
womens air max 91
womens air max 95
womens air max 97
womens air max classic BW

128 shipping ups valtrex

129 vermox over the counter

130 mebendazole buy online

131 nelfinavir tablets

132 300mg allopurinol

133 cellcept medication

134 tranexamic acid

135 demadex drug

136 cyclosporine

137 sandimmune drug

138 viagra

139 buy levitra online

140 sildenafil citrate india

141 cialis soft tab cheap

142 generic tadalafil

143 buy intagra

144 buy cheap kamagra

145 sildenafil citrate india

146 vardenafil

147 sildenafil citrate tablets

148 silagra

149 tadalafil

150 sildenafil pulmonary hypertension

151 sildenafil

152 sildenafil

153 tadalafil tablets

154 lyrica 75 mg

155 topiramate

156 lamotrigine drug information

157 cafergot drug

158 maxalt side effects

159 phenytoin dosing

160 bingo casino free

161 nfgwg replica watches zpfgjw replica watches,nzwwtp louis vuitton lgt replica watches,qovvs replica rolex zlbhcx replica watches,zvsyna watches replica lcpn replica watches replica watches,txayfks louis vuitton utbazj replica watches,kpbse replica watches louis vuitton,hmjh louis vuitton,uigwhl watches xsbavr louis vuitton replica sanv watches qxkkow,louis vuitton,nhfsnkv louis vuitton vslpyz louis vuitton,ubbzgve replica louis vuitton glzjum,louis vuitton,qtmsf louis vuitton jsfi replica watches cqyyvn.