Tuesday, January 11, 2005

Heather MacDonald's Dubious Counter-"Narrative" on Torture

Marty Lederman

Over in Slate, Mickey Kaus refers to a new article in the City Journal by Heather MacDonald as the “best defense of the administration’s record on torture” that he’s yet read. MacDonald argues that the atrocities at Abu Ghraib and other abuses in U.S. detention facilities in Iraq and Afghanistan (including, apparently, murders) are not the result of Administration interrogation policies; that the Office of Legal Counsel’s legal justifications for extremely coercive interrogation techniques bordering on torture have had no effect on the Pentagon’s interrogation policies; and that the military’s current interrogation practices are, in fact, far too timid and cautious—the result of a hidebound legalist culture within the government and of an inaccurate “torture narrative” promoted by “self-professed guardians of humanitarianism” (e.g., the Red Cross and Amnesty International) who “need to come back to earth.”

MacDonald’s account is, I think, suspiciously evasive on the facts and the law, as I’ll explain below.

At the outset, however, it’s important to note that MacDonald is absolutely correct in one very important respect—involving the role of the CIA. In a series of posts that I published here a few days ago (see below), I attempted to demonstrate that the infamous August 2002 OLC Memo on torture was not originally intended as a guide to interrogations conducted by the U.S. Armed Forces in Iraq, Afghanistan, or Guantanamo. The 2002 memo deals exclusively with the federal torture statute—but the Armed Forces are bound by legal rules much more restrictive than those imposed by the torture statute, including the Uniform Code of Military Justice, the President’s directive that all detainees be treated humanely, and article 16 of the Convention Against Torture, which in effect prohibits treatment that would “shock the conscience,” and thus violate the Due Process Clause, if it had occurred within the U.S. The purpose of the 2002 OLC Torture memo, I explained, was instead to identify the legal limits on interrogation that the CIA may use against suspected Al Qaeda operatives at locations outside U.S. jurisdiction. The Administration apparently has concluded (perhaps not without reason) that numerous other statutory, executive and treaty-based restrictions on coercive interrogation and inhumane treatment do not apply to such CIA interrogations outside U.S. jurisdiction—so that if a technique does not amount to “torture” under the very narrow statutory definition, it is not off-limits to the Agency. In other words, even if a particular inhumane or cruel technique would be unlawful if performed by the military, or would be unconstitutional if performed by the CIA within the U.S., OLC apparently has concluded that the CIA nevertheless may use that technique upon suspected Al Qaeda detainees outside U.S. jurisdiction as long as it does not amount to statutory “torture.”

The 2002 OLC Opinion bent over backward to construe the federal torture statute as narrowly as possible. A recent, superseding OLC memo on the torture statute, released at the end of December 2004, improves on the 2002 memo in numerous ways, and even goes so far as to repudiate many of the central, most extreme conclusions of that earlier memo. Notably, however, the new memo reassures the CIA, in a footnote, that despite all these changes and repudiations, OLC has “reviewed this Office's prior opinions addressing issues involving treatment of detainees and do not believe that any of their conclusions would be different under the standards set forth in this memorandum." That is to say, the new OLC Opinion, even with its much more reasonable views of the torture statute, appears not to affect in any significant way the techniques the CIA has already been specifically authorized to use. And the Administration has concealed from the public (and perhaps also from the Congress) the extreme, sometimes inhumane forms of interrogation—just short of the strict statutory standard of “torture”—that the CIA presumably is authorized to use upon detainees overseas.

In his confirmation hearing last week, Judge Gonzales claimed that he has no “specific recollection” whether it was the CIA that asked for OLC’s legal advice on the meaning of the torture statute. That claim is increasingly implausible. MacDonald’s article and another new piece in Time Magazine confirm what others have been reporting since last summer—namely, that the White House Counsel request for OLC advice was prompted by a CIA request concerning “how far interrogators could go” against high-value Al Qaeda detainees, such as Abu Zubaydah. (I’ve tried to demonstrate in my earlier posts that this is the only way to explain the OLC memos—that there would have been no reason for OLC to be answering the narrow questions concerning the torture statute if the request had come from, e.g., the Pentagon, which was bound by much stricter requirements.)

As the Time Magazine article notes, however, as long as the Administration is not more forthcoming, “it remains impossible to know what rules the CIA is following when it conducts interrogations in ‘undisclosed locations’ outside the U.S.” What we do know is that the Administration appears to have strenuously, and successfully, resisted all efforts—including two recent bills that the Senate passed unanimously—to require the CIA to refrain from cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment of detainees. And, according to “a former Justice Department official” cited in MacDonald’s article, the CIA apparently has been authorized to use techniques as extreme as water-boarding, i.e., submerging a detainee in water to induce the sensation of drowning. Beyond that, as MacDonald notes, “[t]he CIA’s behavior remains a black box.”

In her article, MacDonald agrees that the 2002 OLC Memo was “hair-raising,” and “understandably caused widespread alarm.” She argues, however, that the OLC Memo “had nothing to do” with the interrogation “debates and experiments unfolding among Pentagon interrogators in Afghanistan and Cuba,” and had no connection to the abuses at Abu Ghraib, or to the extreme methods of military interrogation that have been alleged at Guantanamo and elsewhere. MacDonald further argues that, in contrast to the CIA, Pentagon officials have not come close to violating the law; that the military’s techniques have been “light years from real torture”; that the interrogation policies in Cuba and Afghanistan are “irrelevant” to what happened in Abu Ghraib; and that, in fact, the Armed Forces have been unduly hamstrung by a culture of legalism that is an unfortunate byproduct of “fanatically cautious” Pentagon lawyers steeped in the outmoded ways of the Geneva Conventions.

This version of the story appears to be selective, at best.

As noted above, I agree with MacDonald that the 2002 OLC Memo likely was not intended to affect interrogation policies in the military. But she is wrong to insinuate that the Pentagon was unaware of the OLC Memo, and to argue that the Memo had no effect on Pentagon policies and practices. Although I assume the Memo was originally intended for use by the CIA, the White House soon forwarded it to the Department of Defense, where huge portions of it were incorporated virtually verbatim in the DoD Working Group Report on Guantanamo interrogation techniques in early 2003 (even though the statute discussed in the OLC Memo did not even apply at Guantanamo during the period in question). Most notably, the Pentagon adopted wholesale the most indefensible and most dangerous portions of the OLC Memo—where OLC concocted unlikely criminal defenses of “necessity,” “defense of nation,” and “presidential authority,” and where OLC argued that criminal laws restricting methods of interrogation are unconstitutional to the extent they impinge upon the President’s decisions of “what methods to use to best prevail against the enemy.”

Armed with these OLC assurances of virtually no legal exposure, the DoD Working Group itself concluded that these techniques were among those that are lawful under the restrictive laws governing military interrogations: placing a hood over detainees during questioning; 20-hour interrogations; four days of sleep deprivation; forced nudity to create a “feeling of helplessness and dependence”; increasing “anxiety” through the use of dogs; quick, glancing slaps to the face or stomach; and the threat of transfer to another nation that might subject the detainee to torture or death.

In December 2002, Defense Secretary Rumsfeld likewise approved a whole series of new interrogation techniques that are difficult to explain in terms of the law governing the military. Perhaps because such techniques were so obviously close to or over the legal line, Rumsfeld rescinded that approval after only six weeks. MacDonald is correct that in April 2003, Secretary Rumsfeld declined to approve of some of the more coercive techniques. What’s not as certain is her further argument that the non-conventional “stress” techniques Rumsfeld did finally approve were “innocuous interventions.” Those techniques included “environmental manipulation” (such as “adjusting” the temperature or introducing an “unpleasant smell” in the interrogation area); convincing a detainee that individuals from a country other than the United States are interrogating him (including from a nation that the detainee knows is more likely to engage in harsh treatment); and isolating the detainee from other detainees for up to 30 days.

Presumably each of these techniques is, in Rumsfeld’s view, “humane,” does not shock the conscience, and does not violate the UCMJ (including its prohibitions on cruelty, oppression, maltreatment, assaults and threats).

Perhaps his judgments on those questions are legally sound as an abstract matter—that is to say, perhaps these techniques could be applied in conformity with all applicable laws that apply to the military. But when it comes to how Rumsfeld’s directives were (apparently) implemented, it becomes clear that those directives were hardly “innocuous.” MacDonald asserts that the new techniques Rumsfeld approved were used on only one GTMO detainee. The Schlesinger Report states that the new, more coercive Rumsfeld techniques were used upon two detainees at GTMO. If these accounts are accurate, then perhaps the attempt to trace harsh techniques to Pentagon-approved policies really is a tempest in a teapot (unlike what is happening at the CIA).
But MacDonald’s minimalist account is not consistent with other recent reporting. According to this recent New York Times story, for instance,, the Rumsfeld-approved techniques apparently transmogrified in practice into the following at GTMO:

-- prolonged sleep deprivation;

-- shackling prisoners in uncomfortable positions for many hours (to the point where one detainee who had been shackled overnight in a hot cell soiled himself and pulled out tufts of hair in misery);

-- tormenting prisoners by chaining them to a low chair for hours with bright flashing lights in their eyes and audio tapes of Lil' Kim, Rage Against the Machine and Eminem played loudly next to their ears (or in some cases a tape mix of babies crying and the television commercial for Meow Mix in which the jingle consists of repetition of the word "meow");

-- and, in at least one case, tranquilizing a detainee, placing him in sensory deprivation garb with blackened goggles, hustling him aboard a plane that was supposedly taking him to the Middle East, and bringing him (unknowingly) back to GITMO, where he was put in an isolation cell and there subjected to harsh interrogation procedures that he was encouraged to believe were being conducted by Egyptian national security operatives.

Are these techniques “light years from real torture,” as MacDonald suggests? More to the point, are they lawful? To the extent military officers approved or implemented these forms of coercive interrogation, it is difficult to see how they avoided violating legal restrictions such as those in the UCMJ, article 16 of the CAT, and the President’s directive that detainees be treated “humanely.” Notably, MacDonald herself does not explain how these techniques—or even those approved by Rumsfeld—might be consistent with the law. Indeed, she fails even to mention the UCMJ, even though, as Senator Graham indicated last week, it is the longstanding set of legal norms that establishes the most comprehensive and demanding set of restrictions on the conduct of military personnel engaged in interrogation. To my knowledge, DoD has never hinted that the UCMJ is inapplicable at Guantanamo, and has not asked Congress to loosen UCMJ standards so that the military may apply previously unlawful forms of coercion to Al Qaeda detainees. Is MacDonald asking for a legislative authorization that even the Administration has been unwilling to propose? There's no way to know, because her piece blithely disregards any discussion of what the current law might actually be.

Finally, there’s MacDonald’s eye-opening suggestion that the interrogation policy debates at GTMO and in Afghanistan are “irrelevant” to what occurred at Abu Ghraib, and that Abu Ghraib had little or nothing to do with the Administration’s interrogation policies (or with interrogation at all). The best that can be said for this argument is that perhaps MacDonald simply has not read the Schlesinger, Jones and Fay Reports, because chapter and verse of those reports undermine her account.

The reports explain in detail that the interrogators at Guantanamo, and the conflicting and confusing set of directives from the Pentagon for GTMO, “circulated” freely to Afghanistan and then to Iraq (Schlesinger 9). Lieutenant General Sanchez, the commander of the Combined Joint Task Force in Iraq, approved techniques going beyond those approved for GTMO, “using reasoning” from the President’s February 7, 2002 directive on unlawful combatants (id. at 10). The “existence of confusing and inconsistent interrogation technique policies,” including a “proliferation of guidance and information from other theatres of operation,” and the fact that personnel involved in interrogation in GTMO and Afghanistan “were called upon to establish and conduct interrogation operations in Abu Ghraib,” all contributed “to the belief that additional interrogation techniques were condoned in order to gain intelligence” (Jones 15-16; Fay 8, 10, 22). “The lines of authority and the prior legal opinions blurred” (Fay 10), and “DoD’s development of multiple policies on interrogation operations for use in different theatres or operations confused Army and civilian Interrogators at Abu Ghraib” (Fay Finding No. 7).

Most importantly for present purposes, the Fay Report demonstrates that the extreme techniques that have been approved for the CIA, based upon OLC legal advice, have had an inevitable deleterious impact on the interrogation methods employed by the military (including at Abu Ghraib), even though the military is in theory subject to much more restrictive legal rules, such as the UCMJ. “CIA detention and interrogation practices [in Iraq] led to a loss of accountability, abuse, reduced interagency cooperation, and an unhealthy mystique that further poisoned the atmosphere at Abu Ghraib” (pp. 52-53). The CIA practices and techniques led to a “perception” that such techniques and practices “were suitable and authorized for DoD operations” (pp. 118-119).

MacDonald would have us believe that the now-familiar story of the inevitable “migration” of extreme practices from the CIA and from GTMO to our troops in Asia is a myth. Notably, however, she provides no evidence to contradict the accounts in the Schlesinger, Jones and Fay Reports, which demonstrate that such migration was all-too-real. "[T]he events at Abu Ghraib cannot be understood in a vacuum" (Jones/Fay Executive Summary).

Finally, it is worth noting MacDonald’s principal prescription, which is that we ought to eliminate transparency in the law of interrogation: If U.S.-approved techniques are publicly known, she reasons, “interrogators have lost the ability to create the uncertainty vital to getting terrorist information.” The problem, writes MacDonald, is that we have reassured the world of “our limits,” whereas interrogations would be much more effective if detainees thought we were a lawless state, willing to do just about anything to get information (sort of like Jack Bauer on “24”)-- or, at the very least, if detainees had no idea what our interrogators' limits are. This is very much of a piece with the Government’s chilling (but refreshingly candid) argument in Padilla that it was necessary to deny the defendant access to counsel in order to convince Padilla that he was completely outside the protection of the judicial system—that no process was due and that all hope was lost—in order to establish what the Government euphemistically called the “delicate” relationship of “trust” and “dependency” between detainee and interrogator.

As an empirical matter, of course, MacDonald may well be correct: If someone is being interrogated by a nation with secret laws, by a nation that refuses to assure the world that it will abide by its treaty obligations, by a nation with a system of interrogation rules and practices wholly outside the purview of democratic deliberation, public accountability and judicial review, no doubt such an interrogation would be more effective than one that is bound by acknowledged legal limits. Which just goes to show that what MacDonald is really complaining about is that we must, even in interrogation, adhere to the rule of law—an understandable concern in an essay that does not even bother to discuss what the law of interrogation actually is.


Josh Marshall and Maureen Dowd addressed some of MacDonald's key points...last May:

Over recent days we've gotten accustomed, I think, to an escalating rate of shame and outrage each day. It just keeps getting worse and worse. With such heightened, or as the case may be, lowered expectations, I think it's possible to read the report and conclude it's not quite as bad as one might have expected. But in the process of not being quite as bad as one might expect, it actually deals a pretty devastating blow to any claim that the infamous pictures are examples of low-level jailers run amok.

Officials blurred the lines to justify ideological decisions, calling every Iraqi who opposed us a "terrorist"; conducting rough interrogations, perhaps to find the nonexistent W.M.D. so they would not look foolish; rolling all opposition into one scary terrorist ball that did not require sensitivity to the Geneva Conventions or "humanitarian do-gooders," to use the phrase of Senator James Inhofe, a Republican.

Jack Balkin, please return and seize your blog away from those who think this is a forum for long-winded law journal pieces. This is a blog. Their writings are best hacked away by student law review editors.

1. McDonald doesn't insinuate that the Pentagon was unaware of the OLC memo. She says that interrogators on the front lines in Afghanistan, Iraq and Guantanomo were unaware of it; the suggestion is that the interragators couldn't be influenced by something they didn't know existed. She provides evidence for that position, which evidence isn't disputed, as far as I can see, by your post.

The only evidence that contradicts it in the reports you cite is this bit from the Jones report:

Furthermore, some military intelligence personnel executing their interrogationduties at Abu Ghraib had previously served as interrogators in other theaters of operation, primarily Afghanistan and GTMO. These prior interrogation experiences complicated understanding at the interrogator level. The extent of “word of mouth” techniques that were passed to the interrogators in Abu Ghraib by assistance teams from Guantanamo, Fort Huachuca,or amongst themselves due to prior assignments is unclear and likely impossible to definitively determine.

I don't think that's a refutation of MacDonald's argument. Perhaps you can find a clearer statement on the subject in the report.

2. It isn't clear that the DoD working group believed that it was "armed with ... OLC assurances of virtually no legal exposure." That certainly isn't the reading I'd give the working group memo.

3. I may have missed it, but did you give an argument for your conclusion that "to the extent military officers approved or implemented these forms of coercive interrogation, it is difficult to see how they avoided violating legal restrictions such as those in the UCMJ, article 16 of the CAT, and the President’s directive that detainees be treated “humanely.”" Is the "difficult to see" language a suggestion that no argument is needed?

4. Are the alleged incidents described consistent with Rumsfeld's order? (I'm wondering, specifically, about the prisoner shackled for many hours in a hot cell, apparently alone.) As the Times puts it: "None of the approved techniques, however, covered some of what people have now said occurred." I can understand holding people responsible for acts they approved, but also for acts they barred? Or is the theory that if they permit one bit more than you would, they're responsible for all that follows? (That is the crux of the argument, isn't it?)

5. One who doesn't actually read the cited reports might be confused by the references to Abu Ghraib. Here's what the Fay report says about abuses there:

Intentional violent or sexual abuses include acts causing bodily harm using unlawful force as well as sexual offenses including, but not limited to rape, sodomy and indecent assault. No Soldier or contractor believed that these abuses were permitted by any policy orguidance. If proven, these actions would be criminal acts. The primary causes of the violent and sexual abuses were relatively straight-forward — individual criminal misconduct, clearly inviolation of law, policy, and doctrine and contrary to Army values.

(4)(U) Incidents in the second category resulted from misinterpretations of law or policy or resulted from confusion about what interrogation techniques were permitted. These latter abuses include some cases of clothing removal (without any touching) and some uses ofdogs in interrogations (uses without physical contact or extreme fear). Some of these incidents may have violated international law. At the time the Soldiers or contractors committed the acts,however, some of them may have honestly believed the techniques were condoned.

The excerpts you quote don't make that clear. References to Abu Ghraib that refer to the second set of problems discussed in this excerpt I've given should make it clear that there's no connection to the much more notorious intentional violations. I think it's clear where the 'apparent' murders and other 'atrocities' you refer to fall.

6. Excerpts from the Fay report that you quote to demonstrate the "inevitable deleterious impact on the interrogation methods employed by the military" of the "extreme activities" approved for the CIA, don't demonstrate that. They don't seem to be directed at "interrogation methods employed by the military" at all. The complaint is more bureaucratic, as I read it.

7. I'd note that the MacDonald piece is largely consistent with the Schlesinger report's concern about the "current chilling effect the reaction to the abuses have had on the collection of valuable intelligence through interrogations."

8. I think there's a dispute about what the meaning of the law is, and that MacDonald is urging a consideration of all the relevant evidence in answering that question. Certainly an awareness of the costs and benefits of deciding that the law of interrogation requires, for example, that we can't use "basic police interrogation tactics" is relevant, isn't it? Exploring the costs of the course you'd propose is fully consistent with the goals of "democratic deliberation" and "public accountability", as I see it.

Thomas, you may argue that there is no connection between removing clothing and pinioning naked in painful positions and the subsequent rape, or that there is no connection between frightening a naked man with a dogs teeth snapping near him and letting the dog bite him. But you won't convince anyone in the reality based community.

Meanwhile, back in the Dirkson building.....

Torture is inhumane.
Torture is illegal.
Torture doesn't achieve results.
While torture is being discussed, people are being tortured. Some of them may be detained for life in hidden locations so they will never testify what was done to them, and that testimony is the only dangerous information they hold.

When someone suggests what the administration's policies should actually be regarding interrogations (or even "torture" if you like) of people picked up in Afghanistan - especially the high level Al Qaeda types such as Khalied Sheikh Mohammed and Abu Zubaydeh - and demonstrate that these alternative methods could actually work, then I might start to take the complaints people have seriously. Lost in all of the critiques that I have seen is any recognition that these are very dangerous people, well beyond ordinary criminals, who have information that can potentially save thousands of lives. If you think that we should go back to pre 9/11 understandings of interrogation, and that we should just live with the consequences, then just have the balls to say so.

As an empirical matter, of course, MacDonald may well be correct: If someone is being interrogated by a nation with secret laws, by a nation that refuses to assure the world that it will abide by its treaty obligations, by a nation with a system of interrogation rules and practices wholly outside the purview of democratic deliberation, public accountability and judicial review, no doubt such an interrogation would be more effective than one that is bound by acknowledged legal limits.What makes the whole thing worse, though is that it's not necessarily true that such an interrogation would be more effective. I'm assuming that "effective" means
getting good-quality information. It's a non-starter to justify the techniques on pragmatic grounds. So we get nothing from the vomit-inducing techniques other than perhaps satisfaction of sadism or misplaced revenge...


-The wholesale man

Enjoyed your page and articles! Informative hair loss new treatment info. I too have related resources about hair loss new treatment at my site hair loss new treatment

Your blog is excellent - keep it up! Don't miss visiting this site about mesothelioma lawyer
Large selection of Websites for sale, starting as low as $19.99 come by and check it out.

Wow, I really like this one. I have a website that talks mostly about email marketing small business You should check it out sometime.

Hello Guys,

Great blogs about mesothelioma law firm . I have bookmarked your site.
I have set up a free web site about mesothelioma law firm
I tried to find all the info i could.
Let me know what you think mesothelioma law firm


Information products are the hottest trend in online business. Hello... I just happened to see your beautiful blog and thought I could just contribute a line. I spent the long 10 years in online entrepreneurship to reach this conclusion. Check out this cool website Resell Right Products that offer a bunch of info products with master resale rights. You can easily create your own profitable business with a minimal investment.

Nice blog on hair loss natural. I've got one too onhair loss solution I like, don't you? Prof sites in minutes, cool!

San Diego is having a Hot Rod Halloween on Sunday, October 30. If you love tokyo auto show then you will want to be there! All kinds of tokyo auto show will be in attendance. For more information go to tokyo auto show
See Ya There!!

I've just located your great Blog about Mastiff. Great information here, I will definitely be bookmarking your site so that I can come back and read some more. I also have a site and blog about Mastiff, so it's always great to read more about it on other peoples blogs.

Just was out looking for credit repair agencyand your blog came up.
I haven't found anything about credit repair agency so I'll add my own link.

That was a great post. I saw some news on laser hair removal toronto pretty similar to Heather MacDonald's Dubious Counter-. Just thought you'd want to know. Dave.

Howdy Blogger !
Just was cruising around looking for e book with resell right and came across your Heather MacDonald's Dubious Counter-. You ever do anything with your e book with resell right if you have any?

I've heard of tons of guy's selling a bunch online.
I've been trying too at: . Learning tons!

Cutting this post short - my fingers have been going to fast lately!
Have a super duper day!

I think your blog is a great resourse to new york mesothelioma attorney, I would like to invite you to post your blog in my new blog directory at under the new york mesothelioma attorney category

Greetings Blogger !!
I just wanted to thank - you for leaving your comments turned on for your post called Heather MacDonald's Dubious Counter-. I'm always searching and keeping an eye out for more blogs and sites about ebook with master resell right .
Pardon my bad typing! LOL - (:--).

Say, I'm curious if you've ever seen a ebook with master resell right ? Do you sell them too?

So far I've sold a few - it's been interesting to say the least. Lot's of hard work. Errggg. Mostly been marketing them through my site called: .

Ooops, this post is a bit more than planned,
Keep your (:--) UP anyhow and God Bless ya!

Bon jour. Le temps amer que je vois.

Chercher le temps et quelques comment terrien ici.

Blog agréable.

Je devrai revenir plus tard.

Online debt consolidation can help you pay off debts and live life once again. New article covering car title loans.

Torture, according to international law, is "any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him or a third person information or a confession, punishing him for an act he or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed, or intimidating or coercing him or a third person, or for any reason based on discrimination of any kind, sportsbook, when such pain or suffering is inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity. It does not include pain or suffering arising only from, inherent in or incidental to lawful sanctions." In addition to state-sponsored torture, individuals or groups may inflict torture on others for similar reasons; however, the motive for torture can also be for the sadistic gratification of the torturer, as was the case in the Moors Murders.

This momentousdecree warcraft leveling came as a great beacon light wow lvl of hope to millions of negroslaves wow power level who had been seared power leveling in the flames of power leveling withering wrath of the lich king power leveling injustice.wrath of the lich king power leveling it came as a WOTLK Power Leveling joyous daybreak to end the long WOTLK Power Leveling night ofcaptivity.WOTLK Power Leveling but one hundred years wlk power leveling later, we must face aoc gold the tragic fact thatthe age of conan power leveling negro is still not free. aoc power leveling one hundred years later,age of conan power leveling the lifeof the negro ffxi gil is still sadly crippled by the final fantasy xi gil manacles ofsegregation guild wars gold and the chains of discrimination. one hundred yearslater, maplestory mesos the negro lives on a lonely island of poverty in themidst of a vast ocean of material clothes one hundred yearslater, the negro is still languishing in the corners of americansociety and finds himself an exile in his own land.

She graduated from Berkeley College, Yale University in 1978 summa cum laude, studying literary deconstructionism, which she later repudiated. She won a Mellon Fellowship to attend Clare College, University of Cambridge,

Cialis online

She graduated from Berkeley College, Yale University in 1978[2] summa cum laude, studying literary deconstructionism, which she later repudiated.[3] She won a Mellon Fellowship to attend Clare College, University of Cambridge, receiving an M.A. in English literature. She returned to Yale in 1980 to work on a doctorate in comparative literature, but became dissatisfied with literary theory and withdrew after a semester. She graduated from the Stanford University Law School in 1985, later working for liberal Judge Stephen Reinhardt in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, and for the United States Environmental Protection Agency, but no longer practices law,also fellas i would like to talk about constipation ive been suffering of this problem for 3 month i would like to know if somebody can help.

heather is an amazing girl she is the result of a great education as a kid yeah i admire her generic Viaga Online

I don’t know If I said it already but …I’m so glad I found this site buy viagra…Keep up the good work I read a lot of blogs on a daily basis and for the most part, people lack substance but, I just wanted to make a quick comment to say great blog.

Debt consolidation loan can also allow you to make small monthly payments by extending the loan period

One additional place to Acquire RS Gold
is a Grim Maul Testimonial even though it will demand a bunch of you in case you are wanting to to Get
RS Gold in this way. You can do this pretty very well Buy Aion Kina
on the other hand may find the idea onerous to acquire
Aion Goldalone!

No doubt always amazing as your other blogs.
Buy Generic Viagra
Generic Viagra

Working your Boise blinds way towards your personal development goals can be discouraging Boise plumber at times. Understand that just insulation Boise like life, you have to work windows Boise hard for what you want. Don't allow small set-backs to get in your Boise injury attorney way. Take control and let these bumps in emergency food supply the road keep propelling you forward. Learning to overcome electrician Kelowna your own disappointments and obstacles will make it easier furnace cleaning Calgary to handle the larger secondary containment Alberta problems in life.

Everyone is different, so what might work for one person might how to start a preschool not work for you. Understand your own personality and how to make it work for you. Use your stubbornness to your advantage by letting it keep you from starting a preschool giving up. Reevaluate yourself and learn how to use aspects you start a preschool once viewed as negative, as tools to build on your strengths.

bell over in the front of all
locksmith tempe


You have done a great job. I will definitely dig it and personally recommend to my friends. I am confident they will be benefited from this site.
Crystal X
Crystal x Asli
Natural Crytsal x
Jual crystal x Asli
ciri-ciri crystal x asli

I'm impressed, I must say. Very rarely do I come across a blog that's both informative and entertaining, and let me tell you
Crystal X Yogyakarta
Crystal X Jogja
Crystal X Asli
Crystal X
Jual Crystal X Asli

This is such a great information for me, because i do an online job thats why i need fast Internet connection, i search how to bost internet speed then ireach at a right place.
Pusat Toko Herbal
Beauty Mellons
Cream walet
Entropy Cream

I wanna come beck here for new post from your site. live laugh love quotes


I bookmarked this web. I will come back to continue learning about your web design.I’m glad Yahoo pointed me to it. I was able to get the know-how I was searching so badly for days now.Thank You very much for your really good web page. Have a good day.It’s very useful for everyone for sure.

I enjoyed your entries on Toxic Words - such great thoughts and a wonderful reminder to watch the words I use - to be positive and kind and use words to build up rather than tear down. :)
Pre Marriage Courses


pengobatan secara almi tnpa efek samping
obat herbal pembuluh darah

solusi untuk mengobati penyakit yang anda keluhkan
obat herbal kanker kandung kemih mujarab

solusi untuk mengobati penyakit yang anda keluhkan
obat herbal kanker kandung kemih

Cara Mengobati BAB Berdarah
Obat Tradisional Untuk Penyakit Lepra
Obat Herbal Kanker Endometrium
Pengobatan Lupus Alami
Cara Mengobati Gatal Gatal Pada Kemaluan

Thanks for your post. I’ve been thinking about writing a very comparable post over the last couple of weeks, I’ll probably keep it short and sweet and link to this instead if thats cool. Thanks.
Cara Mencegah Miom dan Kista
Mengobati Keputihan Secara Alami
Manfaat Crystal X Merawat Vagina
Cara Pakai Crystal X Gimana..?
Efek Samping Crystal X
Collaskin Untuk Ibu Hamil dan Menyusui
Cara Mengatasi Kulit kering dan Kusam
Tips Memilih Kosmetik Yang Aman
Cara Merawat Kecantikan Kulit Wajah
Efek Samping Moreskin


Anyone can perform good deeds for an audience; the best among us do their greatest work when no one is present to bear witness.
Agen Judi Online Terpercaya

Thanks for your post. I’ve been thinking about writing a very comparable post over the last couple of weeks, I’ll probably keep it short and sweet and link to this instead if thats cool. Thanks. GluCella Pemutih Wajah


Post a Comment

Older Posts
Newer Posts