1,000,000 post thread

[mathmission]

Where is everyone this afternoon. I know Riscy is probably snuggling up to his honey in bed... but where is everyone else!

[mathmission]

well, got all of those done

[mathmission]

TODAY'S MYSTERY QUOTE

QUOTE: "I just put my feet in the air and move them around."

HINT: Was an American film and Broadway stage dancer,
choreographer, singer and actor.

[mathmission]

The Times Square New Year's Eve Ball is made of Waterford
Crystal. Its first descent during the last minute of the
20th century, at the Times Square 2000 Celebration.

[mathmission]

The Ball has been lowered every year since 1907, with the
exceptions of 1942 and 1943, when its use was suspended due
to the wartime "dimout" of lights in New York City.

[mathmission]

The New Year's Eve Ball is the property of the building
owners of One Times Square.

[mathmission]

It's not a bouncing ball

The Ball is a geodesic sphere, six feet in diameter, and
weighs approximately 1,070 pounds. It is covered with a
total of 504 Waterford crystal triangles that vary in size
and range in length from 4 inches to 5 inches per side.

[mathmission]

That's a display

All 696 lights and 90 rotating pyramid mirrors are computer
controlled, enabling the Ball to produce a state-of-the-art
light show of eye-dazzling color patterns and a kaleidoscope
effect atop One Times Square.

[mathmission]

There's always Fellowship

For the 2006 New Year's Eve celebration, 72 of the crystal
triangles feature the new "Hope for Fellowship" design,
consisting of a series of cuts suggesting the linking of
arms signifying togetherness and community.

[mathmission]

QUOTE: "I just put my feet in the air and move them around."

ANSWER: Fred Astaire

[mathmission]

Well that's the trivia for today.

[tiremonkey2000]

Sorry i did'nt make it for long this afternoon

[tiremonkey2000]

Today was busy as hell...

[tiremonkey2000]

Phones would not stop ringing

[tiremonkey2000]

People buying tires at the last minute

[tiremonkey2000]

What a crazy day

[Monstrddg]

damn snow again

[tiremonkey2000]

Wow maybe you should post more

[mathmission]

I think everyone should post more often!

[riscy]

Agreed, MM

[riscy]

Just about to head off to bed - pretty late here

[riscy]

Had a pretty productive evening - did lots of scanning, caught up with email, and updated the computer

[riscy]

Catch you later, MM

[tiremonkey2000]

Sorry i missed you guys, went to the store with the wife to get party supplies for tomorrow night.

[tiremonkey2000]

69

[tiremonkey2000]

68

[tiremonkey2000]

67

[tiremonkey2000]

66

[tiremonkey2000]

65

[tiremonkey2000]

64

[tiremonkey2000]

63

[tiremonkey2000]

62

[tiremonkey2000]

61

[tiremonkey2000]

60

[tiremonkey2000]

59

[tiremonkey2000]

58

[tiremonkey2000]

57

[tiremonkey2000]

56

[tiremonkey2000]

55

[tiremonkey2000]

54

[tiremonkey2000]

53

[tiremonkey2000]

52

[tiremonkey2000]

51

[tiremonkey2000]

50

[tiremonkey2000]

49

[tiremonkey2000]

48

[tiremonkey2000]

47

[tiremonkey2000]

46

[tiremonkey2000]

45

[tiremonkey2000]

44

[tiremonkey2000]

43

[tiremonkey2000]

42

[tiremonkey2000]

41

[tiremonkey2000]

40

[tiremonkey2000]

39

[tiremonkey2000]

38

[tiremonkey2000]

37

[tiremonkey2000]

36

[tiremonkey2000]

35

[tiremonkey2000]

34

[tiremonkey2000]

33

[tiremonkey2000]

32

[tiremonkey2000]

31

[tiremonkey2000]

30

[tiremonkey2000]

29

[tiremonkey2000]

28

[tiremonkey2000]

27

[tiremonkey2000]

26

[tiremonkey2000]

25

[tiremonkey2000]

24

[tiremonkey2000]

23

[tiremonkey2000]

22

[tiremonkey2000]

21

[tiremonkey2000]

20

[tiremonkey2000]

19

[tiremonkey2000]

18

[tiremonkey2000]

17

[tiremonkey2000]

16

[tiremonkey2000]

15

[tiremonkey2000]

14

[tiremonkey2000]

13

[tiremonkey2000]

12

[tiremonkey2000]

11

[tiremonkey2000]

10

[tiremonkey2000]

9

[tiremonkey2000]

8

[tiremonkey2000]

7

[tiremonkey2000]

6

[tiremonkey2000]

5

[tiremonkey2000]

4

[tiremonkey2000]

3

[tiremonkey2000]

2

[tiremonkey2000]

1

[tiremonkey2000]

2100 posts now

[tiremonkey2000]

i will be catching you guys before you know it

[NickolasVanily]

Hi to all Readers, wondering what to write in my first message on www.unitethecows.com
Finally, decided to write something on "Software" topic, as it's running out of time in thinking....
Well, small introduction to myself. I've been working in Progaramming Team...
I want wish to all forumers happy new year..!!!Will come up with more messages.
Catch you soon...!!!

[tiremonkey2000]

Time for bed cya in the am

[riscy]

Welcome, Nickolas - waiting for that post.Hi to all Readers, wondering what to write in my first message on www.unitethecows.com
Finally, decided to write something on "Software" topic, as it's running out of time in thinking....
Well, small introduction to myself. I've been working in Progaramming Team...
I want wish to all forumers happy new year..!!!Will come up with more messages.
Catch you soon...!!!

[BakedDon]

Bush Considers Up to 20,000 More Troops for Iraq

NY Times | December 29, 2006
DAVID S. CLOUD and JEFF ZELENY

The Bush administration is considering an increase in troop levels in Iraq of 17,000 to 20,000, which would be accomplished in part by delaying the departure of two Marine regiments now deployed in Anbar Province, Pentagon officials said Thursday.

The option was among those discussed in Crawford, Tex., on Thursday as President Bush met there with his national security team, and it has emerged as a likely course as he considers a strategy shift in Iraq, the officials said.

Most of the additional troops would probably be employed in and around Baghdad, the officials said.

With the continuing high levels of violence there, senior officials increasingly say additional American forces will be needed as soon as possible to clear neighborhoods and to conduct other combat operations to regain control of the capital, rather than primarily to train Iraqi forces.

“The mission that most people are settling on has to do with using them in a security role to quell violence in Baghdad and the surrounding area,” said a senior Pentagon official involved in the planning.

Any plan to add to American forces in Baghdad would have to be negotiated with the government of Prime Minister Nuri Kamal al-Maliki, which has expressed interest in using Iraqi forces, not American ones, to assert more control over the capital.

The idea of extending the deployments of two Marine units has emerged in part because most of the marines in Iraq are on seven-month rotations and keeping them there longer is considered more palatable than holding over Army brigades, which are already serving tours of a year or longer, one official said.

Additional troops would come from sending into Iraq a brigade of the 82nd Airborne Division headed for the region next month and possibly by speeding up the deployment of several Army brigades now scheduled to go to Iraq by next spring.

But officials said a brigade of the First Armored Division now in Anbar Province would probably go home as planned in January, because the unit had already been kept in Iraq more than 40 days beyond its scheduled tour.

Other options remain under consideration, the officials said, noting that a decision to speed up deployment schedules would put more strain on Army and Marine equipment and personnel. But other options, like mobilizing reserve units, would take months, officials said.

After meeting with his top military and diplomatic advisers at his Texas ranch, Mr. Bush said his administration was making “good progress” in fashioning a revised Iraq strategy. But he said he intended to consult with Congress when it convenes next week before presenting his plan to the nation.

“I fully understand it's important to have both Republicans and Democrats understanding the importance of this mission,” Mr. Bush said, speaking to reporters after a three-hour meeting. “It's important for the American people to understand success in Iraq is vital for our own security.”

The meeting, according to a senior administration official, focused on the security, economic and political situation in Iraq. But the bulk of the discussions focused on the security issue and the option of sending more American troops to Baghdad, the official said.

Vice President Dick Cheney, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates and Gen. Peter Pace, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, emerged from the meeting with the president. The national security adviser, Stephen J. Hadley, and his top deputy, J. D. Crouch, also attended the meeting and joined the others for a working lunch at the ranch.

The White House initially intended to announce a new Iraq policy before Christmas but delayed those plans so the president could consider a range of diverging views inside his administration. For weeks his advisers have been locked in internal debates about how to proceed, but it is an open question whether the meeting on Thursday brought clarity to the discussions.

“I've got more consultation to do until I talk to the country about the plan,” said Mr. Bush, who did not elaborate or take questions from reporters.

Mr. Bush said he had received a briefing from Mr. Gates, his new defense secretary, and General Pace, who recently returned from Iraq. White House aides said the president did not want to offer his new plan for Iraq before Mr. Gates had an opportunity to study conditions on the ground in Iraq.

“It's an important part of coming to closure on a way forward in Iraq that will help us achieve our objective,” Mr. Bush said, “which is a country that can govern itself, sustain itself and defend itself.”

How additional American troops would be employed in Baghdad remains a central point of discussion among Mr. Bush's top advisers and top ground commanders in Iraq, officials said. But two officials said there was growing agreement that most would not be attached to American teams training Iraqi Army and police units, because doing so would not necessarily yield the quick improvements in security the White House wants.

But it is also unclear to what extent the additional forces would be employed to curb the power of militias associated with Shiite groups that form a key constituency for Mr. Maliki.

The two units whose stay could be extended are the Marines' Fifth and Seventh Regiment combat teams in Anbar Province, which are scheduled to begin leaving Iraq in February when two replacement regiments are due to arrive, officials said.

It is unclear which Army brigades could be sent early. A 3,500-soldier brigade of the Third Infantry Division, based at Fort Stewart, Ga., is scheduled to arrive in Iraq in mid-January, followed in subsequent months by units from the First Infantry Division, at Fort Riley, Kan., and the Second Infantry Division, at Fort Lewis, Wash.

The Third Brigade of the Third Infantry Division, based at Fort Benning, Ga., is scheduled to go to Iraq in the spring, according to a spokesman, Kevin Larson, who said he had not heard any discussion of accelerating that timetable. But he said, “We're ready to answer whatever call may come up.”

How long beyond February the Marine units would remain is unclear, but officials emphasized that the goal was a temporary increase in the American presence. It is also unclear whether a decision to speed up the deployment of two Army brigades would mean that other units scheduled to be deployed would go to Iraq earlier than planned later next year. Currently there are about 134,000 American troops in Iraq.

[BakedDon]

Pentagon to Request Billions More in War Money

DAVID S. CLOUD
NY Times
Saturday, December 30, 2006

The Pentagon is seeking nearly $100 billion for operations in Iraq, Afghanistan and elsewhere, a request that, if approved by Congress, would set an annual record for war-related spending.

The $99.7 billion request, detailed in a 17-page internal Defense Department memorandum dated Dec. 7, would be in addition to $70 billion appropriated in September. The request would push the total for the 2007 fiscal year to nearly $170 billion, 45 percent more than Congress provided for 2006.

The request is likely to receive more scrutiny from Congress next year than previous supplemental spending bills, in part because Democrats now control both the House and Senate. Another reason for the scrutiny is that Pentagon officials encouraged the services to ask for “costs related to the longer war against terror,” not just continuing operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, according to a memorandum that became public earlier this year.

About $50 billion — most of the money — would go to the Army, which is conducting the bulk of the operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. The request also includes $3.8 billion for the Air Force and $3 billion for the Navy to buy or upgrade aircraft. Both services have argued in recent months that they need to replace planes used in combat operations.

But some experts questioned whether the services were exploiting the must-pass nature of the supplemental bill to seek money for other purposes like the modernization of aircraft rather than just wartime replacements. Loren Thompson, a defense analyst with the Lexington Institute, a policy analysis organization in Virginia, pointed to the Air Force request for $62 million for ballistic missiles, a weapon not being employed in Iraq or Afghanistan.

Mr. Thompson said the request, which is not described further in the memorandum, may be part of a continuing Air Force project to arm ballistic missiles with conventional warheads to be able to strike terrorist targets quickly if other weapons cannot be used.

Even so, he added, “there are a number of weapons systems in the supplemental request not normally associated with fighting terrorists but which the services say still should be covered as part of the global effort.”

Altogether, the four military services would receive $26.6 billion for “reconstitution,” a term that the memorandum said covered repair and replacement of equipment damaged in Iraq and Afghanistan. Along with the $50 billion already provided this year, that is more than double what Congress appropriated in 2006.

“There is a real question about how much of this is really related to the war,” said Steve Kosiak, a defense budget expert with the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments, a Washington policy analysis group.

The Pentagon is also seeking $9.7 billion for training Iraqi and Afghan security forces, almost as much as has been spent in total since 2001, according to a study by the Congressional Research Service. In a reflection of the worsening security situation in Afghanistan, more than half of the requested money would go to training the country’s army and police forces.

The request also underscores the continuing strain that deployments in Iraq and Afghanistan are putting on ground forces. The request includes $3.7 billion to speed up its outfitting and training of two Army combat brigades and three Marine battalions.

Since 2001, Congress has approved $507 billion for Afghanistan, Iraq and other operations deemed part of combating terrorism. Even with the Democrats in control, there is unlikely to be much appetite for cutting the war-related spending requests, Mr. Kosiak said.

“No one seems to be saying we’re going to make deep cuts in war-related expenditures,” he said. “I don’t see evidence that the Democrats are interested in cutting this.”

But the incoming Democratic chairmen of the House and Senate Budget Committees have said they will push the Bush administration to finance war costs in regular appropriations bills, not in supplemental spending measures, to make the costs clearer.

The request also includes $10 billion for protective equipment for troops and $2.5 billion for technology to defeat improvised bombs, the leading cause of American combat casualties in Iraq.

[BakedDon]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xU4GdHLUHwU


Donalds Rumsfeld admits there is 2.3 trillion dollars missing from the books. It was then lost within the black hole of modern media because the next day 911 happened

[BakedDon]

they spend 2 million every 2 and a half minutes already

[BakedDon]

Dyncorp Sex Rings, Missing Pentagon Trillions & 9/11 Wargames

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-2XRjP7jGmg

Almost a year after Representative Cynthia McKinney was told by Donald Rumsfeld that it was not the policy of the Bush administration to reward companies that engage in human trafficking with government contracts, the scandal continues

[BakedDon]

From the front page of: Burlington Free Press, Vermont's biggest paper!!!

Reopen 9/11 investigation, local group says

Published: Sunday, December 31, 2006
By John Briggs
Free Press Staff Writer

A Burlington group has gathered nearly enough signatures on a petition to put a ballot question before voters on Town Meeting Day urging a new investigation of the attacks on the World Trade Center and Pentagon on Sept. 11, 2001.

Spokesman Marc Estrin, a Burlington writer and musician, said the group has been meeting for several months and has more than 1,200 of the roughly 1,350 signatures needed to place the matter on the ballot. The question would advise the Vermont congressional delegation to demand a new 9/11 investigation.

Estrin said Burlington would be the first city in the country to formally make such a demand.

The group includes Burlington attorney Frank Haddleton, University of Vermont physics professor Joanna Rankin, Charles Simpson, chairman of the department of sociology and criminal justice at SUNY Plattsburgh, a chemist, an engineer, a video producer and former city councilor Doug Dunbebin.

Dunbebin, a graphic designer, has created a Web site for the group that explains the weaknesses it sees in the 9/11 Commission Report of July 2004.

The city's director of elections, Jo Lamarche, said that because the City Council in September unanimously passed a resolution promising to honor advisory ballot questions when the required number of signatures has been gathered, the question would likely be on the ballot in March. She said the council might adjust the wording.

The deadline for gathering the signatures is Jan. 29, but Estrin said the petition drive will be completed in a few days. Lamarche said the issue would be on the council's agenda for its Jan. 8 meeting.

Estrin said that because the 9/11 attacks led directly to the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, the American people deserve an objective investigation of what happened.

In a news release, the group said the ballot question "does not advance any particular alternative theory" about what happened on 9/11, but "focuses on the need to get answers to hundreds of questions" raised by families of victims and others, including "members of the intelligence community."

Estrin said the group believes the 9/11 Commission, in part because its work was directed by administration insider Philip Zelikow, ignored obvious questions about why the World Trade Center towers fell as they did and why nearby Building 7, a part of the World Trade Center complex, fell in what appeared to be a "controlled demolition." The "free-fall" collapse of the three buildings, Estrin said, is "both technically and architecturally problematic" and wasn't adequately investigated by the commission.

He said independent researchers also have raised questions about the thoroughness of the commission's investigation of the damage at the Pentagon and of the absence of plane wreckage there and at the crash site of the plane in Pennsylvania.

Estrin said the group also would like an explanation of why routine air-defense protocols weren't followed Sept. 11 in scrambling fighter interceptors.

A new "objective and nonpartisan" investigation, he said, "seems a reasonable thing to do about such a crucial event."

Estrin said the ballot question is a logical way to move such an investigation forward, particularly given the city's history of engagement with national and international issues.

"The events of 9/11 have affected Burlington residents," he said, and added, "Democracy resides not just at the center, but at the periphery. Citizens are supposed to have a voice in national issues."
Contact John Briggs at 660-1863 or jbriggs@bfp.burlingtonfreepress.com
BALLOT TEXT The wording of the advisory ballot question for Burlington on Town Meeting Day: "Shall Vermont's Congressional Delegation be advised to demand a new, thorough, and truly independent forensic investigation that fully addresses the many questions surrounding the tragic events of September 11, 2001?"

More information is available at the local group's Web site, www.vt911.org. The site provides an overview of what the group sees as the inadequacies of the official 9/11 Commission report and provides links to related sites.

The 585-page official 9/11 Commission report can be found online at www.9-11commission.gov

[BakedDon]

THE five [Israelis] are said to have had been caught videotaping the disaster and shouting in what was interpreted as cries of joy and mockery.



Monday, September 17, 2001 Elul 29, 5761 Israel Time: 00:01 (GMT+3)


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Five Israelis detained for "puzzling behavior" after WTC tragedy

By Yossi Melman

FIVE Israelis who had worked for a moving company based in New Jersey are being held in U.S. prisons for what the Federal Bureau of Investigation has described as "puzzling behavior" following the terror attack on the World Trade Center in New York last Tuesday. The five are expected to be deported sometime soon.

The families of the five, who asked that their names not be released, said that their sons had been questioned by the FBI for hours on end, had been kept in solitary confinement for three days, and had been humiliated, stripped of their clothes and blindfolded.

The mother of one of the young men explained the chain of events as she understands it to Ha'aretz:

She said that the five had worked for the company, which is owned by an Israeli, for between two months and two years. They had been arrested some four hours after the attack on the Twin Towers while filming the smoking skyline from the roof of their company's building, she said. It appears that they were spotted by one of the neighbors who called the police and the FBI.

The mother said that the families and friends of the five in Israel had known nothing of the men's whereabouts for a number of days.

"When they finally let my son make a phone call for the first time to a friend in the United States two days ago, he told him that he had been tortured by the FBI in a basement," the mother said. "He was stripped to his underwear; he was blindfolded and questioned for 14 hours. They thought that because he has citizenship of a European country as well as of Israel that he was working for the Mossad [Israel's secret service]."

Seven FBI agents later stormed the apartment of one of the Israelis, searched it and questioned his roommate. The Israeli owner of the company, who has U.S. citizenship, was also questioned. Both men were subsequently released.

The families here complained that the Israeli consulate in New York and the situation room set up by the Foreign Ministry there to locate missing Israelis had done nothing to help their sons. The Foreign Ministry told the families that the FBI had denied holding the five and that the consulate had chosen to believe the FBI, the mother said.

The five were transferred out of the FBI's facility on Saturday morning and are now being held in two prisons in New Jersey by the Immigration and Naturalization Services. They are charged with illegally residing in the United States and working there without permits.

The Foreign Ministry said in response that it had been informed by the consulate in New York that the FBI had arrested the five for "puzzling behavior." They are said to have had been caught videotaping the disaster and shouting in what was interpreted as cries of joy and mockery.

[BakedDon]

[T]hey were seen by New Jersey residents on Sept. 11 making fun of the World Trade Center ruins and going to extreme lengths to photograph themselves in front of the wreckage. http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/arrested_israelis.html

[BakedDon]

Witnesses saw them jumping for joy in Liberty State Park after the initial impact (5). Later on, other witnesses saw them celebrating on a roof in Weehawken, and still more witnesses later saw them celebrating with high fives in a Jersey City parking lot.http://www.fpp.co.uk/online/02/03/WTC/spies10.html

[BakedDon]

It looked like they're hooked in with this. It looked like they knew what was going to happen when they were at Liberty State Park.

Five men detained as suspected conspirators

[BakedDon]

http://www.fpp.co.uk/online/01/12/WTC_Mysteries3.html

[BakedDon]

On the day of the 9-11 attacks, former Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu was asked what the attacks would mean for US-Israeli relations. His quick reply was: "It's very good…….Well, it's not good, but it will generate immediate sympathy (for Israel)"

[BakedDon]

"Evidence linking these Israelis to 9/11 is classified. I cannot tell you about evidence that has been gathered. It's classified information."
US official quoted in Carl Cameron's Fox News report on the Israeli spy ring.

[BakedDon]

"Evidence linking these Israelis to 9/11 is classified. I cannot tell you about evidence that has been gathered. It's classified information."
US official quoted in Carl Cameron's Fox News report on the Israeli spy ring.


"By way of deception, thou shalt do war"
Motto of the Mossad

[BakedDon]

http://kurtnimmo.com/?p=701

Lawyer Ends Up Dead After Taking On Rove
Wednesday December 27th 2006, 10:26 pm





Paul Sanford, a prominent Aptos, California, attorney, who accused Karl Rove of treason in the Plame outing case, took a leap from the Embassy Suites Hotel in Monterey Bay on Christmas Eve. Police describe it as “probable” suicide, even though it appears Sanford was not depressed.

“Friends and associates expressed disbelief at the news of Sanford’s death and that it was ruled a suicide, saying Sanford seemed happy and had made many plans for this week and in coming months. [Business associate and friend Shawn Mills] said he and Sanford recently decided to open a shared law office to serve Monterey and Santa Cruz counties, something Sanford was looking forward to doing,” reports the Monterey Herald. “Mills said he had spoken to Sanford’s wife, Paula, and that she also was in shock. He said Sanford, a father of two, was a devoted family man.” Sanford “would never have intentionally put his family through that trauma. Something’s not right, it doesn’t make sense.”

On July 25, 2005, in the James S. Brady Briefing Room at the White House, Sanford asked then press secretary Scott McClellan about Karl Rove, accused at the time by Joseph Wilson, the husband of Valerie Plame, of outing his wife as a CIA employee in retaliation for Wilson’s op-ed published in the New York Times. Wilson criticized the citation of bogus yellowcake documents used as flimsy justification for invading Iraq and murdering more than 650,000 Iraqis.

McClellan was flummoxed by Sanford’s question:

McClellan: Go ahead.

Sanford: Yes, thank you. There has been a lot of speculation concerning the meaning of the underlying statute and the grand jury investigation concerning Mr. Rove. The question is, have the legal counsel to the White House or White House staff reviewed the statute in sufficient specificity to determine whether a violation of that statute would, in effect, constitute treason?

McClellan: I think that in terms of decisions regarding the investigation, those are matters for those overseeing the investigation to decide.

Special counsel, Patrick Fitzgerald, decided not to charge Rove in the case, even though the former Donald Segretti dirty trickster understudy raised enough suspicion to warrant being called before a grand jury five times. Neocon Lewis “Scooter” Libby was charged with obstruction of justice, perjury, and making false statements to the FBI. A few weeks later, on July 13, 2006, Joseph and Valerie Wilson filed a civil suit against Cheney, Libby, Rove, and other unnamed senior White House officials, for their alleged roles in the public disclosure of her classified CIA employment.

In addition, Sanford was “a champion of the downtrodden, he represented homeless people in Santa Cruz, and fought for free speech,” according to Mills. As well, he hosted a radio talk show at KOMY, an Air America affiliate, although he was not associated with the bankrupt network. Sanford and Mills also hosted the “Paul and Shawn Show” on Saturdays at the Seaside, California, radio station KRXA.

Of course, there is no evidence Paul Sanford was pushed from “at least nine floors” above the large ventilation grate where he met his fate. As well, there is no evidence he committed suicide, or did he fit the profile of a suicide. However, there is plenty of evidence Sanford was a thorn in the side of the neocons, committing the ultimate sin of accusing one particularly nasty top drawer neocon, Karl Rove, of treason.

[tiremonkey2000]

Anyone started drinking yet.....

[tiremonkey2000]

30 Seconds to Mars - The Mission

[tiremonkey2000]

:wtf: :spudnikpa :funny:

[tiremonkey2000]

Collective Soul - December

[tiremonkey2000]

who wan'ts a BONG hit.........

[tiremonkey2000]

Lol

[tiremonkey2000]

Don't spit me out......

[tiremonkey2000]

Swallow......

[tiremonkey2000]

:boobflash:

[tiremonkey2000]

Van Halen - Panama

[tiremonkey2000]

:shakinmon

[tiremonkey2000]

:lick:

[tiremonkey2000]

:dance:

[tiremonkey2000]

Dexy's Midnight Runners - Come on Eileen

[tiremonkey2000]

Pass it around....

[tiremonkey2000]

Falco - Rock me Amadeus

[BakedDon]

I wants a bong hit


freethinker n. One who has rejected authority and dogma, especially in his religious thinking, in favor of rational inquiry and speculation.

-The American Heritage Dictionary

[BakedDon]

TIM GOLDEN
NY Times
Sunday, December 31, 2006

GUANTÁNAMO BAY, Cuba — At one end of a converted trailer in the American military detention center here, a graying Pakistani businessman sat shackled before a review board of uniformed officers, pleading for his freedom.

The prisoner had seen just a brief summary of what officials said was a thick dossier of intelligence linking him to Al Qaeda. He had not seen his own legal papers since they were taken away in an unrelated investigation. He has lawyers working on his behalf in Washington, London and Pakistan, but here his only assistance came from an Army lieutenant colonel, who stumbled as he read the prisoner’s handwritten statement.

As the hearing concluded, the detainee, who cannot be identified publicly under military rules, had a question. He is a citizen of Pakistan, he noted. He was arrested on a business trip to Thailand. On what authority or charges was he even being held?

“That question,” a Marine colonel presiding over the panel answered, “is outside the limits of what this board is permitted to consider.”

Under a law passed by Congress and signed by President Bush in October, this double-wide trailer may be as close to a courtroom as most Guantánamo prisoners ever get. The law prohibits them from challenging their detention or treatment by writs of habeas corpus in the federal courts. Instead, they may only petition a single federal appeals court to examine whether the review boards followed the military’s own procedures in reviewing their status as “enemy combatants.”

But an examination of the Guantánamo review boards by The New York Times suggests that they have often fallen short, not only as a source of due process for the hundreds of men held here, but also as a forum to resolve questions about what the detainees have done and the threats they may pose.

Some limitations have long been evident. The prisoners have no right to a lawyer, or to see classified evidence, or even to know the identity of their accusers. What has been less visible, however, is what many officials describe as a continuing shortage of information about many detainees, including some who have been held on sketchy or disputed intelligence.

Behind the hearings that journalists are allowed to observe is a system that has at times been as long on government infighting and diplomatic maneuvering as it has been short on hard evidence. The result, current and former officials acknowledged, is that some detainees have been held for years on less compelling information, while a growing number of others for whom there was thought to be stronger evidence of militant activities have been released under secret arrangements between Washington and their home governments.

Military officials emphasize that the boards are an administrative forum and were never intended to replicate judicial standards of fairness. But they say the hearings offer prisoners a viable opportunity to rebut the government’s evidence.

“At the end of the day, it’s about giving the detainee the flexibility and freedom to present his case,” said Capt. Philip L. Waddingham, a former Navy pilot who oversees the operations of the panels at Guantánamo.

Administration officials also emphasize that the reviews are more rigorous than the battlefield tribunals that have traditionally been used to determine the status of wartime prisoners under the 1949 Geneva Conventions.

But the Geneva tribunals were established to answer questions about the identities of soldiers and spies from regular armies. Sorting through the identities and past actions of suspected participants in a shadowy global terrorist network, military officials said, has proved far more complex.

To date, 377 Guantánamo detainees, nearly half of the 773 who have been held there, have been released or transferred to other governments. Of those, about 150 have been repatriated through the review process since mid-2004, officials said.

The administration’s push to reduce the Guantánamo population is more evident in another statistic. The final arbiter of prisoner releases, Deputy Defense Secretary Gordon R. England, has overruled the panels’ recommendations in more than 15 percent of the 237 cases he has decided so far this year, officials said. In virtually all of those, the boards had recommended continued detention.

Still, a recent study of the review process found that detainees arguing their innocence were routinely denied witnesses they tried to call, even when the witnesses were other prisoners at Guantánamo. Lawyers for the detainees complain that the government has made almost no effort to have the panels consider information they have gathered and has often blocked their attempts to learn the accusations against their clients.

“We have tried again and again to have a say in the process,” said Barbara Olshansky, a lawyer who has coordinated much of the work of the detainees’ lawyers for the Center for Constitutional Rights. “But we learned pretty early on that these were kangaroo courts.”

Many of the detainees appear to have given up on the reviews as a way to win their freedom. In the latest round of annual hearings, which were completed this month, only 18 percent of the prisoners chose to attend.

Evolution of the Hearings

The review system at Guantánamo began operating in July 2004, more than two years after most detainees were imprisoned there. Officials said it was intended in part to deflect criticism that the prison had become a legal black hole. They also hoped it would resolve what had become a contentious struggle among national security agencies over which prisoners to hold and which to free.

Even before Mr. Bush decided in February 2002 that the United States would not observe the Geneva Conventions in fighting terrorism, Donald H. Rumsfeld, then the defense secretary, dismissed the idea of Geneva-style hearings for the detainees, maintaining that they would never be entitled to the prisoner-of-war status that such tribunals could grant them in other conflicts.

“There is no ambiguity in this case,” Mr. Rumsfeld said.

Yet intelligence officers at Guantánamo found ambiguity everywhere. Many of the detainees had been captured by Afghan militias, Pakistani border guards and other surrogates, and some had been turned in for bounties, intelligence officials said. Information about their identities and actions was often vague and secondhand. Physical evidence, if any existed, was sometimes lost before reaching Cuba.

Still, the detainees who were held on the weakest information tended not to be a priority for either intelligence officers or the military’s criminal investigators.

“It wasn’t the job of the intelligence community to verify their guilt or innocence,” said Col. Brittain P. Mallow, a retired Army investigator who led a task force that gathered evidence for war crimes tribunals that are expected to prosecute about 50 to 70 of the remaining 396 detainees.

Faced with growing international criticism, the Bush administration moved in May 2004 to set up a kind of annual parole system, called Administrative Review Boards, to weigh each detainee’s continuing threat and intelligence value. But before those hearings began, the Supreme Court called that June for a one-time review of all Guantánamo detainees using the sort of panels called for by Army regulations — and by the Geneva Conventions.

[BakedDon]

Those first panels, called Combatant Status Review Tribunals, or C.S.R.T.’s in military parlance, required three military officers to decide cases by majority vote, based on a “preponderance of the evidence.” The boards were allowed to consider a wide range of intelligence, including statements obtained by coercion.

Midlevel officers were assigned to help the detainees prepare for their hearings. Military lawyers were not permitted to serve in that role, however, because of concern that limitations on that assistance might open the lawyers to charges of violating professional ethics rules.

Lawyers at the Defense and Justice Departments had another worry: that detainees found to be “not enemy combatants” might sue the government for wrongful imprisonment. Partly for that reason, officials said, the review office was instructed to use the phrase “no longer enemy combatants.”

By the time the C.S.R.T. reviews got under way, intelligence agencies had confirmed that half a dozen detainees released from Guantánamo were fighting for the Taliban in Afghanistan. Such risks were raised frequently in government debates.

“It was sort of a mantra in the system: ‘You have got to make sure that you don’t release any of the wrong people,’ ” recalled Charles W. Moore Jr., a now-retired vice admiral who set up the review apparatus under Mr. England.

Reviewing Decisions

The early results of the hearings, in which officials said a surprising number of detainees were found not to be enemy combatants, only heightened the unease.

Internal critics, including the Defense Intelligence Agency, the Central Intelligence Agency and the Special Operations branch of the Pentagon, complained heatedly that the boards did not properly understand the intelligence they were assessing, said current and former officials who participated in the debates.

The critics were later allowed to provide further training to the panels. In the first round of annual reviews after the C.S.R.T.’s, officers with military intelligence backgrounds also took over the role, previously assigned to lawyers, of vetting evidence and presenting the government’s case.

While some officials perceived an undue influence over the panels from intelligence agencies and their allies, others said those critics were mostly beaten back.

“The intelligence community wanted to derail the C.S.R.T. process and dictate the decisions, and that didn’t happen,” said one former senior official, who, like several others, would discuss the policy deliberations only on the condition of anonymity.

According to documents and interviews, the Pentagon office in charge of the reviews ordered the repetition of some C.S.R.T. boards that recommended the release of detainees. Defense Department officials would not discuss those cases in detail.

The largest number of repeated hearings appears to have involved some of the 22 Muslim detainees from western China who were part of the Uighur (pronounced WEE-gur) ethnic minority.

The Uighurs’ sworn enemy was not the United States but the Communist government of China, which had long oppressed their people. The military accused the detainees of belonging to a separatist group that the Chinese authorities had persuaded Washington to list as a terrorist organization, but some experts on the region disputed that characterization of the group and the detainees denied any link to it.

The State Department, fearful that the men would be tortured if they were sent back to China, had already begun trying to place the Uighurs as refugees in Europe when their cases came for review at Guantánamo, officials said.

“We were shocked that they even sent those guys before the C.S.R.T.’s,” said one former national security official who worked on the matter. “They had already been identified for release.”

Because the Uighurs told very similar stories, Pentagon officials were confounded when at least five of them were determined not to be enemy combatants and the rest properly held, officials said.

At least several of the Uighurs, including some found not to be enemy combatants, had their cases reviewed again, officials said. They described the impetus for doing so as “quality control.” But available documents show that at least one of the detainees, whose case was reviewed again, was finally found to be an enemy combatant.

Five Uighur detainees were finally sent to Albania as refugees in May.

Some Aren’t Revisited

Yet other cases in which questions arose were not revisited. One of those involved a Sudanese man, Adel Hassan Hamad, who was seized in Pakistan in 2002.

According to the unclassified summary of allegations in his first hearing, Mr. Hamad, who is now about 48, had worked for two nongovernmental organizations, or N.G.O.’s, with ties to Al Qaeda and had come into contact “with persons who had positions of responsibility in Al Qaeda.” But the military presented no unclassified information that Mr. Hamad was anything but a hospital administrator and former teacher, or that he knew of his employers’ purported ties.

As with all such cases, it is not possible to judge independently the evidence against Mr. Hamad because part of it is secret. But while two panel members found him to be rightfully detained, a third officer, an Army lawyer whose name was blacked out in the declassified document, objected strongly.

Even if the unclassified allegations were true — and Mr. Hamad said he knew nothing about Qaeda links — “a mere association with Al Qaeda does not qualify as a basis for enemy combatant status,” the lawyer wrote in a formal dissent. The officer, who also studied the secret evidence, said the military was declaring Mr. Hamad an enemy combatant because some parts of the organization he worked for had allegedly supported “terrorist ideals and causes.”

“To reach such a conclusion would provide for unconscionable results,” he wrote. It might mean, he added, that “all physicians, nurses and aid workers employed by the alleged terrorist-connected N.G.O.’s would also be declared enemy combatants.”

[BakedDon]

The panel’s 2-to-1 decision was reviewed by two other military lawyers, each of whom tersely upheld its “legal sufficiency.” One of them, Cmdr. James R. Crisfield Jr. of the Navy, described the Army officer’s dissent as “articulate and thoughtful,” but emphasized the review panels’ modest standard of proof.

“Given the low evidentiary hurdle posed by a preponderance-of-evidence standard and the rebuttable presumption of genuineness and accuracy that attaches to government evidence, I believe that the test is satisfied in this case,” Commander Crisfield wrote.

Despite the limited evidence against Mr. Hamad, documents from his first annual review show little further substance to the military’s accusations. They noted that a brother of the Sept. 11 plotter Khalid Shaikh Mohammed was once a manager at one of the charities where Mr. Hamad worked. But the military was now asserting only that the group “may be affiliated with Osama bin Laden and Al Qaeda operations.”

Two federal public defenders in Portland, Ore., who took Mr. Hamad’s case last year said they had located about a dozen witnesses who corroborated parts of his account. Although much of that information has been filed as part of a habeas case in federal court, there is no sign yet that it has made any difference for Mr. Hamad.

“I don’t think there was any substantive attempt by the military to find witnesses who could get to the bottom of this,” said one of the lawyers, Patrick J. Ehlers. “There were hundreds of other people out there who worked for these groups. None of those people were arrested, and none of them were questioned.”

Constraints on the System

Several officials who helped establish the review panels said they tried to create mechanisms that would let detainees present witnesses and evidence and allow the panels to gather new information.

But some officials said those ambitions, however sincere, had often been undone by the speed of most reviews — often conducted in just hours — and the low priority assigned to the collection of information on the detainees by intelligence agencies and foreign governments. This year, three panels at Guantánamo handled as many as 13 or 14 cases a week, they said.

“There are real time constraints and real resource constraints,” one retired military officer said. “They usually ended up without anything new, so the boards were just dusting off old files and trying to have a fair and impartial body look at that old information.”

Captain Waddingham, the chief of the review office at Guantánamo, said the boards followed the recommendations of military intelligence officials 95 percent of the time. But both he and the overall head of the review program, Frank Sweigart, insisted that the panels were able to get new information when they needed it.

“We are always looking for supporting facts, and if we can’t find them, we ask for them,” Mr. Sweigart, a retired Navy captain, said in an interview. “There really is a lot of information out there for a number of them — especially for the detainees who are there today.”

But other current and former officials described a system that was frequently inefficient in collecting information that might determine a prisoner’s fate.

Some officials said military and civilian intelligence agencies gave little priority to requests for information from the panels, particularly when they involved time-consuming inquiries overseas. And though officials including Mr. England, the deputy defense secretary, have urged foreign governments to develop and pass on their own information about detainees from their countries, few of them did.

Officials said some governments, including those of Kuwait and Bahrain, had provided extensive files on their detainees. Partly out of diplomatic considerations, they said, the State Department pressed Mr. England to move up review hearings for at least several detainees from those two countries and, ultimately, to overrule review panel decisions and repatriate them.

On Nov. 3 last year, the Pentagon sent two Kuwaitis and three Bahrainis home from Guantánamo on Mr. England’s approval, despite what two officials said had been negative rulings by the review panels in at least some of those cases.

But other releases are harder to explain. In one such case, lawyers for Nazar Chaman Gul, an Afghan prisoner, said they were mystified to learn of the repatriation on Dec. 16 of another Afghan, Mohammad Akhtiar, after his annual review.

Mr. Akhtiar had been accused of launching a rocket attack on an American military base in Afghanistan in early 2003. Declassified transcripts of Mr. Gul’s hearings suggest that a major piece of incriminating evidence against him was that he was captured with Mr. Akhtiar at his home. (Another problem seemed to be that he was confused with another Afghan with the same name, who is also being held at Guantánamo.)

“Gul’s greatest sin seemed to be his association with Mohammad Akhtiar,” said a lawyer for Mr. Gul, Amy Baggio. “Unfathomably, Akhtiar is now home with his family while Nazar Gul is going on his fourth year in custody.”

Lawyers say that detainees who have tried to use the review system to challenge the accusations against them have often been frustrated. According to a recent study of 102 unclassified C.S.R.T. files by the Seton Hall University law school, the military denied all requests by the detainees for witnesses who were not also being held at Guantánamo and denied requests for detainee witnesses 74 percent of the time.

Although a growing number of lawyers have begun to conduct their own investigations into accusations against their clients, a former military intelligence officer who has presided over dozens of review boards was dismissive of those contributions.

“As far as what the habeas lawyers have to say, for the most part it wouldn’t factor in because they have made themselves not credible,” said the officer, a Marine colonel who suggested that the lawyers took detainees’ claims of innocence at face value.

The lawyers respond that the obstacles to their input in the process raise questions about the military’s desire to learn everything it can about the detainees. More than a week after the hearing for the Pakistani businessman accused of ties to Al Qaeda, a Washington lawyer who had been trying to help him told a reporter that he had not even known the session had taken place.

“There is no hint of any kind of due process in this,” said the lawyer, Gaillard T. Hunt. “He’s got no right to an investigation. But substantively, it really doesn’t matter, because they can always just say they have this classified information that he can’t see.”
http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/december2006/311206Guant%E1namo.htm

[riscy]

Hi BD

[riscy]

Happy New Year

[riscy]

Hope you are having a good holiday

[riscy]

Very quiet here today

[riscy]

I will try to post some here anyway

[riscy]

Had a quiet Xmas - not very Christmassy (which is good)

[riscy]

Stayed at home for New Year - it is never a big event for us

[riscy]

Listening to a weird podcast

[riscy]

I love to download podcasts and listen to them - but I never have enough time in the week to listen to a 3 hour or even 1 hour show

[riscy]

I have so many shows to listen to - some great music

[riscy]

Coming up on a milestone

[riscy]

Just a few more to get all the 4s

[riscy]

Just one or two more

[riscy]

Nearly there

[riscy]

And woo hoo - 4444!

[riscy]

I have been posting quite a lot recently

[riscy]

I just wish that we had a few more people active in the posts

[riscy]

We need to get more active posters onboard

[riscy]

But how?

[riscy]

I would like to see about 15-20 people like TireMonkey, Carrie, MathMission, Lord of the Dense, etc be active

[riscy]

Well, going to stop whinging there

[riscy]

Hope to see some people soon

[riscy]

I will probably hang around for a while here

[riscy]

Still no one around :(

[riscy]

Well, not many posts today

[riscy]

Just about to head off and do some other stuff - I suppose every one is on holidays today

[BakedDon]

Hey riscy, I did enjoy the holidays. I hope you are taking care and having fun.

[johnps02]

I'm a new member with a penchant for this kind of stuff. 1000000 thread post! That is a worthy goal!

[mathmission]

Indeed, Johnps02! Welcome to UTC!

[mathmission]

Looks like I am again going to be published in the newspaper. I wrote an atricle about beef cloning, and how people's arguments against it were unsound. I will post it in another thread.

[mathmission]

Ok, now that the site is back, I can post some more.

[mathmission]

We're going to have to do something about that at some point. Seems as though at least once a week the site goes down for about an hour

[mathmission]

probably not going to be cheap though....

[mathmission]

That's going to suck

[mathmission]

I wonder if I have any trivia in my inbox...

[mathmission]

I'll go check

[mathmission]

Nope. Maybe later

[mathmission]

Well, my weekend was pretty good. Did some decent partying, and watched the new year's globe thing drop down. Kissed my gal at midnight!

[mathmission]

Ugh, we're talking about the weather here in the office. We must all be really bored out of our minds.

[mathmission]

I am, at least

[mathmission]

you?

[mathmission]

So, sup?

[mathmission]

Not too much going on on the boards today. Riscy probably didn't get the chance to post because of the problems earlier this morning.

[mathmission]

In fact, I don't think that my little newspaper story ever made it to the boards. I guess I better go do that now.

[mathmission]

Well, I've added around the pasture

[mathmission]

I guess I'll spend the rest of my time here.

[mathmission]

Not too much going on this afternoon. Just sort of wasting the time until I can go home. Of course, I tend to say that almost every day.

[mathmission]

Got a chance to talk to Thumper last night. Glad to hear that he's doing well. Doesn't get the chance to get online that often, but he's still kicking!

[mathmission]

Who knows, maybe he'll pop in here and post a few!

[mathmission]

I'm getting somewhat close to Carrie here!

[mathmission]

It's really too bad that she doesn't have more time. She's always great to talk to on here. She just has a ton of things to do. I mean, I have things to do, but rarely do I do them! :lol:

[ThumperZ1]

HaHa! I have come out from hiding for a bit.

[mathmission]

I miss the little dancing guy thing... I mean, there's a bit gone, but what happened to the dancing man?

[ThumperZ1]

The bosses are away for a while so i can post a few. Howdy MM!

[mathmission]

No Way!!!!

[mathmission]

I Literally Just Said That It Would Be Awesome If You Popped On!

[mathmission]

Who knows, maybe he'll pop in here and post a few!
Not 5 posts ago! :kittydanc

[mathmission]

That's insane!

[mathmission]

I'm not sure how to react to that!

[mathmission]

Well, it's good to have you post a few Thumper! Hope that work is treating you well. Seems as though it's been pretty busy ever since the move closer to the bosses.

[mathmission]

going to update the grid stats?

[ThumperZ1]

Time to update my Grid.org stats. As of my post :4368

New :
Total CPU Time (y:d:h:m:s) (Rank) 6:219:17:38:29 (# 10,465)
Points Generated (Rank) 1,849,429 (#4,231)
Results Returned (Rank) 6,639 (#7,396)

Old:
Total CPU Time (y:d:h:m:s) (Rank) 6:196:01:36:16 (# 10,571)
Points Generated (Rank) 1,830,134 (#4,265)
Results Returned (Rank) 6,566 (#7,477)

[ThumperZ1]

Wow, what a complete coincadinc. LOL

[ThumperZ1]

Well, closer to the bosses means less sitting in front of MY computer and more in front of work computers.

[mathmission]

Yeah, that's amazing. So, how are you doing Thumper?

[mathmission]

Well, closer to the bosses means less sitting in front of MY computer and more in front of work computers.
Ah, I see. That's too bad. They've hired me on here full time, so I'm going to be able to be in front of my work computer a lot more now, and thus, be able to post quite a bit. They keep my busy when they can, but often, I just don't have much to do at all.

[ThumperZ1]

I'm doing ok.. I'm looking at new motherboards and video cards... my X's computer died, so I'm giving her my old chip, board and vid card and upgrading mine.

[ThumperZ1]

It's a beautimous day in the neighborhood....:7up:

[ThumperZ1]

Is that the job you were interviewing for last week or so?

[ThumperZ1]

So far it looks like $250 to update my stuff.

[mathmission]

that's not too bad at all!

[mathmission]

And yes, it was the job that I interviewed for the other week!

[mathmission]

What all are you going to get for your 'new' machine?

[mathmission]

I don't really have need to update my stuff as of yet. But it would be nice to have a more powerful video card. I mean, I don't really need one, but it would be nice to have one. Or a really large monitor.

[mathmission]

Looks like I only have a few more posts to get to the next 100 mark

[mathmission]

It's too bad that you don't get the chance to post like you used to be able to!

[mathmission]

Those were the days!

[mathmission]

Where it wasn't uncommon to come to the pasture and see something like 400 posts in the Myllyun thread

[mathmission]

brb

[ThumperZ1]

cool... I'm having connection problems here.. pages keep timing out.. I'd better reboot and see what's going on..

[ThumperZ1]

Keep me posted on the progress of the theatre!!

[mathmission]

Okie

[mathmission]

I will indeed!!!

[mathmission]

Just 2 more!

[mathmission]

and....

[mathmission]

actually there is a better number to get here... just about 11 more to go!

[mathmission]

yep, this should be entertaining

[mathmission]

Though I can't imagine why it's so entertaining. It's just like when you own a car and turn over 100,000 miles.

[mathmission]

Life's simple pleasures

[mathmission]

So, what's up everyone?

[mathmission]

Where is Riscy?! I better go check and see if he's posting around the pasture.

[mathmission]

Nope..

[mathmission]

Well, that's ok

[mathmission]

I'll catch him some time later.

[mathmission]

Just a few more to go!

[mathmission]

One more!

[mathmission]

I ROCK! :urock: :urock: :urock:

http://www.geocities.com/mathmission01/Irock.jpg

[mathmission]

I guess that's a bit of inflated reputation points there. Don't really have that many as you can see. But it would be nice to have that many!

[mathmission]

Okie, I've had my fun.

[mathmission]

Next goal is 15,000

[mathmission]

We need to get more posting going on in here! What can I do to get more posting going on in here!?!?!?!?!?!?!/!/1?1/1/1/faoieria3hr

[mathmission]

On that note, I'm going to work on some other things. I'll be around. :kittydanc

[tiremonkey2000]

Dam why does my brain have to hurt so much now.....

[tiremonkey2000]

I barely got 5 min. to myself today at work

[tiremonkey2000]

phones ringing all day

[tiremonkey2000]

Aaaahhhhhhhh..............

[tiremonkey2000]

Ok i'm better now

[tiremonkey2000]

just needed to get that off my chest

[tiremonkey2000]

I hope it stops raining here soon

[tiremonkey2000]

rain makes me tired

[tiremonkey2000]

tomorrow it's supposed to be 78 degress out

[tiremonkey2000]

what great weather

[tiremonkey2000]

Lol @MM the truck i use at work just turned 295,865 miles

[tiremonkey2000]

and still runs great

[tiremonkey2000]

just took the dog out

[tiremonkey2000]

for her evening walk and bathroom break lol

[tiremonkey2000]

i'm watching Dr. Dolittle 3