War on Terror

List Price

The war on terrorism becomes a war on free speech.

|

The Palestine Liberation Organization and the Irish Republican Army, two of history's most notorious terrorist groups, have never appeared on the State Department's List of Designated Foreign Terrorist Organizations. By the time the list was first compiled in 1997, both groups were deemed to be moving away from violence and toward a peaceful resolution of their grievances.

Ralph Fertig, president of the Humanitarian Law Project, wants to encourage a similar change within the Kurdistan Workers' Party, a violent separatist group in Turkey also known as the PKK (its Kurdish initials). But he worries that doing so will expose him to prosecution for providing "material support" to a terrorist organization, a crime Congress has defined so broadly that it includes a great deal of speech protected by the First Amendment. When it hears Fertig's case next week, the Supreme Court will have a chance to correct that error.

Fertig, a civil rights lawyer and former administrative law judge, seeks, as the district court described it, to "provide training in the use of humanitarian and international law for the peaceful resolution of disputes, engage in political advocacy on behalf of the Kurds living in Turkey, and teach the PKK how to petition for relief before representative bodies like the United Nations." Fertig says he also wants to "advocate on behalf of the rights of the Kurdish people and the PKK before the United Nations and the United States Congress."

Another plaintiff in the case, an American physician named Nagalingam Jeyalingam, wants to do similar work with the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE), a violent separatist group in Sri Lanka that, like the PKK, appears on the State Department's list of terrorist organizations. In the words of the district court, Jeyalingam seeks to "provide training in the presentation of claims to mediators and international bodies for tsunami-related aid, offer legal expertise in negotiating peace agreements between the LTTE and the Sri Lankan government, and engage in political advocacy on behalf of Tamils living in Sri Lanka."

Whether you think Fertig and Jeyalingam are humanitarian heroes, naïve dreamers, or inadvertent flacks for terrorists, the projects they have in mind clearly amount to "pure speech promoting lawful, nonviolent activities," as their attorneys say. Yet the federal law they are challenging seems to make such speech a felony punishable by up to 15 years in prison.

Under the law, it is a crime to provide an organization on the State Department's list with "training," defined as "instruction or teaching designed to impart a specific skill, as opposed to general knowledge"; "expert advice or assistance," defined as "advice or assistance derived from scientific, technical or other specialized knowledge"; "personnel," which means any person, including oneself, who works under the organization's "direction or control"; or "service," which is not defined at all. These terms (especially that last one) could easily be construed to cover the activities proposed by Fertig and Jeyalingam, even though they would be trying to discourage terrorism and promote peaceful alternatives.

During oral arguments before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit, which ruled that several aspects of the "material support" ban are unconstitutional, the government's lawyer said you could go to prison for filing a friend-of-the-court brief on behalf of a listed group, for pressing its case at the U.N., or even for asking Congress to take the group off the list. "Congress wants these organizations to be radioactive," he explained.

By that logic, The New York Times and The Washington Post committed felonies when they published op-ed pieces by Hamas spokesman Ahmed Yousef, an act  "for the benefit of" a terrorist group and therefore, according to the government, a prohibited "service." A speech defending the rights of Kurds or Tamils could be treated the same way. By definitively rejecting such unconstitutional applications of the law, the Supreme Court can stop the war on terrorism from becoming a war on freedom of speech.

Jacob Sullum is a senior editor at Reason and a nationally syndicated columnist.

© Copyright 2010 by Creators Syndicate Inc.

Advertisement

NEXT: No Bull

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. By the non-definition of ‘service’, could any television or movie studio which portrays a terrorist as incompetent or a bumbler or (as in satirical, Hot Shots/Airplane-like spoof movies) complete comic relief be prosecuted under this statute by providing free PR services? Just askin’.

    1. Hell, now that I think about it, could any news organization that amps the hype of how fearsome these organizations are also be found guilty of providing the ‘service’ of escalating their mission of terrorism, i.e., making us more afraid of them?

      1. And if that’s the case, could any professional pol who makes his bones on pushing the TERRORISTS WILL KILL YOUR BABIES IN THEIR SLEEP button over and over again likewise be prosecuted? Okay, I stop thinking about this now and head to work. Peace out, y’all.

        1. Sometimes, when I think this hard about shit, I find that the only solution is pure nihilism.

  2. I want to watch the left’s collective head explode when they arrest Cindy Sheehan, assuming they acknowledge the arrest, that is.

    1. I wonder if their heads would explode. The left has pretty much disowned Sheehan, since she’s still protesting the war but the “commander in chief” is a Democrat now.

      1. Plus, she toyed with running against Pelosi. That probably put Mother Sheehan on quite a few Democrat shit lists…

  3. Good morning Suki!

  4. Good morning, MNG.

  5. I just read the other link here on “A History of Technological Scares.” I think there is a parallel between exaggerated fears about new technology and exaggerated fears about loss of civil liberties. I find the parallel especially dramatic when we compare the magnitude of the danger of a particular threat civil liberties versus the amount of attention given to it in the political arena.

    Threats to civil liberties in modern America runs: (1) War on drugs, (2) Economic Regulation, (3) “Hate” Speech regulation with a distant (4) War on Terror. But in the political discourse, it runs (1) War on Terror (2) “Hate” Speech (3) War on Drugs (4) Economic regulation. Even in the worse case scenario, only a microscopic part percentage of the US population could be caught up in bogus “supporting terrorist” crimes but all of us are subject to be hammered by a runaway War on Drugs and Economic Regulation. It’s far easier to frame someone for drug possession than it is to frame them for supporting terrorism and people don’t even blink anymore when you take away a person’s right to make a living and control their material environment.

    I think the civil liberties threats poised by the War Terror get so much press and hand wringing because of who is likely to be prosecuted. Since the 1930’s, people on the far left have a long history of “engaging” the enemies of liberal-democracies. These people tend to think of themselves as privileged by dent of their intellectual and moral superiority and they bristle at the idea that the rest of us might hold them accountable for the consequences of their actions. They make any attempt to hold them accountable into something monstrous even while they struggle daily to take away even more important freedoms from their fellow citizens. These people are very vocal and highly visible.

    As a consequence, the political discourse views as a great travesty merely threatening a college professor (whoops, racist, let me apologize) with supporting terrorist while they ignore the threat of locking up thousand of poor black men on bogus War on Drug charges.

    Elites always view threats to themselves as significant while they ignore threats to ordinary people. That is why the War on Terror holds such a major chunk of our political mind space. If we we’re locking up inarticulate poor people for supporting terrorism, no one would give a damn.

    I do think this is a panic that has a long historical precedence just as with the technological panics. Every time in American history we have entered a new military conflict, we have supposedly undermined civil rights out of military necessity yet the supposed end of democracy never materializes. Most people don’t know anything about the history of American intelligence and therefore believe that anything they just learned about is new and unprecedented so they panic.

    Meanwhile, the real threats to our civil liberties grow unchecked and unnoticed.

    1. Threats to civil liberties in modern America runs: (1) War on drugs, (2) Economic Regulation, (3) “Hate” Speech regulation with a distant (4) War on Terror. But in the political discourse, it runs (1) War on Terror (2) “Hate” Speech (3) War on Drugs (4) Economic regulation.

      Yeah, reason should totally start covering the potential loss of civil liberties in the War on Drugs.

      1. I think we can all agree that Reason is something of an anomaly. Even so, Reason pays much more attention to civil liberties aspects of the War on Terror than is warranted by the scale of the problem.

        Scale is important is all things. We often forget this when we argue using the scale-invariant Aristotelian logic. In Aristotelian logic, a threat is a threat and all threats are equal and deserved equal time and attention.

        If we were to assign some numbers to civil liberties threats, The War on Drugs and Economic Regulation would be more or less tied at around 10,000. Speech codes would be somewhere around 1,000 and the War on Terror around a 100 or less.

        It’s simply not that big of problem, it’s just operatic and attention grabbing.

        More importantly, Reason writers completely ignore the counter-intutive and counter-productive effect of panicking over small scale civil liberties threats. They learned nothing from 90’s.

        Back then people panicked over the civil liberties implication of really fighting terrorism. The Islamist threat was allowed to grow unchecked while lawyers argued over ivory tower law. The small number of terrorism experts who warned that terrorism had evolved away from low-casualty media stunts and towards mass-casualty overt attacks were derided by most (including Reason writers) as hysterical alarmist with sinister agendas.

        And here we are, waterboarding people, assassinating people, running black prisons and passing sweeping law after sweeping law. Had we been less hysterical over imagined civil liberties threats back in the 90’s and been willing to take just a little harder and more effect stance against terrorism back then, there is a very good chance 9/11 or a similar attack would have never happened.

        And we wouldn’t be having this conversation now.

        The only way to prevent violence from undermining freedom is to head it off. You have to get out in front of it and crush it. If you try to play catch up i.e. increasing your efforts only after the enemy has succeeded, you actually drive a civil rights down the slippery slope.

        It’s counter-intutive but the effect is very, very real.

        1. “”The only way to prevent violence from undermining freedom is to head it off. You have to get out in front of it and crush it.””

          The attempts to prevent the violence have led to the P.A.T.R.I.O.T. Act, National Security Letters, and greater domestic surveillance. These are the tools our government claims they need to “get out in front and crush it”. All of those ideas were desired by LEOs prior to 9/11, that day just gave them an excuse to bundle them in one package and sell them to Congress.

          So even if they had these tools prior to 9/11 and it prevented 9/11, we would still have the same issues.

          The government’s stance is you must drive civil rights down the slippery slope to combat terrorism. 9/11 didn’t change the goverment’s idea of what needed to be done, just the citizens idea of what the government should be allowed to do.

          Allowing government their version of necessary tools prior to 9/11 would still have us on the same slippery slope.

          1. I doubt we would end up in the same boat. For one thing, we wouldn’t had to go the current extremes if we’d been more aggressive back in the day. It’s just like treating a scratch when its small instead of letting it fester so you end up with IV antibiotics and amputations. Likewise, destroying and ostracizing terrorist when they are small prevents having to fight large scale wars later.

            Again, we have an issue of scale. Suppose we say that the Patriot act overkill is a 10, what we had prior to 9/11 was a 1 and what we actually needed was a 5. Some of what is in the Patriot act is actually needed. Many of the recommendations were made in the late 80s and early 90s based on the study of real world terrorist networks. We had time to change the laws slowly and thoughtfully with the opportunity to roll back any unneeded expansions of state power.

            However, we couldn’t get any of those adaptations to changing conditions because people like you said, “You want to go to 2! Are you insane! If you go to 2 then its 3, then 4 and eventually its 1,000,000!”

            So instead of growing up to 5 we stayed at 1 until we suffered a catastrophic attack and then we jumped over 2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9 and straight to 10. Moreover, 10 is now the baseline and no politician will take the risk of rolling it back and getting blamed for a subsequent attack.

            It’s counter-intutive but history is very clear that sometimes the way to prevent the collapse of a liberal-order is to give more power to prevent an event that causes a surge in state power. Reflexively opposing any increase in state power (especially in its core function of preventing mass violence) will backfire in the long run.

            1. When I get a scratch, I leave it alone, uncovered and it heals up all buy itself. Body is nifty like that.

            2. I don’t buy the arugement that if you give government level 5, it would prevent them from level 10.

              When it comes to power and authority, they always look for a way to crank up the level.

              If they couldn’t take advantage of the citizery’s fear from 9/11, it would be the next incident. And don’t think all these incidents are preventable.

        2. The Islamist threat was allowed to grow unchecked while lawyers argued over ivory tower law.

          Help me out – can you elaborate on this further? I’m curious about which lawyers let the Islamist threat grow. Please be specific.

  6. Forget being charged with a felony – the Obama administration currently claims the right to ASSASSINATE American citizens who provide “support” of this kind.

    These guys are lucky they aren’t dead. In fact, they better not leave the United States, because if they ever find themselves in Italy or Yemen they will probably be “disappeared”.

  7. “training,” defined as “instruction or teaching designed to impart a specific skill, as opposed to general knowledge”; “expert advice or assistance,” defined as “advice or assistance derived from scientific, technical or other specialized knowledge”

    If the State Department is able to list Designated Foreign Terrorist Organizations, can’t it be more specific than BS “definitions” like these?

    But, there I go again.

  8. The Palestine Liberation Organization and the Irish Republican Army, two of history’s most notorious terrorist groups, have never appeared on the State Department’s List of Designated Foreign Terrorist Organizations. By the time the list was first compiled in 1997, both groups were deemed to be moving away from violence and toward a peaceful resolution of their grievances.

    I think it relevant to note that the IRA and the PLO did not move “away from violence and toward a peaceful resolution” because of peaceful engagement by their opponents seeking to compromise. They abandoned violence because (1) they got their clocks cleaned repeatedly and (2) they lost their primary patron with the fall of the Soviet Union.

    After the fall of the Soviet Union it became apparent what many had long suspected. The modern IRA and PLO were creations of Soviet intelligence and the Soviets provided money and almost all the training and technical assistance. (When Nicolae Ceau?escu finally fell in Romania, his last supporters were the 5,000 PLO mercenaries who comprised his personal guard. They were that tight.) Without a Soviet Patron the IRA and the PLO were hanging in the wind. Despite the romanticism of the underdog, small stateless organizations can’t actually take on superpowers without the backing of another superpower. The IRA and the PLO read the writing on the wall and gave up their lucrative terrorism business. The IRA went into organized civil crime and the PLO went into the kleptocracy business.

    Engagement empowers terrorist organizations and it never helps. There has never been a case in which engagement has by itself moved an organization away from terrorism. Instead, terrorists have used engagement has a face saving measure after they have been materially defeated. Then off course, those who did try engagement try to take all the credit.

    Engagement does real harm. It legitimizes terrorist organizations and often leads directly to material support. Even supporting a groups medical services empowers them. All modern terrorist organizations, including the Islamist, follow the revolutionary doctrines laid down by Stalin and Mao. (The Soviets trained Marxist in the 60s and 70s and those people made the jump to the Islamist in 1980s.) Winning hearts and minds through charitable works is an explicit and conscious strategy on their part. So is infiltrating and co-opting fellow travelers. Engagement supports this strategy directly.

    The only way to suppress terrorist organizations is to ostracize them utterly. They must be delegitimized not because of what they claim to be fighting for but for the methods they use in those fights. When they take actions that cross the line, they have to be outlawed (in the archaic sense of the word) and as the greeks used to say, “treated as two legged wolves.

    People who try to engage terrorist organizations do real concrete harm even though they intend to do good. It is a form of negligence like drunk driving. They’re to blinded by their arrogance to the harm they cause. We do need a mechanism to hold those people accountable to some degree even if it just makes them stop and think before they act.

    And I’ve got to stop drinking coffee before I post.

    1. (The Soviets trained Marxist in the 60s and 70s and those people made the jump to the Islamist in 1980s.)

      No, not really. In Afghanistan for instance, most of the marxists have more or less reformed (some have not, but are nontheless quiet about it) and are in any case part of the current Afghan government (particularly it’s bureaucracy). And it’s the Islamists that fought against the Soviets, the post-Soviet Marxist legacy government, and now the current government. The only time they took a break was when they were the government from ’96-’01

      The welspring of the worldwide Islamist movements from Africa to Asia Pacific are from the Wahabbists in Saudi Arabia and the Pakistani ISI. The various movements only resemble the Marxist/Maoist insurgencies as a dolphin resembles a shark – convergent evolution creates many of the same features.

      The only place there is some nexus between Islamist and Marxist movements is in Palestine and (sort of) Lebanon, but that’s just different factions teaming up against a common enemy like the democrats and communists did during the Spanish Civil War. But they remain distinct factions and as we saw in Palestine with the Fatah (liberation socialist) vs Hamas (Islamist) civil war of a few years ago, can just as easily be at each other throats.

      1. Nope, you’re wrong. (I knew someone would make this mistake.)

        You’re tracing ideology and I am tracing training and tactical and strategic doctrine. The Islamist playbook is straight out of the old Soviet one and many cases we can track the specific individuals who carried the doctrines from the Soviet camp to the Islamist. (Mostly through Lebanon by the way.)

        After the Soviets invaded Afghanistan, a lot of the Soviet trained people defected to various religious and ethnic based groups. This process continued to build steam during the 80s. After the fall of communism, virtually all those people, with all their training and doctrines, joined extremist Muslim operations.

        This is of course completely ignoring the fact that many of these groups are, or started out as, covert extensions of the intelligence agencies of former Soviet Client states such as Egypt, Syria and Iraq. All those services received training in Soviet doctrine as well.

        It is very, very clear that all the major contemporary terrorist groups trace their doctrine back the Soviets and Stalinist/Maoist school. They do so not out of ideology but for the same reason that every single modern Army is patterned on the German Staff model: those doctrines work better than any other.

        This means that if you understand the old Soviet doctrine, you have a good understanding of what contemporary terrorist will do. You don’t have to understand their ideology any more than you need to understand an army’s ideology to know they will use automatic weapons.

        1. “””This means that if you understand the old Soviet doctrine, you have a good understanding of what contemporary terrorist will do. “”

          I disagree. If you understand insurgency/counterinsurgency warfare, you will have a better understanding of what they will do.

          1. Terrorists are not insurgents and most of their doctrine does not involve conducting insurgent operations.

            Terrorism is a propaganda weapon. The goal of a terrorist attack is to create a story. The purpose of that story is to manipulate both the political population of a liberal-democracy and usually some internal population as well.

            This is why finding, creating or duping fellow travelers inside the enemy population is so important. They’re goal is the manipulation of the enemies political structure usually to produce paralysis or defeatism. People will listen to voices inside of group when they will ignore those of violent outsides. If they are successful, the terrorists propaganda story becomes one of the targets groups own internal stories.

            This can be very, very effective. The Soviets won the war in Indochina largely by inducing the 20% left most part of the American polity to adopt the Soviet propaganda story of the war e.g. it was anti-colonial, it wasn’t actually communist, Ho Chi Min was nationalist and not a doctrinaire communist and the American military had turned into evil Nazis and committed thousands of horrific war crimes. At the end, they had people like John Kerry, Tom Harkin and Edward Kennedy adopting the Soviet story almost entirely.

            By contrast, they were never able to inject a propaganda story into the Muslim world to win the war in Afghanistan. Since Muslims countries were not democracies and they didn’t have long established history of a Soviet friendly left, the Soviets lost the propaganda war. Although tellingly, they had much, much better success in the West.

            This is why people who try to engage terrorist organizations are going to fail. The organizations have nothing but a very conscious cynical and self-interested view of the relationship.

            These people are doing nothing but turning themselves into weapons.

            1. Revisionism! It’s time consuming!

            2. Insurgencies use hit and run tactics that force the counterinsurgency to defend large areas, forcing them to stretch their resources or increase the cost of defense. Which also thins out the forces you have, making them more vulnerable to attack.

              Insurgencies use propaganda to give an impression that they have a cause which is a recruiting tool for those who want to fight for the (false) cause.

              “”Terrorism is a propaganda weapon. The goal of a terrorist attack is to create a story.””

              All war has propaganda as a weapon, and creates a story of it’s own. Insurgents do the same.

              “””They’re goal is the manipulation of the enemies political structure usually to produce paralysis or defeatism.”””

              That’s classic insurgency warfare.

            3. I have to ask, do you think Che was a terrorist or insurgent?

            4. Put it this way, much of the tactics you speak of existed before we adopted the word terrorism. Terrorist have adopted these tactics, they didn’t originate them. They are taking pages from the insurgency handbook.

        2. After the Soviets invaded Afghanistan, a lot of the Soviet trained people defected to various religious and ethnic based groups. This process continued to build steam during the 80s. After the fall of communism, virtually all those people, with all their training and doctrines, joined extremist Muslim operations.

          This is almost totally wrong. The main body of Soviet trained people stayed onboard when the Soviets invaded (who do you think ‘invited’ them into the country?) There are some one off exceptions of people that defected to the Mujahadeen (which did increase as the Soviet occupation progressed) but these folks were by and large Afghan nationalists (as such a thing exists) not staunch ideologues.

          The ‘Islamisization’ of the Mujahadeen was nearly entirely in Pakistan at the nexus of the idle young males in the refugee camps and foreign fighters from around the world looking for Jihad. (mostly invited by and financed by the Saudis in loose coordination with the Pak ISI) Lebanon was fighting their own battles when the Afghan civil wars were raging and too busy to be anything but a peripheral player.

          “after the fall of communism” can mean two different things.
          1) In one case, after the soviet pullout. All the Mujahadeen factions started fighting among themselves (and only the Pak based ‘provisional government’ could be considered Islamist). But for the most part, the country was ruled by amoral warlords, and what government control was left was in the hands of a government that was nominally Marxist, but had made overt moves to become ‘good muslims’ (but *not* Islamists) and thus got enough support from the population to last until ’96.

          2) If by “after the fall of communism” you mean after the government finally fell to the Taliban in ’96 (which, everyone should know, was only founded as an organization in ’94 and was *not* part of the mujahadeen movement – though most members were former Pashtun mujahadeen from the South), well it’s patently ridiculous to say ‘those people joined extremist muslim operations’ in any ‘revolutionary’ sense – because from ’96 to ’01 they *were* the governemnt.

        3. I am not sure what you mean by Islamist here, but if you mean anti-Soviet Mujahedin then you are wrong here. Much of the training to the Mujahedin was given by US military and US trained Pakistanis. Those who defected Afghan Army were not communists but ordinary Afghans who didn’t like Soviet’s invading army. The communists stayed with the Soviet-inspired government till the Soviets departed.

    2. “”I think it relevant to note that the IRA and the PLO did not move “away from violence and toward a peaceful resolution” because of peaceful engagement by their opponents seeking to compromise. They abandoned violence because (1) they got their clocks cleaned repeatedly and (2) they lost their primary patron with the fall of the Soviet Union.””

      Yeah, as if the truce with the Britsh government had nothing to do with it. That truce came about because both sides were tired of the stalemate. The IRA wasn’t getting what they wanted, and the British Government couldn’t “clean their clocks” to end the violence.

  9. This leaves out domestic “terrorist” organizations, such as:

    The Libertarian Party
    Campaign for Liberty
    The Liberty Restoration Project

    Notice a theme?

    Seriously, all of the above groups – along with such rabble-rousers as the FairTax supporters, tea partiers, 2nd Amendment rights groups, et cetera – can be considered (and likely are) to be at least domestic insurgent groups, because they not only hold the current regime in contempt, but likely the one to follow four or eight years from now. (Never hurts to be prepared.)

    So… drink, I suppose.

    1. The only real worry would be the Tea Party Party, because if someone there takes violent action, which is likely, then they will be considered insurgents.

      1. IMO, the first shot fired between a tea party group and its detractors would be the latter.

        I attended a couple of local events last year. Nobody there was looking to pick a fight, on either side.

  10. I think librarian party is a pretty cool guy eh. kills freedumbs and doesn’t afraid of anything…

    1. Woo Hoo! Drinkin’ on a Wednesday morning!!!

  11. Statists have always had a problem with Free Speech.

  12. “By that logic, The New York Times and The Washington Post committed felonies when they published op-ed pieces by Hamas spokesman Ahmed Yousef…”

    I say shut down these far left papers (along with their sister blog, the Daily Kos)and tar and feather the lying pieces of shit that write for them.

  13. I find it amusing that it took over 8 years for you to realize the war on terror was a war on personal liberties (the only true enemy of ANY state).

  14. They haven’t been charged! So essentially, no conflict yet exists and the case is moot.

  15. Why is there no mention of US/CIA support to the Mujahedin, particularly the Osama Bin Laden’s faction? Was Reagan was a terrorist supporter too?

    As for the suggestion that PATRIOT act could have somehow prevented 9/11 there really is no evidence. Why didn’t CIA infiltrate AlQaida? The then existing US laws did not prevent CIA from infiltrating foreign organizations and governments. It was just a matter of funding and priorities, not a legal issue.

    How much support was the peaceful wing of IRA getting from US citizens? Under these new laws even Ted Kennedy would have hard time justifying his peace efforts.

    Has anyone noticed how all the old Soviet supporters have turned into neocons. And, they now use Muslims (whom they call Islamist) as the boogey man in the same way the communists were used during the cold war era.

  16. My only point is that if you take the Bible straight, as I’m sure many of Reasons readers do, you will see a lot of the Old Testament stuff as absolutely insane. Even some cursory knowledge of Hebrew and doing some mathematics and logic will tell you that you really won’t get the full deal by just doing regular skill english reading for those books. In other words, there’s more to the books of the Bible than most will ever grasp. I’m not concerned that Mr. Crumb will go to hell or anything crazy like that! It’s just that he, like many types of religionists, seems to take it literally, take it straight…the Bible’s books were not written by straight laced divinity students in 3 piece suits who white wash religious beliefs as if God made them with clothes on…the Bible’s books were written by people with very different mindsets…in order to really get the Books of the Bible, you have to cultivate such a mindset, it’s literally a labyrinth, that’s no joke.

  17. Customer Service – What is it worth to you? You can email us 24×7! Our represnetative. will reply you in 24 hours. You can check our tracking page, and see hundreds of orders which we have delivered.Now you can Google most of these other places and see they have histories of not providing products or having terrible customer service.

  18. You can check our tracking page, and see hundreds of orders which we have delivered.Now you can Google most of these other places and see they have histories of not providing products or having terrible customer service.

  19. I’m not sure I can write more because if 0x0000000a error. I’m really afraid of BSODs and the reinstalling Windows doesn’t seem to help.

  20. Why is there no mention of US/CIA support to the Mujahedin, particularly the Osama Bin Laden’s faction? Was Reagan was a terrorist supporter too?

  21. You can check our tracking page, and see hundreds of orders which we have delivered

  22. I intention certainly share this article with my friends. Thanks as a service to the info.http://www.apple.com/ipod/start

  23. I recognize it is really an older article, however i wish to say many thanks for publishing it. also I have a blog about fat loss and burning fat, hope that we can exchange

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.