All Torture is Criminal Under All Circumstances

If the allegations in the CIA torture report are true, we have war criminals, perjurers, computer hackers and thugs on the government payroll.


When the head of the CIA's torture unit decided to destroy videotapes of his team's horrific work, he unwittingly set in motion a series of events that led to the release this week of the most massive, detailed documentation of unlawful behavior by high-ranking government officials and intentional infliction of pain on noncombatants by the United States government since the Civil War era. Here is the backstory.

One of the reasons repeatedly stated by President George W. Bush for the American invasion of Iraq in 2003 was the maintenance of "torture rooms" by Saddam Hussein. While making this very argument, Bush was secretly authorizing CIA agents to engage in similar unlawful behavior for similar purposes: intelligence and deterrence. Bush sounded credible when he claimed that his administration adhered to federal and international legal standards.

He knew he could make that claim because the torturers were sworn to secrecy, as were their congressional regulators. The CIA charter permits Congress to regulate the CIA in secret. Congress has established two secret congressional committees, one from the Senate and one from the House, to serve as monitors and regulators of CIA activities. The stated reason for the secrecy is to keep our enemies from knowing what the CIA is doing. The effect of the secrecy has been a muzzled Congress, lied to by law-breaking and rogue CIA officials.

Until now.

When the Senate Intelligence Committee staff learned of the destroyed videotapes (a federal crime the Justice Department declined to prosecute) and reported that destruction to Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.), the committee chair, she ordered an investigation to determine whether the CIA officials who had briefed her committee had told the truth. If they had been truthful, she reasoned, why destroy the tapes? In order to conduct that investigation, Feinstein ordered the CIA to make available to her committee's investigators whatever documents and digital data the investigators sought.

During the course of the investigation, Senate investigators suspected their computers had been hacked. When they brought those suspicions to Feinstein, she ordered another investigation, this one aimed at identifying the hackers. That investigation revealed that the CIA itself was spying on its own Senate investigators. When she approached CIA Director John Brennan about this, he denied it. When she went to the floor of the Senate—where her vow of secrecy may lawfully be disregarded—to reveal that the CIA had spied on her and her fellow Senators and their investigators, the CIA denied it. When she released incontrovertible evidence of CIA domestic spying, Brennan admitted that his agents had spied on their regulators (another federal crime the feds declined to prosecute), but claimed it was needed because the regulators had exceeded their authority in examining CIA documents.

All this put the original investigation of why the tapes of the torture had been destroyed and whether the CIA had been truthful to the White House and its congressional regulators into high gear. When the investigators' final report—all 6,000 pages of it, much in lurid detail—was completed, it was sent to the White House, which decided to release it. The CIA begged for redactions of agents' names and other identifiers, and a long process of negotiation ensued between the White House, the State Department, the CIA, and the Senate. This week, Feinstein had had enough and decided to release the report with the then-agreed-upon redactions.

The report is damning in the extreme to the Bush administration and to the CIA leadership. It offers proof that the CIA engaged in physical and psychological torture, some of which was authorized—unlawfully, yet authorized—and most of which was not. The report also demonstrates that CIA officials repeatedly lied to the White House and to Senate regulators about what they were doing, and they lied about the effectiveness of their torture.

If the allegations in the report are true, we have war criminals, perjurers, computer hackers and thugs on the government payroll. We also have dupes. The most politically successful argument the torture lobby has made is that we are all safer because of these dirty deeds. This Senate report refutes that argument by demonstrating that no serious actionable intelligence came from the torture.

All torture is criminal under all circumstances—under treaties to which the U.S. is a party, under the Constitution that governs the government wherever it goes, and under federal law. Torture degrades the victim and the perpetrator. It undermines the moral authority of a country whose government condones it. It destroys the rule of law. It exposes our own folks to the awful retaliatory beheadings we have all seen. It is slow, inefficient, morbid, and ineffective. It is a recruiting tool for those who have come to cause us harm. All human beings possess basic inalienable rights derived from the natural law and protected by the Constitution the CIA has sworn to uphold. Torture violates all of those rights.

What should we make of this report on government torture? In a free society in which the government works for us, we have a right to know what it is doing in our names, and we have a reasonable expectation that the laws the government enforces against us it will enforce against itself. But don't hold your breath waiting for that to happen.


NEXT: Brickbat: Teach the Children Well

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 or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Why does the judge want the terrorists to win?

    1. The former judge wants the CIA to win?

    2. I usually agree with Napolitano, but this is where we part company. In the first place, waterboarding is hardly torture. Every person who does it has to endure it himself. Also all f the Seals and Special Forces troops have to go through it in training.
      This whole dust up is BS.

      The real scum are the left wing morons that wrote this report without interviewing a single CIA employee.

      1. Exactlty. And the ones who think droning is better, which is what the regime does instead. I find much of this to be less than persuasive. It is just a magazine article but I see no ethical analysis of what torture or unpleasant interrogations are and when they could or could not be justified. I just see a reference to treaties, which can be evil agreements that violate rights. I do t see any argument here that on the morality of punishing a criminal to get I formation to save the lives of his victims.

  2. NEEDZ MOAR rhetorical questions! Is someone ghost writing for the judge??!

    1. No, no, no, nononono, we don’t want more rhetorical questions. We need to encourage this sort of work output.

    2. If so, he needs a better ghost writer.

  3. Maybe I’m too cynical these days but I get the feeling DiFi only gives a shit because 1)BOOOOSH and 2) the CIA did not respect her authority. That being said, at least she accomplished something worthwhile.

    1. Whatever her motivations are in this particular case, the outcome is the correct one.

      If we allow the unelected officials to lie to our elected representatives, then we deserve the authoritarian government that will result.

      Unfortunately, I doubt there will be any prosecutions for perjury. We’re willing to imprison some dude for lying about the injections he took so he could hit a small white ball a little further, but we can’t bring ourselves to prosecute those who have actual power over us and show utter disdain towards us.

      1. The most politically successful argument the torture lobby has made is that we are all safer because of these dirty deeds.

        Bob Kerrey for example.

        He doesn’t have to read the report to know it’s a load of crap – the proof that what the CIA did has kept us safe is in the fact that we haven’t been attacked since 9/11.

        Little does that dumbass know that I put a terrorist rock in my backyard right next to my tiger rock – the terrorist rock is what has kept the terrorists away just as the tiger rock has kept the tigers away. There ain’t no terrorists or tigers in my backyard so the rocks must work, right, Bob?

        1. Also:

          If the allegations in the report are true, we have war criminals, perjurers, computer hackers and thugs on the government payroll.

          This is a good example of the “‘If A, then B’ equals ‘If not A, then not B'” logical error.

          It is demonstrably true that we have war criminals, perjurers, computer hackers, and thugs on the government payroll regardless of whether or not the CIA torture report allegations are true.

          1. With the exception of hackers, we’ve had all of those classes on the government payroll since 1776. The lack of computers made hackers hard to come by for about a century and a half.

    2. Actually, we all know that the torture stopped on 22 Jan 2009. Because that was the day when the seas began to recede, and all evil went out of the world.

    3. I’m skeptical of anything from Dianne Feinstein – including this report. She had a real grudge against somebody in the CIA.

      If I was putting together a report, I would have actually spoken with the people actually responsible (with a healthy dose of skepticism and fact-checking). Not old Dianne, she just got to down to writing.


    4. Hardly worthwhile. This report puts Americans in danger from the terrorist fanatics.

      1. Yes yes, JohnD… everything that’s not conducive to compete acceptable of the state’s narrative puts Americans in danger. The terrorists are hiding all around us!

  4. The Judge must feel outcast on FOX,so damn many torture lovers there.Also ,let’s see them investigate the drone program also

    1. And I’m tired of hearing’but 911′,it should be treated the same as bring up Hitler

      1. 9-11 is like crappy relatives that over stay their visit by many years.

        1. 9-11 is not a crappy relative. 9-11 is the gift that keeps giving. Mark my words: we can still wring one more war from the bloody shirt of 9-11. Oh, and BOOOOOSH!

      2. You know who else knocked down a couple of buildings in Manhattan?

      3. It certainly fits the “Godwin” standard: an argument that people bring up when they’ve lost the argument.

        1. I agree. I”s an emotionally charged phrase often knowingly used to curtail debate, stifle dissenting views, et cetera.

          For example, “9-11 changed everythin”,”We’re living in a post 9-11 world”,
          “You forget about 9-11”,

          and many more expressions were used against me over the years. I suspect many of us who comment here have heard/seen similar “rebuttals” to whatever we’ve said or written.

          When I used to try to offer differing opinions or – gasp – evidentiary material in discussions or comment boards I would say/write “the attacks on September 11th, 2001” or something similar in order to keep at least part of the dialogue on an intellectual level.

    2. Fool. Wise up, jerk.

  5. There are certainly many political questions considering the tit-for-tat between the two major parties. Nonetheless, torture of this magnitude is corrosive to our government and our society. It must be rooted out, no matter which party loses the most.

  6. Gee, Judge, didn’t the Bush administration go bye-bye six years ago. Don’t you think we have a big shit-load of pressing and current what ifs we should be dealing with.

    1. I’m as sick of the “blame Bush” strategy as anyone alive, but we shouldn’t give the Bush administration a pass on this one.

      Btw, Obama doesn’t come out of this looking great, either.

  7. Anyone else hungover at work today?

    1. Not at work yet, but will soon be in the same boat.

    2. Why would I be hungover at work?

      Aren’t you supposed to be drinking there?

    3. As long as I continue to stay drunk 24/7/365 celebrating Repeal Day being hungover will remain some unimportant distant future event that may not even ever happen.

  8. They promised not to torture, but their fingers were crossed behind tier backs. They got us there.

    1. So, as a punishment, we snipped off those lying fingers. Goose, Gander, etc.

      1. Even their ‘torturing fingers’? Seems cruel and unusual to me. How are they going to make a living now?

  9. Seems like if we raised taxes, we could pay the CIA better salaries so they wouldn’t be so mad and taking out their frustration on the Arabs. This is what you get with trickle-down economics.

    1. Best comment I have seen in a long time.

    2. After reading several of your posts, it is obvious that you are the most ignorant fool on this comment section. There are a few others running in 2nd place, but you win hands down.


      1. Oh? Was he serious?

        I assumed he was sarcastic because that was such a clearly brainless thing to say. Must have had it wrong.

        Wait … was he really serious? It seems like such an unbelievably stupid thing to say that I can’t imagine is being anything OTHER than a joke.

  10. Cooking with booze is fun.

  11. All human beings possess basic inalienable rights derived from the natural law and protected by the Constitution the CIA has sworn to uphold. Torture violates all of those rights.

    Use only cluster bombs, the way God intended.

    1. And it’s much more humane to kill them with drones like the magic negro prefers.

  12. Here’s the thing – people always bring up the ticking time bomb thing and the idea that you torture one person to save twenty, but that stuff is really beside the point. The important distinction that needs to be made is between having torture as part of official (or unofficial) government policy and the terrible choice an individual or individuals might have to make in such a hypothetical situation while accepting the consequences. I might, for example, cut someone’s fingers off to save a plane load of orphans, but I would never want that formalized as a government agency policy. If I am willing to face the consequences as an individual of doing something horrible to stop something worse – well, okay. Once this kind of thing becomes policy, then that insulates the people involved from the consequences of their choices and actions.

    1. Very well said. What the people who support torture for the War On Terra want is not just torture; they want torture without consequences.

      1. For what it’s worth, I think I have enjoyed almost every sandwich, at least in my adult life. I’ve also enjoyed every taco.

        1. Are you making some sort of “I enjoy clams and Oysters” reference AdamJ or did miss your point entirely.
          I think it’s the latter.

          1. I apologize AdamJ, I just saw who you were responding to.

            May your sandwiches and tacos be ever so enjoyable.

    2. The “imminent threat” situation is full of moral quandaries, as well. What if the person whose fingers you cut off only knows the information because HE is being coerced and his release of the information to you results in the deaths of other innocents, such as the tortured’s family members, friends, etc.?

      It’s good that you accept the consequences; however, it is impossible to know the totality of the consequences in an “imminent threat” situation. You don’t have time to research it, don’t have time to check to see if the guy’s please for mercy due to his situation are true, etc.

      The safest route is to simply NOT torture since it’s impossible to know the full ramifications of your actions.

      1. But that doesn’t really go to my point. An individual decision to torture may be right or wrong. I’m not defending torture, but I can envision a scenario where an individual might feel compelled to do it, again, right or wrong. The point is that there is a huge distinction between an individual making the choice and accepting the consequences and implications and government agencies formalizing such practices thereby removing the aspect of personal responsibility.

    3. Not to mention the enemy would be insane not to completely change their tactics, upon the U.S. capture of a terrorist asset, to invalidate the info known to that asset.

      These people are not stupid. They may be delusional, but not stupid.

  13. If, as some would have it, torture is just another tool with no moral dimension, then why do they get upset if it is done to Americans?

    And while we’re on the subject: you can keep telling yourself that the U.S. government will only do this to dirty foreigners, never Americans. It’s bullshit; if those in authority can torture without consequence it’s only a matter of time. And sooner or later it’ll be somebody you do care about.

    1. Yeah, but if we elect the right people (Democrats), it could never happen here.

    2. if those in authority can torture without consequence it’s only a matter of time. And sooner or later it’ll be somebody you do care about.

      Exactly. & if one doesn’t believe it to be true, see no further than the NSA and their strict mandate of only tracking calls and what not made by or to foreign countries, already betting watched.

      Thanks to Snowden, we know that’s also unequivocally false.

      However… Not sure I believe this report in its entirely, specifically the efficacy of torture part, but I also don’t think whether torture works is relevant to whether we should use it.

      I just wouldn’t put a lot of faith in Feinstein or reports written by her staff given her constant and continual problems with the truth.

      Look at it this way – normally, what’s the likelihood that the Senator commissions a report on anything and it turns out that everything she believed prior to the investigation was 100% accurate?

      What makes this report different?

      1. Edit… 4th paragraph, 2nd line, should read:

        ..but I also don’t think whether torture works is irrelevant to whether we should use it.

      2. You’re right to be suspicious of the report-and of anything that comes from that shithole we call “Congress”. I have little doubt that there is a political angle being played here.

    3. Of course they’ll get around to torturing American citizens. Eventually including ones captured on American soil. We’ve been told repeatedly that the war on terror is in any country the president chooses. Plus its just the nature of government to cast an ever widening net. IIRC, the fisa courts only dealt with foreign nationals suspected of espionage when they started. And no evidence obtained with a FISA warrant could be used in a criminal trial. Look where that program is now.

      1. Of course they’ll get around to torturing American citizens. Eventually including ones captured on American soil.

        That’s already happened, but it tends to be done by cops at the local level. Chicago, in particular.


    4. Idiot. What is done to Americans is real torture and murder, not make believe like waterboarding. No one has ever had serious consequences from waterboarding.

      You are too stupid to breathe on your on.

  14. Bullshit.These animals killed over 2000 innocent Americans and wanted to kill more,who cares if the US tortured these Islamic terrorist.A better idea:why imprison them and feed them;just put a bullet in their head when they are caught and be done with it.Liberal bleeding hearts, like this author, haven’t a clue as to what they are talking about and in reality they are a much larger threat to the survival of American society than any terrorist may be.Lies,illogical thought processes and liberalism[Democrats]will be the death of America and its freedoms if we as a society keep electing these loons into office.

    1. C-, try harder. At least throw in some John Yoo quotes.

      1. Although I did enjoy the “we must torture people, for the freedomz” part.

      2. At least throw in some John Yoo quotes.

        And I thought that was a John Yoo quote.

    2. Because summary execution of suspects is so much better…

    3. No one here is arguing against putting bullet into the head of someone convicted of murder, but what is being talked about here is a completely different animal.

  15. Did I visit this thread to see if people would parody the Judge’s rhetorical style ? Why would they do that ? What if the Judge wrote an article without rhetorical questions ? Could we be sure he was the author ?

  16. Feinstein is pissed off at the CIA because they discovered the secret head shaping machine she keeps in her bathroom.

    1. May well be true, but in this case, she did a service to the nation by releasing this report.

  17. I guess we can now discount every “truth serum” gimmick employed in just about every spy novel written in the last seventy years?

  18. I can’t say I’m a fan of torture. But, I do have to admit there’s a very weird line of reasoning being put forward on this matter. The same people beating their chests over torture are the same ones defending the drone program. So, what are they saying? That it’s okay to blow somebody up, just don’t get them wet or keep them awake?

    1. You are expecting moral consistency from politicians? That’s a bad habit that will lead to alcoholism, if not abandoned quickly enough. Remember it’s principals not principles.

    2. Bill,

      I think a lot of what you’re seeing and hearing is this: “So long as our team is doing it it’s okay.”

      I am seeing individuals trying to defend the torture program and many of them fairly quickly point out how much worse the drone program is. Likewise, I’ve been seeing what you describe.


      1. It’s not partisanship. It’s a reaction to the DC media hive that doesn’t talk about droning but talks about water boarding detainees.

        The questions put to Josh Earnest this week and his inability to answer them made the amorality clear.

        He should be water boarded along with his criminal coworkers.

    3. Any person with a consistent moral outlook would think both are either okay or not okay. Politicians, generally, have no morals.

    4. I will also add that no one died of collateral damage from waterboarding, unlike many (most) drone strikes.

      Don’t misunderstand, I have no problem taking this scum out, but I do regret any collateral damage that occurs.

  19. great way to share your thoughts infortunatly it’s a little bit confusing ….. however i would like to share my own simple tips to be more productive

  20. The ticking time bomb scenario used to defend torture is just horseshit on so many levels. First off, to even vaguely have a chance of working, the CIA would have to capture a guy who actually knows the info they need. If they’ve got the wrong guy, torturing him will just produce garbage. The garbage info will have to be chased down and proven to be garbage and then back for more torture and more garbage. Meanwhile, the bomb has blowed up.
    But even IF the CIA had accidentally captured the one guy who knows what needs to be known to defuse the bomb–and it would be accidentally–all he needs to do is tell lies for the amount of time needed for the bomb to go off to succeed. Every lie would have to be chased down, then back for more torture and another set of lies, meanwhile the bomb has blowed up.

    1. But but it always works for Jack Bauer!

      (Seriously, I think that show and others like it over the years are why people think torture is effective.)

      1. I’ve made this same point bassjoe.
        I think it’s similar to how positive movies and television shows about law enforcement and the military influence public opinion and eventually shift the citizenry’s fundamental way of looking at the country and the world.

        1. The needs to be a Law & Order; Wrongful Convictions. Every week they show the some schmuck locked up for years finally freed, and the intrepid investigators finding the real criminal. Lots of flashbacks of bad prosecutors,bad cops, mistaken eye-witnesses, crap or non-existent forensics, jury bias, drunk/sleeping PDs, exculpatory Brady evidence locked in someone’s trunk, and/or petty biased or overworked judges.

          1. That’s very creative of you.
            It’s also a great idea. Do you think you could crowdsource that somehow?

      2. Also, it totally makes sense that criminals automatically tell the truth when punched a few times.

        1. “I saw this work in six different television shows and more movies than I can count – they wouldn’t write it into the script if it didn’t work in reality. Plus, we’re the good guys/it’s only bad when others do it to one of us.”

      3. And I think that the media and college professors over the years are why people think torture is not effective.

  21. Amazing to me how willing the Judge is to accept at face value everything the Democrats said in their report. What happened to his respect for ALL the evidence?

  22. Please define torture; My grandson says eating broccoli is torture.
    My daughter ran a half-marathon and said the last half-mile was agony.

    : anguish of body or mind
    : agony
    : the infliction of intense pain (as from burning, crushing, or wounding) to punish, coerce, or afford sadistic pleasure
    : distortion or overrefinement of a meaning or an argument
    : straining

    I agree we should not kill or inflict permanent scars or injury, but when we have captured enemy combatants who may have information about others who are trying to kill us, I don’t believe we must be constrained by the weakest definition in the dictionary.

    1. When my stepdad was a POW in Japan during WWII they would often torture prisoners by tickling them to death. He and other survivors were never ticklish again. its all about levels.

    2. When my stepdad was a POW in Japan during WWII they would often torture prisoners by tickling them to death. He and other survivors were never ticklish again. its all about levels.

    3. The mental sloppiness and equivocations of those who do not want me to throw water on people’s faces when they behead children is truly amazing.

  23. In reality our government has probably always tortured our enemies its just that now the political hatred by the left to Bush has brought this out in another attempt to destroy his history and it may work. Now just because something has always been done does not make it right and maybe we should punish some people this time in order to make examples of them. I have a few caviats though, many countries were involved in this so if you punish one they will all have to come out of the shadows so i don’t think the world court will really do anything. but I also look at this from a different angle. My stepfather was POW in Japan and they did torture people everyone almost daily and their goal was not information they just tortured people and even experimented on them, My stepdad even testified against the Japanies after the war. In this case the CIA did only, if you believe them, tortured a few people that they thought could give them valuable information. Does that make it morallly correct? I haven’t decide completely yet but i would have to lean to the no side except in cases of imminent threat which there were none in this case.

  24. The release of this report is a bad time to have a discussion about torture. The report is nothing more than a grandstanding effort for loser politicians. It is total bull that Congress didn’t already know much if this information and the surprise and outrage is pathetic. Also, the idea that the interrogation techniques didn’t result in any valuable information is just wrong. If the methods weren’t working why did they keep doing them for years? It doesn’t pass the smell test.

    I think most of these interrogation techniques were over the line for the US, but I also think that almost all of the outrage is staged and it is a sorry sight to see Americans fall for the political posturing.

    1. “If the methods weren’t working why did they keep doing them for years?”

      Evidently, skunkman, because some of the high level officials in the CIA and government wanted to.

      The CIA’s own analysts had long ago determined that torture was an ineffective means by which to obtain useful/good intelligence.
      FBI agents likewise drew the same conclusions.

      Regardless, torture is illegal both internationally and according to our own nation’s laws, so its efficacy (or lack thereof) is immaterial.

    2. Your first paragraph (at least) is so true.

  25. In a free society in which the government works for us


    Whew! that was a good one.

    Seriously, replace “government” with
    “mafia” in the sentence above, and the ludicrous thinking Napolitano engages in here is exposed.

  26. When a country has to debate the morality of having used torture that country is not the United States I grew up in. I want my country back.

    1. Google pay 97$ per hour my last pay check was $8500 working 1o hours a week online. My younger brother friend has been averaging 12k for months now and he works about 22 hours a week. I cant believe how easy it was once I tried it out.
      This is wha- I do…… ??????

    2. Open your eyes – you think the United States just started tortuing people during the Bush years, or even in your lifetime?

      This kind of things has. always. happened. “Your country” has always been like this. It’s just that now, with the internet, digital media, etc., we are finding out about it much more often. “Ignorance is bliss” is thankfully becoming a more difficult way of life for people with rose-colored glasses and willful ignorance about how bad government has been, is, and will continue to be as long as we look the other way.

      1. Fine, so it happened in the past.

        I can’t change what happened in WWII, or Vietnam, but we can change what we do today.

        Bush, Chenney, Ashcroft and anyone else who knew what was going on are war criminals, pure and simple. They may be pikers compared with Sadam, Pol Pot, Hitler, Stalin or Mao, but it’s a matter of degree, not type.

        I too want my country back, and part one is returning to a point when at least publicly, it was not ok to argue in favor of barbarism as national policy.

        1. I think it is returning to a point where equivocations and dishonesty and appeals to emotion are not the basis of national policy.

        2. Your point of view is laughable. If you had the courage of your convictions, you would sell your house and give the money to the Indians & the Blacks and then you’d go back to the country from where your ancestors came, but you’re not going to do that so just shut up already and start rooting for the home team buddy.

    3. Didn’t you grow up when they were using napalm on villages?

    4. You mean the one that experimented on unknowing black men in the Tuskegee experiments?

  27. Let’s focus on the question of rights for a minute, separately from the question of effectiveness.

    “Torture violates all of those rights.”

    Imprisonment and other forms of punishment (fines, etc) for convicted criminals also violate what is are human rights (for innocent people).
    If the judge opposes torture on the ground of human rights, then should he oppose imprisonment too and declare himself a pacifist?

    It seems to me that a person who commits a crime relinquishes some rights (depending on the crime). An interrogator is allowed to do things that are generally not allowed (such as holding the person prisoner). It’s not clear how torture is categorically different.

    In any case, the interrogator should be held accountable. So if I imprison an innocent person, I should be subject to kidnapping charges. That is an important safeguard and feedback. That is clearly missing in the government justice system (as you’d expect from a monopoly on force and arbitration) as the essay points out (numerous failures to prosecute).

    1. It’s not a thoughtful or philosophical piece.

  28. As my friend C. Jung said, “It’s all fun and games until someone loses an eye, then it’s just fun.”

  29. BRAVO!

  30. If water boarding is torture and a crime, then ALL the mainstream news organizations newsroom bosses need to be arrested for subjecting their reporters to the torture they went under by being water boarded for their stories. This would also include prosecuting the military for water boarding our own soldiers as part of their training- I mean what kind of soulless, evil country would use torture in the training of their military??? Sheesh.

  31. Google pay 97$ per hour my last pay check was $8500 working 1o hours a week online. My younger brother friend has been averaging 12k for months now and he works about 22 hours a week. I cant believe how easy it was once I tried it out.
    This is wha- I do…… ??????

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.