WikiLeaks bolsters argument for ‘enhanced’ interrogation tactics

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 22, 2011 2:33 AM GMT
    http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2011/may/19/wikileaks-bolsters-argument-for-enhanced-interroga/
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 22, 2011 3:51 AM GMT
    It could be that the Washington post is blocking Canadians (some papers have started to do so) or it could be a broken link- but I get "DNS lookup failed."

    At any rate, I really do not need to read it. If you believe in "enhanced" interrogation you will love any story that says that it may have worked; even just once. If you believe that it is illegal and wrong, even if it helped find Osama (or whatever the article is claiming) you will still dislike it.

    For me, it is an abuse of another human being under the authority of a country that claims to be amongst the most progressive and wants to hold itself up as an example for all of the "backward" middle east nations to follow. Iran already has such techniques and really has nothing to learn about how to handle prisoners or human rights from the US.

    If you believe that it is alright to use "enhanced" techniques, I expect you to back the same methods if they are used on captured US troops and personal. I really don't expect to hear whining when a terrorist group accidentally kills a soldier while interrogating him (or her.) Hell, even journalists and tourists suspected of spying should be fair game and subject to "enhanced interrogation methods" as it apparently produces the most honest and truthful results.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 22, 2011 4:16 AM GMT
    west77 saidIt could be that the Washington post is blocking Canadians (some papers have started to do so) or it could be a broken link- but I get "DNS lookup failed."

    At any rate, I really do not need to read it. If you believe in "enhanced" interrogation you will love any story that says that it may have worked; even just once. If you believe that it is illegal and wrong, even if it helped find Osama (or whatever the article is claiming) you will still dislike it.

    For me, it is an abuse of another human being under the authority of a country that claims to be amongst the most progressive and wants to hold itself up as an example for all of the "backward" middle east nations to follow. Iran already has such techniques and really has nothing to learn about how to handle prisoners or human rights from the US.

    If you believe that it is alright to use "enhanced" techniques, I expect you to back the same methods if they are used on captured US troops and personal. I really don't expect to hear whining when a terrorist group accidentally kills a soldier while interrogating him (or her.) Hell, even journalists and tourists suspected of spying should be fair game and subject to "enhanced interrogation methods" as it apparently produces the most honest and truthful results.


    Link worked fine when I just tried it so maybe it is a canadian thing. And that's great that you know what it said WITHOUT reading it. Quite a dude you are if I might say. And just so you don't miss out, I'll cut and paste it just for you. Opps, formatting got all screwed up so I hope I was able to somewhat fix it.

    WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange's ongoing release of the Guantanamo Bay prison files, and large numbers of classified State Department cables, attempts to expose what he calls American corruption.

    But supporters of the George W. Bush administration's global war on terrorism say the nearly 800 Guantanamo files show that "enhanced" interrogations of hundreds of captured operatives at secret overseas prisons and at the Cuban prison amounted to one of the most successful intelligence operations in history.

    Before the interrogations, the U.S. knew little about al Qaeda in the immediate aftermath of the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks. Years later, the CIA and military had accumulated a large database of ongoing plots and the identities of terrorists, the WikiLeaks files show.

    "The WikiLeaks documents provide still additional evidence that intelligence gained from CIA detainees not only helped lead us to Osama bin Laden, it helped us disrupt a number of follow-on attacks that had been set in motion after 9/11," said Marc Thiessen, a former Bush speechwriter.
    "Without this program, we would not have gone nearly 10 years without another catastrophic attack on the homeland. This is quite possibly the most important, and most successful, intelligence program in modern times. But instead of medals, the people behind this program have been given subpoenas."

    He was referring to Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr.'s launch of a criminal investigation of CIA officers who conducted the "enhanced" interrogations, some of which the Obama administration has dubbed "torture."

    The killing of Osama bin Laden underscores the value of the vast intelligence database. The treasure trove of information includes the identities of terrorists operating abroad, plots to kill civilians and details on how al Qaeda used a network of couriers for clandestine communication.

    Public disclosure of the interrogation windfall began in April by the anti-secrecy website WikiLeaks, which obtained hundreds of classified U.S. reports on detainees written by Joint Task Force Guantanamo, the military unit in charge of the prison at U.S. Naval Base Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.

    As of Thursday, WikiLeaks had released 765 of 779 Gitmo files
    .
    The files show that prisoner Abu Farajal al-Libi, al Qaeda's No. 3 and a close aide to bin Laden, first disclosed the terrorist master's special courier to the CIA. It was the agency's ability to find and track the messenger that ultimately led a team of Navy SEALs to bin Laden's compound in Abbottabad, Pakistan, where he was killed early on May 2.

    Supporters of sending terrorist suspects to Guantanamo Bay — which the Obama administration has vowed to shutter, though its initial deadline has come and gone — for trials at military commissions say the prison provided a single collection point to assess and cross-check intelligence on an enemy the United States knew little about.

    "We learned a tremendous amount about the operation, not only in Afghanistan but the organizational structure and how they were operating outside the immediate combat area, for example in Europe," said retired Brig. Gen. Thomas L. Hemingway, the Pentagon's top legal adviser to the commissions' office during Guantanamo's early days.

    Gen. Hemingway recalled a case when the military command in Afghanistan was looking for a senior Taliban commander. Interrogators found a detainee who knew the suspect. The detainee drew a diagram of his compound. Aerial surveillance located the home and led to the commander's capture.

    "There was a lot of actionable intelligence that was developed down there for a long time," Gen. Hemingway said.

    Hunt for bin Laden

    In the hunt for bin Laden, the files show al-Libi provided critical information. The CIA used so-called enhanced-interrogation techniques on al-Libi but did not subject him to waterboarding — the most controversial of techniques, which also included stress positions, slapping, shaking and dousing captives with cold water

    "In July 2003, [al Libi] received a letter from [bin Laden's] designated courier, Maulawi Abd al-Khaliq Jan, requesting detainee take on the responsibility of collecting donations, organizing travel and distributing funds to families in Pakistan," the document stated.

    "[Bin Laden] stated detainee would be the official messenger between [bin Laden] and others in Pakistan. In mid-2003, detainee moved his family to Abbottabad, PK, and worked between Abbottabad and Peshawar."

    U.S. officials said the name provided to interrogators was false. But the intelligence added to the other bits of data that helped the U.S. learn how bin Laden planned to direct al Qaeda from Pakistan, the real name of his special courier and the connection of the group to Abbottabad, where the courier moved around 2006.
    The courier, who eventually led the U.S. to the compound unwittingly, was killed in the raid. The Obama administration has not identified that person's name.

    Other plots

    An earlier declassified CIA report on Sept. 11 mastermind Khalid Shaikh Mohammed reveals that he disclosed the identities of several operatives and the status of a number of planned attacks.

    One plan called for commandeering commercial airliners at London's Heathrow Airport. Authorities broke up the plot.

    Mohammed was one of three al Qaeda leaders waterboarded by the CIA. The Bush administration called it part of "enhanced" interrogations. The Obama administration has labeled it "torture."

    The leaked detainee files show that other ranking al Qaeda operatives provided a first-ever look inside the al Qaeda killing machine:

    • Ramzi Bin al-Shibh revealed how operatives gained visas to enter the West, often by gaining acceptance to an educational institute. If they were denied visas at U.S. embassies in the Middle East, they would try to gain entrance to Europe and apply from there.

    • A terrorist identified as Hambali, the leader of the al Qaeda-funded Islamiyah network in South Asia, provided extensive information on his terrorist contacts in Indonesia. Responsible for the 2002 Bali bombing that killed more than 200, Hambali disclosed the existence of the "Infraq Fisabillah" fund used to finance travel by terrorists to and from Pakistan for trainin
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 22, 2011 4:30 AM GMT
    link works well down here in Oz too.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 22, 2011 5:31 AM GMT
    west77 saidIt could be that the Washington post is blocking Canadians (some papers have started to do so) or it could be a broken link- but I get "DNS lookup failed."

    At any rate, I really do not need to read it. If you believe in "enhanced" interrogation you will love any story that says that it may have worked; even just once. If you believe that it is illegal and wrong, even if it helped find Osama (or whatever the article is claiming) you will still dislike it.

    For me, it is an abuse of another human being under the authority of a country that claims to be amongst the most progressive and wants to hold itself up as an example for all of the "backward" middle east nations to follow. Iran already has such techniques and really has nothing to learn about how to handle prisoners or human rights from the US.

    If you believe that it is alright to use "enhanced" techniques, I expect you to back the same methods if they are used on captured US troops and personal. I really don't expect to hear whining when a terrorist group accidentally kills a soldier while interrogating him (or her.) Hell, even journalists and tourists suspected of spying should be fair game and subject to "enhanced interrogation methods" as it apparently produces the most honest and truthful results.

    I have asked several devoutly liberal folks who opposed enhanced interrogation techniques what their desire would be if a terrorist were caught and boasted there was a nuclear device, maybe a dirty bomb, that would go off soon in a city where a family member lived. Some did not want to answer initially, claiming it was hypothetical. Responded that all planning is based on hypothetical circumstances. The real question was it it was plausible. So they answered, and the answer to the question specifically concerning waterboarding use if it appeared only possibility to break the terrorist to giving the details of the device. In all cases the answer was, yes, in a heartbeat. So I asked, if it is ok to waterboard for your family member, isn't it also ok for someone else's family member? They agreed.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 22, 2011 6:21 AM GMT
    socalfitness said
    I have asked several devoutly liberal folks who opposed enhanced interrogation techniques what their desire would be if a terrorist were caught and boasted there was a nuclear device, maybe a dirty bomb, that would go off soon in a city where a family member lived.... So I asked, if it is ok to waterboard for your family member, isn't it also ok for someone else's family member? They agreed.

    I will try to answer the above question. However, I would appreciate knowing if it is alright for Muslim countries to water board captured US troops and why (or, more likely, why not?)

    First, you have to realize that you are dealing with me- and I don't really "do" emotions. Having said that, if you hit my mother it is alright for me to beat you to a pulp. If somebody rapes my sisters kids I will track the offender down and the body will never be found; I may well torture the bastard for awhile prior to dispatching him.

    While this was going to be a long post I think that I will cut it a little short (though I may add to it in the future.) Suffice to say that regardless of whether or not I would want somebody tortured to disclose information that would save my family is irrelevant. The law, international treaties and society in general says that it is illegal and/or immoral. I may not take part in it and I may not order it no matter how strongly I feel.

    The reason that the law exists is to prevent any individual from justifying killing another in reaction to something that affects them personally. The law exists to separate emotion from action; to separate the wishes of the victim (or potential victim) from involvement in decisions.

    As stated above, if I find somebody who rapes my family members they will die. If I knew that somebody were holding a family member hostage (or, as in your example, planted a nuke) I would torture the hell out of them until I got the information. I would suffer the consequences for this; I would go to jail willingly.

    Having said that, I would not ask the state to torture the person; the law does not allow for such actions. While it is justifiable for an individual to wish for the opportunity for revenge or preemptive action it is not for the state to do so. The state has bound itself to uphold certain standards in treatment of prisoners. Treaties have been signed, laws passed and bills of rights written. I hold every state to a higher standard than individual people (or even myself) While I would be happy to torture somebody, the state must not give me the freedom to do so.

    International treaties and national laws are in place to prevent somebody like me from taking matters into my own hands (though as mentioned, I, personally would not hesitate if given the opportunity.)

    No doubt that does not answer your question. The short answer is that I would want the person water boarded but I would expect (and hope that) the state would refuse such an action regardless of my pleading. It is NOT alright to torture somebody for my family member, nor is it alright to torture for somebody else's family (unless I catch the bastard and can act outside of the law- in which case water boarding would be the most mild thing that individual might expect to be subjected toicon_wink.gif .)

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 22, 2011 7:09 AM GMT
    The link now works... apparently my connection went to pot for the last couple of hours (starting with trying to click the link.) Anyhow, I appreciate the full text being pasted. Nothing about my statement changes as it pretty much said exactly what I suspected it would.

    To give a short start to answer of water boarding, why stop there? If we know that the terrorist has the information, why use such pedestrian, mild forms of torture? Should we not perform genital mutilations and pull fingernails? What if we know that one out of 20 detainees likely has the information? Do we just torture each until we extract the information we need? Who tortures these men, and under whose authority? Do I get to pronounce the judgement? Is it the jailer? Perhaps a judge or panel of judges? What happens in the US run off shore prisons is not knowing that one suspect has certain information that will avert an imminent disaster. It is 500 detainees who may or may not have an important piece of a puzzle.

    All quotes below from http://www.hrweb.org/legal/cat.html
    For now, I will put up information for people who may be unaware of history. The US signed onto the convention against torture in 1984. That document reads, in part
    1. Each State Party shall take effective legislative, administrative, judicial or other measures to prevent acts of torture in any territory under its jurisdiction.
    2. No exceptional circumstances whatsoever, whether a state of war or a threat or war, internal political instability or any other public emergency, may be invoked as a justification of torture.
    3. An order from a superior officer or a public authority may not be invoked as a justification of torture.


    So now we are onto defining torture as point #2 makes it clear that there is no justification for torture. I will leave it to the lawyers to justify water boarding "only" being enhanced interrogation. It makes me wonder why, if it is only an interrogation technique, it is not used in American police stations? Although, it is interesting that the same treaty that the US (and 129 other countries have seen fit to sign) says
    Article 1
    For the purposes of this Convention, torture means any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him or a third person information or a confession, punishing him for an act he or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed, or intimidating or coercing him or a third person, or for any reason based on discrimination of any kind, when such pain or suffering is inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity. It does not include pain or suffering arising only from, inherent in or incidental to lawful sanctions.


    What if it is not REALLY torture? Besides, it is done in Cuba, so it must be alright. CAT provides for just such an occasion.
    Article 2
    Each State Party shall undertake to prevent in any territory under its jurisdiction other acts of cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment which do not amount to torture as defined in article 1, when such acts are committed by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity.
    As to the fact that it does not happen "in America"
    Article 5
    1. Each State Party shall take such measures as may be necessary to establish its jurisdiction over the offences referred to in article 4 in the following cases:
    2. When the offences are committed in any territory under its jurisdiction or on board a ship or aircraft registered in that State;
    3. When the alleged offender is a national of that State


    Now, if we conclude that water boarding is torture or goes against the spirit of the convention (I recognize that we will still cling to the official line that it is only an interrogation technique) we should look at what our signature on that document provides for.
    Article 4
    1. Each State Party shall ensure that all acts of torture are offences under its criminal law. The same shall apply to an attempt to commit torture and to an act by any person which constitutes complicity or participation in torture.
    2. Each State Party shall make these offences punishable by appropriate penalties which take into account their grave nature.


    I think I am done with quoting it for now. There is so much in that agreement that disallows torture or torture like actions whether in the US or offshore; regardless of the fact that it is preformed by Americans or Cubans and without regard to American law or justifications.

    I post this mostly because I doubt that most people have ever read what the international community agreed was "civilized" treatment back in 1984. I think most people are ignorant of international treaties. If the US wishes to engage in "enhanced" interrogation techniques, perhaps formally withdrawing form treaties such as the convention against torture would be a good move.. Oh, and the treaty provides for that- but America needs to do it BEFORE engaging in torture.
    Article 31
    1. A State Party may denounce this Convention by written notification to the Secretary-General of the United Nations. Denunciation becomes effective one year after the date of receipt of the notification by the Secretary-General.
    2. Such a denunciation shall not have the effect of releasing the State Party from its obligations under this Convention in regard to any act or omission which occurs prior to the date at which the denunciation becomes effective. Nor shall denunciation prejudice in any way the continued consideration of any matter which is already under consideration by the Committee prior to the date at which the denunciation becomes effective.

    Withdraw, continue water boarding, pull fingernails, bash rib cages and hook detainees to electroshock machines for all I care... just don't pretend to have "moral authority" while torturing other human beings and have the decency to publicly declare that you have no intention of adhering to the CAT and denounce it as unnecessary or even barbaric. Sort of like 1984 where NOT torturing would be barbaric because we might not have quite as much information at our disposal and there might me more terrorists running around. It is actually merciful to torture based on the fact that we might be able to avert a terrorist act by doing so...

    We have always been at war with Eastasia
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 22, 2011 4:16 PM GMT
    A few points.

    A primary goal of a government is to protect its citizens.

    Any enhanced interrogation techniques should be under strict control, whether or not they are labeled "torture".

    The argument that US military would be jeopardized is not credible. The terrorists commit whatever acts they choose without regard to our actions. The killings on 9/11, the beheadings of Daniel Pearl, Nick Berg, and others preceded waterboarding of the 3 terrorists.

    The Geneva Convention (1929) were signed under a different context and with different assumptions. The US could formally clarify our participation, but I don't think it is necessary. Specifically, the agreement was among governments. The assumptions were military members were acting under orders of their governments, not as individuals. The agreement was government to government, specifically my government will tread your soldiers as POWs humanely, and you will do the same. The terrorists are not acting as representatives of an established government. They are acting as individuals in concert with other individuals to create mass murder of civilians. I see no equivalence between members of armed forces and terrorists.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 22, 2011 4:34 PM GMT
    socalfitness saidA few points.

    A primary goal of a government is to protect its citizens.

    Any enhanced interrogation techniques should be under strict control, whether or not they are labeled "torture".

    The argument that US military would be jeopardized is not credible. The terrorists commit whatever acts they choose without regard to our actions. The killings on 9/11, the beheadings of Daniel Pearl, Nick Berg, and others preceded waterboarding of the 3 terrorists.

    The Geneva Convention (1929) were signed under a different context and with different assumptions. The US could formally clarify our participation, but I don't think it is necessary. Specifically, the agreement was among governments. The assumptions were military members were acting under orders of their governments, not as individuals. The agreement was government to government, specifically my government will tread your soldiers as POWs humanely, and you will do the same. The terrorists are not acting as representatives of an established government. They are acting as individuals in concert with other individuals to create mass murder of civilians. I see no equivalence between members of armed forces and terrorists.


    One can always rationalise dispensing with your so-called convictions.

    Character and ethics are the only things that prevent it, so don't kid yourself that you retain any shred of credibility. GWB will always be the US President who authorized torture. from that day ever onward, the US lost all moral credibility.

    the so called "inalienable right" of habeus corpus was suspended and you became everything you used to accuse the Soviets of being. your inalienable values are in fact malleable and no better than your traditional enemies.


    the only way the US could ever regain that moral high ground would be to surrender Bush & Cheney to the International Court of Justice for trial for the illegal invasion of Iraq since there is no provision under your laws to try them yourselves for LYING to the American people to send thousands off their kids off to their death.

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 22, 2011 5:04 PM GMT
    Upper_Canadian said
    socalfitness saidA few points.

    A primary goal of a government is to protect its citizens.

    Any enhanced interrogation techniques should be under strict control, whether or not they are labeled "torture".

    The argument that US military would be jeopardized is not credible. The terrorists commit whatever acts they choose without regard to our actions. The killings on 9/11, the beheadings of Daniel Pearl, Nick Berg, and others preceded waterboarding of the 3 terrorists.

    The Geneva Convention (1929) were signed under a different context and with different assumptions. The US could formally clarify our participation, but I don't think it is necessary. Specifically, the agreement was among governments. The assumptions were military members were acting under orders of their governments, not as individuals. The agreement was government to government, specifically my government will tread your soldiers as POWs humanely, and you will do the same. The terrorists are not acting as representatives of an established government. They are acting as individuals in concert with other individuals to create mass murder of civilians. I see no equivalence between members of armed forces and terrorists.


    One can always rationalise dispensing with your so-called convictions.

    Character and ethics are the only things that prevent it, so don't kid yourself that you retain any shred of credibility. GWB will always be the US President who authorized torture. from that day ever onward, the US lost all moral credibility.

    the so called "inalienable right" of habeus corpus was suspended and you became everything you used to accuse the Soviets of being. your inalienable values are in fact malleable and no better than your traditional enemies.


    the only way the US could ever regain that moral high ground would be to surrender Bush & Cheney to the International Court of Justice for trial for the illegal invasion of Iraq since there is no provision under your laws to try them yourselves for LYING to the American people to send thousands off their kids off to their death.

    That's your opinion, which you may share with many of your countrymen and other leftists in Europe, but I find it total bullshit, and I'm sure most of my fellow countrymen care not what your opinion of a moral highground is. I also belittle your opinion of sending Bush and Cheney to Europe. Not even worth discussing.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 22, 2011 5:52 PM GMT
    socalfitness saidA few points.

    A primary goal of a government is to protect its citizens.

    Any enhanced interrogation techniques should be under strict control, whether or not they are labeled "torture".

    The argument that US military would be jeopardized is not credible. The terrorists commit whatever acts they choose without regard to our actions. The killings on 9/11, the beheadings of Daniel Pearl, Nick Berg, and others preceded waterboarding of the 3 terrorists.

    The Geneva Convention (1929) were signed under a different context and with different assumptions. The US could formally clarify our participation, but I don't think it is necessary.

    I make no argument that the military would be jeopardized. What I am asking is "if it is alright for America to officially torture prisoners, can a country such as Iran torture American citizens?" Basically, I am asking you if the US can officially use torture on prisoners, can other countries use it against Americans without you getting upset when it hits the news.

    What I quoted was not the Geneva convention, but rather the convention against torture signed in 1985 and had nothing to do with nations, but rather a recognition of human rights and the fact that (at least, at that time) the signatories recognized that nobody should be tortured. If you read it, the document says that torture of your own citizens or anybody else is not permitted and leaves no loopholes.

    The CAT does not allow that because somebody was beheaded a nation may now torture prisoners... it does not allow for rationalization of torture even if thirty bombs were set off in "the father land".

    The CAT (which the US signed onto in 1985) does allow for the international community to judge the actions of the US and this is why the US should officially denounce the CAT. Torture all you like, but do so with the understanding that you no longer hold the values that the signature on the bottom of the CAT would suggest that you do...

    Finally, you make the point that "a primary goal of a government is to protect it's citizens." What if it is an American born terrorist? What if 10 people surrounding the Oklahoma city bombing had been arrested prior to the bomb being planted? Would it have been alright for the government to torture it's own citizens in order to protect others- or is it only alright to torture human beings if they are not from America?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 22, 2011 6:12 PM GMT
    They could have still tortured without legalizing it.... or starting two wars.... or bankrupting America.

    It was small-ops and not three trillion dollar wars that got Osama. This does NOTHING to excuse Obama or Bush.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 22, 2011 6:38 PM GMT
    This torture debate is just a BS right-wing attempt to steal some of the credit from President Obama for succeeding in getting bin Laden - where Bush failed.

    John McCain settled the matter:
    http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/05/12/us-binladen-usa-torture-idUSTRE74B6YR20110512

    Move on, right-wingers.
    You lost.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 23, 2011 7:19 AM GMT
    makavelli saidThey could have still tortured without legalizing it.... or starting two wars.... or bankrupting America.

    Actually, that is the point of the convention against torture. There is no way to torture any human being regardless of their country, their intentions or the information that you believe they may hold. There really is no way to torture provided that you are a signatory to the CAT and actually honour your commitments. Whether or not the national law is rewritten or allows for torture unless you denounce the CAT torture is (theoretically) off limits. As a side note, the full title of the Cat is the convention against torture and other cruel, inhumane, or degrading treatment or punishment.

    I understand the point you were making and I will not touch on the wars or the financial costs.. but the fact remains that so long as a signature remains at the bottom of the document a country is prohibited from torturing anybody.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 23, 2011 7:29 AM GMT
    I just love WikiLeaks, because it's all about freedom of speech.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 23, 2011 8:29 AM GMT
    True_blue_aussie saidI just love WikiLeaks, because it's all about freedom of speech.

    Completely agreed!