Third Soldier Charged With Rape, Murder (14yr old Iraqi girl)

[NVMojo]

(AP) The Army arraigned a 101st Airborne Division soldier Friday who was charged with raping and killing a 14-year-old Iraqi girl and killing three others in her family.

Pfc. Bryan L. Howard is accused of plotting in March to rape and kill the teenager in Mahmoudiya, a village about 20 miles south of Baghdad. Three other soldiers and a former Army private from the division's 502nd Infantry Regiment also face charges related to the attack.

Howard deferred entering a plea or scheduling a court-martial during the proceedings at Fort Campbell. Both his attorney, Cpt. Ryan Rosauer, and his father Lynn Howard in the audience, declined to speak to reporters.

more...

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/10/28/iraq/main2135...

[Ms. Clio]

1. so it seems the AP has decided that 14 years old is a "girl" not a woman

I hope the bastards fry.

[saigon68]

47. This guy didn't study hard SO HE ENDED UP IN IRAQ-NAM

LOL

I'll bet Chimpanzee Bush obtains arousal at the stories and thoughts of rape and murder that happened here

[uppityperson]

2. kick for children and families:Abeer, Hadeel, Fakhriya, Qassim

If convicted, well, I am not for the death penalty anyways, but hope they suffer. A lot.

[elocs]

3. Although I am against the death penalty,

being the father of a daughter who was also 14 at that time I would like to see those sorry excuses for human beings and our ambassadors on the ground in Iraq--HANGED.

[badgervan]

4. Ditto

More "winning the hearts and minds" - the bush/cheney/rove/rummy way. Doing a super job, boys. Just super.
And these thugs running this clusterf..k wonder why the rest of the world despises us now? I've had it with this crew - every damn one of these bush enablers belong behind bars. Right and Wrong aren't that tough to figure out.... let's hope enough voters remember this November 7.

[Name removed]

5. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

9. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Anakin Skywalker]

28. .

[Katzenjammer]

6. This is scapegoating.

This is a way for BushCo and his war-criminal general staff to say "see, we know the difference between killings that are okay and those that aren't. See! See!"

These grunts, who are expected to treat Iraqis as sub-human "hajis" and "insurgents" who have no right to resist the might of God's Real Army, are being scapegoated to save the higher-ups.

[uppityperson]

7. are you saying they should be charged and tried? Or that higher ups

should be charged and tried for their crimes also?

[Katzenjammer]

8. I'm saying that either the higher-ups should be brought to book or

(and you can't possibly imagine how much it turns my stomach to say this) these guys should go free. The very last thing on earth we should be doing is scapegoating the powerless, no matter how despicable their crimes. Maybe if we demanded that all be tried or none be, it would get people to think about exactly how and why the order-givers always get to walk away laughing.

[uppityperson]

10. if convicted of stalking Abeer, raping and mutilating her and killing her ma/pa/6 yo sister

and they should go free? How is holding them responsible for their crimes scapegoating? Just because Mr.bushandhisevilminions might not be charged, you think none of these criminals should?

I think each and every one should be held accountable, but none should go free just because all are not held accountable. Mrbush/etc are responsible for getting these guys over to Iraq. They are responsible for their alleged behavior in alleged crimes like this and need to be responsible.

[Katzenjammer]

11. well, we have different views.

As long as the peons can be scapegoated, the higher-ups are safe. If we want to change that, we have to start where the problem is, not continue the scapegoating. The whole point of scapegoating is that after the scapegoat has been sacrificed, all is well again and there's no problem.

[uppityperson]

12. I know what scapegoating is, having gone through Ollie North during my

younger years.

As for Ollie North and Raygun, Ollie sacrificed himself so the higherups could get away and that was totally wrong.

This case with Qasim's family is different in ways and similar in ways.

I don't see this case as scapegoating, since they are not being sacrificed to protect their higher ups, but held accountable for their alleged crimes. By what you seem to imply here, I can cheat and lie and do whatever I want with total impunity, so long as my higherups do so also.

But these guys need to be prosecuted and, if convicted, serve whatever they deserve. This does not in any way let the higher ups off the hook, is not scapegoating, but is taking the penalty for a horrific crime. Yes, they were put there in a criminal situation (Iraq occupation) by criminals, but they chose to allegedly behave in this terrible alleged manner and deserve what they have coming.

[Katzenjammer]

13. "This does not in any way let the higher ups off the hook, is not scapegoating"

I can only say/repeat that I disagree. It *does* let the higherups off the hook (when have they ever been brought to book in the USA?) and therefore *is* scapegoating. Scapegoats need not be innocent (cf. your mention of North). What makes them scapegoats is being designated the Official Bad Person that will justly suffer all the accumulated wrath and thereby provide emotional relief and a sense of closure to the community.

[uppityperson]

14. How does prosecuting these guys let the higherups off the hook?

These guys allegedly stalked, raped, mulitlated and murdered 2 adults, 2 kids. Holding them accountable for their crimes is needed. I do not believe that this will take away all the accumulated wrath at the USA's invasion and occupation of Iraq for most Iraqis, though I can see it giving the family/friends/community of the vicitims some faith that justice was done.

Do you seriously think that if these guys are prosecuted the Iraqis will be ok with the occupation, and any of us in the USA or world will be ok with not going after those responsible for the invasion/occupation?

[Katzenjammer]

16. By giving outraged USAians the feeling that Something Is Being Done

It's not the Iraqis the higher-ups have to worry about...it's *us*. When we hear of some atrocity like that, we start looking around for someone to hang. So the higherups immediately point fingers and say "Shuf! Shuf! There are the bad guys, they did it. Don't go looking at us. It's all THEM. THEY are the bad guys here. The ONLY bad guys. And we're gonna make sure they pay the FULL PRICE for our safety from your wrath."

It'll be Abu Ghraib all over again. A few peasants got nailed, the woman general in nominal but not operational charge of the prison got broken in rank, and all the guys who gave the orders walked away clean. There was no follow-through. The scapegoats were sacrificed, and all the sins of the truly guilty were expiated thereby.

It'll be Iran-Contra all over again...a few hirelings get a wrist-slap, and it's all over.

It'll be Mai Lai all over again...a peon does time, a damned brave man gets ostracised and dies young, and everyone else walks away laughing.

It'll be the Nürnberg show trials all over again, where an allowed defense against war-crime charges was that the Allies did whatever-it-was too.

[uppityperson]

18. Nope. It won't. This is different. Which higherups are being covered up for?

It is part of the same thing as Abu Ghraib, part of the whole Iraq occupation, but is also a crime on its own and these guys need to be held responsible. It seems what you are saying is that the people involved with Abu Ghraib should not be prosecuted unless their higher ups were also? I disagree, though see your point in that that did not go high enough. However, what higherups do you think these guys are being scapegoats for? Which higherups please?

Edited to add, would you rather Nothing be done about these young men unless Something is done about their superiors? And remember, the one who allegedly did the nastiest stuff was kicked out of military, sent home loose on the civiliam population. I think that little fact needs to continue to be spread far and wide also.

[Katzenjammer]

21. Which higherups? Let's start with the ones who lowered the standards

so that these guys could enlist. Then we can take a look at the generals in charge of the occupation and go on from there.

Do you recall hearing about the sign on Truman's desk? "The Buck Stops Here"? Well, we shouldn't be letting the higherups pass the buck. It should stop where they are unless they can demonstrate that they did all a reasonable person could do to make sure atrocities don't happen. Not all that was convenient, not all that didn't impede their "mission", but all, period. We should make sure that the FIRST thing we do is ignore their Bad-Applism ploy. They're in charge, they stand trial at The Hague. Once they're dealt with, move down. Sure, eventually get to the "apples"...but first get the ones above them that gave the orders or didn't give the orders or ignored the signs.

Unless we do that, we're ensuring that it will happen again and again, because the ones who give the orders will never have to pay.

[uppityperson]

23. I agree. Find and prosecute higherups IN ADDITION to these guys.

Don't stop with these guys that allegedly did these alleged crimes to these alleged dead people, but also go for the guys that recruited them, that let them in, that kicked out the alleged Stephen Green and set him loose on civilian population, the guys that are their bosses, the guys above them, all the way. Get them all. In addition to these alleged criminals.

[Bridget Burke]

19. "Nürnberg show trials" ?

Sorry, the crime was NOT done "under orders." I agree that those higher up should have answered for what happened at Abu Ghraib.

But the alleged rapists & murders need to answer for the very real rape & murders that were done. Nobody else.

[Katzenjammer]

22. "the crime was NOT done "under orders.""

Sorry that I wasn't more clear. My reference to Nürnberg was to the fact that the definition of "war crime" was completely conditional. Whether something was a war crime depended NOT on its nature, but on whether the Allies also did it. If the Allies did it, that made it okay. If only the Axis did it, it was a war crime.

[Marie26]

38. Are you seriously

saying that what they did wasn't a crime?

[Katzenjammer]

49. Of course not! I'm saying that they aren't the only perps.

But they're the only ones who will ever be punished.

Just as happened with the Abu Ghraib atrocities: a rather dull-witted young woman and a couple other peons were scapegoated and sent to prison so that the ones who gave the orders could walk away unscathed. And be promoted.

Ditto any number of other incidents in history. The peons get it in the neck, and the higherups go free.

[Marie26]

51. It's not the same

At all. Abu Ghraib & Haditha were soldiers acting in the course of their official duties, in a situation where superiors were or should have been aware of what was happening. This case involves some soldiers who hatched a plan among themselves, snuck out on their own to commit a crime, & a crime that was not in any way a part of their official duties. The army is not responsible. I don't get why you continue to insist that the army is more responsible than the men who decided to commit a rape & murder. I don't get why we should somehow blame the army for something these men decided to do on their own. You haven't presented ANY evidence that superiors knew, should have known, or had any involvement at all. So why are they more responsible than the actual criminals? I guess the concept of personal responsiblity doesn't matter? It's just a weird, weird argument. If these men committed rape & murder, they should be convicted for those crimes. That's it.

[Katzenjammer]

54. It *IS* the same. The commanders are always responsible.

They OWN the soldiers they command. Soldiers have no free time unless the commander gives it to them. Soldiers are not allowed to go anywhere unless their commander gives permission. If the commander wants to order it, he can have them standing guard duty 24 hours a day. He OWNS them.

And therefore he is responsible for what they do. And his boss owns him, and that goes all the way to the top.

It's the general in charge who decides whether it's okay to machine-gun a car full of kids that doesn't stop at a checkpoint. If that group of soldiers gets away with that crime, then the next car gets shot up if it doesn't stop fifty yards before the checkpoint. And the one after that if it doesn't stop fifty yards away and all the occupants crawl out on their bellies with their hands behind their heads. And so forth. It always gets worse, unless the commander sets clear standards and enforces them. And eventually some group decides that there really isn't a lot of difference between shooting kids because they moved and raping and murdering a girl because she was there. THEN everybody gets all outraged. But it started when the general didn't punish the killers at the checkpoint. The general (and the colonel, the major, the captain, the lieutenant, and the sergeant) always share the guilt, because it's their duty to see that nothing happens that they don't want to happen. If it happens, they allowed it.

[Name removed]

57. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Katzenjammer]

58. (self-deleted)

[kestrel91316]

52. "Scapegoating the powerless"............

ROFLMFAO............

Yeah, right. The higher-ups MADE me rape and kill that girl. I didn't want to, but they forced me! They forced an erection on me so I could do it!!!!!!!!!

[oblivious]

15. No this is not scapegoating. They allegedly did these particular crimes on their own.

Here's how my Oxford dictionary defines scapegoat:

"person who is blamed or punished for the wrongdoing of somebody else"

[uppityperson]

17. exactly, thank you.

I would add that scapegoating can also be punishing only some so others will get away with no punishment, but I don't see that this is happening in this case either. I want these alleged criminals brought to trial and, if convicted, suffer the consequences of their actions. I also want the bush administration to have the same thing happen. But, having 1 of these things happen does not rely on having the other happen.

[Katzenjammer]

24. Yes, it really is scapegoating.

That's the only word we have to describe punishing X to let Y off the hook. When we get our emotional catharsis by punishing only the peasants that did the deed rather than them AND the lords who set them up, there's no other word for it but scapegoating.

[uppityperson]

33. I wasn't aware that their recuiters/administration raped 14 yr olds

then mutilated them and murdered them and their parents and little sister. Whomever put these guys, especially the alleged Stephen Green there need to be punished IN ADDITION to these guys for the alleged crimes. Punishing them is in no way letting others off the hook, is in no way providing emotional catharsis for this crime. It is punishing those who allegedly did the crime.

[oblivious]

37. You need to find another word for what you want to say. They are NOT scapegoats.

Calling someone a scapegoat implies that they are innocent. They put a gun to the head of a 5-year-old girl and blew her brains out. They raped her 14-year-old sister, then shot and burned her. How can you possibly imply that it's not their fault, that they are only being punished for the errors of their leaders.

This is nonsense.


Merriam Webster: a. one that bears the blame for others b : one that is the object of irrational hostility

The Advanced Learner's Dictionary of Current English: one who is given all the blame or punishment for faults of which he is innocent, or for which he is only partly to blame

Wikipedia: The word is also used as a metaphor, referring to one who is blamed for misfortunes, often as a way of distracting attention from the real causes.

dictionary.laborlawtalk: someone punished for the errors of others

Wordnet Dictionary: a person or thing that is made to bear blame for others

Randomhouse.com: a person or group made to bear the blame for others or to suffer in their place

answers.com: One that is made to bear the blame of others.

epennypress.com: Someone made to take the blame or punishment for the errors and mistakes of others. Thesaurus: victim, dupe, patsy (slang), fall guy; whipping boy, sacrifice.

elook.org: someone punished for the errors of others

thefreedictionary.com: One that is made to bear the blame of others.

allwords.com: Someone made to take the blame or punishment for the errors and mistakes of others.

education.yahoo.com: One that is made to bear the blame of others.

[Katzenjammer]

43. There IS no other word. Note that none of the definitions you cite require

that the scapegoat be innocent. The only qualification for being a scapegoat is that, because of what is done to that individual, others get to walk away unharmed.

[oblivious]

56. Oxford: "scapegoat" - person who is blamed or punished for the wrongdoing of somebody else

dictionary.laborlawtalk: someone punished for the errors of others

Wordnet Dictionary: a person or thing that is made to bear blame for others

Randomhouse.com: a person or group made to bear the blame for others or to suffer in their place

answers.com: One that is made to bear the blame of others

Look, the origin of the word is the goat the rabbi loaded up with the town's sins and sent out to wander in the desert. The goat was not responsible in any way for the sins of the people. You just can't say this about the evil fucks that committed these crimes.

You can't use a word incorrectly just because you can't find the proper word for dual guilt. Your use of it implies that they do not deserve to be prosecuted for rape and murder - but that all of their superiors belong there instead.

This a repulsive attempt to absolve them of responsibility for a heinous rape and multiple murder.

[Katzenjammer]

59. "just because you can't find the proper word"

Why don't you find the proper word, then, if you think it exists. I don't intend to hold my breath til you do, though, because I've already found that word: scapegoat.

Someone can be both guilty on their own account AND used as a scapegoat to protect others. Why is that a hard idea to grasp?

[The Stranger]

20. They don't escape responsibility for raping children because of the chain of command.

They are responsible in addition to those also responsible up the chain of command.

[Katzenjammer]

25. And we need to start at the top, not the bottom (nt)

[The Stranger]

26. No, actually you start at the bottom.

You need those at the bottom to get those at the top. Otherwise, all of them skate.

[Katzenjammer]

27. Tell me when starting at the bottom has ever led to the top in the US

If it starts at the bottom, it stops there.

[MetaTrope]

29. That's like saying

Ronald Reagan, governor of California at the time, should have been prosecuted for the Manson Family murders?

[uppityperson]

30. no, it's like saying Manson should get released, cause Ronnie never got

prosecuted for his crimes. After all, if those at the top don't get prosecuted for their crimes, those under them shouldn't. I think that is what the poster is saying. I think they all should, and even if some don't, the others should.

[Katzenjammer]

31. I wasn't aware that Reagan had anything at all to do with putting Manson

in a position to commit those crimes. Was Reagan in authority over Manson? Did Reagan create and support an environment in which killing is the norm, and I just didn't know that?

Or is this a strawman?

[uppityperson]

32. no, it is snarking between a couple of us since you refuse to understand

that prosecuting these guys is in addition to prosecuting higher ups. That both need to be done, that these guys should not be given a free pass if their higher ups do. It is called frustrated snarking, not a strawman.

[Katzenjammer]

36. "you refuse to understand"

No, I don't "refuse to understand", I refuse to believe that we would ever start at the bottom and work our way up, as you continue to assert we would. There is no evidence for that ever having happened, but you appear to be asserting that this time it would and even if it didn't it'd be no big deal.

To me it damned well IS a big deal, and I don't want to pretend that another round of "purge the Bad Apples" will make everything okay again. I don't want to rely on "should", I want either to start at the top and work down...or damned well not start at all.

Let's be clear, shall we, about what we're doing when we hang the person that committed the rape and pulled the trigger but let the ones go free whose absolute duty it was to prevent rape and trigger-pulling.

[uppityperson]

40. So let everyone rape, mutilate, murder with impunity...

unless those higher up are made to stand for their crimes? No way.

I am asserting that the people who allegedly did this alleged crime need to be held responsible. I am not saying that this makes everything hunky dory. I am not saying that this would make those in higher power be tried for their crimes BUT these guys need to be held responsible ALSO. Please look at post #38 above as I agree with this poster.

[uppityperson]

41. I am not asserting any such thing as you continue to claim.

You are reading what you want into what I say, rather than seeing what I say. I have never asserted that we should start at the bottom and work our way up as you continue to accuse me of doing. Have you read, do you understand, the "in addition" that I and others keep posting? Have you read us writing that these guys need to be held responsible for their crime IN ADDITION to the higher ups also being held responsible for their crimes?

Who are you arguing with? Who is asserting what you say they are as it sure as heck isn't me?

[Katzenjammer]

42. "Have you read, do you understand, the "in addition"?"

Sure. But before that's anything more than a pious "counsel of perfection", you have to point to examples where we started at the bottom and did actually work up to the top malefactors. I can point to (and have done) plenty examples where we started at the bottom and stopped at the bottom. Your turn.

What's your problem with making it a requirement that we start at the top and work down? The only reason I can think of that such a requirement would bother you is that you know that nobody is ever going to go after the guys at the top. You want someone to go down for it, and you're okay with having it be a scapegoat. I'm not. I want them all to go down for it, and am less opposed to letting everyone walk away than to accepting a scapegoat. At least there's a chance, however small, that if everyone walked away the public outrage would be enough to force changes. With scapegoats, there will never be changes because that's the whole purpose of scapegoats.

[uppityperson]

46. Argue with someone else.

bullshit. Personal responsibility.

[uppityperson]

48. Let's try an example

say someone works for a company whose boss is involved with shady dealings and while this person is out running an errand, let's say picking up illegal betting tickets, he/she decides to rob a bank. Now, should he/she be responsible for this crime? Or should he/she not be held responsible until his/her boss is also?

Would he/she be a scapegoat? Or would he/she be responsible for his/her crime AND his/her boss be responsible for theirs? How would this person be a scapegoat since he/she committed his/her own crime, on their own, and the boss committed his/her own crime, on their own? Who is taking the fall for whome?

Now, would you, Katzenjammer, want this person free, out in the regular world, working wherever because his/her boss wasn't charged yet? Expand "robbing a bank" to gratuitously stalking, raping, mutilating a 14 yr old, and blowing off the back of a 7 yr old's head, along with their parents. Are you seriously saying that it is ok for these guys to be free IF their superiors are not charged?

[Name removed]

53. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[The Stranger]

34. Our story begins: once upon a time there was a man named Ken Lay . . .

[KansDem]

35. They can think about it as they fall through the trap door

94 Americans were executed for rape and murder during World War II. If found guilty, chalk up 3 more for the Bush Invasion of Iraq.

The Execution of Pvt. Eddie Slovik

[Selatius]

39. With respect to rape, these soldiers have no one else to blame but themselves

If you want to blame somebody for starting the war in the first place, blame the White House and the politicians who enabled the bloodshed, but in specific cases where the evidence is beyond a reasonable doubt that several individuals committed a particular crime, such as raping and killing a family, you cannot escape the blood on your hands, and blaming Bush won't absolve you of your own crimes.

If these soldiers did it on a whim, then it would be far more difficult to indict, say, colonels and majors up the chain of command than it would be if they, for instance, ordered crimes to be committed against civilians. That would constitute a war crime, and if this were 1945 again, they'd hang for their crime.

I believe there are mitigating factors though. Mental conditions of these soldiers should be examined. Doing two or three tours of duty in a war zone is not healthy for the mind. If mental ailments can be proven to be present during the commission of these crimes, then, for instance, what would be considered a 30 year sentence for murder could be cut by several years or more.

[MetaTrope]

44. I still think the "Manson Family" analogy fits

This wasn't one or two soldiers going on a little bugfuck spree...this was half a dozen soldiers who planned and carried out together the rape and murder of an entire family. I don't think the "military culture" alone is enough to generate that.

[LanternWaste]

50. Every man's duty is to the King, but every man's soul is his own

I tend to agree with your post. Although I am usually hesitant to play "what if", I absolutely believe that regardless of what I am pressured to do by man or environment or any extreme situation, I simply would know better than to rape. I would go so far as to conjecture that I would, in fact refuse a direct order to engage in such activity.

As Shakespeare wrote, "...every man's duty is to the King, but every man's soul is his own."

[Katzenjammer]

55. Check Kohlberg's ethical development model

He found that most people never develop standards that are more universal than those of their community. So if their community develops ugly standards (like treating Black people or Jews or Palestinians as sub-humans, for example), those become their standards too, and they're happy to take part in the lynchings or the pogroms or the rapes or whatever.

[LanternWaste]

60. individual may make the conscious decision to reject ethical aberrations

However, the individual may make the conscious decision to reject ethical aberrations if they are in direct opposition to the moral code he had hitherto held growing up, if he allows his judgment to remain unclouded.

I certainly do not believe that anyone in the West believes that rape is part and parcel of the moral standard. I'd go so far in fact as to state that individuals who do indeed engage in that practice either work hard at justifying their actions to themselves, or simply suppress and deny the code of ethics we as a society hold-- but in neither case do I believe that that person actually believes that rape is conduct of a high moral standard.

The examples you mentioned (anti-Semitism and slavery) were both part of the cultural fabric for many, many generations. Hence, the individuals of those societies were brought up to believe that anti-Semitism and slavery were indeed "good" things. They were in fact, rewarded (whether directly or indirectly) for such behavior.

The same does not hold true in this case. The accused were not brought up in an environment which encourages, condones or tolerates rape as part of the cultural mores. Therefore, they are indeed acting directly against what they "know" to be right.

[Katzenjammer]

62. "they are indeed acting directly against what they "know" to be right"

Subcultures often re-socialize their members, though. Especially when they feel separated from and threatened by the larger society and its norms. (Like the us-against-them cops who feel no remorse after killing someone who, objectively, wasn't really a threat)

[LanternWaste]

64. I perceive the situation as merely an aberration from the norm

"Subcultures often re-socialize their members"


I would need to see direct and relevant evidence (not anecdotal) of your posit in this particular scenario. Otherwise, I perceive the situation as merely an aberration from the norm.

[Katzenjammer]

66. Which norm, though?

As for providing evidence of resocialization, I don't think I'm being glib in suggesting that we already have all we need. Resocialization by the military is one of the most profound cases we have...maybe THE most profound. With the exception of a vanishingly small number of cases, parents do not socialize their kids to be killers. Yet the military succeeds in resocializing a disturbingly large percentage of its recruits such that they will kill not in the heat of passion or in defense, but simply as part of their job. Roll out of the sack, have breakfast, kill fifty people, have dinner, watch a film, hit the sack. That's a terrifying achievement.

What we're seeing with these criminals is that the military did only part of their job. These felons learned their lesson --that Iraqis are not to be treated with respect, and can be killed pretty much with impunity as long as there's a fig leaf. But by teaching them that lesson, resocializing them to be able to kill without remorse, the military hierarchy obligated itself to provide the brakes on their behavior that the soldiers, by design, no longer have. (Smedley Butler wrote about military resocialization in War is a Racket, pointing out that the kleptocrats only spend money to create killers, they never spend a penny to un-create them afterwards.)

[LanternWaste]

65. Dupe n/t

Dupe

[uppityperson]

61. and, by your reckoning, they should not be prosecuted until the leaders are

since prosecuting those who actually DO the rapes or murders never stops anything, so long as their superiors, who helped set up those standards, are still free. What do you do for work? Where do you live?

[Name removed]

45. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[saigon68]

63. Adios