It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

The Torture Argument - Please Read!

page: 1
2
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 25 2009 @ 04:56 AM
link   
Hello All,

What I'm about to say has probably already been mentioned in the two existing threads regarding US Torture and Waterboarding, however I felt it necessary to create a new thread to convey my points.

Firstly, it is a well known fact that if you torture someone, either physically or mentally, long enough and put them under enough stress they will do whatever it takes to make that stop. This is obviously problematic as this can/will/does result in false confessions.

That leads rise to a situation where we have a genuinely innocent individual giving false confessions - this individual is then going to be punished accordingly, I'll admit this is unacceptable.

What can we do to stop the above situation happening? Well obviously we need to be sure that the individual is actually guilty of some crime in the first place, how we can achieve that I'm not particulary sure.

Then I'd suggest that the punishment fits the crime, again this is problematic though i.e. The individual is guilty and suspected of two seperate incidents however only admits to the lesser charge.

The above situation is the reason why torture is used in the first place, to try and gain information from a subject that is unwilling to come forward with themselves. This information usually could affect the lives of hundreds of thousands of people or is important in putting the relevant people to justice.

Now my main argument is this; I have a massive, massive problem with those individuals who say Torture should be made illegal. Let's make the situation a little subjective for those who oppose, would you still be saying torture was illegal if your son or daughter was a victim of a terrorist attack?

How about if you arrived home from work and a terrorist/kidnapper was in the process of leaving a ransom note but your son/daughter had already been taken by his accomplices?

The ransom note reads that you have 24 hours to pay a ransom of £100,000 or your son/daughters throat will be cut.

Please tell me what you would do if you was in the room with the arrested kidnapper and he wasn't telling you the location of your child? Would you politely inform him he wasn't being very fair and could he please let you know where your kid was? Get real!

There was a program on TV a couple of weeks back and the discussion was centered around torture. Some women was saying that torture was unacceptable and it shouldnt go on, then she was asked the above question - what if it was your little Jack or Anne they had taken?

Her reply "Well thats different on a personal level isn't it? We all can't go around doing it"

Well my reply to that is "What about everyone else little Jack or Anne?"

It was almost as if this women was implying that as long as her children were fine then she didn't really care!

At the end of the day I do not approve or condone innocent people being tortured, I don't particulary believe its right to "torture" individuals by stripping them naked and making them sit on each other.

An applicable level of torture techniques used on an individual that produces results and information is perfectly acceptable to me. People need to get off their high horses.

Oh and by the way, didnt the CIA come forward the other day and said these techniques worked? That they got the information they needed and it was correct?

Please don't say something like "two wrongs don't make a right" I'm sorry but if said wrong saves the lives of 100,000 people, heck even the life of 1 person then its perfectably acceptable to me. It doesn't even seem like a wrong then, and remember if the terrorist/criminal hadn't been doing what they did in the first place then they wouldn't of been tortured would they?

Something else to point out is that we're talking about Torture here, yet what have we seen? Some pictures of people naked standing in front of a dog? A picture of someone covered in excrement?

There was an article on the BBC news website that other day listing "CIA Torture Techniques" One of them said "Belly Slap - A open palmed slap to the stomach intended on causing shock and pain"

The Belly Slap?!?!? Thats torture??? If you want to know what real torture is then read Bravo Two Zero by Andy McNabb and listen to what the Iraqi's did to him. Electrocuted, burned with a parafin lamp, teeth pulled out with pliers, beaten with wooden bats and whips, fed his own excrement... etc THATS TORTURE!

In closing I want to summarise; I don't approve of innocent individuals being tortured and I don't approve of going beyond whats nescessary for an individuals own pleasure or sadistic fantasy.

But I truly cannot understand people defending the rights of others who intend to hurt, maim and kill others. Put it this way if your son/daughter was a victim or about to become one, you WOULD want the evil son of a bitch standing naked next to a snarling german shephard if it gave you the result you needed.












[edit on 25/4/09 by Death_Kron]




posted on Apr, 25 2009 @ 05:41 AM
link   
perhaps the biggest problem torture brings up is if you torture you give your enemy a blank check to torture also.When you torture you no longer hold the moral high ground.You lower yourself to his level so in fact you are no better than he is.I have no doubt there are innocent people that have been tortured and there will be more however I still don't see it as being right.One mans terrorist is anothers freedom fighter.The genieva conventions are trying to stop this but if you have the biggest gun you do as you please.You just can't expect to see the people in other countrys to hold trials on your enemy when you are as immoral as he is.You have to use your own kangaroo court which bush also tried to set up.
As far as it applys to your own family of course that will change things.It's a natural thing to seek revenge for something being done to you and yours.The question is does that make it right?



posted on Apr, 25 2009 @ 05:47 AM
link   
reply to post by pooty
 


Thats a good answer and I agree to a certain extent about having the higher moral ground. Unfortunately, the war on terror will not be won by being more ethical or moral.

It is a natural instinct to seek revenge however this is were some people are getting confused. We are not "torturing" terrorists for revenge, its being done to extract information to prevent further loss of life.

I'll agree that this power maybe abused at times and some people might take the law into their own hands (the torturers) as at the end of the day they are human too and feel emotion like that rest of us.

I'd like to point out though I would have no problem commiting a violent action against someone if I knew that given half the chance they would do the same or worse to me and smile while they were doing it. But thats just me...



posted on Apr, 25 2009 @ 07:26 AM
link   
reply to post by Death_Kron
 



Unfortunately, the war on terror will not be won by being more ethical or moral.


I think this is where you are dead wrong. The war on terror is an ideological conflict.
The only way that you will ever remove the threat of terrorism is by "winning hearts and minds". By not making them hate you anymore.

As long as America is viewed as an evil aggressor in the Middle East there will be people willing to blow themselves up for a cause, out of hatred desperation or what have you.

Torturing people will only continue the cycle of hatred and prove to any potential terrorists that America is indeed evil and should be destroyed.



posted on Apr, 25 2009 @ 09:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by Death_Kron
Firstly, it is a well known fact that if you torture someone, either physically or mentally, long enough and put them under enough stress they will do whatever it takes to make that stop. This is obviously problematic as this can/will/does result in false confessions.

Setting the moral implications aside, this is the main problem with torture. The person being tortured will eventually say ANYTHING to get the torture to stop at that moment, even knowing that it may begin again later if the information is false.


That leads rise to a situation where we have a genuinely innocent individual giving false confessions - this individual is then going to be punished accordingly, I'll admit this is unacceptable.

What can we do to stop the above situation happening?

Absolutely nothing. There is no way to fix something so inherently flawed.


Well obviously we need to be sure that the individual is actually guilty of some crime in the first place, how we can achieve that I'm not particulary sure.

We can't. So we must be willing to knowingly torture potentially innocent people in hopes that they may be guilty.


Then I'd suggest that the punishment fits the crime, again this is problematic though i.e. The individual is guilty and suspected of two seperate incidents however only admits to the lesser charge.

So to advocate torture, you must assume guilt until proven innocent.


The above situation is the reason why torture is used in the first place, to try and gain information from a subject that is unwilling to come forward with themselves. This information usually could affect the lives of hundreds of thousands of people or is important in putting the relevant people to justice.

Please keep in mind that torturing someone for information NEVER has anything to do with bringing them to justice.


Now my main argument is this; I have a massive, massive problem with those individuals who say Torture should be made illegal. Let's make the situation a little subjective for those who oppose, would you still be saying torture was illegal if your son or daughter was a victim of a terrorist attack?

Just curious but where do we stop?
Let's say the terror suspect will not break in time to prevent a bombing that will kill 1000 people. Now lets say the terrorist will make a deal that if we round up 500 innocent people off the street and torture them in front of him, the way he wants them tortured, until they're dead and on live TV.
Let's say
200 women
200 men
100 children
Once they're all tortured to death, he'll tell you where the bomb is. What do you do?
It's easy to balance 1 life against 1000 but what happens when it gets stickier?
surely only 500 deaths is worth 1000 saved right? Seriously, what would you do? Knowing one of those 500 might be a friend, family member, co-worker, etc.. ???


Please tell me what you would do if you was in the room with the arrested kidnapper and he wasn't telling you the location of your child?

Do you really want to go down this road?
If you can justify torture this way, where does it stop? Are you suggesting that during kidnapping cases, we should torture all suspects?
What about large drug cases? Let's say a shipment of drugs comes in and it' killing 100's of people. This has actually happened. And you have 20 potential suspects. Is it ok to torture 19 innocent ones to get to 1 guilty? because that is what you're laying out.


At the end of the day I do not approve or condone innocent people being tortured,

But if you condone torture in general, that is EXACTLY what will happened. There will be innocent people tortured and there is no way around it.


I don't particulary believe its right to "torture" individuals by stripping them naked and making them sit on each other.

But that's part of it. You can't have your cake and eat it too.


An applicable level of torture techniques used on an individual that produces results and information is perfectly acceptable to me. People need to get off their high horses.

The problem is that torture is not nor has it ever been a reliable way of obtaining intelligence.


Oh and by the way, didnt the CIA come forward the other day and said these techniques worked? That they got the information they needed and it was correct?

Did they post the details that prove their statement? NO. So we're left to believe them. Do you believe the CIA is honest enough to NOT cover their butts not that the smell the change in the wind?

Here's a bit of information that might help

Secret Justice Department memos, released last week ...
...They also note that nonviolent tactics more often were successful than violence.



"The scientific community has never established that coercive interrogation methods are an effective means of obtaining reliable intelligence information," former military interrogation instructor and retired Air Force Col. Steven M. Kleinman wrote in the Intelligence Science Board report. "In essence, there seems to be an unsubstantiated assumption that 'compliance' carries the same connotation as 'meaningful cooperation.'"



In short: Slam someone up against the wall, keep him awake for days, lock him naked in a cell and slap his face enough, and he will probably say something. That doesn't necessarily make it true.



Elsewhere in the Justice Department documents, there are suggestions that the toughest tactics weren't always the most successful. Of the 94 terrorist suspects in the CIA program, only 28 were subjected to "enhanced" methods, the documents said. That means two out of three detainees gave up valuable intelligence in simple interviews.



When the CIA decided to use waterboarding — a tactic that simulates drowning — officials ended up using it far more than intended. Abu Zubaydah was waterboarded at least 82 times in August 2002, the documents said. Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, the admitted mastermind of the 9/11 attacks, was waterboarded 183 times in March 2003.



"You keep thinking, 'Maybe one more time, and one more time," Rejali said, explaining how interrogators ramp up their methods even as their effectiveness wanes.



The lawyers sidestepped some thorny questions, such as the consequences of using tactics the U.S. has condemned in Egypt, Iran and Syria. They repeatedly approved the interrogation policies.

news.yahoo.com...


and remember if the terrorist/criminal hadn't been doing what they did in the first place then they wouldn't of been tortured would they?

Assuming they know they have the right individual.
as example:

Arar was detained during a layover at John F. Kennedy International Airport in September 2002 on his way home to Canada from a family vacation in Tunis. He was held in solitary confinement in the United States for nearly two weeks, questioned, and denied meaningful access to a lawyer. The US government suspected him of being a member of Al Qaeda and deported him, not to Canada, his current home, but to his native Syria, even though its government is known to use torture.[5] He was detained in Syria for almost a year, during which time he was tortured, according to the findings of the Arar Commission, until his release to Canada.[6]

The government of Canada ordered a commission of inquiry which concluded that he was tortured.[7] The commission of inquiry publicly cleared Arar of any links to terrorism, and gave him a C$10.5 million settlement.[8] The Syrian government reports it knows of no links of Arar to terrorism.

Despite the Canadian court ruling, the United States government has not exonerated Arar and, on the contrary, has made public statements to state their belief that Arar is affiliated with members of organizations they describe as terrorist. As of February 2009, Arar and his family remain on a watchlist. His US lawyers at the Center for Constitutional Rights are currently pursuing his case, Arar v. Ashcroft, which seeks compensatory damages on Arar’s behalf and also a declaration that the actions of the US government were illegal and violated his constitutional, civil, and international human rights.

Arar was detained during a layover at John F. Kennedy International Airport in September 2002 on his way home to Canada from a family vacation in Tunis. He was held in solitary confinement in the United States for nearly two weeks, questioned, and denied meaningful access to a lawyer. The US government suspected him of being a member of Al Qaeda and deported him, not to Canada, his current home, but to his native Syria, even though its government is known to use torture.[5] He was detained in Syria for almost a year, during which time he was tortured, according to the findings of the Arar Commission, until his release to Canada.[6]

The government of Canada ordered a commission of inquiry which concluded that he was tortured.[7] The commission of inquiry publicly cleared Arar of any links to terrorism, and gave him a C$10.5 million settlement.[8] The Syrian government reports it knows of no links of Arar to terrorism.

Despite the Canadian court ruling, the United States government has not exonerated Arar and, on the contrary, has made public statements to state their belief that Arar is affiliated with members of organizations they describe as terrorist. As of February 2009, Arar and his family remain on a watchlist. His US lawyers at the Center for Constitutional Rights are currently pursuing his case, Arar v. Ashcroft, which seeks compensatory damages on Arar’s behalf and also a declaration that the actions of the US government were illegal and violated his constitutional, civil, and international human rights.
en.wikipedia.org...



posted on Apr, 25 2009 @ 10:00 AM
link   
reply to post by Death_Kron
 

I think we should ban torture, not to protect the guilty as much as to protect the innocent.

In addition, since the bush administration has shown that they were willing to torture, it opened the door for the excuse, when our soldiers are captured, the slim chance they might have received reasonable treatment is just gone.

The Geneva Convention is important for a reason.



posted on Apr, 25 2009 @ 10:23 AM
link   
I just dont think you can get reliable info from torture. KSM confessed to crimes he could not have committed because he was in custody during the time. Waterboarding is a pretty nasty technique, I think I would admit to anything if they tried that on me.



posted on Apr, 25 2009 @ 10:31 AM
link   
reply to post by jfj123
 


So, what's one of these "interviews" supposed to sound like?

"Mr. Khalid Sheik Mohammed, thank you for joining us this morning. Some coffee or maybe a Coke before we begin? Oh, and I'm sorry. Yeah...you'll have to remove the headphones from your iPod. Yeah, it's a rule. I agree, and on behalf of the entire United States government and the President himself, let me apologize that someone didn't explain that in advance.

Oh, I agree...that Lady Gaga really has it going on. Nonetheless, please, you'll have to take off the headphones. But remember, you're signed up for our "Spa Sensation" right after luncheon. Hey - what would a massage be without a little music? You can listen then. OK? Good.

Now Mohammed. Can I call you Mohammed? About this whole September 11 situation, Mohammed. Would you mind telling me who planned the unfortunate event?... Oh, don't be silly. It's fine if you say you don't know. All we want is what you know to be the truth. We'd hate to have you feel that you must lie or unjustly point the finger at any of your friends. Hey, it ain't right for a guy to rat out his friends -- am I right? C'mon, Sheiky...am I right?

...So, really, you don't know anything? Nothing?...Hmmm.What about -- oh. Not that, either, huh? Or maybe you could tell me about the guy who -- really? Yikes. Screwed that one up, too. We thought you knew him.

Yes, that's right! "Our bad!" Ha, ha! Good one! ...Yes! "L-O-L!!!" You've got quite a sense of humor!

Hey, I've enjoyed this. And we hope our time together hasn't been an imposition in your day. And we certainly do appreciate that you pulled yourself away from your prep work for your appearance on Oprah. Well, look. Why don't we meet up tomorrow and talk a bit more then. Maybe, just maybe, you might remember something about September 11 and we can spend a few minutes talking about it.

What's a good time for you? Oh, heck yes. Check your activity schedule and get back to me. ...OK. Your "people" will get back to me. Whatever works for you."

Sure. I'd be glad to validate your parking...What do you think we are? Infidels?"

I wish we could live in a fairy tale world where things like torture where unnecessary but we dont! And if it means i have to lock someone in a dark cell or place bugs in a cell or make them think there drowning to get someone to talk im ok with that.



posted on Apr, 25 2009 @ 10:32 AM
link   
My simple question about all of this torture bs is this. WHY not just give them a hefty dose of kedamine(SP?) and wait for them to start to come to then ask them what ever you want they will answer trust me!
Problem solved no one get's beat water boarded and otherwise damaged.



posted on Apr, 25 2009 @ 10:48 AM
link   
reply to post by jfj123
 


Extremely well said! I'd give you 50 stars if I could, but alas, we'll have to settle for one.

Torture is no more about getting good information than rape is about getting sex. Torture is merely a coward's way of demonstrating some form of control over 'bad' people.

Yeah, all kinds of scenarios can be dreamed up where one might justifiably torture someone. But to have it as a national policy is a disgrace and an embarrassment and puts the US on the same level as all the other tin horn dictator countries that use this approach.

Of all the disasters that the Bush mis-administration visited on us, the embrace of torture may well be the worst. And it is Obama's biggest failing so far that he has not told the DOJ to conduct a real, serious investigation into the matter, and prosecute everybody who broke the law, politics be damned.

I don't care who ends being implicated and prosecuted. Everybody that broke the law (domestic and international, btw) needs to be prosecuted and punished. I don't care who they are. All of them.



posted on Apr, 25 2009 @ 10:54 AM
link   
Some things they call torture are not torture.

In veitnam when we wanted to get VC to talk we would line up about 10 on a helicopter landing area.

Then we would pick one and take him for a ride.

At about 1000 feet the ones left on the ground would see a body fly out of the helicopter and splat into the jungle.

Now all of you may think that we threw the VC out to his death.

But it was a carefully staged show.

What really happened was that the VC that went up in the helicopter was a south Vietnamese soldier dressed as and acting as a VC.

What the VC on the ground saw was a dummy that we had hidden in a compartment in the helicopter.

Once the bird was in the air we would hide the fake VC in the compartment and drop the dummy for all the VC on the ground to watch,

Then we would land and the VC on the ground would see that the VC we took for a ride was no longer on board.

The next step was to take the remaining VC back to a hut and tell them they might be next unless they talked.

We would them split them up so that any that wanted to talk could without the other VC knowing.

90% talked and know one ever was hurt.

Was that torture. i will guarantee that the VC on the ground thought it was.

Then there was the fishing trips where the VC was put in a full body harness
then hung by 100 ft steel cable from the cargo hook of a helicopter.

Then we would take him for a ride out over the ocean to a area where the sharks milled in a group.

What the VC did not know was that some of us would us the same setup to bare foot water ski in the bay while being towed by the helicopter.
One SEAL team operating from seafloat would ski right through the sharks just for the thrill of it.

But the VC would have called it torture.

www.pcf45.com...



posted on Apr, 25 2009 @ 11:22 AM
link   
I tend to leave aside the question of if it works, It may well in some circumstances, if you get a weak target, but a very strong adversary like some of the religiously motivated may be much harder to break. I tend to concentrate on the moral/ethical arguments.

If another country did this to our soldiers, I would be outraged. And in the past, the USA was outraged enough to execute the Japanese who used this technique.

crooksandliars.com...



McCain is referencing the Tokyo Trials, officially known as the International Military Tribunal for the Far East. After World War II, an international coalition convened to prosecute Japanese soldiers charged with torture. At the top of the list of techniques was water-based interrogation, known variously then as 'water cure,' 'water torture' and 'waterboarding,' according to the charging documents.


When arguing against conservatives, I would use Reagans argument, that the USA should aim to be the shining city on the hill that others want to reach and emulate. Even though with Reagan this is a little of a bad example, as he may have authorised torture too, do you really want people to look up to and emulate torture?

When arguing against Christians, I would bring up the golden rule, "Do unto others..."

Something I also like to show people is how the opinion of Hitchens changed. Hitchens was a cheerleader of the war, and defended waterboarding as not torture. That is until he accepted a challenge to have it done to him. After that he changed his tune.

If you just rely on the argument that it doesn't work, you may well be defeated at some later point, if some of the evidence Cheny asserts exists does. If you take a moral stand against it, as I believe you should, this cannot be so swiftly defeated.



posted on Apr, 25 2009 @ 11:29 AM
link   
If you sign the Geneva Convention then you agree not to torture. If you do not sign the Geneva Convention you are by default saying we torture and we will continue to torture. If you are a country or a group that tortures then why should the Geneva Convention apply to you. You didn’t sign it you don’t agree with it. You torture so why should you be protected from torture. Is torture horrible yes. But any nation or group that would torture us without a second thought why should they be safe from torture. Plain and simple if you do not want to be tortured then don’t torture.



posted on Apr, 25 2009 @ 11:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by dragonridr
reply to post by jfj123
 


So, what's one of these "interviews" supposed to sound like?

"Mr. Khalid Sheik Mohammed, thank you for joining us this morning. Some coffee or maybe a Coke before we begin? Oh, and I'm sorry. Yeah...you'll have to remove the headphones from your iPod. Yeah, it's a rule. I agree, and on behalf of the entire United States government and the President himself, let me apologize that someone didn't explain that in advance.

Oh, I agree...that Lady Gaga really has it going on. Nonetheless, please, you'll have to take off the headphones. But remember, you're signed up for our "Spa Sensation" right after luncheon. Hey - what would a massage be without a little music? You can listen then. OK? Good.

Good cops conduct interrogations every day and get answers without TORTURING someone.


Hey, I've enjoyed this. And we hope our time together hasn't been an imposition in your day. And we certainly do appreciate that you pulled yourself away from your prep work for your appearance on Oprah. Well, look. Why don't we meet up tomorrow and talk a bit more then. Maybe, just maybe, you might remember something about September 11 and we can spend a few minutes talking about it.

What's a good time for you? Oh, heck yes. Check your activity schedule and get back to me. ...OK. Your "people" will get back to me. Whatever works for you."

Sure. I'd be glad to validate your parking...What do you think we are? Infidels?"

I would hope you understand the immense difference between torture and offering afternoon tea.


I wish we could live in a fairy tale world where things like torture where unnecessary but we dont!

Since torture doesn't work, it is unnecessary. Look, you can make all the excuses for the torturers you like, it doesn't change the fact that torture is not a reliable means of extracting accurate intelligence.
And you're making the assumption that ALL those who have been tortured, are guilty.


And if it means i have to lock someone in a dark cell or place bugs in a cell or make them think there drowning to get someone to talk im ok with that.

Even if it's you, your family or friends in the cell?
Or are your ideals only valid when you aren't a suspect ????



posted on Apr, 25 2009 @ 11:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by Open_Minded Skeptic

I don't care who ends being implicated and prosecuted. Everybody that broke the law (domestic and international, btw) needs to be prosecuted and punished. I don't care who they are. All of them.


Star right back at ya ! Good post !
I completely agree that anyone involved needs to be prosecuted, all the way to the top.



posted on Apr, 25 2009 @ 04:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by MrVertigo
reply to post by Death_Kron
 



Unfortunately, the war on terror will not be won by being more ethical or moral.


I think this is where you are dead wrong. The war on terror is an ideological conflict.
The only way that you will ever remove the threat of terrorism is by "winning hearts and minds". By not making them hate you anymore.

As long as America is viewed as an evil aggressor in the Middle East there will be people willing to blow themselves up for a cause, out of hatred desperation or what have you.

Torturing people will only continue the cycle of hatred and prove to any potential terrorists that America is indeed evil and should be destroyed.





This isn't Borneo mate, not making them hate us anymore? So lets be peaceful and allow them to bomb our cities?!?

America is the evil aggressor? Although they are the ones blowing up and killing innocent people?

America should be 'destroyed' because they catch the bastards and torture them for attempting to kill people?

What???



posted on Apr, 25 2009 @ 05:04 PM
link   
Okay then people, no torture yeah?

So how do we get the information from the terrorists without hurting them mentally or physically? Ask them politely?

How on earth people can come on here and say its wrong to harm TERRORIST'S is beyond me!

I take it from the response's that no-one who has answered has lost a loved one due to a terrorist attack ?

Please explain how torturing a sadistic, evil and religiously driven psychopath who is hell bent on killing as many people as he can is wrong ?



posted on Apr, 25 2009 @ 05:07 PM
link   
reply to post by jfj123
 


Unfortunately your wrong, torture does work when applied correctly. Good cops may get lots of lovely answers, half of them are false - ask any police officer.

What do you suggest we do then?

Again, as always in these debates I can't help but think you would feel differently if it was your loved ones at stakes. Elaborate on that if you will?



posted on Apr, 25 2009 @ 05:14 PM
link   
reply to post by Open_Minded Skeptic
 


Amazing. You want to see your own citizens prosecuted for hurting the people that have attacked your country? Please explain this.



posted on Apr, 25 2009 @ 05:15 PM
link   
By the way, no one seems to have answered this in full;

Please tell me what you would do if you was in the room with the arrested kidnapper and he wasn't telling you the location of your child? Would you politely inform him he wasn't being very fair and could he please let you know where your kid was? Get real!

???



new topics

top topics



 
2
<<   2 >>

log in

join