Welcome to European Tribune. It's gone a bit quiet around here these days, but it's still going.

Shame, shame, shame

by the stormy present Thu Feb 8th, 2007 at 04:22:15 AM EST

Found this on Al Jazeera English...

Fifty-seven countries signed a treaty on Tuesday banning forced disappearances but the US, Britain, Germany, Spain and Italy were notably absent among the signatories.

I know.  I know.  I know.  This is no surprise to anyone, and we know why they didn't sign.  These are our governments (well, some of ours) and they have no interest in this treaty because they engage in practices that blatently violate it, practices they do not plan to stop.

This story is no surprise to anyone.  It did not appear in most papers or on most TV stations.  A Google News search yields less than 75 results, most of them versions of the same AP story.  

This story is no surprise to anyone, but I couldn't let it pass without comment.  Shame, shame, shame on my government, and shame on all governments who fail to sign this treaty.  Shame.

::

(Now updated with a full list of countries that signed....)


Some of those AP stories, interestingly, emphasize that the US wouldn't sign and then casually mention the other non-signatories later, while different versions list all the non-signatories up front.  FWIW.

A few more details from AP:

"Our American friends were naturally invited to this ceremony; unfortunately, they weren't able to join us," French Foreign Minister Philippe Douste-Blazy told reporters after 57 nations signed the treaty at his ministry in Paris.

"That won't prevent them from one day signing on in New York at U.N. headquarters -- and I hope they will," he said.

Some day my prince will come...

Oh, sorry.  Where was I?

In Washington, U.S. State Department spokesman Sean McCormack declined comment except to say that the United States helped draft the treaty, but that the final text "did not meet our expectations."

"Our expectations."  Which would be... what?  "We wanted a ban on disappearances that didn't apply to us"?

I'm so sorry that the UN has once again disappointed you, Sean.  It seems that they're a little less than interested in meeting the Bush Administration's expectations anymore.  Gosh, I wonder why.

McCormack declined comment on whether the U.S. stance was influenced by the administration's policy of sending terrorism suspects to CIA-run prisons overseas, which Bush acknowledged in September.

Um, ya think?

But what about everyone else?

Many delegates expressed hope that other nations would sign on by year-end. Some European nations have expressed support for the treaty but face constitutional hurdles or require a full Cabinet debate before signing, French and U.N. officials said.

Oh.  So maybe it's just a coincidence that the list of non-signatories included quite a few nations involved in renditions....

We need to stay on this.

UPDATE TWO, 9 FEB 2007
We have a list!!!

I've just located this list provided by the human rights network FIDH, naming the countries that signed. And they are...

France
Albania
Algeria
Argentina
Austria
Brazil
Burkina Faso
Burundi
Congo
Croatia
Ghana
Guatemala
Haiti
Japan
Lithuania
Maldives
Moldavia
Morocco
Uganda
Senegal
Serbia
Sierra Leone
Macedonia
Chad
Tunisia
Vanuatu
Belgium
Bolivia
Bosnia Herzegovina
Cameroon
Cape Verde
Chile
Comoros
Costa Rica
Cuba
Cyprus
Finland
Grenada
Honduras
India
Kenya
Lebanon
Luxembourg
Madagascar
Malta
Mexico
Monaco
Mongolia
Montenegro
Niger
Paraguay
Portugal
Samoa
Sweden
Uruguay
Mali
Azerbaijan

Also FYI, here are two more organizations that track forced disappearances and advocate on behalf of victims and their families:

Proyecto Desaparecido and their blog
International Commission on Missing Persons (ICMP)

Display:
I think I'm gonna start getting all pit-bull over this torture/rendition issue.  It really pisses me off.
by the stormy present (stormypresent aaaaaaat gmail etc) on Wed Feb 7th, 2007 at 12:20:27 PM EST
Your stories on this will always be welcome on the  front page. We need more.

In the long run, we're all dead. John Maynard Keynes
by Jerome a Paris (etg@eurotrib.com) on Thu Feb 8th, 2007 at 07:16:38 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Stormy,

do you have an account at Daily Kos? If so would you be willing to crosspost?

To my knowledge this has not been covered there, which of course is unfortunate.  This is an issue that needs to be raised.

Or if you don't mind, would it be ok if I take some of what you've written here and post it there?


And I'll give my consent to any government that does not deny a man a living wage-Billy Bragg

by ManfromMiddletown (manfrommiddletown at lycos dot com) on Thu Feb 8th, 2007 at 08:09:53 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Hey, be my guest.  The more people know about this, the better.

I have a DKos account but haven't used it in over a year.   Everything I ever wrote over there (not that it was much) just sank like a stone, so since you probably get a lot more traction there than me, it's probably better if you post it.  We need this to get noticed.

by the stormy present (stormypresent aaaaaaat gmail etc) on Thu Feb 8th, 2007 at 09:53:13 AM EST
[ Parent ]
I just posted on this over at Kos.

I put my own touch on it.  

And I'll give my consent to any government that does not deny a man a living wage-Billy Bragg

by ManfromMiddletown (manfrommiddletown at lycos dot com) on Thu Feb 8th, 2007 at 10:14:00 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Nicely done, angling it to the US & Kos audience.  I thought of that song too.  I think everybody probably does when this issue comes up...
by the stormy present (stormypresent aaaaaaat gmail etc) on Thu Feb 8th, 2007 at 11:23:59 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Sting has aged tastefully, others have not and he's got a great collection of songs.

I was looking at your user page over at Kos, and it said your an American living elsewhere.  I thought you were from South Africa?

And I'll give my consent to any government that does not deny a man a living wage-Billy Bragg

by ManfromMiddletown (manfrommiddletown at lycos dot com) on Thu Feb 8th, 2007 at 12:46:36 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Nope, I'm American, but I used to live in SA.  I haven't lived in the States since the Clinton administration.  When Bush was first (s)elected, I made these jokes with my family that I wouldn't move back till we got a better president.  But then they stopped really being jokes....
by the stormy present (stormypresent aaaaaaat gmail etc) on Thu Feb 8th, 2007 at 01:00:43 PM EST
[ Parent ]
It looks like it needs to be raised in Canada too. :(

I did a quick scan of the local newspapers. The big headline is how we have about 4,400 handicaped parking permits issued to people 100 years old and over, but only 1,100 people 100 years old or older in Ontario. Didn't see any mention of the treaty on the front page. I mean - really we got far more important things to worry about! [/snark]

That includes:

Toronto Star
Globe and Mail
Toronto Sun

and didn't see anything at www.cbc.ca.


aspiring to genteel poverty

by edwin (eeeeeeee222222rrrrreeeeeaaaaadddddd@@@@yyyyaaaaaaa) on Thu Feb 8th, 2007 at 04:04:03 PM EST
[ Parent ]
What's with Spain and Italy?

Confused. Would figure they've responsible governments now...

The Hun is always either at your throat or at your feet. Winston Churchill

by r------ on Wed Feb 7th, 2007 at 12:23:38 PM EST
Yeah, I wondered that too.  Could be concern about residual responsibility for the actions of previous governments, or it could just be the thing about needing to jump through some hoops at home before they can sign.  I hope someone here might be able to clear that up for us...
by the stormy present (stormypresent aaaaaaat gmail etc) on Wed Feb 7th, 2007 at 12:31:11 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Guess it's not the former...

From the convention:

Article 35

  1. The Committee shall have competence solely in respect of enforced disappearances which commenced after the entry into force of this Convention.

  2. If a State becomes a party to this Convention after its entry into force, the obligations of that State vis-à-vis the Committee shall relate only to enforced disappearances which commenced after the entry into force of this Convention for the State concerned.
by the stormy present (stormypresent aaaaaaat gmail etc) on Wed Feb 7th, 2007 at 01:22:21 PM EST
[ Parent ]
The second reason doesn't hold water, at least in the case of Spain. There is an ample majority of both houses of Parliament that would approve of this.

"It's the statue, man, The Statue."
by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Wed Feb 7th, 2007 at 02:17:42 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Though see below.

"It's the statue, man, The Statue."
by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Thu Feb 8th, 2007 at 05:30:04 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Hey, thats my prince :-) - and what makes you think the nations mentioned were involved in renditions - they clearer declared that they had nothing to do with it. YUK!!!!
by Fran on Wed Feb 7th, 2007 at 12:35:07 PM EST
And we always believe everything our governments say...

The truth is that there are degrees of complicity in this policy, but all of those listed countries have been implicated to one degree or another.  (Spain the least seriously.)

I've been trying to get a list of actual signatories to the treaty off the UN website but it keeps crashing, or acting weird, and I didn't have tons of time today.  I'm curious to know exactly who didn't sign.

by the stormy present (stormypresent aaaaaaat gmail etc) on Wed Feb 7th, 2007 at 01:00:00 PM EST
[ Parent ]
From Amnesty International
The new Convention requires each state party, whenever a person suspected of carrying out enforced disappearances anywhere in the world is found in any territory under its jurisdiction, to submit the case to its competent authorities for the purposes of prosecution, unless the state extradites the suspect to another state or surrenders him or her to an international criminal court. It also obliges each state party to ensure in its legal system that the victims of enforced disappearance have the right to obtain reparations. The Convention requires states to institute stringent safeguards for the protection of persons deprived of their liberty, including an absolute ban on secret detention. It provides for the tracing of the whereabouts of the "disappeared" and addresses the problems faced by their children and families. It establishes an expert committee empowered to monitor the implementation of the Convention and to take action in individual cases.

Wow. Would Bush (and some other heads of state...) be considered "suspected of carrying out enforced disappearances" under this Convention?
by someone (s0me1smail(a)gmail(d)com) on Wed Feb 7th, 2007 at 12:56:32 PM EST
Well, even if not, it certainly puts agents of the government involved in renditions (whether they initiated it or just co-operated) under legal threat. And also the governments would have to pay compensation for recent sins.

Not to mention that it opens up possibilities of further investigations. You can see why some with guilty consciences would not want to sign it. (Thinking particularly of Tony Blair here, since I'm from there, but presumably similar issues apply in other countries.)

by Metatone (metatone [a|t] gmail (dot) com) on Wed Feb 7th, 2007 at 01:10:58 PM EST
[ Parent ]
From the treaty:

Article 5

The widespread or systematic practice of enforced disappearance constitutes a crime against humanity as defined in applicable international law and shall attract the consequences provided for under such applicable international law.

But it would only apply to disappearances that took place after the treaty came into effect.  Which makes it a ban on future disappearances, but not applicable to past ones.

The fact that the Bush administration is worried about this is a sign that they don't intend to stop what they're doing.

But we already knew that....

by the stormy present (stormypresent aaaaaaat gmail etc) on Wed Feb 7th, 2007 at 01:28:14 PM EST
[ Parent ]
FYI, the text of the agreement is here on the UN web site.

What's leaping out at me right away:

1. No one shall be held in secret detention.

Well, there you go.  End of story for the Bush Administration.

( d ) Guarantee that any person deprived of liberty shall be authorized to communicate with and be visited by his or her family, counsel or any other person of his or her choice, subject only to the conditions established by law, or, if he or she is a foreigner, to communicate with his or her consular authorities, in accordance with applicable international law;

The US has already backed out of the Vienna Conventions Optional Protocol on consular access for prisoners, and nobody at Guantanamo has been able to see family members as far as I know.

( f ) Guarantee that any person deprived of liberty or, in the case of a suspected enforced disappearance, since the person deprived of liberty is not able to exercise this right, any persons with a legitimate interest, such as relatives of the person deprived of liberty, their representatives or their counsel, shall, in all circumstances, be entitled to take proceedings before a court, in order that the court may decide without delay on the lawfulness of the deprivation of liberty and order the person's release if such deprivation of liberty is not lawful.

Nope, I bet they don't like that one either.

I'm still reading.

by the stormy present (stormypresent aaaaaaat gmail etc) on Wed Feb 7th, 2007 at 01:12:30 PM EST
Britain has a virtual mini-Guantanamo in the shape of Belmarsh prison. People detained under secret terrorism charges without proper judicial oversight.

I should imagine that even if they've done enough paperwork for it to technically pass the treaty it would give the lawyers working for these people a new angle of attack, so that Tony would steer clear of this treaty...

<sigh>

by Metatone (metatone [a|t] gmail (dot) com) on Wed Feb 7th, 2007 at 01:36:38 PM EST
[ Parent ]
According to the story, France introduced the convention in the UN General Assembly last year. Looking at the investigation carried out by the COuncil of Europe and the European Parliament, it is clear that France was the only country whose territory and airspace was avoided by the CIA in its secret flights/prisons and rendition operations. The omission was significant, and provides some context for this.

I want to scream with shame and rage. What is the Council of Europe saying about this?

"It's the statue, man, The Statue."

by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Wed Feb 7th, 2007 at 02:15:20 PM EST
Le Monde explains that France was a prime mover in a first treaty during the 1970s, particularly "inspired" by the disappearances in Argentina. This time, France and Argentina have worked closely together on the new treaty, and presented it together yesterday in Paris. (France and Argentina are playing football right now, Argentina just scored).

Here's a bit more from an editorial:

Mais, pour entrer en vigueur, le traité doit être ratifié par vingt Etats. Il faut souhaiter qu'il le soit le plus rapidement possible. Le texte a été adopté à l'unanimité par l'assemblée générale de l'ONU, mais de nombreux pays étaient réticents. S'ils ont finalement dit oui, c'était avec l'espoir, sans doute, de limiter ultérieurement les retombées du texte. Parmi ceux-ci figurent la Russie, l'Algérie, la Colombie, Etats où les forces de l'ordre sont accusées d'être impliquées dans de nombreux crimes et disparitions forcées.

La convention pose indirectement la question des "prisons secrètes" américaines de la CIA, une pratique employée par l'administration Bush dans sa lutte antiterroriste. Certaines prisons auraient été situées en Europe, ce qui met en cause la responsabilité des gouvernements concernés. Les grands pays démocratiques seraient donc bien inspirés de donner l'exemple, avant de faire la leçon au reste de la planète.

But, to be applied, the treaty must be ratified by twenty states. It's to be hoped that it will be as quickly as possible. The text was unanimously approved by the General Assembly of the UN, but numerous countries were reticent. If they finally said yes, it was in the hope, no doubt, of limiting fall-out later on. Among them were Russia, Algeria, Colombia, states where the police are accused of involvement in many crimes and forced disappearances.

The convention indirectly poses the problem of the American "secret prisons" of the CIA, a practice used by the Bush administration in its anti-terrorise struggle. Some of these prisons were allegedly situated in Europe, which engages the responsibility of the governments concerned. So the major democratic countries would be well-inspired to give an example, before handing out lessons to the rest of the planet.

Not that it gets us far on the motives of Spain and Italy, for example.

by afew (afew(a in a circle)eurotrib_dot_com) on Wed Feb 7th, 2007 at 03:33:29 PM EST
[ Parent ]
According to a commenter on Escolar:
#546. Publicado por Etólogo - Febrero 7, 2007 09:31 PM.

#544.
Es verdad. Con lo de los vuelos no habría nada que hacer.

En lo de las fosas no y sí, Migeru, porque la ARMH viene remitiéndose desde hace tiempo a la Resolución 47/133 (18.12.1992) y, caso de ratificar el gobierno de Zapatero, tendrían AÚN MENOS argumentos para seguir toreándolos en el tema de las exhumaciones, las identificaciones ADN, etc. (en este aspecto, lo de la Ley de la Memoria Histórica es un mal chiste).

#546. Published by Etólogo - February 7, 2007 09:31 PM.

#544.
That's right. On the [CIA] flights there would be nothing to do.

On the collective graves [from the civil war] yes and no, Migeru, because the ARMH [Association for the Recovery of Historical Memory] has been referring back to Resolution 47/133 (18.12.1992) for quite some time and, in case the government of Zapatero ratifies [the new treaty], they would have EVEN FEWER arguments to continue their delaying tactics onthe issue of unearthings, DNA identifications, and so on. (On this feature, the Law of Historical Meomry is a bad Joke).



"It's the statue, man, The Statue."
by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Wed Feb 7th, 2007 at 05:38:33 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Why would Zapatero (or the PSOE for that matter) sigue toreándolos (great word, by the way) on this issue?
by Matt in NYC on Wed Feb 7th, 2007 at 09:28:54 PM EST
[ Parent ]
We need a diary on the cowardly Law of Historical Memory. It's all about not rrocking the boat.

Any suggestions on how to translate 'torear' in this context?

I'll ask Etólogo to write a diary on it.

"It's the statue, man, The Statue."

by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Thu Feb 8th, 2007 at 02:58:26 AM EST
[ Parent ]
I've been meaning to write on the Law of Historical Memory and about the common graves of the Civil War.

But that is going to be some time, I've been meanining to write a lot, but I'm taking an econometrics course, and that seems to consume something like two full days to complete the assignments for.  

And I'll give my consent to any government that does not deny a man a living wage-Billy Bragg

by ManfromMiddletown (manfrommiddletown at lycos dot com) on Thu Feb 8th, 2007 at 08:01:01 AM EST
[ Parent ]
"continue delaying tactics" was inspired, much better than my dictionary's:

(c) (fig) to keep at bay; to tease, draw on; to put off, keep guessing.

PS I look forward to that diary. I can't think of anything I feel more strongly about than "historical memory." The U.S., for example, wouldn't be in Iraq today if we weren't too sclerotic and brain-damaged to remember our debacle in Vietnam. And I've long thought that both Germany and South Africa should have permanent seats on the Security Council for the examples they've set the world on that score.

by Matt in NYC on Thu Feb 8th, 2007 at 09:27:51 PM EST
[ Parent ]
"... it is clear that France was the only country whose territory and airspace was avoided by the CIA in its secret flights/prisons and rendition operations."

Which is why, no matter how puritanical and anti-smoking that once-great nation gets, I'll always be a gallophile.

Vive la France!

by Matt in NYC on Wed Feb 7th, 2007 at 09:12:04 PM EST
[ Parent ]
I am unable to find who signed it. If someone knows of a link to the signatories please post one. I couldn't find one at the UN web site.

aspiring to genteel poverty

by edwin (eeeeeeee222222rrrrreeeeeaaaaadddddd@@@@yyyyaaaaaaa) on Wed Feb 7th, 2007 at 06:23:40 PM EST
Ditto.  I want to know if the New Zealand government signed it, or whether we sided with the Merkins...
by IdiotSavant on Wed Feb 7th, 2007 at 11:58:43 PM EST
[ Parent ]
I haven't been able to find a comprehensive list anywhere, and I've been looking hard.

What I am finding are a few reports from individual countries about either signing (like Argentina) or not signing (like, apparently, Switzerland).

I'm going to update the diary with a list of known signers and non-signers, and hopefully people can add countries here in the comments if they discover new info.

by the stormy present (stormypresent aaaaaaat gmail etc) on Thu Feb 8th, 2007 at 04:22:04 AM EST
[ Parent ]
WE HAVE THE LIST!

Actually, FIDH has the list.  New Zealand is not on it.  Nor are a lot of other so-called "developed" "Western" countries.

So much for the "civilized" world.

Diary now updated.

by the stormy present (stormypresent aaaaaaat gmail etc) on Thu Feb 8th, 2007 at 05:37:50 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Netherlands didn't sign? Oh well.

You have a normal feeling for a moment, then it passes. --More--
by tzt (tzt) on Thu Feb 8th, 2007 at 06:39:13 AM EST
[ Parent ]
And here's a map:

I've also set up a wiki page with a summary of the Convention for those interested.

by IdiotSavant on Thu Feb 8th, 2007 at 06:48:13 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Thanks, I was thinking of that.

"It's the statue, man, The Statue."
by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Thu Feb 8th, 2007 at 06:49:47 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Its one of my long-term projects to map global human rights treaties. It's quite useful to see where the holes are...

meanwhile, I'm ashamed that the New Zealand government didn't sign.  But anything to avoid offending the Americans, huh?

by IdiotSavant on Thu Feb 8th, 2007 at 07:16:07 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Cool.  Someday somebody will have to show me how to do those maps.
by the stormy present (stormypresent aaaaaaat gmail etc) on Thu Feb 8th, 2007 at 11:26:22 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Get the blank map template from WikiCommons (go to the wiki page and click on the picture), then sit down with paint and the "fill" button. Fortunately you can undo any errors which see the entire oceans filled when trying to do the small islands...
by IdiotSavant on Thu Feb 8th, 2007 at 02:25:47 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Angela Merkel is such a bitch. And the French introduced this convention!

She really is giving in to her GDR instincts, going over to Poland's and Latvia's Europe.

A bomb, H bomb, Minuteman / The names get more attractive / The decisions are made by NATO / The press call it British opinion -- The Three Johns

by Alexander on Wed Feb 7th, 2007 at 11:38:45 PM EST
What GDR instincts? It's the Atlanticism that does it.

"It's the statue, man, The Statue."
by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Thu Feb 8th, 2007 at 05:24:35 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Oh Migeru, your anti-americanism is showing again: Atlanticism is a noble thing, meshing the common interests of the great democracies in a bright crusade to bring democracy, enlightenment and capitalism to all the peoples of the world, freeing them from fear and want.

The way you talk you'd think it was about being craven vassals to the US   Imperium.

by Colman (colman at eurotrib.com) on Thu Feb 8th, 2007 at 05:32:33 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Anyway, everyone knows that authoritarianism is an Eastern thing that never shows its face in the Noble West™.
by Colman (colman at eurotrib.com) on Thu Feb 8th, 2007 at 05:34:09 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Atlanticism should be completely counterintuitive to Germans and any other citizens of a large European country. Her "Atlanticism" is merely the continuation of her habit from her GDR days of being the lapdog of a superpower.

A bomb, H bomb, Minuteman / The names get more attractive / The decisions are made by NATO / The press call it British opinion -- The Three Johns
by Alexander on Thu Feb 8th, 2007 at 01:47:17 PM EST
[ Parent ]
"Atlanticism should be completely counterintuitive to Germans and any other citizens of a large European country."

Why? As far as I know majority of American families trace their roots to German ancestors.

by FarEasterner on Thu Feb 8th, 2007 at 02:14:02 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Why should Germans base their feelings of international solidarity on the basis of ethnicity?

The US inherited its social, political, and philosophical culture from Britain, not Germany. That is not to say that you cannot detect German influences on a local level, in Wisconsin, for example.

Many Germans like to visit America, of course. But I don't think that's because they identify with it: It's because to them it is an attractive other.

A bomb, H bomb, Minuteman / The names get more attractive / The decisions are made by NATO / The press call it British opinion -- The Three Johns

by Alexander on Thu Feb 8th, 2007 at 08:04:05 PM EST
[ Parent ]
I suggest you post that comment over at Atlantic Review, see what answers you get.

We have an ongoing quasi-debate here on ET about atlanticism. We keep asking what the point is, but nobody can explain it to us, and atlanticists don't last long before getting pissed off and running away.

"It's the statue, man, The Statue."

by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Sat Feb 10th, 2007 at 10:24:50 AM EST
[ Parent ]
The Italian judiciary has always been up front- often backed by the government- in trying cases of desaparcidos. The Abu Omar trial is to their credit. I'm surprised the Italian State has not signed the convention and I'll try to find out why.
by de Gondi (publiobestia aaaatttthotmaildaughtusual) on Thu Feb 8th, 2007 at 07:23:10 AM EST
Countries like Germany and New Zealand have nothing to worry about this treaty, and still they didn't sign. There probably was some kind of agreement not to support this motion in exchange for something else down the line, maybe coming from the US. It might even be that they are going to sign it later, as not to give too much credit to France, or to get something from France. It's just speculation anyway. Laws and sausages and all that.
by toyg (g.lacava@gmail.com) on Thu Feb 8th, 2007 at 11:12:57 AM EST
[ Parent ]
that except for Kenya and Uganda, there are no anglophone countries on this list? Time to send a donation to Alliance Française!
by Matt in NYC on Thu Feb 8th, 2007 at 09:42:58 PM EST
Ghana and half of Cameroon are Anglophone.  And then there's India.  But yes, it's very clear on the map how many more Francophone countries than Anglophone ones have signed....
by the stormy present (stormypresent aaaaaaat gmail etc) on Sat Feb 10th, 2007 at 07:46:40 AM EST
[ Parent ]


Display:
Go to: [ European Tribune Homepage : Top of page : Top of comments ]