Fookin' Brilliant... Me Watch it Long Time

Oh, the Banality of Evil, Inside the Mind of John Yoo.

"It is the very nature of a democracy that it not only does, but should, fight with one hand tied behind its back. It is also in the nature of democracy that it prevails against its enemies precisely because it does."

- Very Unserious Person*




Yoo: The Geneva Conventions issue comes up around December of 2001 and gets settled January of 2002 -- that’s just the question of whether the Geneva Conventions apply -- this questions of cells versus open camps and do you provide them with all the same rights under the Geneva convention. That comes up before there is any issue of interrogation.

Esquire: That’s disturbing to a lot of people because those conventions were difficult to achieve and we prosecuted the Nazis for war crimes. Was that difficult for you?

Yoo: Actually, everyone in the government agreed that the Geneva Conventions did not apply to al Qaeda. The thing we were arguing about was whether it applied to the Taliban. But no one dissented that Geneva applied to al Qaeda. I’m talking about the executive branch. Even the State Department did not disagree. The question was really what policy should we follow, and whether we should apply it to the Taliban. But I don’t remember the State Department claiming that the Geneva Conventions applied to al Qaeda. In fact the U.S. refused to ratify an addition to the Geneva Conventions, under President Reagan, on the grounds that they tried to treat terrorists like POWs user the Geneva conventions. The U.S. viewed that as a mistake.

Esquire: Did you have anxieties or concerns?

Yoo: Yeah, these were not easy questions. Whether it was a war or not, the question of whether Geneva Conventions applied to al Qaeda was a straightforward question, at least to me. The policy question is much more difficult, whether they should apply to them as a matter of policy.

Esquire: Why?

Yoo: There’s a balance. Is this going to degrade military discipline? Is it going to give us a bad image versus does it produce gains in security? Is it part of the message that terrorists are not going to be given the same status as people who follow the rules? It’s a very difficult trade off. And then it’s harder and harder because there’s the question that if you don’t give them full Geneva Convention protection, what are you going to give them? That’s a hard question, too. I think the legal questions are much easier than those fine hard-grained policy issues. I think those are very hard questions. It’s not my job to say what they should do.

Esquire: Where would you have come down?

Yoo: I would have thought probably close to what we ended up doing. We’re not going to obey the Geneva Conventions but we’ll be close, consistent with humane principles. I agree that they should not receive the kind of recognition and benefits as, say, a solider from a country who followed all the rules of war would get. But I think it’s a very difficult question. And again, people who have these obvious right answers are, I think, misleading people. Or they just don’t see both sides.



* Could be a dirty hippy.

It's So Hard to Find a Man of Integrity...

Santa Claus wears a Red Suit,

He must be a communist.

And a beard and long hair,

Must be a pacifist.

What's in that pipe that he's smoking?

- Arlo Guthrie

Torture Most Sublime...

Justine

by Marquis de Sade, 1791.


Form flecked his lips as he spoke these words interspersed with revolting oaths and blasphemies. The hand, which had been prying open the shrine he seemed to want to attack, now strayed over all the adjacent parts; he scratched them, he did as much to my breast, he clawed me so badly I was not to get over the pain for a forthnight. Next, he placed me on the edge of the couch, rubbed alcohol upon that mossy tonsure with which Nature ornaments the altar wherein our species finds regeneration; he set it afire and burned it. His fingers closed upon the fleshy protuberance which surmounts this same altar, he snatched at it and scraped roughly, then he inserted his fingers within and his nails ripped the membrane which lines it. Losing all control over himself, he told me that, since he had me in his lair, I might just as well not leave it, for that would spare him the nuisance of bringing me back down again; I fell to my knees and dared remind him again of what I had done in his behalf.... I observed I but further excited him by harping again upon the rights to his pity I fancies were mine; he told me to be silent, bringing up his knee and giving me a tremendous blow in the pit of the stomach which sent me sprawling on the flagstones. He seize a handful of my hair and jerked me erect. “Very well!” he said, “come now! prepare yourself; it is a certainty, I am going to kill you....”

“Oh, Monsieur!”

“No, no, you've got to die; I do not want to hear you reproach me with your good little deeds; I don't like owing anything to anybody, others have got to rely upon me for everything.... You're going to perish, I tell you, get into that coffin, let's see if it fits.”

He lifts me, thrusts me into it and shuts it, then quits the cavern and gives me the impression I have been left there. Never had I thought myself so near to death; alas! it was nonetheless to be presented to me under a yet more real aspect. Roland returns, he fetches me out of the coffin. “You'll be well off in there,” says he, “one would say 'twas made for you; but to let you finish peacefully in that box would be a death too sweet; I'm going to expose you to one of a different variety which, all the same, will have its agreeable qualities; so implore your God, whore, pray to him to come posthaste and avenge you if he really has it in him....”

I cast myself down upon the prie-dieu, and while aloud I open my heart to the Eternal, Roland in a still crueler manner intensifies, upon the hindquarters I expose to him, his vexations and his torments; with all his strength he flogs those parts with a steel tipped martinet, each blow draws a gush of blood which springs to the walls.

“Why,” he continued with a curse, “he doesn't much aid you, your God, does he? and thus he allows unhappy virtue to suffer, he abandons it to villainy's hands; ah! what a bloody fine God you've got there, Therese, what a superb God he is! Come,” he says, “come here, whore, your prayer should be done,” and at the same time he places me upon the divan at the back of that cell; “I told you Therese, you have got to die!”

He seizes my arms, binds them to my side, then he slips a black silken noose about my neck; he holds both ends of the cord and, by tightening, he can strangle and dispatch me to the other world either quickly or slowly, depending upon his pleasure.

“This torture is sweeter than you may imagine, “Therese,” say Roland; “you will only approach death by way of unspeakably pleasurable sensations; the pressure this noose will bring to bear upon your nervous system will set fire to the organs of voluptuousness; the effect is certain; were all the people who are condemned to this torture to know in what an intoxication of joy it makes one die, less terrified by this retribution for their crimes, they would commit them more often and with much greater self-assurance; this delicious operation, Therese, by causing, as well, the contraction of the locale in which I am going to fit myself,” he added as he presented himself to a criminal avenue so worthy of such a villain, “is also going to double my pleasure.”

Your Image Has Been Uploaded to the Blogosphere

One Long Damn Sentence... Russian Exuberance

1. As though such a stone wall really were a consolation, and really did contain some word of conciliation, simply because it is as true as twice two makes four.

2. Oh, absurdity of absurdities!

3. How much better it is to understand it all, to recognise it all, all the impossibilities and the stonewall; not to be reconciled to one of those impossibilities and stone walls if it disgusts you to be reconciled to it; by the way of the most inevitable, logical combinations to reach the most revolting conclusions on the everlasting theme, that even for the stone wall you are yourself somehow to blame, though again it is as clear as day you are not to blame in the least, and therefore grinding your teeth in silent impotence to sink into luxurious inertia, brooding on the fact that there is no one even for you to feel vindictive against, that you have not, and perhaps never will have, an object for your spite, that it is a sleight of hand, a bit of juggling, a card-sharper's trick, that it is simply a mess, no knowing what and no knowing who, but in spite of all these uncertainties and jugglings, still there is an ache in you, and the more you do not know, the worse the ache.

You Want a Piece of This?

Who wants a piece of me?

Beer is God in NorCal... Left Hand Man

You Should Be So Lucky...

Dr. Strangelove Movie Promotion with George C. Scott

this deserves a wider audience. certainly amongst fans of Dr. Strangelove...

Yoo and Punishable Offenses...

NPR.org, November 3, 2007 ·

The surprisingly contentious confirmation process of Michael Mukasey, President Bush's pick for attorney general, has come down to one issue: waterboarding. Mukasey has called waterboarding personally "repugnant," but said he did not know enough about how it has been used to define it as torture.

The Washington debate over the simulated-drowning technique may be new, but the practice is not. It predates the Inquisition and has been used, off and on, around the world ever since.

Its use was first documented in the 14th century, according to Ed Peters, a historian at the University of Pennsylvania. It was known variously as "water torture," the "water cure" or tormenta de toca — a phrase that refers to the thin piece of cloth placed over the victim's mouth.

At the time, using water to induce confessions was "a normal incident of law," Peters says, and people viewed it more or less as we view a cross-examination today. If anything, Peters says, the Inquisitors "were more careful about it" than others of their time.

"They were professionals," Peters says, noting that a doctor's presence was required during interrogations. Not that it made the experience any more pleasant for the victim, of course.

Leaves No Marks

"The patient strangled and gasped and suffocated and, at intervals, the toca was withdrawn and he was adjured to tell the truth. The severity of the infliction was measured by the number of jars [of water] consumed, sometimes reaching to six or eight," writes Henry Charles Lea in A

History of the Inquisition of Spain.

"The thing you could not do in torture was injure the body or cause death," Peters says. That was — and still is — what makes waterboarding such an attractive interrogation technique, he says: It causes great physical and mental suffering, yet leaves no marks on the body.

Waterboarding actually refers to two different interrogation techniques. One involves pumping water directly into the stomach. "This creates intense pain. It feels like your organs are on fire," says Darius Rejali, a professor at Reed College in Oregon and author of a new book, Torture and Democracy.

The other technique — the one more widely used today — involves choking the victim by filling their throat with a steady stream of water — a sort of "slow-motion drowning" that was perfected by Dutch traders in the 17th century. They used it against their British rivals in the East Indies.

A Turning Point

A turning point for waterboarding — in any form — came around 1800. As the Enlightenment swept across Europe, many countries banned the practice and people, in general, found it "morally repugnant," Peters says. Waterboarding moved underground, but did not disappear by any means. In fact, it has experienced something of a revival in the 20th century.

The interrogation method was used by the Japanese in World War II, by U.S. troops in the Philippines and by the French in Algeria. In Cambodia, the Khmer Rogue used waterboarding against its own people. The British used it against both Arabs and Jews in occupied Palestine in the 1930s. In the 1970s, it was widely used in Latin America, particularly under the military dictatorships in Chile and Argentina (where it was known as "Asian torture.")

Details are hard to come by, since no government will openly acknowledge using the interrogation method. Over the years, the technique has been modified slightly. The Japanese, for instance, used teapots to hold the water, and cellophane is sometimes used instead of a cloth. But waterboarding has changed very little in the past 500 years. It still relies on the innate fear of drowning and suffocating to coerce confessions.

Waterboarding reached the U.S. via a circuitous route. The Spanish exported the practice to the Philippines, which they colonized for centuries. It was then adapted by U.S. forces there at the start of the 20th century and, eventually, adopted by some police forces in the U.S.

During the Spanish-American War, a U.S. soldier, Major Edwin Glenn, was suspended from command for one month and fined $50 for using "the water cure." In his review, the Army judge advocate said the charges constituted "resort to torture with a view to extort a confession." He recommended disapproval because "the United States cannot afford to sanction the addition of torture."

Yet President Theodore Roosevelt defended the practice. "The enlisted men began to use the old Filipino method: the water cure," he wrote in a 1902 letter. "Nobody was seriously damaged."

A Punishable Offense

In the war crimes tribunals that followed Japan's defeat in World War II, the issue of waterboarding was sometimes raised. In 1947, the U.S. charged a Japanese officer, Yukio Asano, with war crimes for waterboarding a U.S. civilian. Asano was sentenced to 15 years of hard labor.
"All of these trials elicited compelling descriptions of water torture from its victims, and resulted in severe punishment for its perpetrators," writes Evan Wallach in the Columbia Journal of Transnational Law.

On Jan. 21, 1968, The Washington Post ran a front-page photo of a U.S. soldier supervising the waterboarding of a captured North Vietnamese soldier. The caption said the technique induced "a flooding sense of suffocation and drowning, meant to make him talk." The picture led to an

Army investigation and, two months later, the court martial of the soldier.

Cases of waterboarding have occurred on U.S. soil, as well. In 1983, Texas Sheriff James Parker was charged, along with three of his deputies, for handcuffing prisoners to chairs, placing towels over their faces, and pouring water on the cloth until they gave what the officers considered to be confessions. The sheriff and his deputies were all convicted and sentenced to four years in prison.

Waterboarding may be widespread, but it has not been used everywhere. There's no evidence that either the Nazis or the Soviets used the technique, Rejali says. These regimes, he says, weren't concerned about public opinion, and so they often used harsher methods that left permanent scars or killed their victims. If anything, Rejali says, waterboarding has been an interrogation technique preferred by the world's democracies.

Stephen Rickard, Washington director of the Open Society Institute, says that throughout the centuries, the justifications for using waterboarding have been remarkably consistent.

"Almost every time this comes along, people say, 'This is a new enemy, a new kind of war, and it requires new techniques,'" he says. "And there are always assurances that it is carefully regulated."

The most detailed descriptions come from eyewitness accounts and court records from wars past. The following is a transcript of the 1947 court proceedings in the trial of a World War II Japanese war criminal: Chinsaku Yuki. He was accused of the torture and murder of Philippine civilians, and ultimately convicted and sentenced to life in prison. This exchange is between the American prosecutor, Col. Keeley, and Filipino lawyer Ramon Navarro, who was subjected to waterboarding.

Col. Keeley: And then did he take you back to your room?

Navarro: When Yuki could not get anything out of me, he wanted the interpreter to place me down below. And I was told by Yuki to take off all my clothes, so what I did was to take off my clothes as ordered. I was ordered to lay on a bench and Yuki tied my feet, hands and neck to that bench, lying with my face upward. After I was tied to the bench, Yuki placed some cloth on my face. And then with water from the faucet, they poured on me until I became unconscious.

He repeated that four or five times.

You mean he brought water and poured water down your throat?

No sir, on my face, until I became unconscious. We were lying that way, with some cloth on my face, and then Yuki poured water on my face continuously.

And you couldn't breathe?

No, I could not, and so I, for a time, lost consciousness. I found my consciousness came back again and found Yuki was sitting on my stomach. And then I vomited the water from my stomach, and the consciousness came back again for me.

Where did the water come out when he sat on your stomach?

From my mouth and all openings of my face ... and then Yuki would repeat the same treatment and the same procedure to me until I became unconscious again.

How many times did that happen?

Around four or five times, from two o'clock up to four o'clock in the afternoon. When I was not able to endure his punishment which I received, I told a lie to Yuki ... . I could not really show anything to Yuki, because I was really lying just to stop the torture.

Was it painful?

Not so painful, but one becomes unconscious — like drowning in the water.

Like you were drowning?

Drowning. You could hardly breathe.

Source: Columbia Journal of Transnational Law, 2007

War Criminal Yoo Should Be Worried

March 14, 2008

MADRID, Spain (CNN) -- Spain will extradite former Argentine officer Ricardo Miguel Cavallo to his homeland, where he faces charges of human rights abuses during the South American country's "Dirty War" more than two decades ago, a Spanish court ruled Friday.

Ricardo Miguel Cavallo pictured while being extradited to Spain from Mexico City in 2003.

Cavallo, who is in his 50s, is expected to leave Spain in a matter of "hours, or at the most, days," a court spokeswoman told CNN.

An attorney, however, said Friday he plans an appeal of the decision.

Although the court has sought to bring dozens of former Argentine officers to Spain to face justice, Cavallo -- who has denied all charges -- is among a small number it actually holds in custody.

Cavallo was a navy lieutenant at the Navy Mechanics School in Buenos Aires, where many opponents of the Argentine right-wing, military governments in the 1970s and 1980s disappeared or were killed, according to Spanish court documents and human rights groups.

He has been in Spanish custody since 2003, when he was extradited from Mexico on a warrant for human rights abuses.

His defense lawyer argued that year that Spain had no jurisdiction in his case, which is part of the Spanish court's years-long investigations into rights abuses in Argentina during the former military governments.

According to the court document outlining the Spanish prosecutor's charges, Cavallo was "fully integrated into the development of the plan of repression and extermination."

In becoming involved in the case, Spain tested the legal principle called "universal justice," in which the Spanish court considers that it has jurisdiction to try cases of human rights abuses committed elsewhere.

But in recent years, Argentina has opened its own judicial proceedings into the alleged abuses, and since at least late 2006, Spain has been trying to extradite Cavallo to Argentina to face justice there.

Cavallo's efforts to avoid extradition ended Friday, when a three-judge panel at the National Court ruled that the extradition -- approved three weeks ago by the Prime Minister's Cabinet -- could occur.

Immediately after that, another judge signed the necessary order and sent it to international policing agency Interpol.

Human rights groups have identified the Navy Mechanics School as a prime detention and torture center under the former military regime, which sought to neutralize its leftist opponents.

"Of the 30,000 people who disappeared during the military dictatorship, some 5,000 of them were detained, at least for a time, at the Navy Mechanics School," the court document said.

You Can't Beat this Shit! My Millionaire Girlfriend

We all deserve a millionaire girlfriend... it's the American Way...

George Washington

John McCain

John Kerry

Alexander Hamilton

American Gigolos

It's easy to marry rich...

A New Avatar is Born... Inspired by the War Criminal John Yoo

criminales, john yoo, league of extraordinary war criminals, wish yoo were here

this is just a test.

a test of the emergency broadcasting network.

there is a war criminal on the loose.

his name is John Yoo.

he is currently employed as a law professor at UC Berkeley...

do not be fooled by his mild mannered demeanor or incubus charms...

on demand,

he provided the fig leaf needed for TORTURE...

Yoo Knew

what he was doing...

America "Adopting the Way of the Hypocrite" - A. Dershowitz

I will admit that I am a fan of Alan Dershowitz and I would point his many critics back to the scrappy advocate on display in The Best Defense. Even when you disagree with him, his arguments are logical, well-reasoned and often devestatingly effective. His penchant for representing unpopular characters has always been principled, at least in my opinion, nor do I ascribe to him the defects of his many unsavory clients.

He has been a forceful and effective civil libertarian in free speech areas, death penalty cases, criminal law, constitutional law and many, many others. Dershowitz is the very epitome of an intellectual provocateur and his voice is often full of common sense.

However, on the subject of Israel he should be treated as nothing more than a partisan advocate on its behalf. Right or wrong, I believe his support for Israel has clouded his judgment on the key issue he highlights so well. He walks to the well and then balks...

Perhaps I am naive when I admit I harbor the secret belief that Dershowitz, a staunch supporter of civil liberties, would reach a different conclusion on the necessity and inevitability of torture and perhaps re-assess the dangers of the spread of torture under official sanction if it were not for the simple fact that Israel relies on these very tactics today while proclaiming loudly that it's very existence depends on them.

In any case his arguments are always thought provoking. Here he is in 2003 addressing the infamous Torture Warrant.

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Following the capture of Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, the question has become whether the senior al Qaeda leader will reveal key information about the terrorist network. If he doesn't, should he be tortured to make him tell what he knows?

CNN anchor Wolf Blitzer posed this question to noted author and Harvard University law professor Alan Dershowitz and Ken Roth, the executive director of Human Rights Watch.

BLITZER: Alan Dershowitz, a lot of our viewers will be surprised to hear that you think there are right times for torture. Is this one of those moments?

DERSHOWITZ: I don't think so. This is not the ticking-bomb terrorist case, at least so far as we know. Of course, the difficult question is the chicken-egg question: We won't know if he is a ticking-bomb terrorist unless he provides us information, and he's not likely to provide information unless we use certain extreme measures.

My basic point, though, is we should never under any circumstances allow low-level people to administer torture. If torture is going to be administered as a last resort in the ticking-bomb case, to save enormous numbers of lives, it ought to be done openly, with accountability, with approval by the president of the United States or by a Supreme Court justice. I don't think we're in that situation in this case.

BLITZER: Well, how do you know ...

DERSHOWITZ: So we might be close.

BLITZER: Alan, how do you know he doesn't have that kind of ticking-bomb information right now, that there's some plot against New York or Washington that he was involved in and there's a time sensitivity? If you knew that, if you suspected that, you would say [to] get the president to authorize torture.

DERSHOWITZ: Well, we don't know, and that's why [we could use] a torture warrant, which puts a heavy burden on the government to demonstrate by factual evidence the necessity to administer this horrible, horrible technique of torture. I would talk about nonlethal torture, say, a sterilized needle underneath the nail, which would violate the Geneva Accords, but you know, countries all over the world violate the Geneva Accords. They do it secretly and hypothetically, the way the French did it in Algeria. If we ever came close to doing it, and we don't know whether this is such a case, I think we would want to do it with accountability and openly and not adopt the way of the hypocrite.

BLITZER: All right. Ken, under those kinds of rare, extreme circumstances, does Professor Dershowitz make a good point?

ROTH: He doesn't. The prohibition on torture is one of the basic, absolute prohibitions that exists in international law. It exists in time of peace as well as in time of war. It exists regardless of the severity of a security threat. And the only other comparable prohibition that I can think of is the prohibition on attacking innocent civilians in time of war or through terrorism. If you're going to have a torture warrant, why not create a terrorism warrant? Why not go in and allow terrorists to come forward and make their case for why terrorism should be allowed?

DERSHOWITZ: Well, in fact, we've done that. Of course, we've done that. We have bombed civilian targets during every single one of our wars. We did it in Dresden. We did it in Vietnam notwithstanding these rules. So you know, having laws on the books and breaking them systemically just creates disdain ... It's much better to have rules that we can actually live within. And absolute prohibitions, generally, are not the kind of rules that countries would live within.

I want to ask you a question. Don't you think if we ever had a ticking-bomb case, regardless of your views or mine, that the CIA would actually either torture themselves or subcontract the job to Jordan, the Philippines or Egypt, who are our favorite countries, to do the torturing for us?

ROTH: OK, there is no moral or legal difference between torturing yourself and subcontracting torture to somebody else. They're equally absolutely prohibited.

DERSHOWITZ: But we do it.

ROTH: In the case -- the fact that sometimes laws are violated does not mean you want to start legitimizing the violation by getting some judge to authorize it. Imagine, you're always thinking about the U.S. Supreme Court, but any rule you apply to the United States has to be applied around the world. Do you want Chinese judges authorizing torture of say, Muslim dissidents?

DERSHOWITZ: It wouldn't make any difference. They just torture anyway. It wouldn't make any difference. They torture now.

ROTH: Once you open the door to torture, once you start legitimizing it in any way, you have broken the absolute taboo. President Bush had it right in his State of the Union address when he was describing various forms of torture by Saddam Hussein and he said, "If this isn't evil, then evil has no meaning."

BLITZER: Well, let me interrupt, Ken. Let me ask you about a hypothetical case. Professor Dershowitz talks about it in one of his articles and one of his books. There's a terrorist attack. A lot of people have just been killed in New York. They capture one of the terrorists, who says, "Guess what, there's another bomb out there, it is going to kill a lot more, but I'm not telling you where it is."

ROTH: Yes, that's the ticking-bomb scenario, which everybody loves to put forward as an excuse for torture. Israel tried that. Under the guise of just looking at the narrow exception of where the ticking-bomb is there and you could save the poor schoolchildren whose bus was about to be exploded some place. They ended up torturing on the theory that -- well, it may not be the terrorist, but it's somebody who knows the terrorist or it's somebody who might have information leading to the terrorist.

They ended up torturing say 90 percent of the Palestinian security detainees they had until finally the Israeli supreme court had to say this kind of rare exception isn't working. It's an exception that's destroying the rule. We have to understand the United States sets a model for the rest of the world. And if the United States is going to authorize torture in any sense, you can imagine that there are many more unsavory regimes out there that are just dying for the chance to say, "Well, the U.S. is doing it, we're going to start doing it as well."

DERSHOWITZ: And I think that we're much, much better off admitting what we're doing or not doing it at all. I agree with you, it will much better if we never did it. But if we're going to do it and subcontract and find ways of circumventing, it's much better to do what Israel did. They were the only country in the world ever directly to confront the issue, and it led to a supreme court decision, as you say, outlawing torture, and yet Israel has been criticized all over the world for confronting the issue directly. Candor and accountability in a democracy is very important. Hypocrisy has no place.

ROTH: So let's learn the lesson from the Israelis, which is you can't open the door a little bit. If you try, you end up having torture left and right. The other alternative, rather than legitimizing with torture warrants, is to prohibit it and prosecute the offenders. And we have murder on the street every day. We don't ask for murder warrants.

BLITZER: Ken, let me just get back to that ticking time bomb scenario. You would -- you could morally justify letting this terrorist that you've captured remain silent and allow hundreds of people to die?

ROTH: Look, we just heard from the chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee. You just had him on your show, Wolf, who said the interrogators at Bagram Air Base or wherever Mohammed is, they don't need torture. They have other, legitimate ways of getting at the truth. They're listening in through various wiretaps and the like.

Torture is not needed. If you start opening the door, making a little exception here, a little exception there, you've basically sent the signal that the ends justify the means, and that's exactly what Osama bin Laden thinks. He has some vision of a just society. His ends justify the means of attacking the World Trade Center. If we're going to violate an equally basic prohibition on torture, we are reaffirming that false logic of terrorism. We are going to end up losing the war ...

Whatever... Da Feet Boss, Da Feet