Page 1 of 4 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 68

Thread: Did the NY Times Commit Treason when they Printed National Security Leaks?

  1. #1

    Did the NY Times Commit Treason when they Printed National Security Leaks?

    The uproar in Congress includes both sides of the Capitol and both sides of the aisle. Lawmakers are making furious calls for FBI investigations and for tightening up the nation’s espionage laws. The reason: a spate of New York Times articles and a new book by its chief Washington correspondent, David Sanger. Last Friday, Sanger revealed a state secret that is arguably more sensitive than any other state secret that has been revealed since the Rosenbergs tipped off Stalin about the American atomic bomb. Sanger’s new book reveals that the Obama White House is conducting a coordinated campaign of industrial sabotage against Iran by means of cyber weapons. Remember the Stuxnet virus or the more sophisticated worm known as Flame? According to Sanger, all were components of an American government plan to sabotage the Iranian nuclear program. Or as Pogo famously pointed out: “We have met the enemy and he is us.”

    The foreseeable harm done by Sanger and his Times colleagues now includes the likelihood of Iranian retaliation because industrial sabotage, like blockades and air raids, are acts of war. You might remember how, earlier this year, the Iranians forced down our beyond-top-secret spy drone, apparently by spoofing its GPS system. Given the sloppy condition of our cyber defenses, the mullahs must surely be contemplating retaliation, say against the notoriously computer-dependent American infrastructure. Could Iran really do that? Obama’s own cyber-czars have long acknowledged our vulnerabilities to such attacks. Although few Americans now realize it, The New York Times has brought us closer to another horrific day like 9/11, when the lights go out, the ATMs don’t work and the gas pumps at the local filling station aren’t open.

    But there is an even deeper internal security issue: How far does the First Amendment extend today — or has it become the suicide pact of the 21st century? Does the “public’s right to know” mean that the press can freely compromise secrets directly affecting the nation’s survival? To begin with, remember that the secrets betrayed by The New York Times were not the property of the White House, the National Security Council, the Pentagon or the 14 alphabetical agencies comprising our intelligence establishment. Instead, those secrets were owned by the American people, who rely on their government to protect those crown jewels, which are essential to both the common defense and the general welfare.

    So what do we do about Sanger and The New York Times — or a White House leaking like a sieve since Inauguration Day? This may be a moment to make haste slowly, to re-establish a badly frayed bipartisan consensus and make better sense of the nation’s rapidly changing, information-age interests. The appropriate place to begin is in the House, specifically the House Armed Services and Government Oversight Committees. Those committees should adopt the RICO model (used to crack organized crime conspiracies) and use the FBI to pin down how the secrets were leaked. Sanger, his source and their co-conspirators are now profiting in various ways from the sale of American secrets. So why not use a RICO approach to fix responsibility: Who leaked, who conspired and, most of all, qui bono?

    That’s an appropriate response considering that the stakes are as high as the offices of the likely leakers. Like Thomas Donilon, for example, the current national security advisor. Both in Sanger’s book and Bob Woodward’s Obama’s Wars, Donilon is conspicuous for his rigorous self-promotion and hyper-political willingness to force the national security establishment to hew the administration line. You never know the facts until you do the investigation: But Donilon’s West Wing office is a good place to begin. As a young officer investigating security crimes in the Army equivalent of the FBI, I learned a vital lesson: Conspiracies break only when you give people compelling reasons to tell the truth.



    Read more: [url]http://dailycaller.com/2012/06/07/exposing-the-new-york-times-sins/#ixzz1xDEmVJXp[/url]

  2. #2
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Van down by the river
    Posts
    22,741
    [QUOTE=chiefst2000;4487274]Remember the Stuxnet virus or the more sophisticated worm known as Flame? According to Sanger, all were components of an American government plan to sabotage the Iranian nuclear program. [/QUOTE]

    huh?

    The fact that Stuxnet was an American attack was known a year and a half ago...like a day or two after the attack.

    Man. Congress is really f*cking stupid, aren't they? Day late, dollar short, morons...

  3. #3
    [QUOTE=chiefst2000;4487274]The uproar in Congress includes both sides of the Capitol and both sides of the aisle. Lawmakers are making furious calls for FBI investigations and for tightening up the nation’s espionage laws. The reason: a spate of New York Times articles and a new book by its chief Washington correspondent, David Sanger. Last Friday, Sanger revealed a state secret that is arguably more sensitive than any other state secret that has been revealed since the Rosenbergs tipped off Stalin about the American atomic bomb. Sanger’s new book reveals that the Obama White House is conducting a coordinated campaign of industrial sabotage against Iran by means of cyber weapons. Remember the Stuxnet virus or the more sophisticated worm known as Flame? According to Sanger, all were components of an American government plan to sabotage the Iranian nuclear program. Or as Pogo famously pointed out: “We have met the enemy and he is us.”

    The foreseeable harm done by Sanger and his Times colleagues now includes the likelihood of Iranian retaliation because industrial sabotage, like blockades and air raids, are acts of war. You might remember how, earlier this year, the Iranians forced down our beyond-top-secret spy drone, apparently by spoofing its GPS system. Given the sloppy condition of our cyber defenses, the mullahs must surely be contemplating retaliation, say against the notoriously computer-dependent American infrastructure. Could Iran really do that? Obama’s own cyber-czars have long acknowledged our vulnerabilities to such attacks. Although few Americans now realize it, The New York Times has brought us closer to another horrific day like 9/11, when the lights go out, the ATMs don’t work and the gas pumps at the local filling station aren’t open.

    But there is an even deeper internal security issue: How far does the First Amendment extend today — or has it become the suicide pact of the 21st century? Does the “public’s right to know” mean that the press can freely compromise secrets directly affecting the nation’s survival? To begin with, remember that the secrets betrayed by The New York Times were not the property of the White House, the National Security Council, the Pentagon or the 14 alphabetical agencies comprising our intelligence establishment. Instead, those secrets were owned by the American people, who rely on their government to protect those crown jewels, which are essential to both the common defense and the general welfare.

    So what do we do about Sanger and The New York Times — or a White House leaking like a sieve since Inauguration Day? This may be a moment to make haste slowly, to re-establish a badly frayed bipartisan consensus and make better sense of the nation’s rapidly changing, information-age interests. The appropriate place to begin is in the House, specifically the House Armed Services and Government Oversight Committees. Those committees should adopt the RICO model (used to crack organized crime conspiracies) and use the FBI to pin down how the secrets were leaked. Sanger, his source and their co-conspirators are now profiting in various ways from the sale of American secrets. So why not use a RICO approach to fix responsibility: Who leaked, who conspired and, most of all, qui bono?

    That’s an appropriate response considering that the stakes are as high as the offices of the likely leakers. Like Thomas Donilon, for example, the current national security advisor. Both in Sanger’s book and Bob Woodward’s Obama’s Wars, Donilon is conspicuous for his rigorous self-promotion and hyper-political willingness to force the national security establishment to hew the administration line. You never know the facts until you do the investigation: But Donilon’s West Wing office is a good place to begin. As a young officer investigating security crimes in the Army equivalent of the FBI, I learned a vital lesson: Conspiracies break only when you give people compelling reasons to tell the truth.



    Read more: [url]http://dailycaller.com/2012/06/07/exposing-the-new-york-times-sins/#ixzz1xDEmVJXp[/url][/QUOTE]

    If there is a leak then the story should be who is leaking the information and why. The story should not be about the press. The job of the press is not to act as a lackey for the government. If there is a leak it is better to have it exposed and that is a story in itself. When the press works in concert with the government to frame opinions by hiding facts then our democracy becomes compromised.

  4. #4
    [QUOTE=PlumberKhan;4487281]huh?

    The fact that Stuxnet was an American attack was known a year and a half ago...like a day or two after the attack.

    Man. Congress is really f*cking stupid, aren't they? Day late, dollar short, morons...[/QUOTE]

    You are wrong as usual. The existence of the Stuxnet was known. Who unleashed it was never known. There was some speculation. Also the Flame Virus revelation was a recent leak as was the identity of an asset that helped identify a recent terror plot. There are many examples of recent leaks which appear to be coming from the Presidents inner circle. Even congressional Democrats are outraged. When Diane Feinstine is outraged then it is difficult to argue partisanship.

    The point of this thread is to discuss whether the Times printing this stuff should be looked at as an act of treason. This is a sensitive issue. Freedom of the press is something we cherish as Americans. Is it possible however that printing national security secrets knowing that they will harm our assets in the field crosses a line into treason? It is a topic worthy of debate.
    Last edited by chiefst2000; 06-08-2012 at 10:49 AM.

  5. #5
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    New York, NY
    Posts
    13,557
    [QUOTE=intelligentjetsfan;4487288]If there is a leak then the story should be who is leaking the information and why. The story should not be about the press. The job of the press is not to act as a lackey for the government. If there is a leak it is better to have it exposed and that is a story in itself. When the press works in concert with the government to frame opinions by hiding facts then our democracy becomes compromised.[/QUOTE]

    What an absolute joke from a person who gets outraged at the irresponsibilty of FoxNews. This is far more potentially damaging than anything they've ever done.

  6. #6
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Van down by the river
    Posts
    22,741
    [QUOTE=chiefst2000;4487294]You are wrong as usual. The existence of the Stuxnet was known. Who unleashed it was never known. There was some speculation. Also the Flame Virus revelation was a recent leak as was the identity of an asset that helped identify a recent terror plot. There are many examples of recent leaks which appear to be coming from the Presidents inner circle. Even congressional Democrats are outraged. When Diane Feinstine is outraged then it is difficult to argue partisanship.

    The point of this thread is to discuss whether the Times printing this stuff should be looked at as an act of treason. This is a sensitive issue. Freedom of the press is something we cherish as Americans. Is it possible however that printing national security secrets knowing that they will harm our assets in the field crosses a line into treason? It is a topic worthy of debate.[/QUOTE]

    Oh c'mon.

    They knew where it came from. They're not dumb.



    I'll address your topic...since it's very important to you to on a Friday.

    No. The guy who wrote the book that reveled it should be executed. Not the Times.

    Executing the entire staff of the Times would be a messy ordeal. It would be much easier to kill a single author.

  7. #7
    [QUOTE=intelligentjetsfan;4487288]If there is a leak then the story should be who is leaking the information and why. The story should not be about the press. The job of the press is not to act as a lackey for the government. If there is a leak it is better to have it exposed and that is a story in itself. When the press works in concert with the government to frame opinions by hiding facts then our democracy becomes compromised.[/QUOTE]

    There is a long history in our country of the press holding back on printing stories that threaten national security. I would never be for limiting freedom of the press but when lives and national security are steak restraint by the press should prevail. I don't know the law on this but based on some of the prosecutions that have happened re: the Wikileaks site there may be precedent for the illegality of printing classified national security secrets.

  8. #8
    [QUOTE=PlumberKhan;4487301]Oh c'mon.

    They knew where it came from. They're not dumb.



    I'll address your topic...since it's very important to you to on a Friday.

    No. The guy who wrote the book that reveled it should be executed. Not the Times.

    Executing the entire staff of the Times would be a messy ordeal. It would be much easier to kill a single author.[/QUOTE]

    There is a difference between suspicion and knowing. They suspected the Israelis or the Americans. No one knew for sure. Now we have 10 more examples of leaks seemingly coming from the Presidents inner circle. We know that the Iranians are developing Nukes but they haven't admitted it yet. If they admitted it outright that may give us cover to strike them immediately. Now that we have essentially "admitted" to cyber warfare and sabotage they have the cover to strike back.

  9. #9
    [QUOTE=JetPotato;4487296]What an absolute joke from a person who gets outraged at the irresponsibilty of FoxNews. This is far more potentially damaging than anything they've ever done.[/QUOTE]

    What an absolute waste of bandwidth :rolleyes:

    Fox "News" is the guardian against the government because there is a (D) in office now. When the Bush Administration was in office Fox "News" was the defending angels of the party in power. Here is a quick history lesson on what Fox failed to defend us against;

    [I]George W. Bush is following in the footsteps of his predecessors, but may have left more tracks. For starters, invading another country on false pretenses is grounds for impeachment. Also, the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution essentially says that the people have the right to be secure against unreasonable government searches and seizures and that no search warrants shall be issued without probable cause that a crime has been committed. And the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) requires that warrants for national security wiretaps be authorized by the secret FISA court. The law says that it is a crime for government officials to conduct electronic surveillance outside the exclusive purviews of that law or the criminal wiretap statute. President Bush’s authorization of the monitoring of Americans’ e-mails and phone calls by the National Security Agency (NSA) without even the minimal protection of FISA court warrants is clearly unconstitutional and illegal. Executive searches without judicial review violate the unique checks and balances that the nation’s founders created in the U.S. government and are a considerable threat to American liberty. Furthermore, surveillance of Americans by the NSA, an intelligence service rather than a law enforcement agency, is a regression to the practices of the Vietnam-era, when intelligence agencies were misused to spy on anti-war protesters—another impeachable violation of peoples’ constitutional rights by LBJ and Nixon.

    President Bush defiantly admits initiating such flagrant domestic spying but contends that the Congress implicitly authorized such activities when it approved the use of force against al Qaeda and that such actions fit within his constitutional powers as commander-in-chief. But the founders never intended core principles of the Constitution to be suspended during wartime. In fact, they realized that it was in times of war and crisis that constitutional protections of the people were most at risk of usurpation by politicians, who purport to defend American freedom while actually undermining it.

    The Bush administration’s FBI has also expanded its use of national security letters to examine the personal records of tens of thousands of Americans who are not suspected of being involved in terrorism or even illegal acts.

    Apparently the president is also taking us back to the Vietnam era by monitoring anti-war protesters. Information on peaceful anti-war demonstrations has apparently found its way into Pentagon databases on possible threats to U.S. security.

    Finally, the president’s policies on detainees in the “war on terror” probably qualify as impeachable offenses. The Bush administration decided that the “war on terror” exempted it from an unambiguous criminal law and international conventions (which are also the law of the land) preventing torture and inhumane treatment of prisoners. An American president permitting torture is both disgraceful and ineffective in getting good information from those held. Furthermore, the administration concocted the fictitious category of “enemy combatants” to deprive detainees of the legal protections of either the U.S. courts or “prisoner-of-war” status. The administration then tried to detain these enemy combatants, some of them American citizens, indefinitely without trial, access to counsel, or the right to have courts to review their cases.

    All of these actions are part of President Bush’s attempt to expand the power of presidency during wartime—as if the imperial presidency hadn’t been expanded enough by his recent predecessors. President Bush usually gets the Attorney General or the White House Counsel to agree with his usurpation of congressional and judicial powers, but, of course, who in the executive is going to disagree with their boss? According to the Washington Post, the Bush administration describes the president’s war making power under the Constitution as “plenary”—meaning absolute. The founders would roll over in their graves at this interpretation of a document that was actually designed to limit the presidential war power, resulting from their revulsion at the way European monarchs easily took their countries to war and foisted the costs—in blood and treasure—on their people. Conservative Bob Barr, a former Congressman from Georgia who was quoted in the Post, said it best: “The American people are going to have to say, ‘Enough of this business of justifying everything as necessary for the war on terror.’ Either the Constitution and the laws of this country mean something or they don’t. It is truly frightening what is going on in this country.”
    [/I]
    [url]http://www.independent.org/newsroom/article.asp?id=1639[/url]

  10. #10
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    New York, NY
    Posts
    13,557
    [QUOTE=intelligentjetsfan;4487324]What an absolute waste of bandwidth :rolleyes:

    Fox "News" is the guardian against the government because there is a (D) in office now. When the Bush Administration was in office Fox "News" was the defending angels of the party in power. Here is a quick history lesson on what Fox failed to defend us against;

    [I]George W. Bush is following in the footsteps of his predecessors, but may have left more tracks. For starters, invading another country on false pretenses is grounds for impeachment. Also, the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution essentially says that the people have the right to be secure against unreasonable government searches and seizures and that no search warrants shall be issued without probable cause that a crime has been committed. And the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) requires that warrants for national security wiretaps be authorized by the secret FISA court. The law says that it is a crime for government officials to conduct electronic surveillance outside the exclusive purviews of that law or the criminal wiretap statute. President Bush’s authorization of the monitoring of Americans’ e-mails and phone calls by the National Security Agency (NSA) without even the minimal protection of FISA court warrants is clearly unconstitutional and illegal. Executive searches without judicial review violate the unique checks and balances that the nation’s founders created in the U.S. government and are a considerable threat to American liberty. Furthermore, surveillance of Americans by the NSA, an intelligence service rather than a law enforcement agency, is a regression to the practices of the Vietnam-era, when intelligence agencies were misused to spy on anti-war protesters—another impeachable violation of peoples’ constitutional rights by LBJ and Nixon.

    President Bush defiantly admits initiating such flagrant domestic spying but contends that the Congress implicitly authorized such activities when it approved the use of force against al Qaeda and that such actions fit within his constitutional powers as commander-in-chief. But the founders never intended core principles of the Constitution to be suspended during wartime. In fact, they realized that it was in times of war and crisis that constitutional protections of the people were most at risk of usurpation by politicians, who purport to defend American freedom while actually undermining it.

    The Bush administration’s FBI has also expanded its use of national security letters to examine the personal records of tens of thousands of Americans who are not suspected of being involved in terrorism or even illegal acts.

    Apparently the president is also taking us back to the Vietnam era by monitoring anti-war protesters. Information on peaceful anti-war demonstrations has apparently found its way into Pentagon databases on possible threats to U.S. security.

    Finally, the president’s policies on detainees in the “war on terror” probably qualify as impeachable offenses. The Bush administration decided that the “war on terror” exempted it from an unambiguous criminal law and international conventions (which are also the law of the land) preventing torture and inhumane treatment of prisoners. An American president permitting torture is both disgraceful and ineffective in getting good information from those held. Furthermore, the administration concocted the fictitious category of “enemy combatants” to deprive detainees of the legal protections of either the U.S. courts or “prisoner-of-war” status. The administration then tried to detain these enemy combatants, some of them American citizens, indefinitely without trial, access to counsel, or the right to have courts to review their cases.

    All of these actions are part of President Bush’s attempt to expand the power of presidency during wartime—as if the imperial presidency hadn’t been expanded enough by his recent predecessors. President Bush usually gets the Attorney General or the White House Counsel to agree with his usurpation of congressional and judicial powers, but, of course, who in the executive is going to disagree with their boss? According to the Washington Post, the Bush administration describes the president’s war making power under the Constitution as “plenary”—meaning absolute. The founders would roll over in their graves at this interpretation of a document that was actually designed to limit the presidential war power, resulting from their revulsion at the way European monarchs easily took their countries to war and foisted the costs—in blood and treasure—on their people. Conservative Bob Barr, a former Congressman from Georgia who was quoted in the Post, said it best: “The American people are going to have to say, ‘Enough of this business of justifying everything as necessary for the war on terror.’ Either the Constitution and the laws of this country mean something or they don’t. It is truly frightening what is going on in this country.”
    [/I]
    [url]http://www.independent.org/newsroom/article.asp?id=1639[/url][/QUOTE]

    LOL.

    So predictable.

    So easy.

    Self-awareness, buddy. You don't has it.

  11. #11
    [QUOTE=chiefst2000;4487305]There is a long history in our country of the press holding back on printing stories that threaten national security. I would never be for limiting freedom of the press but when lives and national security are steak restraint by the press should prevail. I don't know the law on this but based on some of the prosecutions that have happened re: the Wikileaks site there may be precedent for the illegality of printing classified national security secrets.[/QUOTE]

    fair points but our government also has a long history of using national security as an excuse to hide acts that are unconstitutional and criminal. -the Pentagon Papers, Water Gate, just to name two. Its a complicated issue to be sure.

  12. #12
    [QUOTE=JetPotato;4487325]LOL.

    So predictable.

    So easy.

    Self-awareness, buddy. You don't has it.[/QUOTE]

    Good point, I apologize for taking your post seriously.

  13. #13
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Van down by the river
    Posts
    22,741
    [QUOTE=chiefst2000;4487310]Now that we have essentially "admitted" to cyber warfare and sabotage they have the cover to strike back.[/QUOTE]

    We hit them where it hurts.

    Now...they're gonna hit us where it hurts. Facebook and Twitter.

  14. #14
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    New York, NY
    Posts
    13,557
    [QUOTE=intelligentjetsfan;4487331]Good point, I apologize for taking your post seriously.[/QUOTE]

    My post [I]was[/I] serious. It was about the [U][I]New York Times [/I][/U]and their lack of discretion, which is what this entire thread is about. I also happen to find it amusing how you're willing to defend it, when you're the first one to get enraged about lesser offenses by a certain news outlet like a 4 minute video that harms absolutely no one.

    You took that and ran with "BUSHWARGLEBARGLEFOXNEWSBARGLE!"

    Like I said, predictable.
    Last edited by JetPotato; 06-08-2012 at 11:27 AM.

  15. #15
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    New York, NY
    Posts
    13,557
    [QUOTE=PlumberKhan;4487340]We hit them where it hurts.

    Now...they're gonna hit us where it hurts. Facebook and Twitter.[/QUOTE]

    If they shut down the Hotties Forum, I say we nuke.

  16. #16
    JetsInsider.com Legend
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    37,937
    [QUOTE=intelligentjetsfan;4487288]When the press works in concert with the government to frame opinions by hiding facts then our democracy becomes compromised.[/QUOTE]

    So our Democracy was at it's most compromised ever during WWII under (D) President (and Third Term'er) F.D.R.?

    Interesting viewpoint.

    The flip side is that the media exists and enjoys the freedoms and liberties it does because of the United States, and should exist forst and foremost to serve the interests of the people of the United States who, via the Constitution, prove them those rights and freedoms. And that publishing information that then puts the Courty and it's people in real danger is not in the countries interests, and hence should not be done.

    Perhaps part of our problem today is that our media often sees itself are above and more important than the Country that fostered it's very existence and rights. In the rush to publish damaging information first, our own media now serves the interests of our enemies more than our own interests.

    As such, one wonders how the people should then view, and treat, our own media, who in their zeal to win ratings and hurt us to do it, could care less about those same people and the ramifications of their story publishing.

  17. #17
    [QUOTE=Warfish;4487348]So our Democracy was at it's most compromised ever during WWII under (D) President (and Third Term'er) F.D.R.?

    Interesting viewpoint.

    The flip side is that the media exists and enjoys the freedoms and liberties it does because of the United States, and should exist forst and foremost to serve the interests of the people of the United States who, via the Constitution, prove them those rights and freedoms. And that publishing information that then puts the Courty and it's people in real danger is not in the countries interests, and hence should not be done.

    Perhaps part of our problem today is that our media often sees itself are above and more important than the Country that fostered it's very existence and rights. In the rush to publish damaging information first, our own media now serves the interests of our enemies more than our own interests.

    As such, one wonders how the people should then view, and treat, our own media, who in their zeal to win ratings and hurt us to do it, could care less about those same people and the ramifications of their story publishing.[/QUOTE]

    If nothing else this is an example of a disturbing lack of patriotism from the Times. What they did may have been legal but one has to wonder about the morality of printing national security secrets. The items revealed by the Times exposed current assets in the field working to thwart terror attacks. Those assets and their families are not at risk. In addition the American people are at risk. The whole thing is disturbing.

    The evidence of the seriousness is in the fact that even Congressional democrats are calling for an investigation in to the matter.

  18. #18
    Bewildered Beast
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    SF via Strong Island
    Posts
    30,398
    [QUOTE=JetPotato;4487342]If they shut down the Hotties Forum, I say we nuke.[/QUOTE]

    I'm in there; waiting for 'em. Like Mike, from Breaking Bad.

    I'm nasty.

  19. #19
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    LI
    Posts
    20,345
    yes.


    goes double for WCO.

  20. #20
    Bewildered Beast
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    SF via Strong Island
    Posts
    30,398
    [QUOTE=quantum;4487664]yes.


    goes double for WCO.[/QUOTE][IMG]http://i116.photobucket.com/albums/o38/fishooked/emoticons/RAGE0115.png[/IMG]
    [IMG]http://i116.photobucket.com/albums/o38/fishooked/emoticons/RAGE140.png[/IMG]






    [IMG]http://i116.photobucket.com/albums/o38/fishooked/emoticons/RAGE0105.png[/IMG]





    [IMG]http://i116.photobucket.com/albums/o38/fishooked/emoticons/RAGE141.png[/IMG]

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Follow Us