Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Source arrested, charged with espionage
 

Quote

 

A former Air Force intelligence officer has been arrested and charged with espionage for leaking information to the press detailing how the U.S. government uses armed drones for secret assassination missions in foreign countries.

Daniel Everette Hale, 31, of Nashville, was arrested this morning. According to the Justice Department, Hale, during his time in the Air Force as an intelligence analyst, and then later as a private sector employee of a defense contractor, passed along top secret documents to a reporter, some of which were published.

The 2013-2014 timeframe during which this leaking allegedly happened suggests that Hale may have played a role in The Drone Papers, published by The Intercept. The series documented the secret use of drones to kill human targets, both in countries in which we're engaged in authorized military action (like Afghanistan) and countries where we are not (like Yemen and Somalia).

The person who leaked these documents to The Intercept revealed that the government classified anybody killed by U.S. drone strikes—even if they weren't the target—as militants, and that's how they were able to insist that civilians weren't being killed in significant numbers.

The Intercept stories were not news to the Yemenis, Somalians, and Afghanis who have been affected by U.S. drone strikes on civilians. These people already knew that they and their loved ones are not terrorists. Hale—like Edward Snowden and Reality Winner—is being accused of "espionage" for the crime of informing the American people about their government's actions.

 

Remember to keep the focus of this discussion on the problem here: the leaker.

Just ignore the people who lied about who they were killing. Patriots doing their duty, just like the people who lied to the FISA court about what the NSA was doing.

Link to post
Share on other sites
37 minutes ago, phillysailor said:

And Obama had the moral authority to make most of the world believe it.

At this point, I doubt America would get the same latitude. There is a penalty we all pay for CIC with a fragile ego and a mean streak.

I wouldn’t even believe it until BBC and at least one reputable nation confirmed it.   A statement from the White House or its appointees (Secretary of Offense) have no current credibility.   

@Shootist Jeff     I respect the decisions you describe, and their difficulty.    I question the need to make them, and the ability of another power (nation or group) to make similar decisions to attack US decision makers such as politicians and officers, even if that means innocents are inevitably killed.   After all, that is what Bin Laden did at least with his attack of the pentagon and his attempt on Congress.   It is certainly possible to assassinate American leaders less protected then POTUS by a commercially available drone and some redneck engineering.   Would we shrug our shoulders and say they the attack was legitimate even though there was no declaration of war, since they were considered to be enemies by the terrorists, Yemen or Syria?   

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Just like my wife, whistleblowers are always right, 

even when they are a bit wrong. 

Glad to see Chelsea free !! 

She paid a heavy price for telling Americans what they had every right to know. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Shootist Jeff said:

Anywho, I can’t speak for the politicians and admin officials who may have exaggerated the civilian death count.

I can, since they spoke for me.

First of all, they minimized, not exaggerated, the count.

Secondly, they lied to us about it. Again.

4 hours ago, phillysailor said:

And Obama had the moral authority to make most of the world believe it.

Obama ran against, then expanded, W's drone war. His "moral authority" on the subject, such as it was, was belatedly attempting to limit the ability of his successor to do what he did. And it failed, of course, so he has very little on this subject.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Shootist Jeff said:
8 hours ago, Importunate Tom said:

Just ignore the people who lied about who they were killing. Patriots doing their duty, just like the people who lied to the FISA court about what the NSA was doing.

I’m not going to focus on the leaker. But he was just as wrong as Snowden. 

Just how wrong is exposing traitors, anyway?

On 2/11/2014 at 1:08 PM, Importunate Tom said:
On 8/21/2013 at 5:40 PM, Tom Ray said:

 

  On 8/21/2013 at 3:27 PM, badlatitude said:

This just get better and better:

  Quote

The National Security Agency unlawfully gathered as many as tens of thousands of e-mails and other electronic communications between Americans as part of a now-discontinued collection program, according to a 2011 secret court opinion.

 

The 86-page opinion, which was declassified by U.S. intelligence officials on Wednesday, explains why the chief judge of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court at the time ruled the collection method unconstitutional. The judge, John D. Bates, found that the government had “advised the court that the volume and nature of the information it has been collecting is fundamentally different from what the court had been led to believe.”

 

Read more at:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/nsa-gathered-thousands-of-americans-e-mails-before-court-struck-down-program/2013/08/21/146ba4b6-0a90-11e3-b87c-476db8ac34cd_story.html

 

Here's a direct link to the now-declassified opinion. I'm about ten pages in and it's really tedious so far, except when you can tell something interesting might be coming. Then there's a blacked out portion.

 

http://www.scribd.com/doc/162016974/FISA-court-opinion-with-exemptions

 

 

My biggest problem in this story is "what the (FISA) court had been led to believe."

 

Leading someone to believe something is a purposeful action. I don't believe it was an accident that what the court had been led to believe was fundamentally different from what was actually happening.

 

It was the intentional act of traitors. Snowden exposed them and now they're mad. Boo hoo.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Shootist Jeff said:

Think to yourself who benefits by exaggerated reporting of civilian deaths?  Just saying

Think to yourself who benefits by lying to us about what our forces have done.

Quote

The 2013-2014 timeframe during which this leaking allegedly happened suggests that Hale may have played a role in The Drone Papers, published by The Intercept. The series documented the secret use of drones to kill human targets, both in countries in which we're engaged in authorized military action (like Afghanistan) and countries where we are not (like Yemen and Somalia).

The person who leaked these documents to The Intercept revealed that the government classified anybody killed by U.S. drone strikes—even if they weren't the target—as militants, and that's how they were able to insist that civilians weren't being killed in significant numbers.

"If we killed 'em, they must have been bad" is awfully convenient, don't you think?

As for conducting these operations where they are not authorized, I'm pretty sure no such place exists since Authorizing Unitary Military Forever is Duopoly policy.

I think there should be places where the President can't just send the drones to kill people and then declare them bad. But there are not.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, phillysailor said:

And Obama had the moral authority to make most of the world believe it.

At this point, I doubt America would get the same latitude. There is a penalty we all pay for CIC with a fragile ego and a mean streak.

You think Obama is a better con man than Trump?

Link to post
Share on other sites

IMHO the worst thing about drones is the idea that one can conduct a war and/or foreign policy with high explosives and not hurt any bystanders. We used to level entire cities to get whatever targets might be there. Pretty much every kind of war is brutal to the bystanders. Hell in Yorktown the casualties among the runaway slaves that tried to hide out from their masters greatly exceeded USA and UK casualties combined. Apparently once the shooting started no fucks were given about the people in between the lines.

Link to post
Share on other sites
43 minutes ago, Dog said:

You think Obama is a better con man than Trump?

In one way I think he is/was.

Diplomacy is the art of telling people to go to hell in such a way that they ask for directions.

Obama: Sadly the evil Dr. X and his henchmen, who have inflicted so much suffering on the world, chose to hide in an urban area and some collateral damage was unavoidable :(

Trump: We will blow them all up! We'll nuke them! Fuck off losers we'll kill you too!

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Dog said:

You think Obama is a better con man than Trump?

Being a politician involves straddling some uncomfortable fences.

I believed Obama’s concern for the smallest among us and for the principles on which our country has stood for these 240+ years. Obama is honorable, attends church, is a family man and exudes moral authority. If he has engaged in deception, as no doubt he needed to, upon occasion, as president, it was to serve a higher purpose.

In fact, earlier the same night Obama sat in the Situation Room and watched the raid on OBLs compound, our president sat on the stage at the WH Correspondant’s Dinner and gave no sign of momentous events afoot. He gave a fantastic speech, and laughed with all the rest at jokes at his own expense (something Donny could never do.)

He even took time to rip apart an infuriated Donald Trump, who probably pledged on the spot to never attend another one of those events. 

So yeah, Obama could put on an act. But he did his shtick FOR America, and takes on Trump-sized bullies for dessert. Donny no-taxes “billionaire” does his con job TO America. He is duplicitous by nature, a narcissist who seeks to manipulate others to his advantage at every opportunity. He lies more easily than he tells the truth, and likes to beats up (or fails to pay) the little guy.

So it depends what you mean when you ask “who’s the better con man.” Obama is clearly the better man, and his performance that night in 2011 was better than anything Bonespurs has ever done or ever will.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

From “A Night To Remember” by Adam Gopnik published in The New Yorker:

“Trump was then at the height of his unimaginably ugly marketing of birther fantasies, and, just days before, the state of Hawaii had, at the President’s request, released Obama’s long-form birth certificate in order to end, or try to end, the nonsense.  Having referred to that act, he then gently but acutely mocked Trump’s Presidential ambitions: “I know that he’s taken some flack lately—no one is prouder to put this birth-certificate matter to rest than the Donald. And that’s because he can finally get back to the issues that matter, like: did we fake the moon landing? What really happened in Roswell? And—where are Biggie and Tupac?” The President went on, “We all know about your credentials and breadth of experience. For example—no, seriously—just recently, in an episode of Celebrity Apprentice”—there was laughter at the mention of the program’s name. Obama explained that, when a team did not impress, Trump “didn’t blame Lil Jon or Meatloaf—you fired Gary Busey. And these are the kinds of decisions that would keep me up at night.”

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/9/2019 at 11:42 PM, phillysailor said:

And Obama had the moral authority to make most of the world believe it. Lie and get away with it.

At this point, I doubt America would get the same latitude. There is a penalty we all pay for CIC with a fragile ego and a mean streak.

FIFY.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Shootist Jeff said:

How is that unique to drones?  4th and 5th Gen fighters and bombers with precision weapons are no more or less accurate than “drones”. 

Drones are what we are using, but you are correct, people also think that about the various guided weapons.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 8 months later...

The case against Daniel Everette Hale survived a motion to dismiss last month

Quote

 

...

Prosecutors said Hale provided a reporter with 11 top-secret or secret documents about the government's use of drones against al-Qaida and other targets.

Hale sought to have the case dismissed, arguing that the law is being used to suppress freedom of the press.

In recently unsealed court documents, U.S. District Judge Liam O'Grady rejected the motions to dismiss. He said similar arguments have been made and rejected by federal appeals courts.

Hale's lawyers say the Espionage Act was intended to target spying. In recent years, though, they say the law has wrongly been used against whistleblowers exposing government wrongdoing.

...

 

I think Hale's lawyers are right about that last part but suspect the Judge is right that this argument has been made and lost. Likely lost because the WWI-era Espionage Act would not have any whistleblower exception and judges have refused to conjure up one.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Related:

The Espionage Act and a Growing Threat to Press Freedom
 

Quote

 

...

The Espionage Act is more than a century old, and its use as a tool for the suppression of speech crucial to the democratic process is not at all new. During the First World War, some two thousand people were prosecuted under the act for their opposition to the draft and the war, many of them for political speech that we would recognize today as fully protected by the First Amendment. In the nineteen-seventies, the government charged Daniel Ellsberg under the act for supplying the Pentagon Papers, a classified study of U.S. involvement in Vietnam, to the Washington Post and the New York Times. The government was forced to abandon the prosecution after it came to light that the F.B.I. had unlawfully tapped Ellsberg’s phone and that agents of the White House had broken into the office of his psychiatrist.

Throughout the twentieth century, though, only one person was convicted under the Espionage Act for supplying information to the press. Samuel Loring Morison, a Navy intelligence analyst, was charged in 1984 with providing classified photographs to Jane’s Defence Weekly. The photos showed a next-generation Soviet aircraft carrier being assembled at a construction yard. Morison was convicted, but President Bill Clinton pardoned him, in 2001.

Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan, who wrote powerfully of the corrosive effect of official secrecy, was among many who advocated for Morison’s pardon. He argued that Morison had been convicted for “an activity which has become a routine aspect of government life: leaking information to the press in order to bring pressure to bear on a policy question.” Moynihan’s observation provided a complement to an argument that Max Frankel, the Times’ Washington bureau chief, had made in the Pentagon Papers case. If the press did not publish government secrets, Frankel wrote, “there could be no adequate diplomatic, military and political reporting of the kind our people take for granted, either abroad or in Washington, and there could be no mature system of communication between the Government and the people.”

The George W. Bush Administration pursued several government insiders for leaking classified information, but it was the Obama Administration that normalized the use of the Espionage Act against journalists’ sources.

...

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Trump is doing his best to beat Obama's record number of prosecutions of whistleblowers under the Espionage Act. More from the New Yorker piece:
 

Quote

 

In the two and a half years since Trump complained to Comey, the Justice Department has indicted three people under the Espionage Act for providing information of public concern to the press. One of them, Reality Leigh Winner, was indicted for allegedly disclosing information concerning Russia’s efforts to interfere in the 2016 elections. Another, Terry Albury, the only African-American F.B.I. field agent in Minnesota, was charged with revealing information about the F.B.I.’s surveillance and infiltration of the Somali-American community. Hale was the third.

On one level, the logic of these indictments is easy to understand. The government needs to be able to protect its secrets, and it couldn’t if every employee and contractor felt empowered to decide which secrets should be disclosed. The problem with its increasing reliance on the Espionage Act to sanction insiders who reveal secrets to the press is that the act collapses all of the distinctions that should matter in those cases. It draws no distinction between insiders who share information with foreign intelligence services and those who share it with the media, or between those who intend to harm the United States and those who intend to inform the public about the abuse of government power. The act doesn’t admit of the possibility of secrets that are illegitimate, or widely known, or no longer sensitive, instead treating all disclosures of “information relating to the national defense” as subject, at least in theory, to the harshest penalties. The act is blind to the possibility that the public’s interest in learning of government incompetence, corruption, or criminality might outweigh the government’s interest in protecting a given secret. It is blind to the difference between whistle-blowers and spies. The government’s now-routine use of the Espionage Act against journalists’ sources suggests that it, too, has lost sight of these distinctions.

...

Safeguarding the public’s right to know requires protecting not just journalists and publishers but sources as well. In recent years, some press-freedom advocates have urged the courts to afford government insiders charged under the Espionage Act an opportunity to argue that the public’s interest in learning the information they disclosed outweighed the government’s interest in protecting it. In an era in which the President has trouble differentiating journalists from “enemies of the people,” it may be up to the courts, and the people themselves, to insist on differentiating whistle-blowers from spies.

 

I don't think the courts should try to solve that problem. Not sure what he means by "the people themselves" but Congress can change the Espionage Act to define a whistleblower exception. I doubt they will. Instead we'll see more Presidents build on the Obama and Trump precedents.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 1 year later...

Daniel Hale Revealed America's Drone Assassinations to the Public. He's Been Sentenced to 45 Months in Prison.
 

Quote

 

...Hale's leaks were intended to show that the drone assassinations under President Barack Obama were not what the American public believed them to be. The government insisted that its secret "kill list" of terrorists was carefully vetted, and the drone strikes were only deployed to kill those the government and military believed it was unfeasible to arrest.

The reality, Hale revealed, was the drone strikes regularly resulted in the death of innocents, and the government covered it up by automatically classifying anybody killed as "militants" even when they weren't the targets of the strikes. This allowed the government to insist that civilian casualties were being kept to a minimum.

The documentation Hale provided was published as "The Drone Papers" by Scahill and later as part of a book titled The Assassination Complex.

The feds finally caught up with Hale in 2019 and arrested him, charging him with espionage. After the arrest, Hale pleaded guilty and essentially threw himself at the mercy of the court, acknowledging that he violated the law while refusing to apologize for it. In a lengthy handwritten letter to U.S. District Judge Liam O'Grady, Hale described an incident where a drone strike he helped arrange failed to kill its target (an Afghan man allegedly involved in making car bombs) and instead killed his 5-year-old daughter. He wrote, "Now, whenever I encounter an individual who thinks that drone warfare is justified and reliably keeps America safe, I remember that time and ask myself how I could possibly believe that I am a good person, deserving of my life and the right to pursue happiness."

...

The Washington Post notes that Hale's leaking of documentation showing how the government put people on secret terrorism watchlists helped civil rights lawyers fight for due process for their clients.

...

 

Obviously, there are still authoritarian assholes who want to use secret lists against their political opponents, but I'm glad Hale helped rein those in a bit. The prosecutors' assertion that Hale did little or nothing to spur public debate about how we fight wars (or police actions) seems regrettably true.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 2 months later...

Daniel Hale Goes To Prison
 

Quote

 

...

Hale's leaks showed that drone assassinations under President Barack Obama were not what the American public believed them to be. The administration insisted that its secret "kill list" of terrorists was carefully vetted and that drone strikes were deployed only to kill targets the government and military believed it was not feasible to arrest.

The reality, Hale revealed, was that the targeted strikes regularly resulted in the deaths of bystanders. The government hid this fact by classifying anybody killed in a U.S. drone strike as a "militant," even when he was not a target. This obfuscation allowed the government to insist it was minimizing civilian casualties.

The feds caught up with Hale in 2019 and charged him with espionage. Hale acknowledged that he violated the law and pleaded guilty to sharing classified information, but he refused to apologize.

In a lengthy handwritten letter to U.S. District Judge Liam O'Grady, Hale described an incident in which a drone strike he had helped arrange failed to kill its target (an Afghan man allegedly involved in making car bombs) and instead killed the man's 5-year-old daughter. "Now, whenever I encounter an individual who thinks that drone warfare is justified and reliably keeps America safe, I remember that time and ask myself how I could possibly believe that I am a good person, deserving of my life and the right to pursue happiness," Hale wrote.

Prosecutors argued that Hale leaked the documents to boost his own ego and that doing so put Americans at risk. "Hale did not in any way contribute to the public debate about how we fight wars," Assistant U.S. Attorney Gordon Kromberg said in court. "All he did was endanger the people who are doing the fighting."

Hale's sentence is an example of how the federal government misuses laws meant for spies who reveal classified information to our country's enemies. Too often, it punishes citizens who reveal the government's true behavior to their fellow Americans.

 

I think exposing warmonger lies contributes to public debate more than suppressing that kind of exposure.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/15/2021 at 6:59 AM, Excoded Tom said:

Daniel Hale Goes To Prison
 

I think exposing warmonger lies contributes to public debate more than suppressing that kind of exposure.

Vets For Peace stood up for Dan Hale. 

How about you ?  

Anonymous blogging does not count a whit. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, AJ Oliver said:

Vets For Peace stood up for Dan Hale. 

How about you ?  

Anonymous blogging does not count a whit. 

This thread is more about Dan Hale than me.

If you want to talk about me, there's a thread for that. If that one's not good enough, there's a duplicate gossip thread.

Anonymously yours,

Tom Ray

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 3 weeks later...

Oopsies.
 

Quote

 

Pentagon investigators have rendered their judgment on a U.S. drone strike in Kabul, Afghanistan, that killed 10 people, including an aid worker and seven children: It was a regrettable goof that violated no law.

...

It's notable that the top military officials defended the strike, even after reports surfaced that it had ended up killing civilians, often justifying their actions on details that later turned out not to be true.

At one press conference, Gen. Mark Milley, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, described the attack as "righteous" and said the military had "very good intelligence that ISIS-K was preparing a specific type of vehicle at a specific type of location."

Milley also said that secondary explosions after the drone strike were evidence that it had in fact hit a vehicle laden with explosives. The Times investigation found no evidence of that second explosion, and we know now that there never was one.

Even if one takes the Defense Department at its word that while mistakes were made, everyone involved in the strike acted reasonably, that's hardly exonerative.

The military insists that its drone procedures are not enough to prevent mistaken strikes that don't kill any terrorists but do leave behind a lot of dead children.

If that is the case, the U.S. military certainly can't guarantee it won't botch another strike with similarly tragic and fatal results. That really calls into question whether we should be performing these kinds of strikes at all.

Everyone acting in good, but misplaced, faith is the most charitable explanation for the Kabul drone strike. It's hardly an acceptable one.

 

I feel safer already.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 1 month later...

Will America's Military Reckon with the Reckless Murders Perpetuated by Its Drone Wars?
 

Quote

 

...

Over the weekend, in a detailed, heavily reported two-part story, The New York Times documented how Washington's "precision drone strikes" have been anything but precise. Not only did they repeatedly kill innocents, including children, but more often than not the military failed to examine adequately why these mistakes were made, failed to correct its procedures, and failed to hold anybody accountable.

...

A small but shocking detail is buried deep in the Times report: When reviewing the legitimacy of its strikes, the military does not even send anybody in person to investigate what happened. The Times reports, "Of the 1,311 assessments from the Pentagon, in only one did investigators visit the site of a strike. In only two did they interview witnesses or survivors."

Instead, the same type of distant surveillance video that was used to justify mistaken drone strikes was often used to examine the consequences. Often there was no footage to review, which led the Pentagon to reject allegations that civilians were killed because nobody in their own operation had evidence otherwise.

So New York Times journalists spent years doing the investigative work that the Pentagon failed to do. This story focuses entirely on drone strike reports in Iraq and Syria, based on what they've been able to force into the public eye from Freedom of Information Act requests and lawsuits. The paper has a separate lawsuit trying to wrest out reports about drone strikes in Afghanistan.

Right now, whistleblower Daniel Hale is in federal prison in Illinois, sentenced to 45 months for leaking some documentation to journalists that shows these very problems with how U.S. drone strikes operate. To judge from this Times report, Hale's leaks were just the tip of the iceberg. The Times shows that time and time again, these drone strikes not only kill innocents but fail to take out the insurgents being targeted. Even under the cruel calculus that innocents may end up as collateral damage, this is a failure: Sometimes those innocents were the only people killed or injured.

...

Instead, the same type of distant surveillance video that was used to justify mistaken drone strikes was often used to examine the consequences. Often there was no footage to review, which led the Pentagon to reject allegations that civilians were killed because nobody in their own operation had evidence otherwise.

So New York Times journalists spent years doing the investigative work that the Pentagon failed to do. This story focuses entirely on drone strike reports in Iraq and Syria, based on what they've been able to force into the public eye from Freedom of Information Act requests and lawsuits. The paper has a separate lawsuit trying to wrest out reports about drone strikes in Afghanistan.

Right now, whistleblower Daniel Hale is in federal prison in Illinois, sentenced to 45 months for leaking some documentation to journalists that shows these very problems with how U.S. drone strikes operate. To judge from this Times report, Hale's leaks were just the tip of the iceberg. The Times shows that time and time again, these drone strikes not only kill innocents but fail to take out the insurgents being targeted. Even under the cruel calculus that innocents may end up as collateral damage, this is a failure: Sometimes those innocents were the only people killed or injured.

...

In a follow-up story, journalist Azmat Khan wrote a first-person account of what it was like investigating these strikes on the ground, reading these Pentagon reports, and then reconciling them with what actually occurred. She ends her piece going over a strike in West Mosul, Iraq, that took place in 2017. The military believed a location—a home—was being used solely by Islamic State militants. The government planned a strike, but then military observers noticed via surveillance three children playing on the roof.

Nevertheless, they military believed that ISIS was manufacturing weapons there. Even though children had been seen there, the strike was authorized due to the "military advantage" of taking out an ISIS location. The Pentagon then reported that three ISIS members were killed by the strike. But ISIS-linked media reported that, in fact, they had killed 11 civilians.

Khan went to the site of the strike in June and talked to people who lived there. They told her 11 members of a family had been killed. She tracked down witnesses and the sole survivor. They all said the family had nothing to do with ISIS. There was an ISIS bunk house across the street they said, but it had been vacated before the strike (and was not damaged by it).

 

I feel safer already.

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, billy backstay said:

This happened 7-8 years ago, why is it worthy of bringing up now, and was not revealed in 2013, and 2014?

Possibly because

Quote

... New York Times journalists spent years doing the investigative work that the Pentagon failed to do.

BTW, the strikes mentioned at the link were 2016 and 2017.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, billy backstay said:

Tom, do you ever sleep???

Yes, I've adopted the siesta as the beginning phase of my transition to Mexican. Culturally insensitive gringos insist on calling and waking me up, though. It's a struggle for those of us who transition.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...