A Philosopher's Blog

Indefinite Detainment

Posted in Ethics, Law by Michael LaBossiere on December 9, 2011
American Terrorist

Image via Wikipedia

While the actual threat of terrorism is rather minor (even the worry that terrorists might obtain a nuclear weapon clearly pales beside the fact that nations are already well armed with nuclear weapons) there is still an ongoing obsession with passing laws allegedly aimed at security.

As with many attempts to (allegedly) improve security, one of the more recent approaches has involved a clear infringement on rights and liberties. To be specific, the senate recently blocked an attempt to ban the indefinite imprisonment of Americans suspected of terrorism.

The stock justifications for allowing the military to detain American indefinitely are that terrorists are bad and that to not allow this sort of thing puts us in greater danger.

While it is true that terrorists are bad, rapists and murders are also rather bad. In fact, more Americans are killed by non-terrorists than terrorists and this would seem to thus warrant indefinite detainment of all dangerous criminals. This, as might be imagined, would run contrary to the basic legal rights of Americans. As such, the idea that terrorists are bad does not seem to warrant this difference in treatments.

As far as the security value of indefinite detainment, one obvious point of concern is that in order to detain a person, they must be discovered and arrested (or captured).  As such, the indefinite detainment does not seem to aid in actually capturing people. It merely allows people to be held indefinitely. While this could be justified on the grounds that a person who is detained indefinitely would do no more misdeeds, the same argument could be applied to anyone who poses a threat-which would include many non-terrorist criminals.

It might be argued that a terrorist is not entitled to the rights of a citizen since he is an enemy combatant. In the case of alleged  terrorists who have allegedly elected to serve a foreign power, they could be taken to be traitors. However, the matter becomes a bit muddled when the alleged terrorist is entirely domestic in allegiance and motivations. In such cases, the person could be taken to be a traitor in the sense that he would be allegedly making war on the United States. Of course, what would be needed is a clear distinction between a terrorist and a criminal who merely intends to murder Americans and destroy things. Perhaps this could be sorted out in a clear and principled manner.

Perhaps the most significant point of concern is that an American who is accused of being a terrorist in the United States is just that-an accused terrorist. Until it is legally established that an American is a terrorist, then he is merely a suspect and thus still entitled to the full legal rights of an American citizen. In other words, if an American is taken on American soil and denied his rights because he is alleged to be a terrorist, then his rights have been violated because he has been assumed guilty without trial. If he is to be justly stripped of such rights, then his status as a terrorist must be established.

If an American is captured outside of the United States while acting as an enemy combatant (for example, he is captured during an attack on an American base in Afghanistan), then a reasonable case could be made for treating him as an enemy combatant. However, he would still be an American citizen and must be subject to the American legal system. Naturally, if an American is killed while attacking American forces in an act of war, then that death would (in general) be justified.

A final point of concern is that indefinite detainment will be misused. After all, the most common application of the various “anti-terrorist” laws has been in the area of mundane crime (mainly drug crimes).  One obvious concern is that this approach could be used against people who are protesting against the government or who might be targeted for detention without trial.

It might be objected that I am “naive” and do not see “the danger.” My obvious reply is that this alleged danger does not warrant the violation of our basic legal rights. Each time someone wishes to erode rights they make these same sort of appeals to fear and “security.” While such fears might be sincere, they do not warrant an attack on the very liberties and rights they are allegedly created to defend.

Enhanced by Zemanta

30 Responses

Subscribe to comments with RSS.

  1. T. J. Babson said, on December 9, 2011 at 8:32 am

    We’ve already gone way past detention. Obama recently killed a U.S. citizen in a targeted drone attack without any due process.

    • magus71 said, on December 9, 2011 at 9:24 am

      The law states that if an individual joined the foreign army of another state, he is no longer an American citizen. Al-Qaeda is, conveniently enough, a non-state actor. Terrorists have intentionally acted as non-state entities in order to get around many of the rules of war. Hezbollah is a state army that does not have to play by state rules. This is 4th generation warfare; it is the opposite of lining up our armies like a football game and smashing each other in the mouth until one side wins. Instead, the other side is using steroids, stealing our playbook, and poisoning our players’ pre-game meal. Sun Tzu would be proud.

      If Anwar al-Awlaki fought against us during WWII and he were captured by US forces, he would have been summarily executed in less than three days in the field, after being found guilty of treason by a tribunal of 3 military officers. Now the trials of terrorists’ trials go on for nearly a decade, even when the terrorists openly state their guilt (because this proves their work for Allah). The system is not serving us and we need to change it.

      As one lawyer and retired Army colonel told me, if a law does not serve our sense of justice, the law should be changed.

      Anwar al-Awlaki death served justice in my view. And the law should be changed so that people who join certain terror groups lose their citizenship. No country prior to 1900 would have felt bad about killing Anwar al-Awlaki. The Victorians understood some things much better than we do.

      • anon said, on December 9, 2011 at 10:53 am

        “The law states that if an individual joined the foreign army of another state, he is no longer an American citizen. Al-Qaeda is, conveniently enough, a non-state actor.”
        – So in other words they aren’t part of a foreign army of another state.

        “Terrorists have intentionally acted as non-state entities in order to get around many of the rules of war.”
        – Or they are simply non-state entities because they don’t belong to one?

        “Anwar al-Awlaki death served justice in my view. And the law should be changed so that people who join certain terror groups lose their citizenship.”
        – So (joining) some terror groups are ok?

        “No country prior to 1900 would have felt bad about killing Anwar al-Awlaki. The Victorians understood some things much better than we do.”
        – yeah….EVERYBODY KNOWS THIS. EVERYBODY prior to 1900 thought EXACTLY THE SAME WAY. Damn 1900 changed EVERYTHING.

      • T. J. Babson said, on December 9, 2011 at 2:46 pm

        I don’t have a problem with the termination of al-Awlaki, but this would have been a good chance for Obama to have created a legal framework and due process for this sort of thing.

        • magus71 said, on December 9, 2011 at 3:40 pm

          I agree. We should follow our own laws. This needs to be addressed, and soon. I do not agree with the indefinite detainment of suspected terrorists, but in practice, the terrorists awaiting trial are actually held longer than the ones who have not been charged.

          • Michael LaBossiere said, on December 10, 2011 at 12:27 pm

            Quite right. There is no point in having laws that are not followed. If they are worthy and just laws, they should be followed. If they are not, then they should be repealed rather than ignored.

  2. magus71 said, on December 9, 2011 at 9:41 am

    “(even the worry that terrorists might obtain a nuclear weapon clearly pales beside the fact that nations are already well armed with nuclear weapons)”

    Would you rather that alQaeda or France had a nuclear weapon?

    • anon said, on December 9, 2011 at 10:49 am

      France has more capabilities for using it against us that alQaeda does😉

  3. SexAndWaffles said, on December 10, 2011 at 8:12 am

    I think you guys are side-stepping the critical issue of Constitutional Rights in favor of seizing on the buzzword “terrorist”. We all agree that terrorists are bad–it has been shoved down our throats at every opportunity for the past 10 years–but are they worse than other criminals? What gives them so much power that they deserve such a severe judicial process? A process even more severe than that for serial killers, I might add. To date, America has spent billions of dollars on Homeland Security policies and procedures, which account for protecting us from a ridiculously low chance of becoming a victim of terrorism. More Americans are killed by drunk drivers than terrorists, yet they have not had their Constitutional Rights threatened. The issue here is not whether enemy prisoners of war deserve punishment, but whether or not our own citizens are willing to cave into the fear of a false threat enough to hand over our own rights. If you feel that being protected from the ludicrously low chance of terrorism is worth it, be my guest. Support the movement. I would assume that you are the type of person who also supported the Patriot Act. But each time they use the word “terror” to scare us into giving up our rights, the American public loses more of its power as an oversight for the government’s actions.

    • magus71 said, on December 10, 2011 at 12:19 pm

      ” a ridiculously low chance of becoming a victim of terrorism.”

      And why is that?

      “More Americans are killed by drunk drivers than terrorists, yet they have not had their Constitutional Rights threatened.”

      This is the question for Lawyers and judges: Are the constitutional rights of terrorists, in fact, threatened. You state the question as a given. No one is saying, yes, violate the Constitution. But the law needs to serve us.

      Serial killers have a long way to go to match 9-11.

      What rights have you handed over? How does the Patriot Act impact you on a day to day basis?

      Barack Obama likes the Patriot Act, by the way. I really don’t know any of these people you speak of that walk around all day “scared” of terrorism. I know I don’t. Mike likes to throw out this strawman, too. In fact, he thinks far more about terrorism than the average American and routinely mistakes media coverage for what’s on America’s mind.

      • Michael LaBossiere said, on December 10, 2011 at 12:44 pm

        Probably because there are actually very, very, very few terrorists in the world and many of them are busy with targets in their own countries or nearby. Statistically I am more likely to be shot in a random drive by then killed by terrorists. I am vastly more likely to be killed by being hit by a drunk driver.

        If you were designing a war game for the world, how many terrorist units would be in play? What would their damage capacity be?

        • magus71 said, on December 10, 2011 at 2:32 pm

          “many of them are busy with targets in their own countries or nearby.”

          Sounds like George Bush’s argument for fighting them in Iraq and Afghanistan.

          “What would their damage capacity be?”

          Ask the Israelis. Ask the Afghan government. Ask the Pakistani government. Ask the Iraqi government. Ask the Mexican government. Ask the Columbian government. Terrorists can gain defacto control without blowing everything up. They have in several countries. The Pakistani civilian government is afraid of terrorists. That’s why they cooperate with them.

          As Lenin said: One man with a gun can control one hundred without a gun. I saw this plainly in Afghanistan, Kabul province, Musahi district, where the local police department came under almost complete control of the Haqqani Network. When the police chief stepped too far away from Haqqani’s line, they detonated a truck bomb outside the District Center, nearly killing him. The DC looked like the Oklahoma City bombing. The police chief then began allowing the terrorists through his district after that, and into Kabul proper, where suicide bombers would routinely detonate themselves. He did so in exchange for peace in his district. And to spare his own life and wealth. Selective violence is extremely effective. Terrorism works.

          Mike, your idea of the war on terror as a mathematical equation is faulty. It does take more resources to stop terrorism than it takes to implement terrorism; that’s why terrorists use it. Terrorists CAN win. Zionist terrorists prior to 1948 won. They gained a state, which is exactly what they wanted. I myself used to buy into the mathematical equation, or military determinism theory that you espouse. But again, we can’t line up our forces in a one on one match, so the equation is faulty. Just like it will take a whole police department to find a serial killer, it can take a whole military to weed out terrorists.

          Terrorism is an efficient way of getting business done. Ignoring it will not make it less effective, and it will not reduce the danger.

          http://www.amazon.com/Brave-New-War-Terrorism-Globalization/dp/0471780790

          • Michael LaBossiere said, on December 10, 2011 at 4:42 pm

            They seem to be able to damage on par with criminals. They have small arms, some basic explosives, and whatever they can buy or scrounge up.

            As you note, their real power comes in getting a state to feed them (as Pakistan does) or in tiring out other states until they get what they want (as the the “pre-Israelis” got the Brits to set up the mandate). That is, states hand them their main power.

            They are, like criminals, able to kill people and thus have significant impact on a personal level. However, they lack armies, territories and so on. They are essentially criminals with political or theological aspirations. It would seem to be more effective to combat them on as a criminal and psychological problem: that is, they are criminals or mentally ill (or both).

            Hoffer, in his classic work, does a rather good job laying out the psychology of the true believer and the conditions that spawn him. Terrorists are, in general, cut from that cloth.

            • magus71 said, on December 10, 2011 at 7:39 pm

              Well, if you’re talking about a single terrorist, that doens’t mean much, just as a single US soldier doesn’t mean much. But the thing most modern terrorists seek is a revolution of some sort, along the lines of Mao’s theories. Al-Qaeda studied Mao extensively. Mao ran a very successful terrorist organization. If you read his writings, you see that the last stage an insurgency or terror group seeks is basically a full-grown state army, but it does not immediately seek that because it get get that right off.

              Only national or trans-national criminal organizations have close to the same power as terror orgs. Essentially, all insurgencies begin as terrorist groups. Saying that they are “merely” criminals is a gross over-simplification of the matter. It kind of smacks of your “since there is limited matter in the universe, there is limited wealth”, argument.

              To say that we can defeat terrorism the same way we defeat crime is simply not true. There are many similarities. We don’t use many M-1 tanks in Afghanistan. Just as entieis like FARC in Columbia, the Mexican drug cartels and Russian organized crime can hurt nations, so can terrorists. Also, most criminals do not make it their sole aim to kill or destroy infrastructure. Some do, but mostly that is merely a side effect of their crimes, crimes which are aimed at gaining profit. With terrorists, it is the opposite. They may steal or rob, but that is done primarily to fund their killing.

              The second half of the Iraq War was fought against a terrorist organization and it took everything the most powerful nation on Earth could do to defeat it, without killing vast swaths of civilians that is. In Afghanistan, we are living inside heavily armed bases and many areas are not safe even for armored convoys to move through.

              Maybe you don’t consider what’s going on in Afghanistan to be terrorism? I was surely never that unsafe as a cop in Bangor. And believe me, Colbert non-withstanding, an American streetgang would be mince-meat if they went agsint the Haqqanni Network.

            • Michael LaBossiere said, on December 12, 2011 at 6:26 pm

              Afghanistan has strong criminal elements with political ties. I would say that the lines are blurred between terrorist and criminal in that part of the world. In the US, most of our criminals are non-political in the sense that they do not use a political ideology to justify their actions or motivate followers.

              Terrorists are essentially political criminals. To treat them as soldiers in a war is to grant them a status they do not deserve. While they do aim at political goes, their methods by their very nature directly violate the rules of war. As you have noted, the US military tries to avoid killing non-combatants. For the terrorists, non-combatants are the main target (although they do go after military targets).

              Naturally, we need to distinguish guerrilla fighters from terrorists. Crudely put, guerrillas’ tend to focus on strategic targets rather than aiming at terror, which seems to be morally significant.

            • magus71 said, on December 10, 2011 at 7:41 pm

              Well, if you’re talking about a single terrorist, that doens’t mean much, just as a single US soldier doesn’t mean much. But the thing most modern terrorists seek is a revolution of some sort, along the lines of Mao’s theories. Al-Qaeda studied Mao extensively. Mao ran a very successful terrorist organization. If you read his writings, you see that the last stage an insurgency or terror group seeks is basically a full-grown state army, but it does not immediately seek that because it get get that right off.

              Only national or trans-national criminal organizations have close to the same power as terror orgs. Essentially, all insurgencies begin as terrorist groups. Saying that they are “merely” criminals is a gross over-simplification of the matter. It kind of smacks of your “since there is limited matter in the universe, there is limited wealth”, argument.

              To say that we can defeat terrorism the same way we defeat crime is simply not true. There are many similarities. We don’t use many M-1 tanks in Afghanistan. Just as entieis like FARC in Columbia, the Mexican drug cartels and Russian organized crime can hurt nations, so can terrorists. Also, most criminals do not make it their sole aim to kill or destroy infrastructure. Some do, but mostly that is merely a side effect of their crimes, crimes which are aimed at gaining profit. With terrorists, it is the opposite. They may steal or rob, but that is done primarily to fund their killing.

              The second half of the Iraq War was fought against a terrorist organization and it took everything the most powerful nation on Earth could do to defeat it, without killing vast swaths of civilians that is. In Afghanistan, we are living inside heavily armed bases and many areas are not safe even for armored convoys to move through.

              Maybe you don’t consider what’s going on in Afghanistan to be terrorism? I was surely never that unsafe as a cop in Bangor. And believe me, Colbert non-withstanding, an American streetgang would be mince-meat if they went against the Haqqanni Network.

        • magus71 said, on December 10, 2011 at 2:37 pm

          ” I am vastly more likely to be killed by being hit by a drunk driver.”

          Maybe terrorists should use drunk driving as a way to effect political change.

          • Michael LaBossiere said, on December 10, 2011 at 4:43 pm

            Actually, I am somewhat surprised that they just use car bombs rather than mowing people down with cars. I can think of numerous effective tactics that would yield high kills in a spectacular fashion that would attract the media. The media, of course, are the greatest weapon in the terrorists’ arsenal.

        • magus71 said, on December 10, 2011 at 2:39 pm

          “Statistically I am more likely to be shot in a random drive by then killed by terrorists.”

          Do drive by shooters blow up sky scrapers?

          • Michael LaBossiere said, on December 10, 2011 at 4:45 pm

            No, but violence between Americans kills way more people than terrorists. As Colbert said, the terrorists wish they could kill as many of us as we do. They are amateurs at killing Americans compared to our criminals and crazies.

    • Michael LaBossiere said, on December 10, 2011 at 12:39 pm

      Good point. As you note, terrorists are bad. But they do not seem to be worse than serial killers, serial rapists, child rapists, and so on. Hence the idea that we need special exemptions for dealing with terrorists seems to be unfounded.

  4. magus71 said, on December 10, 2011 at 2:36 pm

    Comment stuck in the filter. Your filter is a liberal, too. 🙂

  5. SexAndWaffles said, on December 10, 2011 at 9:22 pm

    “The second half of the Iraq War was fought against a terrorist organization and it took everything the most powerful nation on Earth could do to defeat it”

    So, you are under the impression that America has defeated terrorism in Iraq? Unfortunately, there is not an ounce of truth in that. Hate to burst your bubble, but within 5-10 years every single terrorist leader that we pulled down will be replaced and they will all begin to filter back into the country and undo what we built.

    Throwing billions of dollars and unjust policies at a potential domestic terrorist is like devoting money and effort into preventing deaths caused by getting struck by lightning. Could you imagine how much it would cost to post security guards near every tall building and hill just to say “don’t go up there, it’s dangerous.”

    I agree–terrorism kills a lot of people, all at once, and that is very bad–but it does not kill nearly as many Americans as other things in this country. Things that the government does not feel are important enough to create a whole bureau of people to deal with. This is because most Americans are more or less okay with people who die by those causes, because they have been around for centuries. Murder, rape, kidnapping, child abuse, negligence…these things do not “threaten” our way of life, even though they account for a great number of daily deaths in our country. But a single highly publicized act by a terrorist seemingly does. As a nation we are scared shitless that another terrorist is going to hurt us. But we still get into our cars drunk, let our children play around water, and generally contribute to a higher death toll than they ever could.

    The problem is not that we don’t acknowledge the seriousness of the issue of terrorism, but rather that we are giving it a much greater significance than it should have because we are overlooking many other worse threats in order to assuage the public’s fear and anger.

    You claim that you are not a victim of this national fear of terrorism, but you say “Selective violence is extremely effective. Terrorism works. ” and “Terrorists CAN win.” You used examples of what they have done in third-world countries to defend why we should expend our resources to prevent that from happening here. I understand that logic, but it does not apply here. Our nation is NOT a third-world country, and our government is designed with checks and balances to maintain oversight of any sort of sinister corruption (granted, it is not all that effective against personal greed, but in general, it keeps the radical anarchists from controlling specific aspects of the country). Magus71–It seems to me that you are one of the few people who understand the facts and the myths about terrorism, so you should not be under any delusion that they could gain much of a foothold in this country. That is, unless we begin handing over our rights to the government, and then they begin a coup once we lose the power to stop what is happening.

    The Patriot Act started the snowball by giving the government license to freely investigate American citizens suspected of interaction with terrorism, without warranties or due process. NOW, if we alow them to detain us when accused of said terrorism, we would give up even more. Picture this–somewhere down the line, a terrorist DOES gain access to our government, and is able to place themselves in a position of influence and blackmail in Washington. Then, they can begin using these laws to arrest any citizen they want–they don’t need to prove evidence any more–and keep them imprisoned indefinitely. In effect, they can put away anyone who opposes their policies. FOREVER.

    This might seem like a rash conclusion to draw, but there are plentiful examples of similar things happening throughout history. Any outside organization can take advantage of a nation’s unjust laws in order to see their ideology gain power.

    I understand that we do need to have laws in place to deal with potential terrorists in an efficient manner. But these laws should not, should never, impinge on our own rights. What we can use against them can, and one day will, be used against us.

    • magus71 said, on December 11, 2011 at 7:30 am

      “So, you are under the impression that America has defeated terrorism in Iraq? Unfortunately, there is not an ounce of truth in that. Hate to burst your bubble, but within 5-10 years every single terrorist leader that we pulled down will be replaced and they will all begin to filter back into the country and undo what we built.”

      Wait, so terrorism is or isn’t a problem? I’m confused.

      You want your cake and eat it too: You want to be critical of America for putting too much emphasis on fighting “impotent” terrorists, and you also want to criticise for America not being able to defeat terrorism.

      It remains to be seen if your prediction will come true, but at this point it doesn’t look promising; Iraq is the best exapmle of democracy among all the Arab nations.

      • SexAndWaffles said, on December 11, 2011 at 10:36 am

        You are drawing the wrong conclusions from the points I made. I pointed out that America has not, in fact, “won” in Iraq to show that we shouldn’t be involved there at all, because clearly, all of our efforts to eradicate terrorism are failing and only cost us more in the long run–in money, resources, and lives. I clarified that I do support firm policies against domestic terrorism, but at no time should those policies involve the disposal of our Constitutional rights. In short, I believe that if we must “fight terrorism” it should be done from our shores, no one else’s, and it should be executed wel within the lines of due process. A terrorist is nothing more than a serial killer who is part of a cult-like miliitia. Treating them as if they are more only gives them power, not us.

      • Michael LaBossiere said, on December 12, 2011 at 6:32 pm

        Terrorism is a problem, but it is not as significant as our response would indicate. As was noted in SexAndWaffles reply, there are many things that kill many more Americans than terrorism, yet our response to these threats is far less than our response to terrorism.

        A wise strategist matches his/her efforts in proportion to the threat. We are treating terrorism as if it is a vast and powerful threat when that is simply not the case. Unless, of course, we simply lump almost every threat under the term “terrorism.”

        To use an analogy, I am concerned about people breaking in my house, so I have reinforced doors, secured windows and a security system. However, I have not built a 50 foot concrete wall with automated cameras and so on because the odds of someone trying to break in are rather low. In the case of terrorism, we have gone overboard. This has been great for the companies who get the contracts, but has been a burden on the citizens.

  6. magus71 said, on December 11, 2011 at 7:57 am

    A couple people here seem to be confusing my thoughts on terrorism with our wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. First, I was always and still am against the way we conducted war in Afghanistan. National building was a horrendously bad idea fed by starry-eyed fans of Three Cups of Tea and COIN. I was for Special Forces raids and killing the most dangerous terrorists with drone strikes, along the same lines with what we’re doing in Yemen. Plus training local police and military units, because host-nation COIN is far more effective than COIN by foreign nations. We are doing this in many places around the world that get a lot less attention than That could have been done at a fraction of the cost and would have been more effective since huge amounts of money that feed the insurgency come from ISAF and NGO aid money.

    By the way, the reason we spend so much money is because of Counter-Insurgency theory (COIN). COIN is now seen as a failing, unsustainable model for America; COIN is best employed in one’s own country. We can (and should) fight terrorism around the world at a price no higher than what it takes to merely sustain a standing military. Militaries, train, get fed, and receive paychecks if they’re being used or not. Building entire nations for dying cultures is another matter.

    There have been over 100 Chemical weapon attacks on US troops in Iraq since the war began. Some of these attacks included 155mm artillary shells containing Sarin gas- a potent nerve agent. If one shell were detonated inside a college football stadium during a game, it could potentially kill more people than America lost in all of the Vietnam War. This is not for everyone to worry about. It is for the intelligence and law enforcement professionals to worry about, and I’ll stay on it so that cynical, spoiled Americans can go shopping at the mall and Matt Damon can make snarky, uninformed comments while raking in millions on badly scripted movies.

    As far as Iraq goes, all US military are out at the end of this month. That will save a lot of money. I actually agree with Obama’s choice to pull out, though I worry about Iran–with its state-sponsored terrorists. At this point, al-Qaeda lost in Iraq. What will happen in the future is anyone’s guess. But I’m glad we won.

    • T. J. Babson said, on December 14, 2011 at 7:54 am

      As far as I can tell, the only reason in favor of electing a Democrat is that people like Matt Damon will keep his mouth shut about how we fight our wars, because let’s face it the vast majority of “anti-war” types are really just anti-Republican and don’t give a fig about war.

  7. magus71 said, on December 13, 2011 at 11:52 pm

    “When bad men combine, the good must associate; else they will fall, one by one, an unpitied sacrifice in a contemptible struggle.”

    Edmund Burke


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: