Editore"s Note
Tilting at Windmills

Email Newsletter icon, E-mail Newsletter icon, Email List icon, E-mail List icon Sign up for Free News & Updates

June 5, 2006

SKIPPING OVER 'HUMILIATING AND DEGRADING TREATMENT'....The LA Times has a very disturbing report today on the Pentagon putting together a guide for troops on how to handle detainees -- and leaving a few key details out.

The Pentagon has decided to omit from new detainee policies a key tenet of the Geneva Convention that explicitly bans "humiliating and degrading treatment," according to knowledgeable military officials, a step that would mark a further, potentially permanent, shift away from strict adherence to international human rights standards.

The decision could culminate a lengthy debate within the Defense Department but will not become final until the Pentagon makes new guidelines public, a step that has been delayed. However, the State Department fiercely opposes the military's decision to exclude Geneva Convention protections and has been pushing for the Pentagon and White House to reconsider, the Defense Department officials acknowledged.

The internal debate within the administration on this has been going on for far too long. We learned several months ago that in late 2005, Pentagon officials and lawyers were discussing whether these same Geneva Convention provisions needed to be followed. The decision was pushed off because top Bush administration officials opposed conventions that barred cruel, inhumane, and degrading treatment. The debate, alas, is still ongoing.

This need not be complicated. If the president and his team want the world to believe that incidents of torture are "aberrations" and the work of a few "bad apples," and that the United States follows humane standards, aside from our rendition policies and secret CIA prisons in Eastern Europe, then here's an opportunity to make an unambiguous statement.

"The rest of the world is completely convinced that we are busy torturing people," said Oona A. Hathaway, an expert in international law at Yale Law School. "Whether that is true or not, the fact we keep refusing to provide these protections in our formal directives puts a lot of fuel on the fire."

I can't help but wonder if Bush administration officials know or care about how this undermines our standing and credibility in the world. It's simply breathtaking. As Kevin put it a while back, "It's simply impossible to persuade the rest of the world that we're the good guys as long as we persist in plainly repugnant behavior."

Steve Benen 9:00 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (36)

Bookmark and Share
 
Comments

Benen, the only thing breathtaking here is (1) your persistence in assuming all the allegations are true; (2) your failure to acknowledge that in our system the wrong-doers will be brought to justice, and, (3) your inability to ever give the benefit of the doubt to our troops.

Posted by: One Two Three O'Clock Rock on June 5, 2006 at 9:06 AM | PERMALINK

(1) enough of the allegations have been proven to be true to warrant convictions;

(2) the wrong-doers in the leadership who condoned and permitted this behavior have yet to be brought to justice, and,

(3) although we all give our troops the benefit of the doubt, we believe that calling attention to and punishing wrong-doing affirms a higher standard than your desire to sweep things under the rug.

Posted by: Joel on June 5, 2006 at 9:18 AM | PERMALINK

I can't help but wonder if Bush administration officials know or care about how this undermines our standing and credibility in the world.

Of course they know. Of course they don't care. For these morally depraved psychos, this stopped being about rightness long ago. Now it's only about doing whatever you want to get whatever you want, and fuck everybody else. We don't need no stinkin' ethics.

Posted by: shortstop on June 5, 2006 at 9:18 AM | PERMALINK

123, how about addressing the central point here? If nothing is going on, why does the Pentagon want the change to eliminate rules banning abuse?

Posted by: KCinDC on June 5, 2006 at 9:20 AM | PERMALINK

123 is scared. Like a little girl he's scared. That's why he's avoiding the subject.

Posted by: Snoopy on June 5, 2006 at 9:23 AM | PERMALINK

Is 123 scared of the big bad terrorists that are coming to get you? Awwww...

Wait a second. If he was scared of the terrorists then he'd actually...you know..want to do something about the problem?

Is 123 scared of the big bad progressives that are going to knock you into power? Awww....

Posted by: Karmakin on June 5, 2006 at 9:26 AM | PERMALINK

I see from the first comment that this administration has not yet gone beyond the limits of their supporters' ability to keep one side of their brains from knowing what the other side knows doing. At the very same time Bush was claiming that the U.S. doesn't torture people, Cheney made a special appearance in Congress to persuade lawmakers to leave torture as an optional military strategy. It would make my head explode to try to believe Bush while this scenario was unfolding. But it's not hard to reconcile the actions of this administration with its words if you assume the words are merely mouth sounds meant to get people off their backs.

Posted by: cowalker on June 5, 2006 at 9:33 AM | PERMALINK

It's simple - to the conservative mind, the rest of the world doesn't exist except as a playground for extracting wealth. Actual people don't live there, and so the opinions and fears of those people are not relevant.

Posted by: craigie on June 5, 2006 at 9:33 AM | PERMALINK

123 is blaming the troops rather than their faulty leadership, and then blaming us for blaming the troops.

If you look at Philip Sands' work and that of other international law experts, it's clear that the Bush administration is separating itself deliberately from international standards and law. It's working towards imperialism internationally and authoritarianism domestically. We know that in spades, don't we? What we keep forgetting (I think) is that their goals are long term, not limited to a single administration. Every single alteration in the rule of law (even gay marriage) represents a step in tightening control domestically and establishing the US as The Leader internationally. As Philip Gourevitch points out in today's New Yorker, the problem is that we have proven ourselves to be wholly incompetent, even as dictators. Vide Iraq.

Posted by: PW on June 5, 2006 at 9:33 AM | PERMALINK

This is depraved. Even if the government is bent on destroying international law and trampling human rights, the Pentagon should recognize that it is sanctioning behavior that puts its own (our friends and family in uniform) in great peril.

Remember when we cared about how prisoners are treated (http://www.pbs.org/newshour/extra/features/jan-june03/prisoners_3-23.html)?

The concern was real and heartfelt then. What has happened to us?

Posted by: cletus on June 5, 2006 at 9:34 AM | PERMALINK

Why don't we just dispense with the charade and withdraw our commitment to Geneva? We've forsaken Kyoto, backed out of various nuclear treaties, refused cooperating with the World Court at the Hague and pretty much thumbed our nose at any human rights initiative if it could possibly cost a corporation 2 cents on its bottom line. Just get it over with and say we're going to do whatever the fuck we want including killing your impertinent ass for questioning our goddamned Supreme Moral Authority Handed Down By God!

Posted by: steve duncan on June 5, 2006 at 9:38 AM | PERMALINK

The Bush administration may not be aware of what is happening, but there are others in the rest of the world that are and are doing something about it:

Immanuel Wallerstein on "Whose Century is the 21st Century?"
http://www.binghamton.edu/fbc/186en.htm

Posted by: Maynard Handley on June 5, 2006 at 9:41 AM | PERMALINK

(2) your failure to acknowledge that in our system the wrong-doers will be brought to justice,...

Dude, if you make the "wrong-doing" legal, doesn't that somehow impact the chance of bringing them to justice?

Somehow, we were able to defeat the Nazis and imperial Japan simultaneously, and the Soviet empire a few decades later, without making torture our official policy. Why the lack of confidence now? Could it be because all of our current leadership, having missed actual combat because of "other priorities" have some inner need to be seen as tough guys?

Posted by: Gen. Jack D. Ripper on June 5, 2006 at 9:42 AM | PERMALINK

I don't know whether the allegations about Abu Graib, Haditha, etc. are true. And 123 doesn't know whether those allegations are false. That's not the issue.

The issue is whether as a matter of policy the U.S. cagetorically accepts the Geneva Conventions in their entirety or whether the Bush/Cheney administration reserves the right to reject them if/when they aren't convenient. What I simply do not understand is why the military hasn't gone ballistic over the administration's talking out of both sides of its mouth. One major point of our acceptance of the Geneva Conventions is that it protects our soldiers should they be captured. One can rant all one wants about the abuses of the other side in almost any war, e.g. WWII, Korea, Vietnam, or Iraq, but by and large the U.S. tried to do the right thing and held the moral high ground when it came to prisoner treatment. The U.S. may still treat prisoners better than the other side. (I believe that, but I don't know that.) However, failure to adhere and state explictly and adamantly that we adhere to the Geneva Conventions and the principles contained means that the U.S. has surrendered the moral high ground in the eyes of much of the rest of the world.

Posted by: Rich on June 5, 2006 at 9:44 AM | PERMALINK

It's simple - to the conservative mind, the rest of the world doesn't exist except as a playground for extracting wealth. Actual people don't live there, and so the opinions and fears of those people are not relevant.

That was a lot better put than my version of the same. And so early, too!

Posted by: shortstop on June 5, 2006 at 9:44 AM | PERMALINK

"It's simply impossible to persuade the rest of the world that we're the good guys as long as we persist in plainly repugnant behavior."

Well, yeah -- just as it's simply impossible, say, to persuade the rest of the world that you're not a murderer if you keep committing murder. As long as we engage in plainly repugnant behavior then we are quite simply not the good guys anymore.

Posted by: Stefan on June 5, 2006 at 9:54 AM | PERMALINK

Benen, the only thing breathtaking here is ...

The only thing breathtaking here is that the intellectual dishonesty and moral depravity of Frequency Kenneth and his/her/its sock puppets exceed even that of the Bush Administration. The Bush Administration condones, if not outright mandates, torture, and FK and his/her/its fellow Bush Cultists cheer. Vile.

Posted by: Gregory on June 5, 2006 at 10:18 AM | PERMALINK

Ditto.

The Pentagon Decides to Fuel Anti-Americanism

Posted by: WPB on June 5, 2006 at 10:35 AM | PERMALINK

All spoken like a bunch of pampered, blue-blood, nit-wit pussies who have never had to do any of the things expected in war. You guys all sound like a bunch of Monday Morning QBs who criticize your starting QB and yet never actually played football yourself. You guys were in the band, weren't you?

Posted by: Harry Crumb on June 5, 2006 at 11:09 AM | PERMALINK

So according to the bleeding hearts here, the Geneva Convention ban on torture on soliders who are protected by the Convention now extends to prohibiting "humiliating and degrading treatment" of terriorists who are not protected by the Convention. Since the US has not ratified this part of the Convention against humiliating and degrading treatment, it is not legally binding on the US or its soliders. Therefore, it need not be included the guidelines that the Pentagon is preparing.

It may be a great comfort to the terrorists out there, that so many here are so worried about their physical and mental well being. Although I do think that they would disagree. From their point of view, what a badge of honor it would be for a terrorist to be able to tell their comrades that they were able to withstand the worst "humiliating and degrading treatment" that the Great Satan could legally apply to them in accordance with the Geneva Conventions.

Posted by: Chicounsel on June 5, 2006 at 11:19 AM | PERMALINK

Ah yes, Harry Crumb. A bunch of pampered, blue-blood, nit-wit pussies who have never had to do any of the things expected in war... like George W. Bush, perhaps? Or Dick Cheney? Or Donald Rumsfeld?

Hell, they weren't even in the band. Bush was a fucking cheerleader.

You think maybe we should take our cues on this issue from people who know a little something about war, like those pussies Colin Powell and John McCain, both of whom support following the Geneva Conventions?

Or should we take our cues from a bunch of preppie Nancy boys who studied war in graduate school, and worked cushy gigs at the Heritage Foundation lobbying the government to send real soldiers off to fight and die?

Posted by: ajl on June 5, 2006 at 11:24 AM | PERMALINK

Nice one, Chicounsel! Many of the guys in Gitmo and our detention camps in Iraq were picked up in random sweeps or turned in by their neighbors for reward money. Nobody really knows what percentage of them are actual terrorists and what percentage are unfortunate schumucks. But thanks to a legal loophole, we can torture the shit out of them! Awesome!

Moral clarity is a beautiful thing. Why, I can practically feel the freedom, democracy and goodwill toward America spreading through Middle East, can't you?

And they'll know we are Christians by our love, by our love... yes, they'll know we are Christians by our love.

Posted by: ajl on June 5, 2006 at 11:45 AM | PERMALINK

Since the US has not ratified this part of the Convention against humiliating and degrading treatment, it is not legally binding on the US or its soliders.

Great! So does that mean that US soldiers can be subjected to humiliating and degrading treatment with no fear of legal repercussion?

But, of course, the above is wrong, as the convention against "humiliating and degrading" treatment comes from common Article 3 to the 1949 Geneva Conventions, which the US ratified in 1955.

Further information at this summary from Human Rights News at hrw.org:

The primary source of international humanitarian law (also called the laws of war) is the four Geneva Conventions of 1949, which the United States ratified in 1955. The Third Geneva Convention concerns prisoners-of-war; the Fourth Geneva Convention safeguards so-called protected persons, most simply described as detained civilians. Detainees must at all times be humanely treated (Geneva III, art. 13, Geneva IV, art. 27). Detainees may be questioned, but any form of physical or mental coercion is prohibited (Geneva III, art. 17; Geneva IV, art. 31). Women shall be protected from rape and any form of indecent assault (Geneva IV, art. 27).

Torture or inhuman treatment of prisoners-of-war (Geneva III, arts. 17 & 87) or protected persons (Geneva IV, art. 32) are grave breaches of the Geneva Conventions, and are considered war crimes (Geneva III, art. 130; Geneva IV, art. 147). War crimes create an obligation on any state to prosecute the alleged perpetrators or turn them over to another state for prosecution. This obligation applies regardless of the nationality of the perpetrator, the nationality of the victim or the place where the act of torture or inhuman treatment was committed (Geneva III, art.129; Geneva IV, art. 146).

Detainees in an armed conflict or military occupation are also protected by common article 3 to the Geneva Conventions. Article 3 prohibits [v]iolence to life and person, in particular murder of all kinds, mutilation, cruel treatment and torture; outrages upon personal dignity, in particular humiliating and degrading treatment.

Even persons who are not entitled to the protections of the 1949 Geneva Conventions (such as some detainees from third countries) are protected by the fundamental guarantees of article 75 of Protocol I of 1977 to the Geneva Conventions. The United States has long considered article 75 to be part of customary international law (a widely supported state practice accepted as law). Article 75 prohibits murder, torture of all kinds, whether physical or mental, corporal punishment, and outrages upon personal dignity, in particular humiliating and degrading treatment, and any form of indecent assault.

Posted by: Stefan on June 5, 2006 at 12:07 PM | PERMALINK

So according to the bleeding hearts here, the Geneva Convention ban on torture on soliders who are protected by the Convention now extends to prohibiting "humiliating and degrading treatment" of terriorists who are not protected by the Convention.

There are, generally, no persons who are not protected by the Conventions. There is no language in the Conventions that exempts "terrorists" -- in fact, the Conventions cover all parties to a conflict, including un-uniformed combatants and resistance fighters.

Posted by: Stefan on June 5, 2006 at 12:11 PM | PERMALINK

super star ...more

Posted by: star on June 5, 2006 at 12:35 PM | PERMALINK

Chicounsel: Since the US has not ratified this part of the Convention against humiliating and degrading treatment, it is not legally binding on the US or its soliders.

Assuming for the sake of argument you are right, funny how we exempt ourselves from such moral restrictions - just like Saddam and Putin exempt themselves from moral restrictions.

American conservative values? None.

Just legalities, and even those they pay scant attention to until it serves their partisan interests.

Where was all this love for the technicalities of the law when Libby, Abramoff, DeLay and a host of other conservative players were violating our laws left and right?

It mysteriously vanished from the collective conservative consciousness.

It may be a great comfort to the terrorists out there, that so many here are so worried about their physical and mental well being.

What conservatives always argue when it is the rights of the accused, deliberately misrepresenting such rights and the "rights of criminals".

No, we are first concerned with the multitude of innocents who are being abused because these protections, as well as others, are being ignored by the Bush administration in its war on human rights.

Then, we are concerned that the punishment and treatment of actual guilty parties fits their own personal culpability, something which neither you nor any other conservative appears to care about - kill and torture them all, no matter how small their involvement and no matter how tenuous the connection to "terrorism".

BTW, Christ was very concerned with the physical and mental well-being of even those who sought to kill him.

Which pretty much shows that the alleged values of the Right are hollow to the core and a put on.

Posted by: Advocate for God on June 5, 2006 at 12:40 PM | PERMALINK

Its also worth noting that the Geneva Convention isnt the only treaty of which the US is a member that prohibits humiliating and degrading treatment.

Some apologists claim the Geneva Conventions dont apply, while the US also ratified the "Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment" http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/h_cat39.htm

Of course there is also the Constitutional prohibition against cruel and unusual treatement.

Prohibitions on torture and other ill-treatment are also found in other international documents, such as the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the U.N. Body of Principles for the Protection of All Persons under Any Form of Detention or Imprisonment, and the U.N. Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners.

Military personnel who mistreat prisoners can be prosecuted by a court-martial under various provisions of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ, arts. 77-134).

The War Crimes Act of 1996 (18 U.S.C. 2441) makes it a criminal offense for U.S. military personnel and U.S. nationals to commit war crimes as specified in the 1949 Geneva Conventions. War crimes under the act include grave breaches of the Geneva Conventions. It also includes violations of common Article 3 to the Geneva Conventions, which prohibits violence to life and person, in particular murder of all kinds, mutilation, cruel treatment and torture; outrages upon personal dignity, in particular humiliating and degrading treatment.

A federal anti-torture statute (18 U.S.C. 2340A), enacted in 1994, provides for the prosecution of a U.S. national or anyone present in the United States who, while outside the U.S., commits or attempts to commit torture. Torture is defined as an act committed by a person acting under the color of law specifically intended to inflict severe physical or mental pain or suffering (other than pain or suffering incidental to lawful sanctions) upon another person within his custody or physical control. A person found guilty under the act can be incarcerated for up to 20 years or receive the death penalty if the torture results in the victims death.

Military contractors working for the Department of Defense might also be prosecuted under the Military Extraterritorial Jurisdiction Act of 2000 (Public Law 106-778), known as MEJA. MEJA permits the prosecution in federal court of U.S. civilians who, while employed by or accompanying U.S. forces abroad, commit certain crimes. Generally, the crimes covered are any federal criminal offense punishable by imprisonment for more than one year. The MEJA remains untested because the Defense Department has yet to issue necessary implementing regulations required by the law.

Of course, the President controls all of the mechanisms of prosecution.

The silver lining to all of this is that expose their policies for what they truly are, an attempt to circumvent protections of basic human rights, and provide concrete measures for the next Presdent when Bush is gone to put this era of error behind us as best we can.

Posted by: Catch22 on June 5, 2006 at 12:48 PM | PERMALINK

"So according to the bleeding hearts here..."

Whenever you see that phrase, you know you're in the presence of a sadist, albeit usually the cowardly kind that enjoys other people's use of brutality. Way to be a proud American: "We [insert Peter Lorre voice here] can do whatever we want! Hee-hee."

Posted by: Kenji on June 5, 2006 at 12:51 PM | PERMALINK

Harry Crumb: All spoken like a bunch of pampered, blue-blood, nit-wit pussies who have never had to do any of the things expected in war. You guys all sound like a bunch of Monday Morning QBs who criticize your starting QB and yet never actually played football yourself. You guys were in the band, weren't you?

What exactly do you know about war? Are you ex-military? Are you perhaps a combat vet?

More to the point do you understand how the Geneva Conventions protect our troops too? Granted these protections won't be observed by our present foes in Iraq, but that doesn't mean we want to descend to their level and scrap the GCs entirely by ignoring them now.

Posted by: cyntax on June 5, 2006 at 7:19 PM | PERMALINK

How about the Administration provides leadership to our troops? Leadership as in actually making sure that all the treaties that the United States has signed and are still the law of the land, whether the criminals in power like it or not, are followed by the troops. That way leads honor and leadership. But, of course, the war criminals aren't interested in any of that. Nope. They're interested in dishonoring our country, our Constitution, and our troops.

Posted by: parrot on June 5, 2006 at 8:54 PM | PERMALINK

"It's simply impossible to persuade the rest of the world that we're the good guys as long as we persist in plainly repugnant behavior."

I'm more interested in knowing why it's possible to persuade the wingnuts that you're the good guys as long as you persist in plainly repugnant behavior.

Posted by: floopmeister on June 5, 2006 at 9:45 PM | PERMALINK

The protections cited from the Geneva Conventions apply only to prisoners of war. To qualify for these protections, the enemy must meet certain criteria, such as fighting in uniform, maintaining a chain of command, observing the Geneva Conventions themselves. The terrorists being caught by our troops don't qualify on any grounds as prisoners of war, and we are not bound to treat them in accord with the protections provided by the Geneva Conventions.

If you think that we should never torture anyone under any circumstances, that's your opinion, but it is not what is spelled out in the Geneva Conventions.

In past wars, soldiers caught fighting while not in uniform were shot on the spot as spies. I think we should go back to that strategy - it is perfectly in line with the Geneva Conventions, and it puts to rest this whole silly debate about torture.

Posted by: c on June 6, 2006 at 8:57 AM | PERMALINK

The protections cited from the Geneva Conventions apply only to prisoners of war. To qualify for these protections, the enemy must meet certain criteria, such as fighting in uniform, maintaining a chain of command, observing the Geneva Conventions themselves. The terrorists being caught by our troops don't qualify on any grounds as prisoners of war, and we are not bound to treat them in accord with the protections provided by the Geneva Conventions.

No, that's not true. The Geneva Conventions apply to all persons held in a conflict, not merely prisoners of war. As Human Rights Watch (www.hrw.org) explains:

Captured combatants who are not entitled to POW status have been described as "unlawful combatants" or "non-privileged combatants, " although neither term is found in the Geneva Conventions. Such persons are still protected under the Geneva Conventions, but under the provisions of the Fourth Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War. This Convention also applies to civilian non-combatants who are affected by the conflict and due special protections as "protected persons."

The Fourth Geneva Convention provides that "Persons protected by the Convention are those who, at a given moment and in any manner whatsoever, find themselves, in case of a conflict or occupation, in the hands of a Party to the conflict or Occupying Power of which they are not nationals."

Moreover, even in cases "where in occupied territory an individual protected person is detained as a spy or saboteur, or as a person under definite suspicion of activity hostile to the security of the Occupying Power" (such as a terrorist) "such persons shall nevertheless be treated with humanity, and in case of trial, shall not be deprived of the rights of fair and regular trial prescribed by the present Convention. They shall also be granted the full rights and privileges of a protected person under the present Convention at the earliest date consistent with the security of the State or Occupying Power, as the case may be."

Posted by: Stefan on June 6, 2006 at 10:11 AM | PERMALINK

If you think that we should never torture anyone under any circumstances, that's your opinion, but it is not what is spelled out in the Geneva Conventions.

On the contrary, that is indeed what is spelled out in the Geneva Conventions, and in several other laws and treaties we are signatory too, all of which are United States law.

Again, Article 3 of the Fourth Geneva Convention provides that "In the case of armed conflict not of an international character occurring in the territory of one of the High Contracting Parties, each Party to the conflict shall be bound to apply, as a minimum, the following provisions:

1. Persons taking no active part in the hostilities, including members of armed forces who have laid down their arms and those placed hors de combat by sickness, wounds, detention, or any other cause, shall in all circumstances be treated humanely, without any adverse distinction founded on race, colour, religion or faith, sex, birth or wealth, or any other similar criteria.

To this end, the following acts are and shall remain prohibited at any time and in any place whatsoever with respect to the above-mentioned persons:

(a) Violence to life and person, in particular murder of all kinds, mutilation, cruel treatment and torture;

(b) Taking of hostages;

(c) Outrages upon personal dignity, in particular humiliating and degrading treatment;...."

Posted by: Stefan on June 6, 2006 at 10:15 AM | PERMALINK

In past wars, soldiers caught fighting while not in uniform were shot on the spot as spies. I think we should go back to that strategy - it is perfectly in line with the Geneva Conventions, and it puts to rest this whole silly debate about torture.

The Geneva Convention does not allow persons suspected of being spies to be shot on the spot. The Fourth Geneva Convention, which I cited above, provides that "where in occupied territory an individual protected person is detained as a spy or saboteur, or as a person under definite suspicion of activity hostile to the security of the Occupying Power" (such as a terrorist) "such persons shall nevertheless be treated with humanity, and in case of trial, shall not be deprived of the rights of fair and regular trial prescribed by the present Convention. They shall also be granted the full rights and privileges of a protected person under the present Convention at the earliest date consistent with the security of the State or Occupying Power, as the case may be."


Posted by: Stefan on June 6, 2006 at 10:18 AM | PERMALINK

In past wars, soldiers caught fighting while not in uniform were shot on the spot as spies.

Of course, this is the tactic the Nazis used against the French and other European Resistance forces and the Russian, Polish and Yugoslav partisans...nice to see the Republicans calling for the US to adopt the Nazis' methods.

Posted by: Stefan on June 6, 2006 at 11:09 AM | PERMALINK




 

 

Read Jonathan Rowe remembrance and articles
Email Newsletter icon, E-mail Newsletter icon, Email List icon, E-mail List icon Sign up for Free News & Updates

Advertise in WM



buy from Amazon and
support the Monthly