web analytics
September 17, 2014 / 22 Elul, 5774
At a Glance

Posts Tagged ‘Rwanda’

President Obama and the ‘Responsibility to Protect’

Monday, March 19th, 2012

“What is being done in Homs [Syria] . . . is simply appalling and shouldn’t be allowed to stand in our world,” said British Prime Minister David Cameron in Washington. The British, he said, are cataloguing “these crimes,” and Assad should “always remember that international law has got a long reach and a long memory.” Standing next to Mr. Cameron, President Obama demanded that Bashar al-Asad step down while reassuring him that the U.S. is unlikely actually to do anything about the problem. “The best thing we can do right now is to make sure that the international community continues to unify around the fact that what the Syrian regime is doing is unacceptable.”

Really? That’s the best we can do? Who out there doesn’t think what the Syrians are doing is unacceptable? The Russians? They know perfectly well it is morally unacceptable; they just don’t care because a larger Russian interest is involved. As in Chechnya. As when the French and Germans said they were opposed to the Iraq war for moral reasons while they were taking Oil-for-Food kickbacks from Saddam.

But despite the fact that PM Cameron is “appalled” by things Mr. Obama has called “unacceptable,” the President and various American officials have recently offered a host of reasons no one should expect us to do anything about them:

  • The US needs “permission” from the UN and the Arab League, along with NATO agreement (though perhaps not the agreement of Congress)
  • It would take 75,000 soldiers to contain Syria’s chemical arsenal
  • There could be a civil war. [In support of Mr. Obama, the French government added yesterday that, "If we give arms to a certain faction of the Syrian opposition, we would make a civil war among Christians, Alawites, Sunnis and Shiites."]
  • Al-Qaeda is part of the Syrian opposition
  • Russian-supplied Syrian air defenses are formidable.

Most of those points are debatable (there’s already a civil war, while there’s no proof of al-Qaeda involvement). All are largely irrelevant if, indeed, there is a responsibility to stop the perpetrators of what, by most accounts, amounts to war crimes. The United States and our British ally have to determine whether R2P (Responsibility to Protect) is actually only R2PATF (Responsibility to Punish after the Fact).

There is something to be said for the trials of Slobodan Milosevic and Ratko Mladich after the Bosnia war, and the 92 indictments that followed the Rwanda massacres. There is less to commend about the indictment of Omar Bashir of Sudan, who remains in charge of Sudan after the depredations in Darfur, Nuba, South Sudan, and the Beja people in the east. And there is nothing that helps the victims of any of the above.

The administration should want al-Asad and other despotic leaders – not to mention our friends – to believe that the United States and its allies in the West mean what they say. At the moment, the bad guys, at least, have no reason to.

In the wake of charges against American pro-democracy workers in Egypt and revocation of their exit visas, Congress determined to withhold U.S. aid until the State Department certified that the country was “making progress in basic freedoms and human rights.” Although one would be hard-pressed to see progress, The Washington Post reported that Secretary of State Clinton is close to announcing that she will bypass Congress and hand over $1.5 billion in mostly military aid.

She will, according to sources in the article, claim “national security” grounds, fearing that continuing to withhold the money will make the military junta and the Muslim Brotherhood even angrier with the U.S. than they already are. That, and most of the money is tied up in existing defense contracts with U.S. firms.

So, U.S. aid no longer serves the goals of U.S. foreign policy may have, it is a) a blackmail payoff against further Egyptian anti-Americanism and b) a “shovel ready” jobs program. Neither shows American backbone.

If Syria and Egypt have nothing to fear from the President of the United States, what will the Iranians fear? Still standing with Mr. Cameron, President Obama followed up on his determination not to inconvenience al-Asad with what The Washington Post called a “stern warning” that Tehran “must meet its international obligations or face the consequences.”

Yeah, right.

 

Originally published by Stonegate Institute www.stonegateinstitute.org

After The American Elections Israel, “Peace,” And International Law (Part III)

Wednesday, December 1st, 2010
            President Obama has hitherto accepted the language of a “moderate” Palestinian Authority. The PA and its associates are distinctly obligated to refrain from incitement against Israel. Going back even to the legal antecedents of the current peace process, the Interim Agreement (Oslo 2) stated, at Article XXII, that Israel and the PA  “shall seek to foster mutual understanding and tolerance and shall accordingly abstain from incitement, including hostile propaganda, against each other….” In the Note for the Record, which accompanied the Hebron Protocol of January 15,1997, the PA reaffirmed its commitment regarding “Preventing Incitement and Hostile Propaganda, as specified in Article XXII of the Interim Agreement.”  Substantially familiar if more general reaffirmations can readily be found in the Road Map.

 

            What has not yet been broadly acknowledged is that the Genocide Convention criminalizes not only the various acts of genocide, but also (Article III) conspiracy to commit genocide, and direct and public incitement to commit genocide.  Articles II, III and IV of the Genocide Convention are fully applicable in all cases of direct and public incitement to commit genocide.  For the Convention to be invoked, it is sufficient that any one of the State parties call for a meeting, through the United Nations, of all the State parties (Article VIII).

 

             Although this has never been done, the United States, especially following the recent election, should now consider very seriously taking this particular step while there is still time.  Israel, too, should be an obvious co-participant in this call, but it is unlikely that any government in Jerusalem, historically aware of always-expanding global indifference to Jewish life, will seek formal redress under any multilateral conventions. An alternative remedy/strategy could involve the issuance of specific criminal indictments for crimes against humanity by Israel’s Justice Ministry to the key Palestinian broadcasters and journalists now engaged in daily anti-Semitic harangues. In the words of Israeli attorney, Nitsana Darshan-Leitner, back in February 2004: “Those who operate Palestinian television and radio stations and the printing presses engaged in hate speech should be arrested along with the other suspected killers.”

 

            Undeniably, any public trial before an Israeli tribunal could have grave geopolitical risks. For one, as no Arab or Iranian authority could ever be expected to extradite alleged wrongdoers to Israel for trial, it would inevitably be up to Israeli military and police authorities to acquire physical custody over defendants. This is the case although such expected Arab/Iranian disregard for Israeli extradition requests would be a manifestly serious violation of peremptory international criminal law.

 

             Even if an Israeli trial could afford opportunity for a direct evidentiary connection between Palestinian media incitement and Palestinian terrorism, much of the world would be focused instead on the extraordinary means by which Israel took custody of the inciters. After all, when Israel captured major Nazi war criminal Adolph Eichmann in 1960, more states chose to condemn the abduction than to recall the prisoner’s role as murderer of 1,000.000 Jewish children.

 

            The Genocide Convention, the London Charter, and the December 2003 ICTR decision on Rwanda are not the only authoritative codifications that should now be invoked against relentless media and leadership calls for the mass killing of Jews.  The 1965 International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination should also be brought productively into play.  This treaty condemns “all propaganda and all organizations which attempt to justify or promote racial hatred and discrimination in any form,” obliging, at Article 4(a) State parties to declare as “an offense punishable by law all dissemination of ideas based on racial superiority or hatred, incitement to racial discrimination, as well as all acts of violence or incitement to such acts against any race or group of persons.”  Article 4(b) affirms that State parties “Shall declare illegal and prohibit organizations, and also organized and all other propaganda activities, which promote and incite racial discrimination, and shall recognize participation in such organizations or activities as an offense punishable by law.”  Further authority for curtailing and punishing Palestinian calls for genocidal destruction of Jews can be found at Article 20(2) of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights:  “Any advocacy of national, racial or religious hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence shall be prohibited by law.”

 

            The overriding point of the judgments at Nuremberg was to ensure that all future crimes against humanity be identified, prosecuted and punished. Fully aware of these judgments, the International Criminal Tribunal in Rwanda ruled, in December 2003, that “mere words” can contain substantial criminal liability and may warrant very severe punishments. Understood in terms of ongoing homicidal and genocidal Arab and Iranian calls for violence against Israel, it is essential that every state in the United Nations now be reminded of its binding obligation not to encourage another Holocaust. This is a fully legal obligation, and certainly must not be taken lightly.

 

            Now, especially after the recent U.S. elections, there may be new opportunities in Washington to finally make things right regarding Israel’s fundamental security needs. It is imperative that any such opportunities be identified and taken quickly, while there is still time, and before a Palestinian state is declared unilaterally.

 

Louis Rene Beres  was educated at Princeton (Ph.D., 1971), and is the author of many books and articles dealing with genocide, terrorism, war and international law.  Strategic and Military Affairs analyst for The Jewish Press, he is Professor of Political Science and International Law at Purdue.

How Not to Prevent a Holocaust: The Limits of Empathy

Wednesday, May 6th, 2009

I was almost inexpressibly saddened to read the comments made week before last by President Obama at a Holocaust Days of Remembrance ceremony at the Holocaust Museum in Washington. In a mostly lyrical and affecting speech, I very nearly missed the significance of the following key passage:

Today, and every day, we have an opportunity, as well as an obligation, to confront these scourges – to fight the impulse to turn the channel when we see images that disturb us, or wrap ourselves in the false comfort that others’ sufferings are not our own. Instead we have the opportunity to make a habit of empathy; to recognize ourselves in each other; to commit ourselves to resisting injustice and intolerance and indifference in whatever forms they may take . [emphasis added]

The sadness here comes not from there being anything wrong with urging people to empathy, to recognize ourselves in each other, and to commit ourselves to resisting injustice, intolerance, and indifference. Rather, the melancholy derives from the focus on these habits of mind as the bulwarks against genocide.

The only genocide in history that was ever stopped in its tracks was the Holocaust of the Jews – and that was done by armed force, applied for the purpose of defeating Germany when it was waging war on Europe and the United States. The original “genocide” – that of Armenians by the erstwhile Ottoman Empire – was not stopped by intervention or anything other than the death or flight of the victims.

The same can be said of the starvation and slaughter of some 60-80 million peasants and ethnic minorities in the Communist revolutions in Russia and China, as well as the murderous career of Pol Pot in Cambodia, the slaughter of Tutsis by Hutus in Rwanda, and the slaughter of non-Muslims in Darfur by the Bashir government of Sudan (the latter, indeed, has yet to end).

Contrary to the premise posed by Obama’s speech, “silence” did not reign during the course of those genocides; indeed, in each case there was deep concern for, and tremendous empathy with, the victims. The horrific acts were very much in the news in Western nations at the time of their occurrence and were denounced by politicians and pundits in the free countries of the world.

Obama spoke of how General Eisenhower required local Germans to tour Buchenwald after it was liberated – and how Eisenhower required his own soldiers to tour it and invited reporters and politicians to come and observe what had been going on there. These were wise and necessary measures, and Eisenhower is to be commended for taking them as a means of ensuring that the reality of Hitler’s Final Solution might never be forgotten or dismissed.

But it was not Eisenhower’s “speaking out” campaign on the ghastly death camps that ended the genocide – it was the military defeat of Germany after years of aerial bombardment in which the Allies took towering losses; years of a bloody and terrible defense and counterattack by Soviet forces from the East; years of a grueling, two-pronged frontal land assault by the Allies from the West.

Empathy and resistance inspired individuals to sneak thousands of European Jews to safety, outside the reach of the Reich; but millions of Jews were slain before force of arms finally brought the genocide to an end by decapitating its source.

No such outside force intervened in the slaughter of Ukrainian kulaks by the revolutionary Soviets in the 1920s. Yet there was much empathy, and the West was well aware it was happening. Tibetans, Uighurs, Mongols, and millions of rural peasants in China had empathizers and political champions during the Communist slaughters that characterized many of the Mao years – but no armed intervention to deliver them.

The eyes of the world focused quite accurately on the homicidal brutality of the Khmer Rouge in the killing fields of Cambodia, and I remember in the late 1970s the same Western demonstrations on behalf of Cambodian victims that we have seen for the Tutsis in Rwanda and the people of Darfur; the same courageous efforts of private charities, of missionaries and doctors, to get help to them; the same denunciations and demands for intervention and for an accounting by Western politicians and pundits.

But the only thing that has actually worked to stop an act or a policy of genocide before its perpetrators simply wore themselves out – or all the victims were dead and gone – has been armed force. We would do well to remember that. It is an unpopular reality, perhaps, but incontrovertible.

Obama made a brief acknowledgment of the World War II veterans who were present at the Holocaust Remembrance ceremony. But too few people today, including the president himself, really understand that an idea of summary, effective armed force – one that many now regard as increasingly outmoded – executed by these old soldiers as a civic duty rather than an act of empathy or resistance, saved more Jewish lives from Hitler’s death machine than all the charity, empathy and resistance mounted against all the world’s genocides combined.

Obama is right to praise the ordinary citizens of Europe who risked their lives to hide Jews and help them flee – but, superb as their example is and admirable as they are, they only managed to get individual Jews away from the Holocaust. They did not stop the Holocaust itself – it was, it bears repeating, armed force that did. We seem to be living in a world in which our leaders don’t even think of acknowledging this fact, which should give us pause and cause us to wonder if we could do it again – if we would even understand how to go about it.

* * * * *

Obama’s speech also formed a poignant juxtaposition with his administration’s release of legal memos written for George W. Bush on enhanced interrogation techniques (EITs) used on terrorist detainees. Obama appeared at the CIA to assure employees there that he did not intend to seek prosecution of anyone for actions taken in accordance with that legal guidance. But he reversed himself the next day, telling the media he would keep the door open on the possibility of prosecutions, if not of CIA interrogators then of more senior Bush administration officials. Attorney General Eric Holder also affirmed before Congress that prosecutions would not be ruled out.

The salient point in all this is that there is not, in fact, a prosecutable offense being either alleged or demonstrated. Whether we agree or disagree with the use of EITs, and whether we call some or all of them torture or not, the central fact is that if anything Bush or his officials did was punishable under law, they would already be indicted. Nothing they did is defined as a crime in the United States Code; and there is, therefore, no basis on which to prefer charges, place evidence, indict them, or bring them to trial.

Supposing that this is acknowledged by the critics of the Bush administration’s interrogation practices, and assuming they do want to prohibit such actions in the future, the “rule of law” way forward is obvious: change the law. If they are serious about accountably prohibiting something, the honest method is to define it in law and make it a crime.

Of course, our Constitution does not permit ex post facto use of the law to punish people for things that were not crimes when they did them. So this accountable method of putting their money where their mouths are is not a means for his critics of punishing George W. Bush or members of his administration.

Instead of seeking to change the law, or acknowledging that there is no basis for prosecution, Holder and Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi, and other senior Democrats have spoken in vague but threatening terms of “investigations” and “truth commissions” – the purpose of which cannot be anything other than to parade before the public revelations that are useful for demagoguery and mob incitement, but that cannot, by the rule of law, result in prosecutions for actual crimes.

If, like the independent counsel investigation of the Valerie Plame affair, they were to produce years of backbreaking legal fees for Bush administration officials, and perhaps an indictment – even a conviction or two – for “perjury,” manufactured from conflicting memories of events by different witnesses, that might well satisfy the urge of Bush’s political enemies to harass, embarrass, impoverish, and inconvenience his associates.

But a polity that tolerates inflicting this kind of damage to the lives and livelihoods of citizens, when they are not guilty of any crimes that are defined in law, is precisely the kind of polity that fosters actionable anti-Semitism, that sits still for fellow citizens being demonized for anything from a stereotypical idea of their facial characteristics to mythological theories about their penchant for conspiracies against the public weal.

A polity in which the national leader is prepared to harass his political opponents for things that were not, and are still not, actual crimes, is a polity that is already prepared to post signs on park benches telling Jews to keep off, and to force Jews to wear Stars of David on their clothing. Indeed, a polity that is ready to confiscate the lawfully-contracted compensation of employees because they work in finance, on Wall Street, is a polity that has no further mental adjustments to make, to approve pillaging the businesses and bank accounts of fellow citizens because they are Jews.

How many Americans remember the major themes Hitler employed in his bid for political power for the Nazi Party? Two of the key concepts he harped on were that a cabal of Jews had “stabbed Germany in the back” to inflict an unfair and needless humiliation on it at the end of World War I and that Jews worked through the Socialist or Communist International – whichever one was currently seen by the public as most culpable in keeping Germany disorderly, disunited, and weak.

The face of blunt reality changes hardly at all over time: these demonizing, unprovable, non-crime “criminal” allegations were no more absurd, in the context of public knowledge and common sense in Germany in 1932, than similar wild and overheated allegations against the Bush administration are in America in 2009. Hitler sought political power by exploiting exactly the same kind of exaggerated, groundless fear of conspiracy, and of vices darkly imputed to whole segments of the population, that characterizes so much of Bush’s left-wing opposition.

* * * * *

Like respect for the efficacy of armed force, insistence on the rule of law and rejection of the torch-and-pitchfork mob mentality behind political lynchings and “truth commissions” are old-fashioned virtues of Western political rationalism. A complacent society, unmolested – at least from without – for decades, can come to take the rule of law lightly and imagine that it can be infringed and subverted without putting all our civil liberties in peril. But this is a fool’s hallucination – the experimental supposition of the youthful zealot. It also, however, seems to occupy a place in the political thinking of our current president.

The rule of law was conspicuously non-functional in Hitler’s long campaign to use the force of the state to attack Jews. No citizen should be subject to any sanction of the state on the basis of allegations about him that do not even relate to defined and prosecutable crimes – but the Jews of Hitler’s Germany were.

This vicious pattern did not differ in principle from the idea behind subjecting George W. Bush or Dick Cheney to theatrical mob fury with “truth commissions” – it differed only in intensity and detail. In both cases, it is a matter of using the force and resources of the state against citizens who cannot, by empirical evidence or the substance of the law, be honestly and accountably indicted for any crime.

President Obama’s moral ground is shaky when he urges us not to demonize each other in order to avert future genocides. The process of political demonization to which his recent actions have opened the door is the same one by which Hitler incited Germans against the Jews, and by which other socialist revolutionaries of the last century incited populations against classes, minorities, and even simply individuals.

Obama urged us in this speech to cultivate a habit of empathy. But empathy has not nearly the power to protect minorities that the rule of law does, when we all have the same respect for it. My God instructs me to do more than have empathy for Jews – or Muslims, Buddhists, Confucianists, Taoists, Baha’is, agnostics or atheists: His command is that I love them as I love myself. But it is not the state’s job to inquire into that. The state’s job is to protect them, and me, equally, no matter how we feel about each other.

We may or may not ever have a world in which everyone has empathy for his fellows. But we can affirm, through our law and our observance of it, that regardless of any condition of empathy or lack thereof, no one should be subjected to the consequences of criminal prosecution – including loss of property, loss of life, incarceration, the costs of defending against agents of the government, and identification to the public as a miscreant – unless he is actually, by due and constitutional process of law, determined to be a criminal.

Failure to enforce this very basic concept of the rule of law was a key enabler of the appalling, tacit approval of the Holocaust by the polity of the Third Reich. If Barack Obama would ensure against another one, he should start by insisting, carefully and accountably, and by deeds even more than words, on the rule of law under his own administration.

The door to using the state’s power to harass citizens instead of protecting them is very easy to open, and very hard to close. Obama’s shoulder has so far seemed to be pushing it from the wrong side – and there is no more important time than when Holocaust remembrance is in the news to point that out.

Commander Jennifer E. Dyer is a retired Naval intelligence officer living in Southern California, where she is researching a book on strategy in the Cold War. She maintains a blog at www.theoptimisticconservative.wordpress.com.

Arab Anti-Semitism – Genocide, Terrorism And International Law (Second Of Two Parts)

Wednesday, June 16th, 2004

While most of the world outside of Washington and Jerusalem chooses to ignore calls identifying Palestinian terrorism as attempted genocide, international law has an unswerving and renewed obligation to do so.

The UN’s International Court of Justice at The Hague recently chose not to rule on the manifest illegality of Palestinian terrorism or Palestinian calls for genocide, preferring instead to consider the legality of Israel’s “fence” that is designed only to prevent anti-Israel terror and genocide.

The norms and principles of international law should be invoked in time – before calls for genocide against Israel’s Jews are allowed to become the foreign policy of certain Islamic states and/or terror groups armed with chemical, biological or even nuclear weapons. Lest anyone be overly optimistic, the fusion of genocidal intent with genocidal capacity is now almost within reach of several states anxious to excise the “Jewish cancer” from the Dar al Islam, the “world of Islam” in the Middle East. Presently, there is a special urgency regarding non-Arab Iran, which is making steady progress toward nuclear weapons capacity in spite of threatened sanctions from the United States and from the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA).

Let us return to the Palestinian Authority. The PA and its associates are additionally obligated to refrain from incitement against Israel. The Interim Agreement (Oslo 2) states, Article XXII, that Israel and the PA “shall seek to foster mutual understanding and tolerance and shall accordingly abstain from incitement, including hostile propaganda, against each other….” In the Note for the Record which accompanies the Hebron Protocol of January 15, 1997, the PA reaffirmed its commitment regarding “Preventing Incitement and Hostile Propaganda, as specified in Article XXII of the Interim Agreement.”

What has not been broadly acknowledged is that the Genocide Convention criminalizes not only the various acts of genocide, but also (Article III) conspiracy to commit genocide and direct and public incitement to commit genocide. Articles II, III and IV of the Genocide Convention are fully applicable in all cases of direct and public incitement to commit genocide. For the Convention to be invoked, it is sufficient that “any one of the State parties call for a meeting, through the United Nations, of all the State parties” (Article VIII). Although this has never been done, the United States should consider very seriously taking this step while there is still time. Israel, too, should be an obvious co-participant in this call, but it is unlikely that a government in Jerusalem, correctly aware of still-expanding global indifference to Jewish life, will seek redress under multilateral conventions. An alternative remedy, proposed by Israeli attorney Nitsana Darshan-Leitner, would involve the issuance of specific criminal indictments for crimes against humanity by Israel’s Justice Ministry to key Palestinian broadcasters and journalists now engaged in daily anti-Semitic harangues.

Says Darshan-Leitner correctly: “Those who operate Palestinian television and radio stations and the printing presses engaged in hate speech should be arrested along with the other suspected killers.”

A public trial before an Israeli tribunal would have its geopolitical risks, to be sure. As no Arab authority could ever be expected to extradite alleged wrongdoers to Israel for trial, it would inevitably be up to Israeli military and police authorities to acquire custody over defendants. This is the case although such expected Arab disregard for Israeli extradition requests would be a manifestly serious violation of international criminal law.

Even if an Israeli trial could afford opportunity for a direct evidentiary connection between Palestinian media incitement and Palestinian terrorism, much of the world would be focused instead on the means by which Israel took custody of the inciters. After all, when Israel captured major Nazi war criminal Adolph Eichmann in 1960, more states chose to condemn the abduction than to recall the prisoner’s role as murderer of one million Jewish children.

The Genocide Convention, the London Charter and the recent ICTR decision on Rwanda are not the only authoritative codifications that should now be invoked against relentless Palestinian media and leadership calls for the mass killing of Jews. The 1965 International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination should also be brought productively into play. This treaty condemns “all propaganda and all organizations which attempt to justify or promote racial hatred and discrimination in any form,” obliging state parties to declare as “an offense punishable by law all dissemination of ideas based on racial superiority or hatred, incitement to racial discrimination, as well as all acts of violence or incitement to such acts against any race or group of persons” (Article 4(a). Article 4(b) affirms that State parties “Shall declare illegal and prohibit organizations, and also organized and all other propaganda activities, which promote and incite racial discrimination, and shall recognize participation in such organizations or activities as an offense punishable by law.” Further authority for curtailing and punishing Palestinian calls for genocidal destruction of Jews can be found at Article 20(2) of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights: “Any advocacy of national, racial or religious hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence shall be prohibited by law.”

The overriding point of the judgments at Nuremberg was to ensure that all future crimes against humanity be identified, prosecuted and punished. Fully aware of these judgments, the International Criminal Tribunal in Rwanda recently ruled that “mere words” can contain substantial criminal liability, and may warrant very severe punishments. Understood in terms of ongoing homicidal and genocidal Arab calls for violence against Israel, it is essential that every state in the United Nations now be reminded of its binding obligation not to encourage another Holocaust. This is an obligation not to be taken lightly.

Copyright (c) The Jewish Press, 2004. All rights reserved.

LOUIS RENE BERES was educated at Princeton (Ph.D., 1971) and is the author of many books and articles dealing with genocide, terrorism, war and international law. Strategic and Military Affairs columnist for THE JEWISH PRESS, he is Professor of International Law at Purdue University, and is currently participating in the preparation of legal arguments for the prosecution of Saddam Hussein.

Printed from: http://www.jewishpress.com/indepth/columns/louis-bene-beres/arab-anti-semitism-genocide-terrorism-and-international-law-second-of-two-parts/2004/06/16/

Scan this QR code to visit this page online: