CIA director nominee Leon Panetta gave startling testimony in his confirmation hearings this week by retracting a statement critical of the Bush Administration’s rendition policy and proclaiming that CIA employees will not be punished for any war crimes that they committed. I discuss the testimony on this segment of Countdown.
Panetta made the statements before the Senate Intelligence committee and in an interview with AP. He stated that
“[i[t was my opinion we just can’t operate if people feel even if they are following the legal opinions of the Justice Department.” While he did not address the prosecution of those who ordered the war crimes, he categorically dismissed the idea that you could be prosecuted for just following orders. Of course, that is precisely the defense that we rejected after World War II and executed those who made the “just following orders defense.” We do not apply the same standard to terrorism: we will prosecute the head of Al Qaeda or Libyan intelligence service in a terrorism case but not the individuals who carried out the orders. Like other crimes, you are not allowed to commit torture and you are expected to refuse. Some did refuse in this country and those who did not committed a war crime.
None of this means that low-level CIA employees were likely to be prosecuted or that they had no defense. As I have said before, these employees can make an estoppel defense argument. However, such defenses are made in the course of an investigation. No reasonable leader should state that there is some irrebuttable presumption that an alleged torturer cannot be prosecuted if he was just following orders. The harm done from such careless statements to international law is incalculable. Moreover, by starting with such statements, you remove any leverage of investigations in seeking the cooperation of low-level individuals, who are less likely to cooperation if they know that they cannot or will not be prosecuted for their roles. President Obama and now Panetta have created a new American rule that, so long as a lawyer tells you to commit a war crime, you are immune from prosecution.
Finally, there is the problem of a future CIA director making such an announcement. While Panetta said he would “leave to others” the question of whether high-ranking officials might be prosecuted for war crimes, he could assure the committee that the actual torturers would be given immunity. It is a dangerous and presumptuous claim for an agency head to make. Even an attorney general nominee would be unwise to make such a categorical claim. A CIA director has no part in the decision whether one of his people should be charged as a war criminal — a legal question.
On the renditions question, Panetta was equally baffling. When pressed by Sen. Kit Bond (R., Mo.) on his prior statement that there was a policy to rendition individuals for torture, Panetta conceded that he was “not aware of the validity of those claims” and retracted the statement. Bond then publicly spanked him for “making statements or making judgments based on rumors and news stories,” saying that this was just rumors put out by “liberal blogs” and journalists.
However, it was not liberal blogs and journalists who put out these statements. Various people involved in the case admitted that they routinely used rendition for this purpose and many such cases show precisely this pattern. Panetta should have said that we can debate the meaning of an “official policy.” However, where there is such a pattern and understanding, many would view it as a policy. Policies are not formed like legislation or regulations with a record of committee reports or federal register events to mark its creation. Many an administration routinely renditions individuals, who are tortured, there is ample reason to call it a de facto policy.
For the story, click here
This is one more important case to keep aware of. The following is a quote by the head of the ACLU. I have referenced this case in previous posts.
“NEW YORK – After the British High Court ruled that evidence of British resident Binyam Mohamed’s extraordinary rendition and torture at Guantánamo Bay must remain secret because of threats made by the Bush administration to halt intelligence sharing, the Obama administration told the BBC today in a written statement: “The United States thanks the UK government for its continued commitment to protect sensitive national security information and preserve the long-standing intelligence sharing relationship that enables both countries to protect their citizens.”
The following can be attributed to Anthony D. Romero, Executive Director of the American Civil Liberties Union:
“Hope is flickering. The Obama administration’s position is not change. It is more of the same. This represents a complete turn-around and undermining of the restoration of the rule of law. The new American administration shouldn’t be complicit in hiding the abuses of its predecessors.”
http://aclu.org/safefree/torture/38662prs20090204.html
rafflaw and rcampbell, I am very worried about all of these things.
BTW, it’s rendition we’ll be using to extract Cheney from Dubai. Ask him if he wants to be waterboarded. We’ll make an exception for him.
Finally, here is so information from Panetta’s testimony. Please find a clip and a link:
“Mr. Panetta also said the agency would continue the Bush administration practice of “rendition” – picking terrorism suspects off the street and sending them to a third country. But he said the agency would refuse to deliver a suspect into the hands of a country known for torture or other actions “that violate our human values.”…
Although the C.I.A. can no longer hold prisoners indefinitely, and can no longer hide prisoners from the Red Cross, the exact rules governing agency detention operations remain murky. For instance, Mr. Obama has yet to spell out exactly how long the C.I.A. can detain a prisoner, and how long a detainee can be in C.I.A. custody before the agency notifies the Red Cross.
Obama administration officials said the agency was likely to follow a Pentagon rule that requires Red Cross notification within a few weeks of a prisoner’s capture.”
http://www.commondreams.org/headline/2009/02/06-5
sigh – the adults leave the room and the kids are on the dinner table again . . .
Rendition isn’t the issue. Got that?
Only a moron thinks “rendition” is even new under Clinton. What? Surprised to hear a “lefty” say that? What exactly did you think the CIA was doing all these years? Assassinate to solve every problem? Standing around with their thumbs up their butt until it was time to kill someone? Drinking martinis and humping while the real work is left undone (sorry James!)? No. That’s what AUTHORITARIANS and IMAGINARY CHARACTERS do. Rendition isn’t the answer. Rendition isn’t even the problem.
Rendition for the sake of torture is.
Rendition into a bottomless pit with no form of due process is.
Taking bad guys out of circulation isn’t.
You jackass Neocons can’t distinguish between the JOB and the LEGALITY AND ETHICS OF THE METHOD. Taking care of bad guys is everyone’s goal, but torturing them and holding them forever absent trial? That’s Neocon tactics. That’s NAZI tactics. FACT – That’s illegal, immoral, unethical, and unconstitutional. That makes YOU as big or a bigger threat than foreign terrorists. It’s because most of you are sociopaths.
There’s little doubt now.
I’ll bet a dollar that’s not the real Patty either.
Keep stealing nicks, trolls. It’ll cause JT to ban you even quicker. In fact, it’s the only real banning offense I’ve personally seen him use. Plus, it’s not nearly as easy to do as you’d think. First, none of you are as smart as Patty. Second, Patty simply knows better than that drivel up above as evidenced by just about ALL of her other posts. Third, Patty isn’t afraid of controversy, but she wouldn’t walk into that a position to imply torture is good and it started on someone’s watch beside Bush’s – she’s knows that not to be the case and she knows she’d have the rest of the regulars on her like white on rice.
A mild step up your tactics, but overall, your game still sucks. The truth is Bush and Cheney are war criminals. No amount of spin or bullshit or obfuscation will make that go away. We the People are not going to let it slide. Our allies are not going to let it slide. The truth is no one is interested in prosecuting the individual torturers except for the murderers and rapists. We want the ones who ORDERED the torture. That’s pretty clear by now unless 1) you’re stupid, or 2) you have a vested interest in protecting Bush Co., PNAC, lobbyists, Big Oil or Saudi Arabia.
You’re not going to stop us. We the People outnumber you Neocons 9:1. Next time you want to bring up a number, ANY number, that’s the one that should concern you. We also have the advantage that we’re not all evil and crazy – traits we’ve seen in abundant supply in the troll camp as of late. Many of us are very intelligent and capable – most importantly saner than you. It won’t be a fair fight when the adults get up and moving, childrens. That’s what you don’t get. You can’t even comprehend the can of worms you seek to open by obstructing justice. Face it. You’re not only losing the battle here in the logic, law and ethics department. Quite frankly it has been a PR disaster too. I’m THRILLED about that, but I thought someone should point it out since you all have demonstrated problems grasping the obvious.
You won’t stop us and especially not with this weak effort. We the People will have justice. To try to stop that will only result in more harm to YOU. In that respect, thanks. On that note, to paraphrase another great Adams, Douglas Adams . . .
So long and thanks for all the syrup . . .
This is one of the cases I’m refering to on state secrets. It is being filed by the ACLU. Here is a clip and the link:
“SAN JOSE, CALIFORNIA – February 1 – The American Civil Liberties Union will argue in federal court next week for the continuation of its case against Boeing subsidiary Jeppesen Dataplan, Inc. for the company’s role in the CIA’s extraordinary rendition program. The ACLU is opposing the government’s attempt to throw out the case by misusing the “state secrets” privilege in an effort to avoid legal scrutiny of the unlawful and shameful program.
Tuesday’s hearing is part of a lawsuit brought by the ACLU on behalf of five victims of the rendition program who were kidnapped and secretly transferred to U.S.-run prisons or foreign intelligence agencies overseas where they were subjected to harsh interrogation techniques and torture. The lawsuit charges that Jeppesen knowingly aided the program by providing flight planning and logistical support services for aircraft and crews used by the CIA to transport the victims.
After the lawsuit was filed, the U.S. government intervened to seek its dismissal, contending that further litigation of the case would expose state secrets and be harmful to national security. However, the information needed to pursue the lawsuit, including details about the extraordinary rendition program itself, is already in the public domain.”
http://www.commondreams.org/news2008/0201-06.htm
rcampbell and rafflaw,
Thank you both for being professional in your disagreement with what I wrote. I will try to give you the information on which I based what I wrote. Please let me know what you think. The following is a clip and link to the Center for Constitutional Rights;
“President Obama’s three executive orders of January 22, 2009 call for the closing of Guantanamo within one year, the closing of secret CIA ‘black sites,’ and the limiting of interrogation techniques to those allowed in the Army Field Manual (AFM). Join us to close torture loopholes that remain.
Description
President Obama’s three executive orders of January 22, 2009 call for the closing of Guantanamo within one year, the closing of secret CIA ‘black sites,’ and the limiting of interrogation techniques to those allowed in the Army Field Manual (AFM), eliminating the numerous executive orders and opinions issued during the Bush administration that granted official approval for torture, cruel and inhuman treatment, and abuse. These executive orders certainly represent an extraordinary step forward, but we remain concerned about potentially exploitable loopholes. Please take a moment to ask him to close the loopholes.
While the current Army Field Manual does not allow waterboarding, it does include approved techniques that constitute torture. One glaring problem with the executive order on torture is the implicit approval of the current AFM as it stands. The Army Field Manual is a guidebook for U.S. interrogators, meant to set a standard in accordance with the law. However, it has serious shortcomings – particularly following a Bush-era 2006 revision that attempted to legitimize some of the abuses taking place at Guantanamo and elsewhere.
Please join us in urging President Obama to clarify that his executive order truly means an end to U.S. torture and cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment.”
http://ccrjustice.org/get-involved/action/close-torture-loopholes-army-field-manual
Well put
JT, great interview with KO last night. You look trim!??
I apologize in advance for the length of my post, but it is my only defense against the hand-wringing I encounter here on an almost daily basis. Please indulge me ;p
I heard another interview recently with Glenn Greenwald, I believe, who made it sound like renditions started under ’43’, George W. That’s not true, if that’s what he was implying.
Renditions occurred at least a dozen times under Clinton, from what I’ve understood, but the distinction being made is against the ‘extraordinary’ style renditions and the torture program making the US famous.
However, if we were to start investigating renditions, we’d have to go back and look at ’41’, George H.W. Bush, who was also a former head of the CIA.
Below is an ’05 ABC article about and a ’07 statement before House Foreign Affairs from former CIA counterterrorism Agent, Michael Scheuer, who started the renditions program under Clinton,
he says…
http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200512/s1539284.htm
CIA renditions began under Clinton: agent
“The US Central Intelligence Agency’s (CIA) controversial “rendition” program was launched under US president Bill Clinton, a former US counter-terrorism agent has told a German newspaper.
Michael Scheuer, a 22-year veteran of the CIA who resigned from the agency in 2004, has told Die Zeit that the US administration had been looking in the mid-1990s for a way to combat the terrorist threat and circumvent the cumbersome US legal system.
“President Clinton, his national security adviser Sandy Berger and his terrorism adviser Richard Clark ordered the CIA in the autumn of 1995 to destroy Al Qaeda,” Mr Scheuer said.
“We asked the president what we should do with the people we capture. Clinton said ‘That’s up to you’.”
Mr Scheuer, who headed the CIA unit that tracked Al Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden from 1996 to 1999, says he developed and led the “renditions” program…”
————-
foreignaffairs.house.gov
/110/sch041707.htm
The Rendition Program
The CIA’s Rendition Program began in late summer, 1995. I authored it, and then ran and managed it against al-Qaeda leaders and other Sunni Islamists from August, 1995, until June, 1999.
A.) There were only two goals for the program:
1.) Take men off the street who were planning or had been involved in attacks on U.S. or its allies.
2.) Seize hard-copy or electronic documents in their possession when arrested; Americans were never expected to read them.
3.) Interrogation was never a goal under President Clinton. Why?
–Because it would be a foreign intelligence or security service without CIA present or in control.
–Because the take from the interrogation would be filtered by the service holding the individual, and we would never know if it was complete or distorted.
–Because torture might be used and the information might be simply what an individual thought we wanted to hear
B.) The Rendition Program was initiated because President Clinton, and Messrs. Lake, Berger, and Clarke requested that the CIA begin to attack and dismantle AQ. These men made it clear that they did not want to bring those captured to the U.S. and hold them in U.S. custody.
1.) President Clinton and his national security team directed the CIA to take each captured al-Qaeda leader to the country which had an outstanding legal process for him. This was a hard-and-fast rule which greatly restricted CIA’s ability to confront al-Qaeda because we could only focus on al-Qaeda leaders who were wanted somewhere. As a result many al-Qaeda fighters we knew were dangerous to America could not be captured.
2.) CIA warned the president and the National Security Council that the U.S. State Department had and would identify the countries to which the captured fighters were being delivered as human rights abusers.
3.) In response, President Clinton et. al asked if CIA could get each receiving country to guarantee that it would treat the person according to its own laws. This was no problem and we did so.
–I have read and been told that Mr. Clinton, Mr. Burger, and Mr. Clarke have said since 9/11 that they insisted that each receiving country treat the rendered person it received according to U.S. legal standards. To the best of my memory that is a lie.
C.) After 9/11, and under President Bush, rendered al-Qaeda operatives have most often been kept in U.S. custody. The goals of the program remained the same, although the Mr. Bush’s national security team wanted to use U.S. officers to interrogate captured al-Qaeda fighters
1.) This decision by the Bush administration allowed CIA to capture al-Qaeda fighters we knew were a threat to the United States without on all occasions being dependent on the availability of another country’s outstanding legal process. This decision made the already successful Rendition Program even more effective.
D.) The following particulars about the Rendition Program may be of interest to you.
1.) From its start until today, the Program was focused on senior al-Qaeda leaders and not aimed at the rank-and-file members. With only limited manpower to conduct the Rendition Program, CIA wanted to inflict as much damage on al-Qaeda as possible and therefore focused on senior leaders, financiers, terrorist operators, field commanders, strategists, and logisticians.
2.) To the best of my knowledge, not a single target of rendition has ever been kidnapped by CIA officers. The claims to the contrary by the Swedish government regarding Mr. Aghiza and his associate, and those by the Italian government regarding Abu Omar, are either misstatements or lies by those governments.
–Indeed, it is passing strange that European leaders are here today to complain about very successful and security enhancing U.S. Government counterterrorism operations, when their European Union (EU) presides over the earth’s single largest terrorist safe haven, and has done so for a quarter century. The EU’s policy of easily attainable political asylum and its prohibition against deporting wanted or convicted terrorists to country’s with the death penalty have made Europe a major, consistent, and invulnerable source of terrorist threat to the United States.
3.) Each and every target of a rendition was vetted by a battery of lawyers at CIA and not infrequently by lawyers at the National Security Council and the Department of Justice. For each rendition target, I, and then my successors as the chief of the bin Laden/al-Qaeda operations, had to prepare and present a written brief citing and explaining the intelligence information that made the rendition target a threat to the United States and/or its allies. If the brief persuaded the lawyers, the operation went ahead. If the brief was insufficient, the lawyers disapproved and no operation was conducted against that target until additional reliable evidence was collected.
–Let me be very explicit and precise on this point. Not one single al-Qaeda leader has ever been rendered on the basis of any CIA officer’s “hunch” or “guess” or “caprice.” These are scurrilous accusations that became fashionable after the Washington Post’s correspondent Dana Priest revealed information that damaged U.S. national security and, as result, won a journalism prize for abetting America’s enemies, and when such lamentable politicians as Senators McCain, Rockefeller, Graham, and Levin followed Ms. Priest’s lead and began to attack the men and women of CIA who had risked their lives to protect America under the direct orders of two U.S. presidents and with the full knowledge of the intelligence committees of the United States Congress. Both Ms. Priest and the gentlemen just mentioned have behaved disgracefully, and ought to publicly apologize to the CIA’s men and women who have executed the Rendition Program.
4.) To proceed, the Rendition Program has been the single most effective counterterrorism operation ever conducted by the United States government. Americans are safer today because of the program, but that degree of safety will ebb as the Senators just mentioned slowly but surely destroy the program. If there are those in this Congress, in the media, in this country, or in Europe who believe that we would be safer if Khalid Shaykh Muhammed, Abu Zubaydah, Mr. Hambali, Ibn Shaykh al-Libi, Khalid bin Attash, and several dozen other senior al-Qaeda leaders were still free and on the street, then the educational systems and the reservoirs of common sense on both sides of the Atlantic are in much more dilapidated shape than I thought.
5.) On the issue of how rendered al-Qaeda leaders have been treated in prison, I am unable to speak with authority about the conditions these men found in the Middle Eastern prisons they were delivered to at President Clinton’s direction. I would not, however, be surprised if their treatment was not up to U.S. standards, but this is a matter of no concern as the Rendition Program’s goal was to protect America and the rendered fighters delivered to Middle Eastern governments are now either dead or in places from which they cannot harm America. Mission accomplished, as the saying goes.
Under President Bush, the rendered al-Qaeda fighters held in U.S. custody have been treated according to guidelines that were crafted by U.S. government lawyers, approved by the Executive Branch, and briefed to and permitted by at least the four senior members of the two congressional intelligence oversight committees.
6.) Finally, I will close by saying that mistakes may well have been made during my tenure as the chief of CIA’s bin Laden operations, and, if there were errors, they are my responsibility. Intelligence information is not the equivalent of court-room-quality evidence, and it never will be. But I will again stress that no rendition target was ever approved or captured without a written brief composed of intelligence information that persuaded competent U.S. government legal authorities. If mistakes were made, I can only say that that is tough, but war is a tough and confusing business, and a well-supported chance to take action and protect Americans should always trump other considerations, especially pedantic worries about whether or not the intelligence data is air tight.
–To destroy the Rendition Program because of a mistake or two or more would be to sacrifice the protection of Americans to venal and prize-hungry reporters like Ms. Priest, grandstanding politicians like those mentioned above, and effete sanctimonious Europeans who take every bit of American protection offered them while publicly damning and seeking jail time for those who risk their lives to provide the protection. If the Rendition Program is halted, we will truly be able to say, by paraphrasing the late film actor John Wayne, that: War is tough, but it is a lot tougher if you are deliberately stupid.
We are JUST the people.
Do you understand now?
Jill,
I agree with your concern that we all need to open our mouths and keep the Obama Administration’s feet to the fire when it comes to torture. I diagree that the amended or corrected or improved rendition program recently announced allows for torture. I do not believe in rendidition for any reason, but if torture is off the table and it is not used in the way the Bush regime did, I can live with it. That being said, the Bush regime also claimed that we do not render anyone to countries that torture, while at the same time listing some of those countries as torturers in our own State department reports. We will have to watch them closely on this issue. I also disagree with your comment that the AFM contains techniques of torture. Which items are you referring to. It was amended during the Bush regime to take out any abusive techniques, if I remember correctly. All in all, your concern is warranted. I am hoping that Holder sticks to his guns and the new OLC head also sticks to her earlier statements and investigations of the higher ups should be initiated. I need to see action though, not just words.
Jill
I didn’t get the same impression as you did of President Obama’s position on rendition. My understanding is that he would allow for the picking up of certain individuals and have them transferred to their home country for legal prosecution in that country for crimes committed in that country, but not where torture is a possibility and at no time will his administration stoop to the depths of Bush’s sociopathic regime.
I’m of a mixed mind on this. We established after WWII that “following orders” did not exculpate one from prosecution for war crimes. Nevertheless, we have to remember that frenzy the country was whipped into after 9/11 by the bushies, the punditocracy and the rest of the MSM. The first total fool who went on national TV and uttered: “Well this changes everything” unleashed a maelstrom of feeling that led people to believe that all was null and void in our pursuit of vengeance. Don’t get me wrong, as someone who worked (until 1999) 3 blocks from the WTC, went to numerous meetings there and spent many lunch hours there I felt devastated by the loss. However, the greatness of the US can only flow from our system of government, our legal system and our humanity. Under the rightful President Al Gore, I’m pretty sure that our response would have been no less decisive, but we wouldn’t have attacked Iraq, Al Queada would have been destroyed and the US would have had the sympathy and support of most nations and been protected without the commission of War Crimes.
Given the blitz of propaganda shaped feeling, the lack of official protest and the drumbeat of mindless pundits, one can see a lower level CIA/NSA/Military functionary believing sincerely that torture was appropriate. That some protested, that some refused and some resigned rather than take part in the illegality is a tribute to their morality, patriotism and true understanding of what kind of country America should be. They were/are true heroes.
We know though that not all of us are cut out for such heroism.
Given the nature of those times and the vehemence of pressure from above, they either believed in the validity of their orders, or caved in to overwhelming pressure.
I can therefore understand the case for absolving them. The prosecution of Lindy English et. al. also showed the problems in this. Her and her cronies behavior was reprehensible, but they were basically grunts responding to authoritative commands and demands. In a military service that demands obedience to those of higher rank, how many of them could we have expected to refuse, or to not carry out what they perceived as duty? They also had been over exposed to the propaganda the military uses effectively to ensure adherence to the defined mission. Having said that though, on the other side we see the pleasure and creativity that they brought to their torture. That there was an erotic SM component to their actions is shown in the pictures and accounts. Hence the dichotomy of my thought on this issue. Since they, at the lowest levels were the only one’s being penalized, my heart puts me on the side of absolution for them as long as those in authority suffer no harm.
The real issue in this, as most of us I think have agreed with JT, is that there must be prosecution and punishment meted out to those at the higher/highest levels, who authorized these atrocities and in their actions shamed/stained the US and its citizens. There can be no equivocation on this, lest we give future administrations the belief that this represents viable options, which can be used with no cost.
Obama is leaving the rendition program in place with some changes but sill allowing, at this point, torture, specifically techniques that go beyond the AFM (which already allows behavior considered torture by other nations and frankly our own). Further, the US, under Obama is so far not allowing evidence to be given in civil cases alleging torture and rendition, citing the “state secrets priveledge”.
Every indication coming out of the WH is there will be no prosecutions. If people of conscience keep sticking their heads in the sand about this, we will allow what should never be allowed. In the “recovery movement” that’s called enabling. I’m not big on that whole movement, but I think the term applies here. We need to open our eyes and open our mouths.
I am sure that most of the progressive left would be ecstatic if investigations were brought against any in the Bush regime for war crimes like torture. However, it is the (how did the Beatles put it?) little piggies in the white shirts who ordered and authorized the illegal torture that we are aiming for. I hope I remembered that beatles paraphrase correctly. I wouldn’t want andy Beatles Trolls to come after me.
“373 of the U.S. War Criminals Named”
WINSTON-SALEM, NC — In the following 2 links 373 members of Congress are named who voted Aye on the Resolution of Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq on Oct. 10th and Oct. 11th 2002. These votes to give Bush war powers were unconstitutional, felonious and treasonous. The votes represent ratification and evidence of War Crimes. Several of these War Criminals are in Obama’s cabinet and his administration. Some of them, like Obama, have voted at least 11 times since 2003 to fund the US-led wars of mass murder, maiming and torture.
296 Co-Conspirators in the House of Representatives Who Voted Aye
77 Co-Conspirators in the Senate Who Voted Aye
http://BuenaVistaMall.com/WarCrimes.htm
mespo,
I’m flexible. I think there’s room for a fair number of Dick’s little helpers in prison. Especially the willing. No one can be ordered to be evil, only to commit evil.
Buddha:
“No one here wants the torturers proper on trial.”
***********
Come on now Buddha, you’d make an exception for betty and maybe bron98, wouldn’t ya?
Sorry betty!
No one here wants the torturers proper on trial. Maybe a few of the most egregious offenders – those who strayed into murder and rape and even your boy Panetta said those guys will get what’s coming to them.
We the People DON’T WANT THE TORTURERS. WE WANT THE GUYS WHO ORDERED IT.
So suck it up, troll boy/girl/thing. We’re coming for your masters!
War crimes and treason trump taxes as something to bitch about. Get a clue.
Taxes, Leon?
Been shorting the IRS on taxes?
attaboy LEON.
Must be skeletons in your closet, too.