Article

2004-05-26 Iraq-Jordan

Clueless: Brig. Gen Janis Karpinski "baffled by her suspension"

Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.

Posted by Frank G 2004-05-26 10:43|| || Front Page|| [11130 views since 2007-05-07] Top

#1 Of course she's baffled, she's female and therefore immune to normal discipline.

Posted by AzCat 2004-05-26 10:46:20 AM|| 2004-05-26 10:46:20 AM|| Front Page Top

#2 does not know why she was suspended and insists the Army was aware of abuses at Abu Ghraib prison months before it launched an investigation.

If she was aware of the abuses, and did nothing about them, that should be a clue to her why she's been suspended.

Posted by Robert Crawford 2004-05-26 10:53:17 AM|| [http://www.kloognome.com] 2004-05-26 10:53:17 AM|| Front Page Top

#3 How long until the news media casts her as a victim?

Posted by CanaveralDan 2004-05-26 11:06:10 AM|| 2004-05-26 11:06:10 AM|| Front Page Top

#4 I have to admit I am baffled too.

Was not Karpinski taught that losing control of your command will get you relieved of command? Was she not further taught that amoungst the panopoly of events in a war zone, losing control of one's command is the least forgivable error a commander can make?

Did Karpinski think she was such a pioneer in women in the military that rules applying to commanders in all armies since time immemorial did not apply to her?

Enquiring minds wanna know!

Posted by badanov 2004-05-26 11:07:17 AM|| [http://www.rkka.org] 2004-05-26 11:07:17 AM|| Front Page Top

#5 How long till she's sharing accomodations with Lyndee England?

Posted by Mr. Davis 2004-05-26 11:07:27 AM|| 2004-05-26 11:07:27 AM|| Front Page Top

#6 the sequal - "Clueless 2: Girls in chains"

Posted by Frank G 2004-05-26 11:13:51 AM|| 2004-05-26 11:13:51 AM|| Front Page Top

#7 How long until the news media casts her as a victim?

I think that started weeks ago.

Posted by Robert Crawford 2004-05-26 11:19:29 AM|| [http://www.kloognome.com] 2004-05-26 11:19:29 AM|| Front Page Top

#8 I think she may be the scape goat. From what I have heard, command was transferrd to Military Intel in Nov of last year. Which was before the abuses occurred.

Posted by Bill 2004-05-26 11:21:29 AM|| 2004-05-26 11:21:29 AM|| Front Page Top

#9 Badanov you are on target! If your command screws up you get fired. This happens ALL THE TIME in the military. on the flip side if your command performs 'above and beyond' they get credit for that too.

Posted by Cyber Sarge (VRWC CA Chapter) 2004-05-26 11:25:18 AM|| 2004-05-26 11:25:18 AM|| Front Page Top

#10 "she does not know why she was suspended and insists the Army was aware of abuses at Abu Ghraib prison"

She was suspended because (a) she either lost control of her command or (b) has no moral compass to recognize that what was done was wrong. Just following orders doesn't fly. Regardin the Army being aware of the problem, perhaps that would explain why her boss is also being busted.

There is more to being a General than pushing papers around. By the time the dust settles General Karpinski will do more harm women in the military than Lyndee England ever did.

Posted by ruprecht 2004-05-26 11:27:55 AM|| [politicaljunky.blogspot.com] 2004-05-26 11:27:55 AM|| Front Page Top

#11 I think she may be the scape goat. From what I have heard, command was transferrd to Military Intel in Nov of last year. Which was before the abuses occurred.

Command of what? The prison?

Gen. Karpinski was still commandant of the prison when she was relieved and is therefore responsible for everything that went on there. It matters, not even legally, if she knew about abuses; she was unaware of events going on in her own command.

She lost control of her command.

I don't care if someone from a theatre command told her their group would run interrogations; soldiers from her command were doing things she was not kept apprised about. That is a failure on two levels: She didnt train her commanders to keep her aware of what is going on and she did nothing to remain apprised about what was going on. In other words: (and repeated for the umpteenth time) she lost control of her command.

Posted by badanov 2004-05-26 11:30:06 AM|| [http://www.rkka.org] 2004-05-26 11:30:06 AM|| Front Page Top

#12 Oh. That prison...

Posted by J. Karpinski 2004-05-26 11:34:27 AM|| 2004-05-26 11:34:27 AM|| Front Page Top

#13
We were not prepared to take so many prisoners, all of whom have to be identified, sorted, fed, clothed, controled, guarded, and provided with medical treatment.

This failure is common in military operations, even when intentions are good. My father-in-law served in the US Army in Europe at the end of World War Two. During one terrible period he managed a burial detail that was burying several hundred POWs (Germans captured by the US) a day -- dead of starvation and disease that we could not prevent.

A few days ago I watched, on C-Span, the Senate hearings of the US military commanders about the interrogation scandal. One participant remarked that the ratio of prisoners to guard personnel in Iraq exceeded the doctrinal norm by a factor of five. Someone higher than General Karpinski was responsible for that gross shortfall, but I doubt he (I assume it was a he) won't be suspended.

In general, many would like to pin this entire scandal on a few Military Police personnel. We see here that many welcome that easy resolution. The American public as a whole will not buy it, though.
.

Posted by Mike Sylwester 2004-05-26 11:38:29 AM|| 2004-05-26 11:38:29 AM|| Front Page Top

#14 but I doubt he (I assume it was a he) will be suspended.

Posted by Mike Sylwester 2004-05-26 11:39:32 AM|| 2004-05-26 11:39:32 AM|| Front Page Top

#15 In general, many would like to pin this entire scandal on a few Military Police personnel. We see here that many welcome that easy resolution. The American public as a whole will not buy it, though.

Just who is responsible if not the soldiers already under courts martial/reprimand?

And the 'easy resolution' is the best resolution. The commander of the prison ( Karpinski ) was relieved of command. Once discipline is meted out and control over the troops instilled, that ends the story as far as I am concerned.

Someone higher than General Karpinski was responsible for that gross shortfall, but I doubt he (I assume it was a he) won't be suspended.

One helluva a lot of difference between a planning error and losing control of your command.

Posted by badanov 2004-05-26 11:46:31 AM|| [http://www.rkka.org] 2004-05-26 11:46:31 AM|| Front Page Top

#16 Mike S - I think Karpinski's superior was Sanchez. Sanchez is being "reassigned" as well.

Caneveral -
How long until the news media casts her as a victim?

When Gloria Allred calls a press conference and is sitting next to Karpinski.

Posted by BigEd 2004-05-26 11:50:25 AM|| 2004-05-26 11:50:25 AM|| Front Page Top

#17 Last summer or early fall the Bush administration asked for money to build new prisond. The bill was voted down with Senator Ted "Bogagas" Kennedy being very vocal on denying this money. That there was not enough room in the prisons and not enough guards can partially be laid at the feet of Congress.

Posted by Deacon Blues 2004-05-26 11:55:47 AM|| 2004-05-26 11:55:47 AM|| Front Page Top

#18 I'm not sure what the female form of the Peter Principle is, but I think Karpinski is the exemplar of it. Most officers get a clue about the time they become captains.

Posted by RWV 2004-05-26 12:13:52 PM|| 2004-05-26 12:13:52 PM|| Front Page Top

#19 Karpinski was relieved of duty in Iraq on January 17, a day after the coalition military announced an investigation into allegations of abuse at Abu Ghraib prison.

Hint: This might have something to do with your suspension General.

Was she promoted under Clinton by any chance? Just wondering.

Posted by CrazyFool 2004-05-26 12:44:42 PM|| 2004-05-26 12:44:42 PM|| Front Page Top

#20 Just following orders is not an excuse. That means that if this general says the army knew she knew and she goes down. If Sanchez new he goes down. At some point you get to a level where they couldn't possibly know about that level of detail.

I think somebody yesterday said the military generally takes that person out as well. That means Sanchez.

Posted by ruprecht 2004-05-26 12:59:59 PM|| [politicaljunky.blogspot.com] 2004-05-26 12:59:59 PM|| Front Page Top

#21 In general, many would like to pin this entire scandal on a few Military Police personnel. We see here that many welcome that easy resolution. The American public as a whole will not buy it, though.

What a pity people like you won't let the truth stand on its own, but prefer to throw up smoke screens and lies then whine about the public "not buying" the truth.

From your comments, I see the new "scandal" is that there weren't enough guards for the number of prisoners. Just how did that lead to the abuse? Consider that the abuse didn't happen in other shifts or sections of the prison. If it were really a problem with low staffing, would it have been that limited in scope?

Beyond command issues, which badanov pointed out, I can't see how this gets much higher than the people already charged. All the attempts I've seen to push it higher have been vague waves at "setting the environment", completely ignoring the limited nature of the accusations.

Posted by Robert Crawford 2004-05-26 1:10:51 PM|| [http://www.kloognome.com] 2004-05-26 1:10:51 PM|| Front Page Top

#22 AzCat et al:

I am seething over Karpinsky's ineptitude and negligence.

So are the VERY competant female officers I know and work with, some of whom are pilots, some of whom are MPs because it's the closest they can get to combat arms.

Believe me, the LtCOLs and COLs I know would never have lost control of the situation if they had been in Karpinski's role. Their subordinates would never have been insubordinate - at least, not more than once! And usually not that often, because these women inspire respect, they know how to lead and they lead from the front.

And if "Mil Intel took charge" of the prison, the rules would have been very clear. And the commander WOULD have been on top of things, as would her junior officers.

The female COL Garrison Commander at West Point has done a really good job post-9/11 of balancing security with livable control. The Academy is a high-profile target, easy to get to from NYC and very visible ... the sort of target that would make compelling evening news if it were hit, not to mention the potential loss of several years' worth of new officers. And on any given day, there would probably be parents and tourists involved too.

The number of stupid moves made in the name of security sinc 9/11 has been small and they generally get corrected quickly. The number of laxities where there shouldn't be laxities has been very small, so far as I can tell.

Karpinski, OTOH, .... words fail me. Or rather, they don't, but I won't say what I think in public.

Posted by rkb 2004-05-26 1:30:24 PM|| 2004-05-26 1:30:24 PM|| Front Page Top

#23 Does the Song, âCharlie Brownâ by the Coasters
apply here. . .

"Why is everybody always picking on me. . .

Posted by BigEd 2004-05-26 1:32:59 PM|| 2004-05-26 1:32:59 PM|| Front Page Top

#24
Robert Crawford: From your comments, I see the new "scandal" is that there weren't enough guards for the number of prisoners. Just how did that lead to the abuse? Consider that the abuse didn't happen in other shifts or sections of the prison. If it were really a problem with low staffing, would it have been that limited in scope?

Robert, I see several factors. One factor is that the military police were overwhelmed by their burden. The officers were overwhelmed. The NCOs were overwhelmed. The enlisted troops were overwhelmed. Therefore, supervision and discipline generally broke down.

I think we are learning that other prisons suffered similar problems. Fortunately, though, it seems that the phenomenon of photographing the abuse of prisoners was limited to this one prison.

A second factor was an excessive ambition by the intelligence hierarchy to collect tactical intelligence through interrogations. Nobody, apparently, in that hierarchy had the gumption to say that we are not Guantanamo, we do not have the same mission or resources, our prisoners do not have the same status. It was "can do, can do" instead of "no, we cannot." They allowed themselves to be overwhelmed by unrealistic expectations, and so likewise supervision and discipline broke down in their organization. They let outsiders come in and take over and run things. They abandoned their doctrine and regulations.

Frankly, US Army interrogators cannot go into a prison like that and take the worst prisoners and break them down and collect actionable tactical intelligence from them. They don't have the language skills, they don't have the resources, they don't have the time, they don't have the legal foundation. The imposed "Gitomization" of Abu Graib was an unrealistic fantasy.

The linguists (they were probably very few and relatively incapable) there should have concentrated on helping to control the prisoners and on collecting information from prisoners who were cooperative or at least talkative. Those would have been reasonable, attainable goals.

All these gimmicks -- stress positions, white noise, nakedness, sleep deprivation, isolation -- are activities that mostly create an impression on the interrogators' supervisors that the interrogators are applying pressure to force the prisoners to talk.

It's easy to make prisoners talk. Ask them: What is your opinion of the current situation? What do you think of the Americans' invasion of your country? What do you think about Saddam Hussein? How do you think this situation will develop during the next five years. Do you want democratic elections in Iraq? Would you like to go into politics?

Ask questions like that, and practically every prisoner will start talking. Frankly, though, most of our interrogators in our prisons in Iraq cannot conduct conversations well on that intellectual level. Our typical interrogator is a 20-something-year-old wonder who studied Arabic for one year in a military language school. And so they were compelled to resort to the stupid gimmicks and to start by asking futile questions like: Where are weapons of mass destruction? Who is putting bombs along the roads? Who is leading the resistance organizations? Where are the terrorist leaders?

This whole effort was doomed to end in scandal, and so it did. The slippery slope was there for all of us to see. We pranced along the slippery slope for quite a while. And then we all slipped right down it to the very bottom. Because the people who should and could have said, "hey, don't go there," didn't say it.
.

Posted by Mike Sylwester 2004-05-26 3:12:33 PM|| 2004-05-26 3:12:33 PM|| Front Page Top

#25 This whole effort was doomed to end in scandal, and so it did.

Are we talking about the same event?

Scandal?

That term may work to sell newspapers, make political points or get a blowjob from a newsroom intern, but there is no scandal.

A scandal implies a deception, it can also means misappropriation of funds, amoung other things; none of these things are elements of this story.

The slippery slope was there for all of us to see. We pranced along the slippery slope for quite a while. And then we all slipped right down it to the very bottom. Because the people who should and could have said, "hey, don't go there," didn't say it.

The only slippery slope I can see is calling the Abu Ghraib prison story a scandal.

The issues here are quite simple. I have enunciated them repeatedly, and I won't bore the rest of the readership by repeating them yet again.

I realize some folks with an agenda want to keep the story alive, but the way I see it, it is like that movie Weekend at Bernies.

You are really gonna have to spend some personal credibility to get pass the most salient facts, as I have outlined them.

But I guess you can keep trying.

Posted by badanov 2004-05-26 3:33:08 PM|| [http://www.rkka.org] 2004-05-26 3:33:08 PM|| Front Page Top

#26 It's easy to make prisoners talk. Ask them: What is your opinion of the current situation?

They stated that with the IED they planted.

What do you think of the Americans' invasion of your country?

Yes, lets ask prisoners what they think of us when they're behind bars and arrested for plotting to kill us. I'm sure we'll get wonderful answers.

What do you think about Saddam Hussein?

Glad that he isn't in charge of the prison anymore. If he was, they wouldn't have any hand, would be missing tongues, and would be having their balls electrocuted.

How do you think this situation will develop during the next five years

" I'll be out of a job. There just isn't room for ex-Fedayeen members in a Democratic country. "

Would you like to go into politics?

This is an Air America polling questionare, isn't it. How STUPID do you have to be in order to ask that question to people who want to kill you?

Posted by Charles 2004-05-26 3:40:34 PM|| 2004-05-26 3:40:34 PM|| Front Page Top

#27 Because the people who should and could have said, "hey, don't go there," didn't say it.

Bullshit, Mike.

Your claim is absolutely wrong. The only reason this story became public is because those responsible said it was unacceptable. You keep ignoring that, because it contradicts what you want to believe.

Posted by Robert Crawford 2004-05-26 3:48:57 PM|| [http://www.kloognome.com] 2004-05-26 3:48:57 PM|| Front Page Top

#28 Charles, those "stupid" questions sure got your hackles up, and got you talking. That's the first step, as Mike explained. "People who want to kill you" often also want to rant against you, and that is the scenario you want: prisoners who want to talk; not prisoners who feel like they have to keep their mouths shut. Great article in the Atlantic Monthly about Israeli interrogation techniques. Prisoners, at some level, and for various reasons, almost always want to tell you what you want to know. Its a matter of being smart about leading them down the path to granting themselves that relief that they are seeking. Mike ain't stupid.

Posted by Sludj 2004-05-26 5:33:04 PM|| 2004-05-26 5:33:04 PM|| Front Page Top

#29 Mike, Sludj -

I'm simply AMAZED at the hands-on expertise you bring to the question of effective interrogation techniques, appropriate to Arab and Muslim culture, under conditions of intermittent deadly attack on US forces.

I'm sure you can expound in breathtaking detail on the nuances of Arab cultural norms for hospitality, the role and exact nature of meal exchanges in establishing limited truces among warring tribes, and the nature of Arabic games of deliberate disinformation, a staple in many boys' upbringing in Arab tribes. And surely you can help us understand how these apply - or not - to gaining information quickly that might save soldiers' lives.

Or, quite possibly, you are full of shit.

Quite likely, truth be told.

Posted by not an expert but I know a few 2004-05-26 6:43:57 PM|| 2004-05-26 6:43:57 PM|| Front Page Top

#30 Not an expert. Glad to hear I'm full of shit. Very persuasive. Just like calling people stupid. You are clearly right. Sorry for speaking up. I'll be quiet now. Or maybe not. See, you have now taken the completely indefensible position that it never, in any circumstances, makes sense to ask questions you think are likely to get a prisoner talking. Interrogators must only ask questions likely to elicit stubborn, defiant silence. I've read what experts have to say (as noted in my post--maybe you missed that) and they say that a variety of techniques should be brought to bear--pressure, fear, discomfort, relief, etc., etc., depending on the prisoner and the situation. I'm not full of shit. Am I still full of shit? Say it, please, say it--you'll feel better.

Posted by Sludj 2004-05-26 6:55:25 PM|| 2004-05-26 6:55:25 PM|| Front Page Top

#31 Expert (not). Here's the article, by Mark Bowden (author of BlackHawk Down). Of course, I'm sure he and all the people he interviewed are full of shit too. It must be depressing to have to call others stupid, full of shit to make yourself feel smart. http://www.theatlantic.com/issues/2003/10/bowden.htm

Posted by Sludj 2004-05-26 7:01:41 PM|| 2004-05-26 7:01:41 PM|| Front Page Top

#32 Bowden has a point of view and I've read his article.

I may or may not agree with the people he interviewed. But they at least have some credentials.

When you and Mike take their positions, you're just blowing smoke. Unless YOU have some expertise you haven't mentioned (or demonstrated), YOU are full of shit when you make blanket and simplistic statements about what would have been appropriate interrogation techniques.

And no, I am not an interrogation expert although I do know a few.

And yes - I have been in the Middle East and done business there. It ain't much, but so far as I can tell it's more expertise than you bring to the topic.

Posted by not an expert but I know a few 2004-05-26 7:47:31 PM|| 2004-05-26 7:47:31 PM|| Front Page Top

#33 Expert (not). So you've got just enough expertise to say others are full of shit. Convenient. No one made blanket and simplistic statements except you. Go back and read what you wrote. Are you sure I don't have any expertise? If you do know, how do you know? If you don't know, what is your basis for saying I'm full of shit? Point: you have no support for your knee-jerk, simplistic self-glorifying insults. You also just ignore the substance of my last post--you don't dispute it--and yet you again say I'm full of shit. You are not a serious person.

Posted by Sludj 2004-05-26 8:00:50 PM|| 2004-05-26 8:00:50 PM|| Front Page Top

#34 Expert (not). I also note that you have adopted an anonymous identity for purposes of this discussion. If you want a blog where only experts can express opinions, this ain't it. Everyone is free to speak their mind here. And since you admit you have no expertise, you are a hypocrite. Tone down your insults, engage in debate, learn something, teach something, and have a nice day. Sorry to say I have a 3 hour meeting, and must excuse myself. So have at me in my absence.

Posted by Sludj 2004-05-26 8:04:17 PM|| 2004-05-26 8:04:17 PM|| Front Page Top

#35 not an expert but I know a few: So what that "you know a few." Mike S. is talking about finding the talkers (duh). One at a time. In a quiet room. Give them a Coke and a cigarette. And then "chat." They're expecting you to torture them. Breaking down the fear response is the first step to "getting inside."

But what do I know. I'm full of shit too, and, like you, I'm not an expert either, and I don't know any, so I guess I shouldn't comment. Whatever . . .

The point is, interrogation is a process, not a formula. I could be mistaken, but broomsticks up butts etc. just might not produce viable intel--the kind that will "save soldiers' lives."

Forgive me if I've offended your non-expertise.

Posted by ex-lib 2004-05-26 8:13:17 PM|| 2004-05-26 8:13:17 PM|| Front Page Top

#36 Non-Expert, there are an awful lot of people who know what they're talking about, for one reason or another. And some of us might not, but we're free to say what we want (as long as we don't reveal ourselves to be morons; that just gets us insulted and our arguments smashed) - and believe it or not, most of us have a pretty good idea what we're talking about. Take Sludj's advice - and better still, ask those "experts" you claim to know and bring their knowledge into the discussion.

Mike, I don't think scandal's quite the word for this if you're talking about the understaffing. Yes, it could lead to a problem, but the term for that is more unfortunate incident, or disaster, or logistical nightmare, or the like. If the place wasn't manned sufficiently, then it's certainly all those things, but calling it a scandal is more playing into the hands of the media.

Posted by The Doctor 2004-05-26 8:16:43 PM|| 2004-05-26 8:16:43 PM|| Front Page Top

#37 ask those "experts" you claim to know and bring their knowledge into the discussion

Actually, Doctor, I did. I referenced 3 basic Arabic customs which directly tie into the fact that the cozy little chat scenario being put forward here might work here but has some weaknesses there.

Especially when, as in the Abu Ghraib situation last Nov, there were ambushes happening daily and the need was for info as soon as possible.

But hey, what do I know? All I've done is negotiate deals there ....

Posted by not an expert but I knew a few 2004-05-26 8:22:48 PM|| 2004-05-26 8:22:48 PM|| Front Page Top

#38 Non-Expert, you referenced them, but you didn't expound upon them. I'm familiar with some aspects of Arab culture, but not as many as I'd like. Would you mind expanding on your references and tell us how knowledge of things could have helped?

Posted by The Doctor 2004-05-26 8:27:57 PM|| 2004-05-26 8:27:57 PM|| Front Page Top

#39 Not at length ... but here's one example.

Many tribal boys and men play a popular game which involves one of them asking questions and trying to determine which of them (it might be more than one) has some object(s) on their persons.

The object is to successfully convince the questioner, so that he fails to detect which one(s) are lying. Most of the men get to be pretty good at the game, and those who successfully figure out the "guilty" do so from very subtle body language hints - body language that is culture-specific.

Think about that a little bit, and then get back to me on how easy it would be to chat these guys up over a cigarette and some sweet tea and find out all about those IEDs that were planted yesterday or which guy's cousins have RPGs and are gonna go bag themselves a few coalition soldiers.

Posted by not an expert but I know a few 2004-05-26 8:37:33 PM|| 2004-05-26 8:37:33 PM|| Front Page Top

#40 How does that tie into the shame/honor dynamic that I've read a lot about? Isn't lying shameful, or do they have some way around it? And what kinds of things could our guys use to figure out when they're telling the truth?

Posted by The Doctor 2004-05-26 8:40:36 PM|| 2004-05-26 8:40:36 PM|| Front Page Top

#41 Lying most certainly is not shameful in the tribal cultures. It is also, under some circumstances, encouraged in Islamic teaching.

"Honor" means a lot of different things in different cultures. There most certainly is a serious emphasis on honor in the Arab world, but we're not talking John Wayne in The Silent Man ...

As to things our guys use ... I have only 3rd hand descriptions, very incomplete. But I will say this from my own experience: cross-cultural negotiations can be tricky even when both parties are interested in reaching a deal that can last.

When one party isn't, and the other party needs info NOW, it's a lot harder.

That's why some of the shaming techniques were applied, I suspect - the women's underwear on the head, the nakedness and the simulated homosexual acts. Not to mention what Mike dismissed arrogantly as other "gimmicks" like stress positions etc.

Posted by not an expert, but I do know some things 2004-05-26 8:58:07 PM|| 2004-05-26 8:58:07 PM|| Front Page Top

#42 Let me qualify that last comment of mine.

Lying *to those outside the clan / tribe / family* most certainly is not shameful .... there are norms about that, of course, but they wouldn't apply to US soldiers, political leaders, or interrogators.

Posted by not an expert, but I do know some things 2004-05-26 9:01:07 PM|| 2004-05-26 9:01:07 PM|| Front Page Top

#43 Actually, not an expert, the game which you describe above, with only young arab boys playing, was a nationally televised spectator sport in Saddam's Iraq with Sheikhs and adult tribe members facing off. Sort of Family Feud, Iraqi style.

We can all teach each other something here. Arrogance and name calling do not play well at Rantburg.

Posted by 11A5S 2004-05-26 11:19:19 PM|| 2004-05-26 11:19:19 PM|| Front Page Top

10:21 Frank
04:05 Jen
03:58 Jen
03:39 rex
03:34 Super Hose
02:32 Mike Sylwester
02:18 Lucky
01:29 Mark Espinola
01:14 Super Hose
01:00 Jen
00:49 Seafarious
00:44 Jen
00:33 Dog Bites Trolls TROLL
00:19 RMcLeod
00:07 Old Grouch
23:59 Secret Master
23:34 rex
23:31 Anon4021
23:28 Jen
23:27 Super Hose
23:24 Jen
23:23 meeps
23:20 Jen
23:19 11A5S