43 thoughts on “Anti-Yoo Campaign”

  2. …”Stay Awake” Yoo’s nothing less than a bought and paid for precocious punk who’ll go on to make Millions in Private Practice, hire a ghost to write his memoirs, impugn the agenda of higher ups in the course of rehabilitating himself with a lucrative book deal etc., etc…Meanwhile they’ve already got another such “Protege” fresh out of Columbia Law or someplace waiting in the wings to again enlighten us as to what is “Legal” and worse…That which is not…Go figure?

  3. …My Dear Editors at AWC, I hate pissing in the wind…but…it does keep me out of the Bars.

  4. John Yoo has received fellowships from the Olin Foundation (for work on treaties and constitutional law) and the Rockefeller Foundation (for a book on the effects of globalization on American constitutional law). He has received the Bator Award for excellence in legal scholarship and teaching from the Federalist Society.

    Rockefeller foundation huh, does this surprise anyone?

    01/08/06 “revcom.us” — — John Yoo publicly argued there is no law that could prevent the President from ordering the torture of a child of a suspect in custody – including by crushing that child’s testicles.

    This came out in response to a question in a December 1st debate in Chicago with Notre Dame professor and international human rights scholar Doug Cassel.

    It’s so predictable….look at a resume and if you see
    Yale + Rockefeller then you can fill in the “= crushing innocent children’s testicles ”

    University of California, Berkeley
    Boalt Hall School of Law
    890 Simon Hall
    Berkeley, CA 94720
    Phone: (510) 643-5089
    Fax: (510) 642-3728
    E-Mail: yoo@law.berkeley.edu

    send him a email, call him up.

    1. I called the dean’s office, tenure was cited as the reason for keeping him I pointed out the Ward Churchill Affair in CO. Tenure didn’t seen to matter if you held a left view, but Yoo with his extreme right view is off limits even though It is a policy that is treasonous and advocates policies that allow the Executive to break the law,torture,tap phones of innocent citizens,abrogate the FISA law,MURDER(listen to 2002 state of union he states we no longer need worry about 1000’s of Al Queda)

  5. I guess it’s better late than never when dealing with Yoo, but the delayed response to that monster’s crimes strikes one as surrealistic.

  6. Dear John,

    Is it true that you were the person who gave President Bush the idea that he had the authority as commander in chief to order the torturing of suspects held in custody?
    Are you trying to tell me that all of the misdeeds perpetrated by American soldiers during the Iraqi-Afghan debacle can be traced to your twisted interpretation of American cConstitutional law? If this is so, John, at the very least may you have many sleepless, nights atoning for your transgressions.

    All the worst,

    Mohacs Kossuth

  10. He has tenure, dummies.

    What a lot of breath the antiwar “movement” (if it merits the name) wastes on making itself feel good.

    1. David,
      Ward Churchill also had tenure, but that didn’t prevent him from losing tenure. According to Wikipedia, tenure can be revoked for “professional incompetence, neglect of duty, insubordination, conviction of a felony or any offense involving moral turpitude… or sexual harassment or other conduct which falls below minimum standards of professional integrity.”

      Considering the quality of the legal arguments Yoo makes, such as arguing that it’s perfectly acceptable to crush the testicles of a suspect’s son in order to extract information if the president orders it to be done for “national security”, I think it’s fair to say he has demonstrated enough “professional incompetence” and a general lack of integrity to be fired.

      In short, he should be free to teach his legal “arguments” — from his cell in Gitmo.

      1. I think it’s fair to say that no one person has the unbiased authority to gauge whether Yoo’s arguments display professional incompetence, much less a lack of personal integrity. Yoo’s competence can only be assessed by a group of trained experts, not a bunch of idiots who signed a petition because they didn’t like his conclusions. I find Yoo’s position as reprehensible as everyone else does, but free speech and the institutions that protect it–academic tenure included–are not to be shrugged off lightly, and especially not for political purposes.

        1. Do we really need “trained experts” to gauge whether the U.S. Constitution gives dictatorial powers to the president so long as he claims his actions are in “self-defense”? The Constitution is clear as day that the founders were looking to establish an executive with carefully delineated, limited powers — not a king.

          The idea that only “trained experts” are worthy enough to cast comment on a subject is the same type of thinking that led so many mainstream pundits and journalists to not question any of the WMD fear-mongering coming out of the CIA and the White House prior to the invasion of Iraq. “Why, they’re *experts*, they just must know more than we do,” the thinking went.

          Any literate, educated individual should be able to judge Yoo’s legal arguments — they are that poor and superficially aimed at reaching an already predetermined conclusion: that the president can do whatever he (or she) wants in the name of national security.

          And it’s not squelching free speech to suggest that Yoo shouldn’t be given a paid platform at a taxpayer-funded university to express his views. He is more than entitled to publish books and articles, go on a speaking tour, etc. — assuming that someone’s willing to pay for it. But he is not entitled to a well-paying job at a premier law school, the abstract, religious belief in the holiness of “tenure” be damned.

          The people should have the right to protest Yoo’s employment, but it’s ultimately up to UC-Berkeley to decide whether to fire him or not. They should have the power to decide whether Yoo’s value to the schools outweighs the strong public outrage over his presence there.

          I just strongly suggest they go with my view on this one.

        2. Well, I agree that the people have a right to protest whatever they want to protest. And I also agree that any literate, educated individual may judge Yoo’s arguments to be wanting, and I agree with that assessment. Where I disagree with you is in our authority to say whether Yoo should stay or go. You cited the Wikipedia article, so I assume you also read this:

          Academic tenure is primarily intended to guarantee the right to academic freedom: it protects teachers and researchers when they dissent from prevailing opinion, openly disagree with authorities of any sort, or spend time on unfashionable topics. Thus academic tenure is similar to the lifetime tenure that protects some judges from external pressure. Without job security, the scholarly community as a whole might favor “safe” lines of inquiry. Tenure makes original ideas more likely to arise, by giving scholars the intellectual autonomy to investigate the problems and solutions about which they are most passionate, and to report their honest conclusions. (My emphasis.)

          I’m not worried about Yoo’s freedom of speech in particular. I’m worried about my own free speech, and the free speech of my colleagues. If universities cave to public pressure whenever there’s an outcry, that will stifle free speech. If UC Berkeley caves in this case, it will only incentivize similar campaigns to oust other professors espousing other unpopular views, which will politicize academia even more than it already is.

          I’m not saying, and I have not said, that Yoo is “entitled to a well-paying job at a premier law school” (note the slippage here: I concede that ordinary folk may judge Yoo’s arguments for themselves, but it is a different, and much less plausible, thing to claim that they may judge his fitness for a particular job in a certain kind of school–but I’ll leave that aside). For that matter, I don’t believe the value of tenure is all that abstract, or to require “religious belief” in its “holiness” either. What I’m saying is that if the public at large is allowed to decide what scholars can and cannot say, then our society will suffer more in the long run than it will if it turns a blind eye and a deaf ear to people like Yoo.

        3. I hear what you’re saying, and you make a valid point that universities shouldn’t be held captive to public opinion — and I apologize if I added a little hyperbole to your position. Indeed, we ought to be careful not to launch a witch hunt, going after every professor who expresses a view we find disagreeable. After all, that’s exactly what the neo-conservatives did in their campaign to deny Juan Cole a position at Yale for his criticisms of Israel and the Bush administration. Diversity in opinions is something that generally should be encouraged, particularly in a university.

          That said, in Yoo’s case we’re not talking about a statement here and there, or a controversial article in an academic journal, but explicit legal arguments as a federal government employee meant to permit the commission of torture and other crimes against humanity.

          Again, I’m all for diversity, but I draw the line at advocating for and enabling war crimes.

  11. No one says he can’t have free speach. I just hope people call him up to let him speak more about crushing kids testicles. Let him get it all out of his system. Maybe see hwat other similar tortures he thinks might be acceptable. I don’t know much about the law so it would be interesting to hear about all the insightful things he must have to say about the topic.

  12. Not meaning to discourage anyone (I signed it myself), but bear in mind that the Gestapo, er, sorry, DHS is probably compiling a list from the signatories of this petition.

    1. Securing the nation’s borders is so important, Congress says, that Michael Chertoff, the homeland security secretary, must have the power to ignore any laws that stand in the way of building a border fence. Any laws at all.

      Last week, Mr. Chertoff issued waivers suspending more than 30 laws he said could interfere with “the expeditious construction of barriers” in Arizona, California, New Mexico and Texas. The list included laws protecting the environment, endangered species, migratory birds, the bald eagle, antiquities, farms, deserts, forests, Native American graves and religious freedom.

      The secretary of homeland security was granted the power in 2005 to void any federal law that might interfere with fence building on the border. For good measure, Congress forbade the courts to second-guess the secretary’s determinations. So long as Mr. Chertoff is willing to say it is necessary to void a given law, his word is final.

      The delegation of power to Mr. Chertoff is unprecedented, according to a report from the Congressional Research Service. It is also, if papers filed in the Supreme Court last month are correct, unconstitutional….”

      [NYT April 8, 2008]

      Since Chertoff has the authority to nullify all law, Federal and presumably local, and that also would include murder–why not a visit from the new Border Fence Authority?

      After all, according to Yoo Theory, nothing prevents flying buttresses running though all the Continental US, Hawaii, Alaska, Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, and so forth.

      Is Guam safe?

  13. In January 2007 a mental competency hearing was scheduled for February 22, 2007 over allegations of torture by the military, after two mental health experts hired by the defense to conduct a competency evaluation concluded Padilla is not mentally fit for trial and a third evaluation submitted by the Bureau of Prisons found him mentally competent. The judge also ordered that Sandy Seymour, technical director of the Charleston brig, Craig Noble, brig psychologist, Andrew Cruz, brig social worker, four employees of the Miami federal detention center, and a Defense Department lawyer appear at the hearing.

    On February 22, 2007, at the competency hearing Angela Hegarty, a psychiatrist hired by Padilla’s defense, said that after 22 hours of examining Padilla it was her opinion that he was mentally unfit to stand trial. She said that he exhibited “a facial tic, problems with social contact, lack of concentration and a form of Stockholm syndrome.” She diagnosed his condition as post-traumatic stress disorder. She told the court “It’s my opinion that he lacks the capacity to assist counsel. He has a great deal of difficulty talking about the current case before him.” In cross examination Federal prosecutor John Shipley pointed out that Padilla had a score of zero on Hegarty’s post-traumatic stress disorder test and pointed out that this information was omitted in her final report. Hegarty responded that this omission was an error on her part. Another psychiatrist hired by the defense testified along the same lines. The Miami Herald reported that a “U.S. Bureau of Prisons psychiatrist who believes Padilla is fit to face trial and Defense Department officials — are expected to testify at the ongoing hearing before U.S. District Judge Marcia Cooke.”

    Criticism of his conviction

    Andrew Patel, Padilla’s lawyer, said after the guilty verdict, “What happened in this trial, I think you have to put it in the context of federal conspiracy law, where the government doesn’t have to prove that something happened, but just that people agree that something should happen in the future. In this case, it was even more strained. The crime charged in this case was actually an agreement to agree to do something in the future. So when you’re dealing with a charge like that, you’re not going to have—or the government’s not going to be required to produce the kind of evidence that you would expect in a normal criminal case.”

    Paul Craig Roberts criticized the jury’s verdict in the Padilla case as having “overthrown” the Constitution and doing far more damage to the US’ liberty than any terrorist could.

    Andy Worthington wrote “[Seventeen] years and four months seems to me to be an extraordinarily long sentence for little more than a thought crime, but when the issue of Padilla’s three and half years of suppressed torture is raised, it’s difficult not to conclude that justice has just been horribly twisted, that the President and his advisors have just got away with torturing an American citizen with impunity, and that no American citizen can be sure that what happened to Padilla will not happen to him or her. Today, it was a Muslim; tomorrow, unless the government’s powers are taken away from them, it could be any number of categories of ‘enemy combatants’ who have not yet been identified.”

    Timothy Lynch of the Cato Institute raised several issues with the Padilla seizure in an amicus brief he filed to the Supreme Court. In it, he answers questions such as whether the president can lock up any person in the world and then deny that person access to family, defense counsel, and civilian court review? And what about the use of “harsh conditions” and “environmental stresses”? Can such techniques be employed against anyone once the president gives an order? Those legal questions remain unsettled even today. By abruptly moving Padilla from the military brig and into the ordinary criminal justice system, the Bush administration was able to forestall Supreme Court review of the president’s military powers.

    Civil Proceedings

    On January 4, 2008, Padilla and his mother filed suit against John Yoo, who was sued in the U.S. District Court, Northern District of California (Case Number CV08 0035)[35] The complaint seeks damages based on the alleged torture of Padilla attributed by the complaint to Yoo’s torture memoranda. The claim is that Yoo caused Padilla’s damages by authorizing his alleged torture through his memoranda.

    wikipedia s.v. Jose Padilla {exceprt]

    The whole article is quite long, quite detailed, and worth close reading.

  14. …It seems the learned Mr. Yoo has now graduated from authorizing “enhanced interrogation techniques” to advocating the crushing of children’s testicles…I mean Jesus Christ!…Anyway, while this level of sadistic depravity and utter absence of moral reason on the part of Mr. Yoo is as infuriating as it is revolting; it is nonetheless interesting—Or maybe not so interesting actually—That a neo-Con functionary the intellectual caliber of John Yoo should find tenure at UC Berkley, long considered the “Mecca” if you will, of the American Academic Left…Had this very indicative positioning even been attempted 40 years ago? He’d have most likely faced an outraged mob of students and, well…”tenured” faculty howling for his head. What then, has happened in 2 generations? What has failed to happen?…Perhaps we’d all feel safer if we mailed him some pliers? Meanwhile I’m gonna mail some US made Channel Locks that survived Free Trade Agreements in order to demonstrate my psychopathic commitment to Patriotism…This with an accompanying note reading “Here you are Professor!—You can have a BALL with these!”…All jokes aside: The conceited sonofabitch seems to have no demonstrable sense, nor even a hint of shame, and that is what’s truly disturbing about him…and what he represents.

  15. Public comments offer compelling reasons for UC Berkeley to reconsider the employment of Yoo. However, it certainly seems that the law school dean-decider is choosing to look at the issue through pristine, liberal views from academia. The wordings of Yoo’s memo’s are so extreme that a leader of a major democracy can use them as a basis to justify heinous acts against humanity. Somewhere in there just may be an interpretation of Yoo’s incompetence in utilizing his training and legal professional status for illegal purposes.

  16. …To be succinct Guss, he’s in…our complaints don’t matter; and you couldn’t run him off with a mop, and a bucket of s**t. Conversely, I would refer the pre-eminent Professor Yoo to some Dicta Machiavelli. I offer this impertinence as counsel to Professor Yoo in hopes that such may serve to edify his warped fucking mind in regard to the fact that these dark matters have long ran in well established cycles. To wit: “…Once The Prince feels compelled to close the fist [or in this case the Channel Locks] he may then depend on relaxing the grip as his undoing.” In other words Professor Yoo, and whether you resent it or not…or consider it beneath contempt or not: Be very selective with further talk of applying pliers to puerile testicles. As you well know. Politics, in a phrase, are Treacherous and Diabolic; and the memories contained therein, long and most unforgiving.

  17. …Sometimes, I swear, it’s hard for me to conceive that I’m sitting here in The United States of America…Sen. Dick Durban was right…If I didn’t know better I’d think such nightmarish things only occurred elsewhere in the world…Yet, I suppose that to a certain extent as Death is to a Man, Tyranny is to a Nation; i.e., both seem an impossibility, that becomes a Vicious Reality…Just how much are you prepared to stand? Because I guarantee you, that when a Misfit, Ne’er do well, irresponsible Solipsist like me, begins to consider organizing against such un-Constitutional and Draconian State impositions…That it is become far more serious, than most are willing to think…A state of affairs that cannot be tolerated by a nominally free people.

  18. “…If good men were to rule a Country for a hundred years, they could overcome cruelty and do away with killing.”
    —The Analects of Confucius, 635 b.c.

  19. …I refer Mr. Yoo to the joint wisdom of The Honorable Confucius and 5000 years of Chinese Culture. This just in case some fool wants to make the Subjective Judgement that I’m some kind of “Racist.”

    1. There’s a conundrum for you: how might someone who calls himself a solipsist be racist?

      100 words or less. Do not write on both sides of the paper at the same time.

  20. I support prosecution of those who violated our laws and agreements by allowing torture.

    I don’t support the prosecution (or even dismissal) of Yoo. First, tenure is tenure: it’s there to protect unpopular views, period: hands off. Second, he has a right to his views, however distasteful; this is supposed to be a free country.

    I mean, who do we go for next, the writing staff of the TV show 24? Probably did more to make torture seem OK to people than any old JD memo.

    Mind you, if we have to go through Yoo (in what I’m certain is a losing case; speaking about the prosecution-as-war-criminal angle) to get at big names in the White House and the Pentagon (and for that matter Congress) who are the real perpetrators here, then I suppose the fuss at Yoo is acceptable.

    1. Yoo as war criminal prima facie a losing case–that is an interesting position.

      Yoo disbarred, on the other hand, might be a no-brainer.

      Attorneys do take various oaths, do they not?

      Tenure is complex. It is always a matter of what has been contracted, but there are some obvious distinctions that one might wish to introduce between ordinary academic tenure and the special circumstances of tenure at a law school, and also between what differences there might be, if any, between tenured law professors who are lawyers and those who are not.

      Your stance seems similar to that delineated by Dean of the Berkeley Law School in response to the American Freedom Campaign:

      The Torture Memos and Academic Freedom

      Christopher Edley, Jr.

      The Honorable William H. Orrick, Jr. Distinguished Chair and Dean

      UC Berkeley Law School

      While serving in the Department of Justice, Professor John Yoo wrote memoranda that officials used as the legal basis for policies concerning detention and interrogation techniques in our efforts to combat terrorism. Both the subject and his reasoning are controversial, leading the New York Times (editorial, April 4), the National Lawyers’ Guild, and hundreds of individuals from around the world to criticize or at least question Professor Yoo’s continuing employment at U.C. Berkeley Law School. As dean, but speaking only for myself, I offer the following explanation, although with no expectation that it will be completely satisfying to anyone.

      Professor Yoo began teaching at Berkeley Law in 1993, received tenure in 1999, and then took a leave of absence to work in the Bush Administration. He returned in 2004, and remains a very successful teacher and prolific (though often controversial) scholar. Because this is a public university, he enjoys not only security of employment and academic freedom, but also First Amendment and Due Process rights.

      It seems we do need regular reminders: These protections, while not absolute, are nearly so because they are essential to the excellence of American universities and the progress of ideas. Indeed, in Berkeley’s classrooms and courtyards our community argues about the legal and moral issues with the intensity and discipline these crucial issues deserve. Those who prefer to avoid these arguments – be they left or right or lazy – will not find Berkeley or any other truly great law school a wholly congenial place to study. For that we make no apology.

      Did what Professor Yoo wrote while not at the University somehow place him beyond the pale of academic freedom today? Had this been merely some professor vigorously expounding controversial and even extreme views, we would be in a familiar drama with the usual stakes. Had that professor been on leave marching with Nazis in Skokie or advising communists during the McCarthy era, reasonable people would probably find that an easier case still. Here, additional things are obviously in play. Gravely so.

      My sense is that the vast majority of legal academics with a view of the matter disagree with substantial portions of Professor Yoo’s analyses, including a great many of his colleagues at Berkeley. If, however, this strong consensus were enough to fire or sanction someone, then academic freedom would be meaningless.

      There are important questions about the content of the Yoo memoranda, about tortured definitions of “torture”, about how he and his colleagues conceived their role as lawyers, and about whether and when the Commander in Chief is subject to domestic statutes and international law. We press our students to grapple with these matters, and in the legal literature Professor Yoo and his critics do battle. One can oppose and even condemn an idea, but I don’t believe that in a university we can fearfully refuse to look at it. That would not be the best way to educate, nor a promising way to seek deeper understanding in a world of continual, strange revolutions.

      There is more, however. Having worked in the White House under two presidents, I am exceptionally sensitive to the complex, ineffable boundary between policymaking and law-declaring. I know that Professor Yoo continues to believe his legal reasoning was sound, but I do not know whether he believes that the Department of Defense and CIA made political or moral mistakes in the way they exercised the discretion his memoranda purported to find available to them within the law. As critical as I am of his analyses, no argument about what he did or didn’t facilitate, or about his special obligations as an attorney, makes his conduct morally equivalent to that of his nominal clients, Secretary Rumsfeld, et al., or comparable to the conduct of interrogators distant in time, rank and place. Yes, it does matter that Yoo was an adviser, but President Bush and his national security appointees were the deciders.

      What troubles me substantively with the analyses in the memoranda is that they reduce the Rule of Law to the Reign of Politics. I believe there is much more to the separation of powers than the promise of ultimate remedies like the ballot box and impeachment, even in the case of a Commander in Chief during war. And I believe that the revolution in sensibilities after 9/11 demands greater, not reduced, vigilance for constitutional rights and safeguards. What of the argument made by so many critics that Professor Yoo was so wrong on these sensitive issues that it amounted to an ethical breach. It is true, I believe, that government lawyers have a larger, higher client than their political supervisors; there are circumstances when a fair reading of the law must – perhaps as an ethical matter? – provide a bulwark to political and bureaucratic discretion. And it shouldn’t require a private plaintiff and a Supreme Court ruling to make it so. Few professions require an oath at entry, but law does. Oaths must mean something.

      Assuming one believes as I do that Professor Yoo offered bad ideas and even worse advice during his government service, that judgment alone would not warrant dismissal or even a potentially chilling inquiry. As a legal matter, the test here is the relevant excerpt from the “General University Policy Regarding Academic Appointees”, adopted for the 10-campus University of California by both the system-wide Academic Senate and the Board of Regents:

      Types of unacceptable conduct: … Commission of a criminal act which has led to conviction in a court of law and which clearly demonstrates unfitness to continue as a member of the faculty. [Academic Personnel Manual sec. 015]

      This very restrictive standard is binding on me as dean, but I will put aside that shield and state my independent and personal view of the matter. I believe the crucial questions in view of our university mission are these: Was there clear professional misconduct – that is, some breach of the professional ethics applicable to a government attorney – material to Professor Yoo’s academic position? Did the writing of the memoranda, and his related conduct, violate a criminal or comparable statute?

      Absent very substantial evidence on these questions, no university worthy of distinction should even contemplate dismissing a faculty member. That standard has not been met.

      April 10, 2008

      The AFC is seeking Yoo’s dismissal, but also a back-up position, his removal from teaching Constitutional Law.

      The latter is also an interesting proposal–in the sense that Yoo has surely shown himself Constitutionally incompetent, don’t you think?

  21. …Hell yes, but I don't think Antonin Scalia would. In essence, the application of Law above the Division of Labor is Political, and thereby Subjective.

  23. …To my mind Yoo is operating with virtual, if not utter impunity…What he contends, has become law.

    1. As a scholar, he should be operating with impunity. As a citizen, he should be prosecuted for any crimes he has committed. But it isn’t the university’s job to enforce the law, and it is the university’s job to protect the free speech of its scholars. As for Yoo’s contentions becoming law? Yoo’s contention was about what the content of the law already was; I doubt very much that legal memos–or the sheer force of Yoo’s will–can establish new law. The sky may be falling, Chicken Little, but ultimately Yoo’s contribution is a drop in the bucket.

  24. …You, are not only a deluded Goddamned fool that has elected to confuse Selective and Political Interpretations of the Law; but a complacent and trusting fool, that drastically underestimates the Intent and Power of the State, along with the designated authority of those the likes of John Yoo who have been charged with enhancing it further—Now, if you want to live in, or would feel more “Secure” as subject to a fuckin’ Police State?—Fine—But I for one do not—Bear in mind. There is a place where the Law ends, and Aberrant Personalities Hell bent on a Dominion insured by LEGISLATED Tyranny begins. You seem to me incapable of making such crucial, if obvious distinctions—As such then, take a lesson from History even if men, i.e. men like you are always incapable meeting its demands: Left unchecked and unchallenged, such collective Pathology cum “Law” as we are now witness to, will only thrive, burgeon and prevail…You don’t seem stupid, in which case I’d recommend you wise up.

  25. Pingback: Jessie

  27. Ho pensato che sarebbe stato noioso alcuni post vecchi, ma in realtà compensato per il mio tempo. Io posto un link a questa pagina sul mio blog. Sono sicuro che i miei visitatori troveranno che molto utile.

  28. Très bon post. Je viens de tombé sur votre blog et je voulais vous dire que j'ai vraiment apprécié la lecture de votre blog. De toute façon je vais vous abonnant à votre flux, et j'espère que vous publiez à nouveau bientôt.

  30. Des Etats-Unis, Ralph lauren 2012 marque de style printemps de nouvelles chaussures avec une approach lourde aristocratique médiévale. Bullock couleurs de chaussures durante cuir design and style mixte, ou the ministère de la princesse T-chaussures de design and style, ont adopté l'ensemble des meilleures de la première couche de tissus durante cuir, l'utilisation intelligente d'une boucle, creux, et de glands et d'autres éléments, donc chaussures de cette saison de changer de forme and also multiports.

Comments are closed.