|
Banned
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by aceventura3
I did not find how the "decider" looks like an obvious lier about the key reasons for his breaking the FISA laws.
What were his reasons and how are those reasons lies?
Who concluded that he actually broke the law?
Why was no action taken against him on his illegal directives?
|
ace.... First Bush said, in October 2001,
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by The President
October 26, 2001
....Surveillance of communications is another essential tool to pursue and stop terrorists.
The existing law was written in the era of rotary telephones. This new law that I sign today will allow surveillance of all communications used by terrorists, including e-mails, the Internet, and cell phones.
As of today, we'll be able to better meet the technological challenges posed by this proliferation of communications technology.....
|
...and, on July 28, 2007
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by The President
.......One of the most important ways we can gather that information is by monitoring terrorist communications. The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act --
also known as FISA -- provides a critical legal foundation that allows our intelligence community to collect this information while protecting the civil liberties of Americans. But this important law was written in 1978, and it addressed the technologies of that era. This law is badly out of date -- and Congress must act to modernize it........
......Every day that Congress puts off these reforms increases the danger to our Nation.
Our intelligence community warns that under the current statute, we are missing a significant amount of foreign intelligence that we should be collecting to protect our country. Congress needs to act immediately to pass this bill......
|
...and now the president demands A-fucking-SAP.....that the oversight of FISA judges be put in the hands of his Attorney General <b>[1]</b>, a man who has spoken as incredibly and as contradictory, as the president himself has, in the examples above....
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by The Attorney General
December 19, 2005
.....Q General, can you tell us why you don't choose to go to the FISA court?
ATTORNEY GENERAL GONZALES: Well, we continue to go to the FISA court and obtain orders. It is a very important tool that we continue to utilize. Our position is that we are not legally required to do, in this particular case, because the law requires that we -- FISA requires that we get a court order, unless authorized by a statute, and we believe that authorization has occurred.
The operators out at NSA tell me that we don't have the speed and the agility that we need, in all circumstances, to deal with this new kind of enemy. You have to remember that FISA was passed by the Congress in 1978. There have been tremendous advances in technology -- .......<b>[2]</b>
.............Q If FISA didn't work, why didn't you seek a new statute that allowed something like this legally?
ATTORNEY GENERAL GONZALES: That question was asked earlier. We've had discussions with members of Congress, certain members of Congress, about whether or not we could get an amendment to FISA, and we were advised that that was not likely to be -- that was not something we could likely get, certainly not without jeopardizing the existence of the program, and therefore, killing the program. And that -- and so a decision was made that because we felt that the authorities were there, that we should continue moving forward with this program........<b>[2]</b>
February 28, 2006
Senator Brownback asked for recommendations on improving the Foreign
Intelligence Surveillance Act ("FISA). TI. at 180-81. The Administration believes that
it is unnecessary to amend FISA to accommodate the Terrorist Surveillance Program.
The Administration will, of course, work with Congress and evaluate any proposals for
improving FISA.....<b>[3]</b>
March 8, 2006
Gonzales: NSA program doesn't need a law
WASHINGTON (AP) — Attorney General Alberto Gonzales made clear Wednesday that the White House is not seeking congressional action to inscribe the National Security Agency's monitoring into U.S. law, even as members of Congress negotiate with the Bush administration about legislation.
Gonzales maintained the program is legal the way it is....<b>[4]</b>
|
ace....the president and his attorney general have turned your opinion that the "president means what he says, and says what he means..." into a cruel joke, on you.....and on the American people..... Read all of the Bush and Gonzales quotes displayed above, again....and then read the following.....
I wouldn't trust Bush or Gonzales to cart my trash out to the curb for pickup, let alone grant them extra-constitutional authority for warrantless monitoring of communications, or of anything else. What the fuck are Bush and Gonzales talking about....in 2001, 2005, 2006, and now.....can you translate their "double speak" for the rest of us? Why do you seem to put no value on your own bill of rights protections? You've said in the past, that you have done nothing wrong, so you have nothing to fear......what if they were to suddenly declare it illegal to be an apologist for their actions....what if you credited Bush for modernizing FISA in 2001, and it interfered with his demand that FISA be modernized immediately, now.....or if you complimented Gonzales's satisfaction, in 2006, with the way FISA had been modernized in 2001....
Don't you "get it", ace....at all? They aren't even trying to be consistent in their lies....they are planning to take the authority whenever they want to....and they don't care anymore...if what they've said, or are saying, makes any sense.....
<b>[1]</b>
Quote:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...nav=rss_nation
Democrats Offer Compromise Plan On Surveillance
Proposal Would Involve FISA Court in Warrants
By Ellen Nakashima and Spencer S. Hsu
Washington Post Staff Writers
Thursday, August 2, 2007; Page A03
....In recent days, the administration has proposed giving the attorney general sole authority to authorize the surveillance, suggesting that if Democrats do not act quickly Americans would be at greater risk of attack.
Democrats said that giving sole authority to the attorney general would be unacceptable and insisted that the secret Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court have an oversight role.
Some civil liberties advocates were pleased.
"It is vastly better than the administration's bill and preserves the Fourth Amendment warrant requirement," said Kate Martin, director of the Center for National Security Studies.
Others, including some Democrats, said that granting the government authority to intercept calls with broad warrants could allow a large number of phone calls and e-mails of U.S. individuals and companies to be intercepted, as well.....
|
Quote:
http://blog.wired.com/27bstroke6/200...ment-pres.html
Government Presses to Turn Internet into Giant Spy Machine; AP Reports Citizen's Rights Being Protected
By Ryan Singel Email August 01, 2007 | 12:26:14 PM
The Associated Press's Laurie Kellman leads off her Tuesday <a href="http://www.forbes.com/feeds/ap/2007/07/30/ap3968404.html">story</a> about the mid-summer <a href="http://blog.wired.com/27bstroke6/2007/07/democrats-halt-.html">"emergency" fight</a> over expanding the nation's surveillance laws with this paean to power: "Congress and President Bush's aides worked on Monday to expand the government's surveillance authority without jeopardizing citizens' rights, aides to lawmakers and the White House said."
Did Kellman read the proposed bill? The <a href="http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2007/05/21/fisa_changes/index.html">bill</a> (.pdf) that would change the nation's surveillance laws so that that the government would be free to spy on the contents of an Americans' phone or emails so long as the government "reasonably believes" the person is not in the country.
....The Administration now claims it needs a massive rewriting of the nation's spying laws because some foreigner to foreigner communications pass through switches in the United States.
Did they just discover this? No.
Has the Administration known about this hole in the numerous times it has pushed Congress to increase the government's spying powers in the last 6 years? Certainly.
Why is it an emergency now? Could it be because the Administration has never moved to have a rational debate about how to grab these communications without sweeping in the Constitiutionally-protected communications of Americans, BECAUSE the administration has been secretly sitting on those switches, monitoring Americans and foreigners alike?
Remember Gonzales admitted that the reason the Administration never asked Congress to authorize its spy program because it feared Congress would say no. And in Februrary 2006, Gonzales told (.pdf) the Senate Judiciary, in response to Senator Brownback's call for recommendations on how to improve the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, that "The Administration believes that it is unnecessary to to amend FISA to accommodate the Terrorist Surveillance Program."
And if the Administration truly believes, as it continues to argue, that it has the right to spy all it likes on Americans and foreigners as part of its inherent authority, why does it need Congress to pass this law? Could it be that it wants the authority to force telcos and internet backbone providers to help it out, because those companies are now balking at allowing the NSA to CONTINUE to building outposts on their networks?
The Administration caused this crisis and now is pushing for way broader "fixes" than it needs for the supposed hole at hand.
Given this Administration's track record on truthfulness, secrecy and overseas bungling, why is Congress even contemplating giving them more authority to spy on American citizens without even the slightest supervision from the secret and submissive Foreign Intelligence Surveillance court?
Why this country is even contemplating allowing the nation's intelligence services to <a href="http://blog.wired.com/27bstroke6/2007/07/what-was-the-or.html#more">transform the internet and the phone networks into the world's largest bugging device</a>, simply because this Administration's foreign policy has fed, rather than crushed, a pathetic, religious death cult?
Reporting like Kellman's certainly doesn't help answer that question.
|
<b>[2]</b>
Quote:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/relea...0051219-1.html
For Immediate Release
Office of the Press Secretary
December 19, 2005
Press Briefing by Attorney General Alberto Gonzales and General Michael Hayden, Principal Deputy Director for National Intelligence
.....Q General, can you tell us why you don't choose to go to the FISA court?
ATTORNEY GENERAL GONZALES: Well, we continue to go to the FISA court and obtain orders. It is a very important tool that we continue to utilize. Our position is that we are not legally required to do, in this particular case, because the law requires that we -- FISA requires that we get a court order, unless authorized by a statute, and we believe that authorization has occurred.
The operators out at NSA tell me that we don't have the speed and the agility that we need, in all circumstances, to deal with this new kind of enemy. You have to remember that FISA was passed by the Congress in 1978. There have been tremendous advances in technology -- .......
.....Q If FISA didn't work, why didn't you seek a new statute that allowed something like this legally?
ATTORNEY GENERAL GONZALES: That question was asked earlier. We've had discussions with members of Congress, certain members of Congress, about whether or not we could get an amendment to FISA, and we were advised that that was not likely to be -- that was not something we could likely get, certainly not without jeopardizing the existence of the program, and therefore, killing the program. And that -- and so a decision was made that because we felt that the authorities were there, that we should continue moving forward with this program.
Q And who determined that these targets were al Qaeda? Did you wiretap them?
GENERAL HAYDEN: The judgment is made by the operational work force at the National Security Agency using the information available to them at the time, and the standard that they apply -- and it's a two-person standard that must be signed off by a shift supervisor, and carefully recorded as to what created the operational imperative to cover any target, but particularly with regard to those inside the United States.
Q So a shift supervisor is now making decisions that a FISA judge would normally make? I just want to make sure I understand. Is that what you're saying?
GENERAL HAYDEN: What we're trying to do is to use the approach we have used globally against al Qaeda, the operational necessity to cover targets. And the reason I emphasize that this is done at the operational level is to remove any question in your mind that this is in any way politically influenced. This is done to chase those who would do harm to the United States.
Q Building on that, during --
Q Thank you, General. Roughly when did those conversations occur with members of Congress?
ATTORNEY GENERAL GONZALEZ: I'm not going to get into the specifics of when those conversations occurred, but they have occurred.
Q May I just ask you if they were recently or if they were when you began making these exceptions?
ATTORNEY GENERAL GONZALEZ: They weren't recently.
MR. McCLELLAN: The President indicated that those -- the weeks after September 11th.
Q What was the date, though, of the first executive order? Can you give us that?
GENERAL HAYDEN: If I could just, before you ask that question, just add -- these actions that I described taking place at the operational level -- and I believe that a very important point to be made -- have intense oversight by the NSA Inspector General, by the NSA General Counsel, and by officials of the Justice Department who routinely look into this process and verify that the standards set out by the President are being followed.
Q Can you absolutely assure us that all of the communications intercepted --
Q Have you said that you -- (inaudible) -- anything about this program with your international partners -- with the partners probably in the territories of which you intercept those communications?
ATTORNEY GENERAL GONZALEZ: I'm not aware of discussions with other countries, but that doesn't mean that they haven't occurred. I simply have no personal knowledge of that.
Q Also, is it only al Qaeda, or maybe some other terrorist groups?
ATTORNEY GENERAL GONZALEZ: Again, with respect to what the President discussed on Saturday, this program -- it is tied to communications where we believe one of the parties is affiliated with al Qaeda or part of an organization or group that is supportive of al Qaeda.
Q Sir, during his confirmation hearings, it came out that now-Ambassador Bolton had sought and obtained NSA intercepts of conversations between American citizens and others. Who gets the information from this program; how do you guarantee that it doesn't get too widely spread inside the government, and used for other purposes?
Q And is it destroyed afterwards?
GENERAL HAYDEN: We report this information the way we report any other information collected by the National Security Agency. And the phrase you're talking about is called minimization of U.S. identities. The same minimalizationist standards apply across the board, including for this program. To make this very clear -- U.S. identities are minimized in all of NSA's activities, unless, of course, the U.S. identity is essential to understand the inherent intelligence value of the intelligence report. And that's the standard that's used.
Q General, when you discussed the emergency powers, you said, agility is critical here. And in the case of the emergency powers, as I understand it, you can go in, do whatever you need to do, and within 72 hours just report it after the fact. And as you say, these may not even last very long at all. What would be the difficulty in setting up a paperwork system in which the logs that you say you have the shift supervisors record are simply sent to a judge after the fact? If the judge says that this is not legitimate, by that time probably your intercept is over, wouldn't that be correct?
GENERAL HAYDEN: What you're talking about now are efficiencies. What you're asking me is, can we do this program as efficiently using the one avenue provided to us by the FISA Act, as opposed to the avenue provided to us by subsequent legislation and the President's authorization.
Our operational judgment, given the threat to the nation that the difference in the operational efficiencies between those two sets of authorities are such that we can provide greater protection for the nation operating under this authorization.
Q But while you're getting an additional efficiency, you're also operating outside of an existing law. If the law would allow you to stay within the law and be slightly less efficient, would that be --
ATTORNEY GENERAL GONZALEZ: I guess I disagree with that characterization. I think that this electronic surveillance is within the law, has been authorized. I mean, that is our position. We're only required to achieve a court order through FISA if we don't have authorization otherwise by the Congress, and we think that that has occurred in this particular case.
Q Can you just give us one assurance before you go, General?
ATTORNEY GENERAL GONZALEZ: It depends on what it is. (Laughter.)
Q Can you assure us that all of these intercepts had an international component and that at no time were any of the intercepts purely domestic?
GENERAL HAYDEN: The authorization given to NSA by the President requires that one end of these communications has to be outside the United States. I can assure you, by the physics of the intercept, by how we actually conduct our activities, that one end of these communications are always outside the United States of America.
|
Letter from Gonzales to Senate Judiciary Committee supports above article and contradicts Bush's assertions of July 28, 2007:
<b>[3]</b>
Quote:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv...les.letter.pdf
<center>The Attorney General
Washington, D.C.</center>
February 28, 2006
The Honorable Arlen Specter
Chairman, Committee on the Judiciary
United States Senate
Washington, D.C. 20510
Dear Chairman Specter:
I write to provide responses to several questions posed to me at the hearing on
"Wartime Executive Power and the National Security Agency's Surveillance Authority,"
held Monday, February 6,2006, before the Senate Committee on the Judiciary. I also
write to clarify certain of my responses at the February 6th hearing.....
......Additional Information Requested by Senators at February 6th Hearing
Senator Leahy asked whether the President first authorized the Terrorist
Surveillance Proyam after he signed the Authorization for Use of Military Force of
September 18,2001 ("Force Resolution") and before he signed the USA PATRIOT Act.
2/6/06 Unofficial Nearing Transcript ("TI.") at 50. The President first authorized the
Program in October 2001, before he signed the USA PATRIOT Act.
Senator Brownback asked for recommendations on improving the Foreign
Intelligence Surveillance Act ("FISA). TI. at 180-81. The Administration believes that
it is unnecessary to amend FISA to accommodate the Terrorist Surveillance Program.
The Administration will, of course, work with Congress and evaluate any proposals for
improving FISA.....
|
Quote:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...022801587.html
Gonzales Seeks to Clarify Testimony on Spying
Extent of Eavesdropping May Go Beyond NSA Work
By Charles Babington and Dan Eggen
Washington Post Staff Writers
Wednesday, March 1, 2006; Page A08
....."It seems to me he is conceding that there are other NSA surveillance programs ongoing that the president hasn't told anyone about," said Bruce Fein, a government lawyer in the Nixon, Carter and Reagan administrations.
A Justice Department official who spoke only on the condition of anonymity because of the sensitive nature of the program, said, however, that Gonzales's letter "should not be taken or construed to be talking about anything other than" the NSA program "as described by the president."
In his letter, Gonzales revisited earlier testimony, during which he said the administration immediately viewed a congressional vote in September 2001 to authorize the use of military force against al-Qaeda as justification for the NSA surveillance program. Bush secretly began the program in October 2001, Gonzales's letter said........
|
<b>[4]</b>
Quote:
http://www.usatoday.com/news/washing...dropping_x.htm
Posted 3/8/2006 9:55 PM Updated 3/9/2006
Gonzales: NSA program doesn't need a law
WASHINGTON (AP) — Attorney General Alberto Gonzales made clear Wednesday that the White House is not seeking congressional action to inscribe the National Security Agency's monitoring into U.S. law, even as members of Congress negotiate with the Bush administration about legislation.
Gonzales maintained the program is legal the way it is.
"There's a general consensus — quite frankly — that this is a needed program" designed to listen to al-Qaeda's communications, Gonzales told the National Association of Attorneys General Wednesday. "The concern I think that people have, which is a natural concern, is that, is this a limited program?"
Gonzales said administration officials have gone a long way in reassuring lawmakers about the NSA's operations. Over four years, he said, the administration has met "with select congressional leadership on both sides of the aisle about the scope of this program — everything that we're doing related to this program."
California Rep. Jane Harman, the House Intelligence Committee's top Democrat, said Gonzales has personally given her similar assurances. But generally she has "become increasingly skeptical over time about a lot of things I have been hearing." Harman declined to elaborate.
House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi of California, the former top Democrat on the intelligence panel, has publicly questioned what the congressional leaders don't know. Her spokeswoman, Jennifer Crider, said Republicans have been unwilling to perform oversight of the administration.
"Since the members were not all briefed at the same time or place, it's not possible to know whether the same information was given to each," Crider said.
Aides to West Virginia Sen. Jay Rockefeller, the Senate Intelligence Committee's top Democrat, noted that he visited the NSA all day Friday — with 450 questions he wanted answered. He's complained about the briefings he received before that session, saying they consisted of intelligence officials rushing through flip-charts.....
|
Quote:
http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/05/...rds/index.html
Bush says U.S. not 'trolling through personal lives'
USA Today reports NSA building massive phone records database
Friday, May 12, 2006; Posted: 2:38 p.m. EDT (18:38 GMT)
....Leahy: 'Shame on us'
Sen. Patrick Leahy of Vermont, the ranking Democrat on the Judiciary Committee, blasted his colleagues for failing to demand answers from the administration.
"Shame on us for being so willing to rubber-stamp anything this administration does," he said. "The Republican-controlled Congress refuses to ask questions, so we have to pick up the paper to find out what is going on." (Watch Leahy express anger -- 3:56)
Republican Sen. Pat Roberts of Kansas, chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, said the government was not eavesdropping on the calls, and he said a subcommittee of seven senators had been briefed on the program.
"People should not be alarmed or surprised that intelligence analysts and law enforcement people use the business records or the telephone records of people -- not the content -- in regards to all sorts of things, whether you are a drug dealer, a child pornographer or a terrorist," Roberts said.
Republican Sen. Jon Kyl of Arizona said the debate is "nuts."
"We are in a war, and we've got to collect intelligence on the enemy, and you can't tell the enemy in advance how you are going to do it," Kyl said. "Discussing all of this in public leads to that."
But House Majority Leader John Boehner, a Ohio Republican, said he is "concerned" by the latest disclosure.
"I don't know enough about the details, except that I'm going to find out, because I am not sure why it would be necessary for us to keep and have that kind of information," he said. Hayden will "have a lot more explaining to do," he said.
The law covering surveillance
In a lawsuit privacy advocates brought last year against AT&T, a retired technician reported the company allowed the NSA to conduct what his lawyer called "vacuum cleaner surveillance" of e-mail messages and Internet traffic.
In court papers, Mark Klein said the spy agency was allowed to "split" fiber-optic cables, creating an exact copy of the data carried over those lines.
Critics have accused Bush of violating the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act with the program that intercepted calls between a person inside the United States and someone outside.
That 1978 law requires officials seeking to tap phone lines or collect phone records to get the approval of a special court set up to oversee intelligence issues.
The president has argued the congressional resolution that authorized military action after the 9/11 attacks, along with his authority as commander-in-chief of the military, gave him the power to initiate wiretaps without a court order.
The nine Democrats on the House Intelligence Committee issued a statement saying the program reported Thursday also appears to violate the 1978 law and shows that the Bush administration "cannot be trusted to police itself."
Investigation dropped
Four Democratic House members said Thursday they want more details from the Justice Department's Office of Professional Responsibility about the NSA's denial of security clearances to investigate the role of department attorneys in authorizing the agency's domestic surveillance program.
The Justice Department said Wednesday it had been denied security clearances and had dropped its investigation. (Full story)
Reps. Maurice Hinchey of New York, Henry Waxman of California, John Lewis of Georgia and Lynn Woolsey of California asked a Justice Department official to tell them what "agencies or persons did your office seek out for clearance" and "who made the decision not to give you clearance."
The No. 2 Democrat in the Senate, Sen. Richard Durbin of Illinois, called the development "evidence of a cover-up."
"The fact ... that the Department of Justice has abandoned their own investigation of this administration's wrongdoing because there's been a refusal to give investigators security clearances is clear evidence of a cover-up within the administration."
|
Quote:
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontl...ews/klein.html
<i>Klein worked for more than 20 years as a technician at AT&T. Here he tells the story of how he inadvertently discovered that the whole flow of Internet traffic in several AT&T operations centers was being regularly diverted to the National Security Agency (NSA). Klein is a witness in a lawsuit filed against AT&T by the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF), which alleges AT&T illegally gave the NSA access to its networks. This is the edited transcript of an interview conducted on Jan. 9, 2007.</i>
......So this data flow meant that they were getting not only AT&T customers' data flow; they were getting everybody else's data flow, whoever else might happen to be communicating into the AT&T network from other networks. So it was turning out to be like a large chunk of the network, of the Internet.
Did you see that in the documents? Did the documents show that in the designs?
You can see that in the document. ... It names the circuit IDs; it names the companies they belong to; and it shows the cut date. And they were all in February, when they were cut into the splitter.
February 2003?
February 2003. Then I was looking at the equipment list. All these three documents were obviously all part of the same project, which involved cutting this splitter cabinet in. I looked at the main one, which is called Study Group 3, San Francisco, kind of an innocent-sounding name. What are they studying?
On the equipment list were standard things ... like Juniper routers and Sun servers, which are very common, high-quality equipment, and Sun storage equipment to store data. And there was a whole list there.
But then there was one thing that was odd, because I didn't recognize it. It was not part of normal, day-to-day telecommunications equipment that I was familiar with in years of my work, and that was a Narus STA 6400. STA stands for Semantic Traffic Analyzer. I'd never heard of this, so I started doing a little Google research to find out what this is about; what's a Semantic Traffic Analyzer? And so I find, after doing some Googling, that it's not only designed for high-speed sifting through high-speed volumes of data, looking for something according to various program algorithms, something you'd think would be perfect for a spy agency.
Turns out it was perfect for a spy agency, and they were already using it and boasting about it. I found, for instance, there was a conference in 2003 in McLean, Va., whose agenda was posted on the Internet. I'm sure you know McLean, Va., is the hometown of the CIA. ... The sponsor of the show was Narus, and they posted the agenda for this computer show, which was semi-public, and everybody was there, from the phone companies like AT&T and Verizon to the intelligence agencies like the DEA [Drug Enforcement Administration] and the FBI and local police agencies and the FCC [Federal Communications Commission]. I have to assume the NSA was there, although they didn't list themselves. But one of the guys on the agenda was William Crowell. William Crowell was the former deputy director of the NSA. He was on one of the forum lists as a speaker, along with the founder of Narus and a whole bunch of them.
So when I saw all that, it all clicked together to me: "Oh, that's what they're doing. This is a spy apparatus. I'm not just imagining things." ...
When you spotted this, you'd been in the room; you've seen the splitter; you've now got the documents; you've seen the Narus; you've gone to the Internet; you've seen what this technology show is about. What is it you think is going on here? What's your reaction?
My reaction -- that's why I practically fell out of my chair -- was that from all the connections I saw, they were basically sweeping up, vacuum-cleaning the Internet through all the data, sweeping it all into this secret room. ... It's the sort of thing that very intrusive, repressive governments would do, finding out about everybody's personal data without a warrant. I knew right away that this was illegal and unconstitutional, and yet they were doing it.
So I was not only angry about it; I was also scared, because I knew this authorization came from very high up -- not only high up in AT&T, but high up in the government. So I was in a bit of a quandary as to what to do about it, but I thought this should be halted.........
|
|