Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community  

Go Back   Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community > The Academy > Tilted Politics


 
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
Old 12-24-2007, 07:47 PM   #1 (permalink)
Deja Moo
 
Elphaba's Avatar
 
Location: Olympic Peninsula, WA
1,000 Attorneys...

Santa came early for me, if 1,000 attorneys can cause the weak kneed Democrats and the butt covering Republicans to gain a backbone and defend the country's constitution:

Quote:
Lawyers Stepping Up
By Katrina vanden Heuvel
The Nation

Friday 21 December 2007


We are lawyers in the United States of America. As such, we have all taken an oath obligating us to defend the Constitution and the rule of law.... We believe the Bush administration has committed numerous offenses against the Constitution and may have violated federal laws.... Moreover, the administration has blatantly defied congressional subpoenas, obstructing constitutional oversight .... Thus, we call on House Judiciary Chairman John Conyers and Senate Judiciary Chairman Patrick Leahy to launch hearings into the possibility that crimes have been committed by this administration in violation of the Constitution.... We call for the investigations to go where they must, including into the offices of the President and the Vice President. - American Lawyers Defending the Constitution

Over one thousand lawyers - including former Governor Mario Cuomo and former Reagan administration official Bruce Fein - have signed onto the above statement demanding wide-ranging investigative hearings into unconstitutional and potentially criminal activity by the Bush administration.

In a conference call with reporters yesterday, Michael Ratner, president of the Center for Constitutional Rights and winner of the 2007 Puffin/Nation Prize for Creative Citizenship, said: "The majority of lawyers in this country understand that the Bush administration has really gone off the page of constitutional rights and off the page of fundamental rights, and is willing to push the Congress to restore those rights." Ratner said he was "dismayed" that a Democratic majority has failed "to push on key illegalities... the torture program, and now the destruction of the tapes involving the torture program; the warrantless wiretapping, the denial of habeas corpus, the secret sites/rendition program, special trials, and of course what we now know is the firing of US Attorneys scandal.... The minimal that absolutely is needed to get us back on the page of law is to have serious investigative hearings that go up the chain of command and figure out who is responsible for what."

Ratner noted that even with regard to the US attorney's investigations, where Congressional committees held Harriet Miers, Josh Bolten, and Karl Rove in contempt, leadership has failed to enforce these actions by bringing the resolutions to a vote. "Just announcing that investigations will be held and subpoenas will be issued is terribly insufficient unless Congress is willing to enforce the subpoenas by issuing contempt citations," Ratner said. "Congress has a constitutional duty to oversee the activities of the executive branch and our entire system of government is threatened when Congress simply folds before an obstinate executive. Issuing contempt citations against Bolten, Miers, and Rove should be Congress's first order of business in 2008."

Marjorie Cohn, president of the National Lawyers Guild, discussed the administration's torture program violating three US-ratified treaties and the US torture statute; the illegal War in Iraq violating the US-ratified UN Charter as a war of aggression; and Attorney General Michael Mukasey's conflict of interest in overseeing investigations into the torture program and the destruction of the CIA interrogations tapes.

Also speaking with reporters was Jesselyn Raddack, a former Justice Department ethics lawyer who served as an advisor during the interrogation of John Walker Lindh (the "American Taliban"). Raddack said, "My e-mails documented my advice against interrogating Lindh without a lawyer, and concluded that the FBI committed an ethics violation when it did so anyway. Both the CIA videotapes and my e-mails were destroyed, in part, because officials were concerned that they documented controversial interrogation methods that could put agency officials in legal jeopardy.... " Raddack pointed to the Department of Justice's investigations of Enron and Arthur Anderson for obstruction of justice and destruction of evidence, and the need for the same aggressive oversight and legal proceedings in these scandals.

This is a vital effort by those charged with defending our constitution, as Ratner said, "This lawyers' letter and the growing number of signatures we'll have on it, and prominent people - it's a way of saying to Congress, 'You need some backbone. You need to have a serious investigation, wherever it might go, on these issues that really have taken the United States out of the mainstream of human rights.' It's absolutely critical... We've opened up the door to illegality.... Unless we have accountability on those illegalities, we're going to be facing a very bleak future in which fundamental rights will not really be obeyed."
Link

What is it going to take for Conyers and Leahy to continue their investigations and not cave with every challenge by the administration? Are 1,000 attorneys enough to shame Congress into performing their constitutional obligation of oversight over the Executive branch? Are 1,000 attorneys enough to convince Congress that they have further compromised the Judicial branch with the acceptance of Mukasey as AG?

The Founding Fathers were brilliant in their formation of three equal branches of government and I want that balance back, preferably before the next President is sworn in. If this doesn't give Congress a kick in the pants, what do you think will?
__________________
"You can't ignore politics, no matter how much you'd like to." Molly Ivins - 1944-2007
Elphaba is offline  
Old 12-24-2007, 08:06 PM   #2 (permalink)
Pissing in the cornflakes
 
Ustwo's Avatar
 
I know I'm not the only one who thought "up to their necks in sand" here.

Anyways I'm glad .1% of the estimated lawyers in the US has decided to speak out so forcefully about something they are not sure on.

Fine material for truthout.org again.

I do have to wonder, what do you think congress is afraid of that would make them so reluctant to nail a political opponent? They never had such reservations in the past, look at all the investigations done 'just because' by prior past democratic congresses of republican presidents.

Perhaps, just perhaps, there are real reasons for it of which you know not.

Personally I say go for it, my guess is it can only make democrats look bad for some reason, otherwise they would be all over it.
__________________
Agents of the enemies who hold office in our own government, who attempt to eliminate our "freedoms" and our "right to know" are posting among us, I fear.....on this very forum. - host

Obama - Know a Man by the friends he keeps.
Ustwo is offline  
Old 12-24-2007, 10:08 PM   #3 (permalink)
 
dc_dux's Avatar
 
Location: Washington DC
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ustwo
They never had such reservations in the past, look at all the investigations done 'just because' by prior past democratic congresses of republican presidents.
Which "just because" investigations in the past might you have in mind?

Iran-Contra (Reagan), BCCI/Iraqgate (Bush 41), S&L scandal, the Church Committee investigation of the CIA (Nixon/Ford).....as opposed to Republican investigations of Socks the Clinton cat or the White House Christmas card list?

Ustwo....you might want to take your own advice:
....I'm expecting people HAVING a discussion to have some knowledge of the subject they are trying to discuss. Its obvious that my mistake was assuming that people wanting to talk about things and make statements about them would at least have done the basic 20 minutes of reading before posting.
Did you do your 20 minutes of reading before making your baseless statement about "all those investigations done just because"
***

I believe there is enough evidence beyond reasonable doubt that Bush conducted warrantless wiretaps of US citizens outside the law and abrigated US treaty obligations regarding torture and treatment of prisoners, both impeachable offenses IMO.

Just as in criminal court, a good prosecutor knows not to proceed and waste time and money if there is little likelihood of conviction.

And there is virtually NO likelihood of a 2/3 Senate majority voting to convict. I would still spend the time and money, but the result of tearing the country farther apart is too high a prices to pay.

But they should absolutely continue with every oversight investigation of Bush administration actions that may be illegal or even in violation of government ethics policies and enforce subpoenas of White House officials.
__________________
"The perfect is the enemy of the good."
~ Voltaire

Last edited by dc_dux; 12-24-2007 at 11:27 PM..
dc_dux is offline  
Old 12-24-2007, 10:49 PM   #4 (permalink)
Deja Moo
 
Elphaba's Avatar
 
Location: Olympic Peninsula, WA
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ustwo
I do have to wonder, what do you think congress is afraid of that would make them so reluctant to nail a political opponent? They never had such reservations in the past, look at all the investigations done 'just because' by prior past democratic congresses of republican presidents.

Perhaps, just perhaps, there are real reasons for it of which you know not.

Personally I say go for it, my guess is it can only make democrats look bad for some reason, otherwise they would be all over it.
Let's take a 'wild' guess, shall we? It is now known that Bush & Friends began domestic spying before 9-11. It would be reasonable to ask who the targets were, don't you think? Great Scott! It's the same Cheney and Rumsfeld that provided illegal wire taping for Nixon, now doing it for Bush.
The targets then were Nixon's political enemies. Do I need a crayon and a Big Chief tablet to spell out the rest?

Perhaps, just perhaps, there are real reasons that are intuitively obvious. Granted, thinking outside the black and white box can be difficult, if not impossible. If someone as limited as I can do it, I hold out hope for you to step beyond your comfort zone, as well.
__________________
"You can't ignore politics, no matter how much you'd like to." Molly Ivins - 1944-2007
Elphaba is offline  
Old 12-24-2007, 10:53 PM   #5 (permalink)
 
dc_dux's Avatar
 
Location: Washington DC
Quote:
Originally Posted by Elphaba
Perhaps, just perhaps, there are real reasons that are intuitively obvious. Granted, thinking outside the black and white box can be difficult, if not impossible. If someone as limited as I can do it, I hold out hope for you to step beyond your comfort zone, as well.
Do you really think Ustwo will ever violate Reagan's eleventh commandment under any circumstances?
"Thou shalt not speak ill of a fellow Republican."
__________________
"The perfect is the enemy of the good."
~ Voltaire
dc_dux is offline  
Old 12-25-2007, 12:07 AM   #6 (permalink)
Banned
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ustwo
I know I'm not the only one who thought "up to their necks in sand" here.

Anyways I'm glad .1% of the estimated lawyers in the US has decided to speak out so forcefully about something they are not sure on.

Fine material for truthout.org again.

I do have to wonder, what do you think congress is afraid of that would make them so reluctant to nail a political opponent? They never had such reservations in the past, look at all the investigations done 'just because' by prior past democratic congresses of republican presidents.

Perhaps, just perhaps, there are real reasons for it of which you know not.

Personally I say go for it, my guess is it can only make democrats look bad for some reason, otherwise they would be all over it.
Ustwo, I have asked you this question before, I saw no answer to it, and I'm not expecting one, now....

My question, is...what the fuck have you had the correct "take" on, in the three years that we have been posting side by side, on this forum?

Over on this thread, tonight,
"Please take a moment to pause, and think of our Military overseas this Christmas"

You posted:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ustwo
We are fun group here eh?

The politics section is mostly radical left wingers and a few stubborn people on the right who perhaps lack the wisdom to not poke into their cages.

You accidentally poked the cages, I knew it wouldn't end well, but I did have some hope it would just pass.
In 1916, you would have tarred anyone supporting women's suffrage, racial equality, and the right of workers to organize trade unions with your "radical left winger" insult.

Who has been getting "it" correct since 9/11? Is it Ustwo, or the "centrist liberal", Peter Beinart, described in all of his contorted and revised statements, or has it been the "radical left wingers".

How is it that they are "radical" and "wingers", but have been correct about the wasting of lives, limbs, and huge borrowed treasury dollars, in illegal, counterproductive foreign occupations? While you have argued to "stay the course"?

If those who have gotten it almost entirely correct, are "radical", "wingers", what labels would be appropriate to hang on you?
Quote:
http://stevegilliard.blogspot.com/20...-not-bush.html
Quote:
http://www.slate.com/id/2110699
Will A Good Purge Save the Dems? For Peter Beinart, it's 1950.
By Mickey Kaus
Updated Tuesday, Dec. 7, 2004, at 9:17 PM ET
by Peter Beinart

Had history taken a different course, this new brand of liberalism might have expanded beyond a narrow foreign policy elite. The war in Afghanistan, while unlike Kosovo a war of self-defense, once again brought the Western democracies together against a deeply illiberal foe. Had that war, rather than the war in Iraq, become the defining event of the post-September 11 era, the "re-education" about U.S. power, and about the new totalitarian threat from the Muslim world that had transformed Kerry's advisers, might have trickled down to the party's liberal base, transforming it as well.

Instead, Bush's war on terrorism became a partisan affair--defined in the liberal mind not by images of American soldiers walking Afghan girls to school, but by John Ashcroft's mass detentions and Cheney's false claims about Iraqi WMD. The left's post-September 11 enthusiasm for an aggressive campaign against Al Qaeda--epitomized by students at liberal campuses signing up for jobs with the CIA--was overwhelmed by horror at the bungled Iraq war. So, when the Democratic presidential candidates began courting their party's activists in Iowa and New Hampshire in 2003, they found a liberal grassroots that viewed the war on terrorism in negative terms and judged the candidates less on their enthusiasm for defeating Al Qaeda than on their enthusiasm for defeating Bush.....

.....In 1950, the journal The New Leader divided American liberals into "hards" and "softs." The hards, epitomized by the ADA, believed anti-communism was the fundamental litmus test for a decent left. Non-communism was not enough; opposition to the totalitarian threat was the prerequisite for membership in American liberalism because communism was the defining moral challenge of the age.

The softs, by contrast, were not necessarily communists themselves. But they refused to make anti-communism their guiding principle. For them, the threat to liberal values came entirely from the right--from militarists, from red-baiters, and from the forces of economic reaction. To attack the communists, reliable allies in the fight for civil rights and economic justice, was a distraction from the struggle for progress.

Moore is the most prominent soft in the United States today. Most Democrats agree with him about the Iraq war, about Ashcroft, and about Bush. What they do not recognize, or do not acknowledge, is that Moore does not oppose Bush's policies because he thinks they fail to effectively address the terrorist threat; he does not believe there is a terrorist threat. For Moore, terrorism is an opiate whipped up by corporate bosses. In Dude, Where's My Country?, he says it plainly: "There is no terrorist threat." And he wonders, "Why has our government gone to such absurd lengths to convince us our lives are in danger?"

Moore views totalitarian Islam the way Wallace viewed communism: As a phantom, a ruse employed by the only enemies that matter, those on the right. Saudi extremists may have brought down the Twin Towers, but the real menace is the Carlyle Group. Today, most liberals naïvely consider Moore a useful ally, a bomb-thrower against a right-wing that deserves to be torched. What they do not understand is that his real casualties are on the decent left. When Moore opposes the war against the Taliban, he casts doubt upon the sincerity of liberals who say they opposed the Iraq war because they wanted to win in Afghanistan first. When Moore says terrorism should be no greater a national concern than car accidents or pneumonia, he makes it harder for liberals to claim that their belief in civil liberties does not imply a diminished vigilance against Al Qaeda.

Moore is a non-totalitarian, but, like Wallace, he is not an anti-totalitarian. And, when Democratic National Committee Chairman Terry McAuliffe and Tom Daschle flocked to the Washington premiere of Fahrenheit 9/11, and when Moore sat in Jimmy Carter's box at the Democratic convention, many Americans wondered whether the Democratic Party was anti-totalitarian either....
Quote:
http://www.salon.com/books/review/2006/06/16/beinart/
A kinder, gentler war on terror

New Republic editor Peter Beinart admits he was wrong about Iraq -- but still calls for liberals to fight the "new totalitarianism rising from the Islamic world." Yet many on the left don't believe his bogeyman even exists.

By Andrew O'Hehir

June 16, 2006 | We owe Peter Beinart a debt of thanks for his book "The Good Fight." Not so much for his alleged central argument, which is, as his ungainly subtitle declares, "Why Liberals -- and Only Liberals -- Can Win the War on Terror and Make America Great Again." There are things worth hearing in that argument, which isn't quite as belligerent and neocon-like as it sounds, but Beinart carves away the ground under his own feet so effectively as he goes along that liberals, leftists or progressives (pick your label) who disagree with him can pretty much close the book with a shrug and go back to their Dick Cheney voodoo dolls.

Beinart's great accomplishment is to return the debate about Iraq, terrorism and the American left to the ground of civility. He lays out, as clearly as he can, his disagreements with the "anti-imperialist left" (his term, but it's probably fair), meaning those who oppose preemptive or preventive warfare by the United States in almost all circumstances. I don't think he always understands this position clearly or characterizes it accurately, but he never red-baits his left-wing opponents, never levels charges of stupidity or cowardice, never accuses them of coddling al-Qaida or hating America. (Ann Coulter's got all that covered.)

Furthermore, Beinart isn't a neocon in Birkenstocks. When he calls himself a liberal, he means it, in much the same way that Democratic Party dinosaurs like Harry Truman, Hubert Humphrey and Scoop Jackson would have embraced the term. He argues simultaneously for a hawkish anti-terror policy, broad acceptance of international restrictions on American power and an activist domestic policy aimed at combating poverty and inequality.

Unlike some of his peers among the so-called liberal hawks, Beinart reserves his angriest rhetoric for the current administration. Left-wingers who have long suspected Beinart's publication (he's an editor at large at the New Republic) of tending a not-so-secret flame for the manly men of the Bush-Cheney regime will be heartened by his lusty denunciations of its misdeeds and misguided ideology. In stripping away the restraints on American power, Beinart writes, Bush has made that power illegitimate. In insisting that America is incapable of evil, Bush has created an environment in which Americans kidnap, torture and kill without compunction. Setting himself apart from so many in mainstream politics, Beinart repeatedly uses the word "torture" to describe U.S. treatment of detainees at Abu Ghraib, Guantánamo Bay and elsewhere.

Beinart is trying to clear some space, it seems, so that those in the center and on the left of American politics can speak frankly about our disagreements, while remaining focused on a broad set of shared priorities (i.e., rewinding and erasing as much of the 21st century as possible, except for the 2004 Red Sox and HBO's prime-time schedule). This is a noble and perhaps doomed endeavor, but after half a decade of enraged gasbag rhetoric from all sides of the political spectrum, it's nice to see someone try it. Undoing the creeping right-wing coup of the last six years will require forging a common front among many different groups and individuals who don't agree about Iraq or Iran or Israel or a lot of other things, and God knows the Democratic Party -- grown putrid in some places and calcified in others, like an abandoned avocado -- doesn't seem capable of it.

Civility, you might say, is the handmaiden of humility, and for better or worse Beinart begins "The Good Fight" from a severely humbled position. In 2003, he was an ardent supporter of the Bush administration's push for war in Iraq. To his credit, he does not flee from this position or flail about seeking to justify it (à la Christopher Hitchens). Instead, he opens the book by serving himself a man-size helping of crow.

Beinart believed that a U.S. invasion was the only way to prevent Saddam Hussein from assembling a nuclear bomb, he explains, and he also believed "it could produce a decent, pluralistic Iraqi regime, which might help open a democratic third way in the Middle East between secular autocrats and their theocratic opponents." His armchair view of these positions is not complicated: <h3>"On both counts, I was wrong."

His errors, Beinart writes, were more than misjudgments of fact (many of us -- more than will ever admit to it -- were misled by the Bush administration's cooked intelligence). "I was wrong on the theory," he says. "I did not grasp the critical link between the invasion's credibility in the world and its credibility in Iraq. I not only overestimated America's capacities, I overestimated America's legitimacy."</h3> As someone who had supported the relatively effective U.S. interventions in Kuwait, the Balkans and Afghanistan, he continues, "I could not see that the morality of American power rests on the limits to American power. It is a grim irony that this book's central argument is one I myself ignored when it was needed most."

Anyone who opposed the war all along is entitled, I suppose, to a flash of bitterness on reading Beinart's mea culpa, which comes after so many thousands of lives lost and so many billions of dollars. But I couldn't sustain that reaction. Beinart and his fellow liberal hawks played no role in the Bush administration's misconceived war plans, beyond providing them some tiny amount of intellectual cover on the left. His candid admission that he failed to live up to his own principles during the rush to war evinces a quality of self-reflection sorely lacking in American public life; one could argue that this lends him more credibility, not less, as a spokesman for the embattled liberal tradition.

Beinart's recantation is far more direct than the murky half-apology offered by George Packer, another leading pro-war liberal, in his book "The Assassins' Gate." That's mostly because "The Good Fight" is an unavoidably personal account of a developing political philosophy, while Packer's book is a magisterial work of reporting, almost certainly the best thing yet published on the prelude, conduct and aftermath of the disastrous war in Iraq. Behind both authors lurks the specter of Paul Berman, along with Hitchens the leading so-called liberal intellectual to support the war. While Beinart seems to have backed away from Berman's analysis a bit more than Packer has, the fact that he calls the Islamic terrorist threat "totalitarianism" suggests he has not cut the cord altogether.

....Still, Beinart's opening confession creates a problem that echoes throughout the length and breadth of "The Good Fight." He is defending a political ideology that, as he admits, led him to support an arrogant and ill-fated military adventure. <h3>The same political ideology, as he also admits, led an earlier generation of liberal hawks into a different arrogant and ill-fated military adventure, in Southeast Asia.</h3> (Earlier still, the same ideology led too many American liberals to equivocate from the sidelines for too long while Joe McCarthy persecuted suspected Communists and their families.) Perhaps only a liberal could find himself so consistently behind the eight ball, admitting his own team's flaws and hypocrisies while still arguing for its moral rightness.

Next Page: <a href="http://www.salon.com/books/review/2006/06/16/beinart/index1.html">We're all so shit-scared of being blown up at the mall that we'll sign up for any level of homegrown fascism</a>
meanwhile,over by the dental floss bush (forgive me,Frank Zappa)it's still 1916
Quote:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...121601760.html
washingtonpost.com's Daily Politics Discussion

Michael Abramowitz
Washington Post White House Reporter
Tuesday, December 18, 2007; 11:00 AM

Winnipeg, Canada: Can you explain why the move by three members of the judiciary committee for impeachment hearings against the Vice President has not received much media attention? I didn't see anything in the online Washington Post, for instance. Rep. Wexler apparently has gathered 80,000 signatures supporting his position on his Web site. This appears to be big news to me.

Michael Abramowitz: To be quite honest, I am not aware of whether we have written about this. We have gotten these questions in one form or another for several years: Impeachment is not going to be happening under this Congress, even if there are some law-makers who think it is a good idea. So the media moves on to other things....

Last edited by host; 12-25-2007 at 12:17 AM..
host is offline  
Old 12-26-2007, 04:06 PM   #7 (permalink)
 
dc_dux's Avatar
 
Location: Washington DC
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ustwo
I do have to wonder, what do you think congress is afraid of that would make them so reluctant to nail a political opponent? They never had such reservations in the past, look at all the investigations done 'just because' by prior past democratic congresses of republican presidents.
Ustwo....I searched for those past investigations of Republican presidents that were done by a Democratic Congress "just because" and couldnt find all those to which you referred...and I worked in Congress in the past.

Can you point me in the right direction?
__________________
"The perfect is the enemy of the good."
~ Voltaire

Last edited by dc_dux; 12-26-2007 at 04:09 PM..
dc_dux is offline  
 

Tags
attorneys

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On



All times are GMT -8. The time now is 10:02 AM.

Tilted Forum Project

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Search Engine Optimization by vBSEO 3.6.0 PL2
© 2002-2012 Tilted Forum Project

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180 181 182 183 184 185 186 187 188 189 190 191 192 193 194 195 196 197 198 199 200 201 202 203 204 205 206 207 208 209 210 211 212 213 214 215 216 217 218 219 220 221 222 223 224 225 226 227 228 229 230 231 232 233 234 235 236 237 238 239 240 241 242 243 244 245 246 247 248 249 250 251 252 253 254 255 256 257 258 259 260 261 262 263 264 265 266 267 268 269 270 271 272 273 274 275 276 277 278 279 280 281 282 283 284 285 286 287 288 289 290 291 292 293 294 295 296 297 298 299 300 301 302 303 304 305 306 307 308 309 310 311 312 313 314 315 316 317 318 319 320 321 322 323 324 325 326 327 328 329 330 331 332 333 334 335 336 337 338 339 340 341 342 343 344 345 346 347 348 349 350 351 352 353 354 355 356 357 358 359 360