US citizen murdered by government without trial

Nope. Being a member of Al Qaeda is sufficient and thus the MILITARY doesn't have to show any evidence to kill members of Al Qaeda.

It looks like GS settled just because fighting it in court was a looser, but there were no criminal charges filed by the SEC because what they did was not criminal like a Ponzi scheme is (they should have disclosed who was picking the Securities and that there was possibly a conflict of interest). The difference is the way the securites would go was not certain, they could have gone up. Then there is the matter of SCALE. GS has assets of nearly 1 Trillion dollars and it settled this case for $500 million, meaning this is not characteristic of the company's business, but of a few people within it, while in the Ponzi scheme of Maddof, it was all smoke and mirrors and it was almost all him (or his family) and the amount was 40 times greater, estimated at around $20 Billion.

BIG DIFFERENCE.

Did I call you an ignoramous for all the mistakes you have made?
NO
Do try to be civil.

As to Ruby Ridge, the point was simply that you mischaracterized what happened there, not that any of the killings were justified. His killing of Vicky was indeed accidental and not deliberate. That doesn't justify the shooting, but then you don't seem to care about context anyway.

Arthur

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

@Adoucette

I know you all keep harping that being a member of Al Qaeda blah blah blah. In other words even a cook working for Al Qaeda is worthy of death

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Meanwhile you ignore these troublesome truths (drum roll)...

"The Constitution grants even the most heinous criminals due process of law before being convicted of a crime. In the post-9/11 era, many exceptions to this rule have emerged through legal technicalities, ultimately leading to the current situation at Guantanamo Bay where 48 detainees are deemed “too dangerous to release but not feasible for prosecution because of torture-tainted evidence inadmissible in civilian or military tribunals.”

"Assume for argument’s sake that enemy combatants suspected of bringing harm to U.S. troops may legally be imprisoned indefinitely without trial for national security reasons. Given this questionable assumption, could one then argue that the assassination of American citizens by the government for advocating retaliatory violence towards U.S. military targets occupying foreign lands is legal as well?"

"As an American citizen, Awlaki’s rights are protected by the Constitution until he violates U.S. laws. However, the CIA has thus far only cited “secret evidence” that Awlaki has played an operational role within Al-Qaeda. It is important to note that merely advocating for violence against U.S. citizens is protected by a Supreme Court ruling so long as one is not advocating for imminent lawless action. In the case of Awlaki, he has thus far advocated for violence only against U.S. military targets, saying that the failed "Christmas Day bombing" by Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab “would have been better if the plane was a military one or if it was a US military target.”

"In this light, the arguments of Awlaki and figures like Samuel Adams, who openly advocated for violence against British troops some centuries ago, seem to coalesce. A vital feature of America’s judicial system is the concept that citizens are innocent until proven guilty. U.S. law states that the burden of proof is on the prosecution (in this case, the U.S. government) to prove that terrorists have directly orchestrated attacks on innocent civilians before they can be considered targets for assassination."

"Nationalist emotions aside, the morality of Alwaki’s views here is irrelevant. What matters is that his right to advocate violence against U.S. citizens and military targets is protected by our legal system so long as he does not advocate for specific, imminent violence. History has shown that societies begin disintegrating when they fail to adhere to their legal systems when it is inconvenient to do so. Laws should be changed if they need to be, but never broken. Anything less is anarchy."

http://www.policymic.com/articles/assassinating-an-american-al-qaeda-leader


And I used to think you were an american conservative. Wowzer was I wrong! Tell the truth Adoucette, you're not really american are you? You're like some agent provocateur for some foreign enemy hell bent on bringing down american civil liberties and the constitution itself. You're helping the enemy set up an authoritarian government under the principles of fascism and those darn rules of law must be subverted.

Kidding of course. Anywho...

The Telegraph: Pimco likens US to 'Ponzi' scheme.
US authorities are operating a "brazen" Ponzi scheme in government debt by buying trillions of dollars of bonds to stimulate the economy, according to Bill Gross, managing director of Pimco, the world. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/economics/8090902/Pimco-likens-US-to-Ponzi-scheme.html

Time Magazine: The Ponzi Economy: http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1844550,00.html

The US Economy is a Giant Ponzi Scheme (MarketOracle): http://www.marketoracle.co.uk/Article25002.html

US Economics: One Big Ponzi Scheme http://english.aljazeera.net/indepth/opinion/2011/02/2011218151257526294.html


Why are you always the last to know Adoucette? Why?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Yes.

Now you are getting it.

Just as being a cook in the German Army allowed us to put a bomb down your chow wagon's smoke stack.

I am very much an American and a conservative, but you continue to make a fundamental mistake and that's to think that because he is an American Citizen he can join Al Qaeda and suddenly the Military can't touch him.

WRONG

Arthur

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

You're one of the body snatchers. You look like and american but you're not an american. And since you are so willing to kill cooks I would say you are most definitely a psychopath. Conservatives believe in conservative principles, the economy as its being run is radical, the banking system disenfranchising the american public's taxes for their private debts is radical and corporate welfare which is definitely not a conservative point of view. Fiscal responsibility is conservative, to big to fail is not. Conservatives also have a fancy for the principles outlined by the constitution, you have none of that. Conservatives believe in the rule of law not the anarchy of giving executive powers government can run amok with. You call yourself a conservative but you don't know what it means. You've simply appropriated the label and by doing so give conservatism a bad name. Its the conservative texas lawmaker who believed the government overstepped their boundaries in this case, and the libertarian ron paul too, their conservative. You're a poser.

 

@Adoucette

SUNDAY, APRIL 17, 2011

Current Lawsuits Against Goldman Sachs

One effect of all the media attention on Goldman Sachs because of the Senate Report on the financial crisis is that it may attract more lawsuits than can be handled by the $3.4 billion that GS has set aside for such matters. Some suits are described below.

In an article in Bloomberg's Businessweek by Lindsay Fortado, Cazar Search Ltd. says it was not paid by Goldman Sachs Group Inc.'s UK unit and is suing . Cazar said it introduced Mirek Urbanski to Goldman Sachs as a tentative employee who later was hired by GS but GS said Cazar was not entitled to a fee.

In an article by Susanne Craig , DealBook, Marvell Technology, a semiconductor company, is suing Goldman Sachs for forcing them to sell shares in their own company during the financial crisis. Goldman Sachs said that an SEC rule governing stocks used for margin made the sale necessary. The lawsuit says, "Goldman forced its clients to unnecessarily liquidate their holdings through forced margin calls, only to repurchase these same shareholdings for accounts owned by Goldman and its related hedge funds."

Creditors of bankrupt Capmark Financial Group, as reported in Bloomberg by Steven Church, want to sue Goldman Sachs for $96 million. Judge Sontchi will consider allowing the suit which claims Goldman Sachs used their insider position to collect $96 million from Capmark. The money is meant to go to lower-ranking creditors.

Finally, Eric Johnston in BusinessDay (The Sydney Morning Herald), sums up another of Goldman Sachs's troubles which may presage more headaches in the future:

NAB eyes Goldman lawsuit
by Eric Johnston, BusinessDay, smh

NATIONAL Australia Bank is believed to be considering legal action against its one-time house broker Goldman Sachs after a US Senate report found the bank was apparently misled when it was sold an exotic security that quickly turned toxic.
Senior NAB executives yesterday were reviewing the bank's legal position following a wave of revelations contained in a report on the financial crisis by the US Senate that draws on internal documents and private communications of bank executives and regulators.

The 650-page report, Wall Street and the Financial Crisis: Anatomy of a Financial Collapse released this week reveals detailed accounts of questionable business practices and investment banks riddled with conflicts of interest in the lead-up to the 2008 finance market implosion.

Specifically, the report outlined how Goldman marketed to NAB a $US80 million tranche of a collaterised {sic} debt obligations, a structured asset-backed security known as Hudson.

While Goldman was selling the securities it did not disclose it was taking substantial bets against Hudson, under which the investment bank would make large profits the more the securities fell in value.

NAB lost on the investment, but it got off lightly compared with Wall Street bank Morgan Stanley, which made the largest investment, taking $US1.2 billion of the super senior portion of the same CDO.

''Goldman constructed Hudson as a way to transfer its … risk to the investors who bought Hudson securities,'' the US Senate report found.

''When marketing the Hudson securities, Goldman misled investors by claiming its investment interests were aligned with theirs, when it was the sole short party and was betting against the very securities it was recommending,'' it found.

In a statement, Goldman Sachs said: ''While we disagree with much of the report, we take seriously the issues explored by the subcommittee.''

 

I'm a liberal and I agree with him.

 

That doesn't change my charge against him. The fact that you agree with him doesn't prove he embodies conservative values.

 

Really?

Zachary Adam Chesser, 21, of Fairfax County, Va., was sentenced today to 25 years in prison, followed by three years of supervised release, for communicating threats against the writers of the South Park television show, soliciting violent jihadists to desensitize law enforcement, and attempting to provide material support to Al-Shabaab, a designated foreign terrorist organization.

http://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/2011/February/11-nsd-238.html

 

What you mean he wasn't killed?

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Don't you get it yet Adoucette, this is about EXECUTIVE EXECUTION and the lack of DUE PROCESS!!!! Your argument has been all along that simply being labeled a terrorist gives the government a right to kill without any oversight. Zachary went to prison, he was given due process, there was oversight, the rule of law was observed.

To wit:

No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. (Amendment XIV.1)

What you now have to prove is that if no state is allowed to make a law stripping a US citizens of their rights then by what law is the federal government allowed to do so.

 

So when we drop bombs we have to make sure that no cooks are in the way?

Not the way it works.

You probably think it was wrong to bomb German cities in WW2 where not only German military were killed but so were lots of civilians.

WRONG.

Well you can disscuss these individually, but while as a conservative I'm not happy we had to issue TARP funds to the banks, it was the prudent thing to do and the money for the most part has been paid back, with interest.

In Goldman Sachs case, the Treasury earned 23% return.

http://foreignpolicyblogs.com/2009/07/22/taxpayers-earn-23-on-goldman-sachs-tarp-repayment/

Then you are simply short sighted.
Allowing our financial firms to fail would NOT have helped.

BS
You simply are ignorant of the Constitution.

No, I believe in the Congressional powers that check the Executive ones and if they thought the President was off the rails they would do something about it.

Remember, the House has a solid Republican majority.

Nope.

Your interpretation makes no sense at all.

If you were CIC following your own policies then Al Qaeda would simply step up the recruitment of Muslims that had US citizenship and set up open operations in any country without an extradition treaty because, according to you, they would be untouchable.

Arthur

 

Right.
But that doesn't apply to MILITARY actions.

 

@Adoucette

Now you're just being silly. We're not talking about collateral damage here. Even the military isn't above the constitution...or at least it shouldn't be.

Glenn Greenwald, a lawyer and commentator, said there had been no effort to indict Alwaki on any crimes and that there was "substantial doubt" about his involvement in any attacks against the U.S.. "He was simply ordered killed by the president: his judge, jury and executioner," Greenwald wrote on Salon.com. "What's most amazing is that its citizens will not merely refrain from objecting, but will stand and cheer the U.S. government's new power to assassinate their fellow citizens, far from any battlefield, literally without a shred of due process," he added.


Here I have to agree with Greenwald. You seem to be saying that the government doesn't have to prove Awalki was an actual terrorist, in other words that he had done more than merely placing his anti-american radical jihadi views on the internet. Being a propagandist doesn't make one a murderer. All the government has offered is a bunch of 'alleged connections', alleged being the key word here. You have to prove, show evidence that someone is a terrorist. Don't you have to show evidence that someone is a killer before you throw their ass into jail? Well what is the difference with the allegation of terrorism?

 

@Adoucette

Allowing financial institutions that lost their own money due to recklessness and fraud should be allowed to fail, in fact true capitalist principles would demand that they do fail. The financial sector doesn't produce anything, its main street you have to worry about not the changing of money. Banks that invest in speculative trading don't deserve bailouts, they partook in risky behavior (moral hazard).

How am I ignorant of the constitution? Show me where in the constitution it claims government must fork over tax payer money to private industries that are failing?

From the conservative Cato Institute:

The federal government has no constitutional authority to spend taxpayers' money to buy distressed assets, much less to take an ownership position in private financial institutions. And Congress has no constitutional authority to delegate nearly plenary legislative power to the Treasury secretary, an executive branch official.

In the current crisis, bank runs and other forms of financial panic could lead to the collapse of the country's or even the world's economic edifice. Extraordinary measures might be in order. In extremis, it may seem quixotic to question the constitutionality of the federal bailout-but it's essential nonetheless.

Realists might say, "Save your ivory-tower doubts for the law journals." Supreme Court Justice Robert Jackson famously wrote, "The Constitution is not a suicide pact." Douse the flames first; then repair the bad wiring.

But a declaration of unconstitutionality, if justified, serves three vital purposes today. It imposes a heavy burden on proponents of the bailout to explain why the Constitution can be violated with impunity. It reinforces the case for abandoning the program once any true emergency has passed. And it helps establish a presumption against adopting similar measures that might be proposed to resolve future "emergencies."

Bad Precedents

Even now some experts, including my colleagues at the Cato Institute, believe that alternative proposals (perhaps even constitutional proposals) could achieve the desired ends without socializing the financial sector and without establishing statist precedents that could haunt us for decades or longer.
Maybe the bailout is necessary. Maybe it will even work. But necessary or not, temporarily effective or not, the bailout is unconstitutional. And constitutionality is not restored merely by the invocation of "emergency" by the administration and Congress.

http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=9729

How, as a conservative can you justify overriding the will of the people:

September 29, 2008
NEW YORK (CNNMoney.com) -- The fate of the government's $700 billion financial bailout plan was thrown into doubt Monday as the House rejected the controversial measure.

http://money.cnn.com/2008/09/29/news/economy/bailout/index.htm


Then Goldman's Paulson goes in his back-room dealings threatens government with his threats of economic instability and then you get The Emergency Economic Stabilization Act.

Adoucette: if they thought the President was off the rails they would do something about it.

I disagree because they thought he was off the rails when he went into Libya without their approval and they didn't do anything about that. Also this same congressional body followed Bush into an illegal war based on lies (WMD). Based on that I would say they are terrible at telling if a president is 'off the rails'. You have an almost childish naive faith in government.

Adoucette: If you were CIC following your own policies then Al Qaeda would simply step up the recruitment of Muslims that had US citizenship and set up open operations in any country without an extradition treaty because, according to you, they would be untouchable.

First of all Al Qaeda works with different cells that rarely deal with each other, as an organization all Al Qaeda does is offer money and training. Being decentralized they do set up operations in any country they like as it is. I never said they were untouchable, not at all I said they could have asked Yemen to arrest him and hand him over and he could have faced trial. According to the government they tried to bring in Bin Laden but he resisted and got killed, now whether this is true or not no one can tell but it does show that there was an interest in bringing him to trial. Why would a trial of a low level member warrant a kill and not a trial? Its one thing to fight terrorism its another to behave like a mad man with a razor blade and strike in every direction...that's how mistakes are made. Mistakes like this:

Maher Arar, a Syrian-born dual Syrian and Canadian citizen, was detained at Kennedy International Airport on 26 September 2002, by US Immigration and Naturalization Service officials. He was heading home to Canada after a family holiday in Tunisia. After almost two weeks, enduring hours of interrogation chained, he was sent, shackled and bound, in a private jet to Jordan and then Syria, instead of being deported to Canada. There, he was interrogated and tortured by Syrian intelligence. Maher Arar was eventually released a year later. He told the BBC that he was repeatedly tortured during 10 months' detention in Syria—often whipped on the palms of his hands with metal cables. Syrian intelligence officers forced him to sign a confession linking him to Al Qaeda. He was finally released following intervention by the Canadian government. The Canadian government lodged an official complaint with the US government protesting Arar's deportation. On September 18, 2006, a Canadian public enquiry presented its findings entirely clearing Arar of any terrorist activities. In 2004 Arar filed a lawsuit in a federal court in New York against senior U.S. officials, on charges that whoever sent him to Syria knew he would be tortured by intelligence agents. US Attorney General John Ashcroft, Homeland Security Secretary Tom Ridge and FBI Director Robert Mueller are all named in the lawsuit. On October 18, 2006, Arar received the Letelier-Moffitt Human Rights Award from the Institute for Policy Studies for his ordeal. On October 18, 2007, Maher Arar received a public apology from the U.S. House of Representatives. Nevertheless, U.S. Representative Dana Rohrabacher, who also apologized, stated that he would fight any efforts to end the practice. Arar received $10.5 million in compensation from the Canadian government for pain and suffering in his ordeal and a formal apology from Prime Minister Stephen Harper.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extraordinary_rendition_by_the_United_States#Example_cases


Now what if they had killed this guy? You would have been going on about how he was a terrorist and you would have been wrong. This is why due process is necessary. You would have taken the word of the government without a stitch of evidence and you would have been wrong.

 

Nope.
I'm being silly if you can show me where in the Constitution the Military is not under the the control of the Commander in Chief or what was done against a declared enemy of the US is not allowed.

Indeed, his oath of office suggests exactly that: I, xxxxx, do solemnly swear that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic

Al Qaeda is a declared and actual enemy of the US, thus making the presidents actions as CIC to eliminate members of Al Qaeda not only legal, but expected of him.

And he is making the same mistake you are.
He is treating a MILITARY action as a CRIMINAL action.
It's not.

Nope, you agreed already that he is a member of Al Qaeda.
By definition then he is a member of a group which has declared war on the US and killed Americans and thus is indeed a Terrorist.

Arthur

 

There is no due process in war.

If there was, there might not be war.

 

How about the ones that didn't lose money due to recklessness and fraud?
We DID allow many of the institutions that were heavily involved in this to fail or get bought, (WAMU, Countrywide, Wachovia etc) but financial institutions are heavily leveraged and allowing them all to fail (like a major run on the banks) made no sense.

That's their opinion, but in the 3 years since the TARP was passed the legislation has not been found to be unconstitutional. Members of CATO are not the same as the SCOTUS.

Oh, Bullshit.
That was in Sept 29, the bill you were describing passed the house on October 3rd.

Of course they could.
They just didn't agree with you.

Bad information.
Not lies.
Big difference.
Again, if Congress disagrees they can impeach.

Which is the way our Constitution works.
You don't seem to like that aspect of it though.

Sure that's an option.
But not our only option for our Military.
Again, just because we can, doesn't mean the military has to.

We wanted the info he had is all.
But we always had the option of just taking him out.
Indeed, if we were sure he was there we might have done just that.
But we weren't.

Your logic doesn't work because you want to treat all Al Qaeda members as if they deserve a trial.
They don't.
If you are an avowed member of Al Qaeda, then there is no mistake.

In this case though we were told by the Canadians that he was possibly a member of Al Qaeda there we had no independent proof of that and so we simply deported him to Syria because the Canadians didn't want him.

Arthur

 

@Adoucette

What is the commander and chief not bound by constitutional law?

This is where I see the disconnect like some kind of a mental loop, you keep saying that because the president ordered it then it must be right, that it must be legal and it must be constitutional. Why? Because he's the president. My argument is that the president is bound by law, ethics and the principles of the constitution.

No Adoucette its not a mistake, it would be a military action if this happened or was engaged in battle. If you go after him as a someone engaged in propaganda with alleged ties to terrorists (alleged meaning yet to be proved) then it is a criminal case. This is the problem with the war on terror, all you have to do is say someone is a terrorist or has ties with terrorism and then you think you can act with impunity. Its that same line of thinking that had that poor canadian guy rotting in a foreign prison for a year because of bad intel. In the meantime you would say he what happened to him was 'collateral damage', but its not, not when you pick up some guy in kennedy airport and spirit him away to another country.

I never said he was a member of al qaeda, I said he was the pamphlet guy. He was a propagandist over the internet, everything else is simply alleged with no evidence presented. He's not a bomb maker, no proof he dealt with guns or even carried out operations, he was simply pamphlet guy.

 

@Adoucette

You mean the ones on top of the ponzi pyramid? Bailing out companies that passed on mortgages they knew to be bad risks isn't wise (moral hazard). Giving money to firms that use it to give themselves large bonuses is stupid (moral hazard). Its kind of like bending over so the rapist can fuck your ass more efficiently.

You're not reading my posts, I said after the american people stated they didn't want their tax dollars bailing out a private debt it went on to be passed, this is after Paulson went behind the scenes. In other words the people's will was subverted in the interest of the financial sector. They must be loving their bonuses!

Oh I like the constitution just fine, I'm talking about the rule of law and checks and balances. You said that if congress felt the president was off the rails that they would do something and I am saying this is obviously not true. I mean look at bush and Cheyney, or kissing, all those war criminals are still running around free.

Just because you have the power to do something doesn't mean you have to exercise that power. It goes both ways. If they were really sure of what this guy was doing they shouldn't have feared bringing him to trial. Yemen as we well know cooperates with the US on these matters and would have arrested him in a heart beat.

You said there was the option of taking him out. Taking him out for what? What did he do that was worthy of death? Next you're going to say Sam should go down in a drone attack for voicing her harsh disapproval of the US. I just think that you'll find that terrorists will feel justified in killing americans willy nilly since you don't need to be sure that the target is military or not, the fact that they're americans will suffice. And the US thinks it has the moral high ground by using the same faulty logic? That you don't have to provide evidence of wrong doing the fact that he was a jihadi propagandist is enough! Here is the definition if terrorism: The use of violence and intimidation in the pursuit of political aims.**

Note the part of the definition that says 'use of violence'? Well that's what you would have to show evidence of to make this guy a terrorist.

 

Of course.

The disconnect seems to be that you do not understand what constitutional law says about the case in question.

I mean, it's fine if you want to disapprove of what it does say or how it has been interpretted by whatever party, but you should be dealing with the actual legal issue as it is, and not in terms of innaccuracies as you have been doing. Here's a place to start:

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_...e_strikes_on_u_s_citizens_due_process_wo.html

Basically, the constitutional test applicable to Americans who are abroad and bearing arms against the USA has three parts: imminent threat to American lives, membership in an enemy combatant organization, and lack of feasible way to arrest them.

Note that such a test rules out doing any such thing inside the USA, or in any country with a credible, effective police and judiciary, because in that case arrest would be a feasible option.

The real sticking point, in my view, is what is the process for determining "imminent threat to American lives?" This seems to get established largely behind the scenes.

There's also the pertinent question: if you oppose drone-striking this guy, what would you propose doing instead?

 

@Quad

But this guy wasn't bearing arms. That's the whole point, he was a propagandist, he wasn't a foot-soldier or a bomber AND they haven't shown the slightest evidence that he was an actual member of al qaeda, he made jihadi inspired internet videos, and he spoke out against the US and its wars and he had opinions as far as what terrorists do target. For example he came out and said that the nigerian bomber should have aimed at a military target and not an airliner. He wasn't a bomber, he didn't even train at those camps in Afghanistan like Walker had. Walker even met with Bin Laden but he wasn't killed overseas, he was brought back to the States. Yemen cooperates with the US ALL THE TIME, why would they have denied them a low level cleric that they had never heard of except that he was some american guy.

I propose that the US government should have had the government of Yemen arrest and hand him over, the government in Yemen is forever leaning backward to please the war on terror administration and have been cooperative with it since back in Bush's day. Then they could have tried him in a criminal court, which may have been difficult because the administration doesn't seem to have anything against him save vague allegations of ties and connections to 'terrorists'. Now since the US government has been wrong about identifying people as having ties with terrorists in the past to the detriment of whomever is targeted I say they should show evidence, lay charges based on that evidence and allow for due process in a court of law. No one seems to identify this guy as anything but a low level cleric. The government should prove its case not set off on the precedent of assassinating US citizens by executive order without having to provide evidence or without any oversight. You guys screw up too often to be trusted with that kind of power. There are a lot of people out there who have been targeted by your government and have had their lives ruined on shoddy information. If you are going to now start killing them as well by drone no less you should have an open hand with no secrecy involved. If Putin had pulled some shit like that you people would have lost your minds. Can you imagine China going into another country and killing one of their citizens they claimed was an 'enemy of the state'? You would have Hilary two faced Clinton making speeches about human rights, rule of law and transparency and all of america would shake their heads with a tsk tsk tsk. But you guys pull a stunt like that and its 'a-ok'.