| Gov. Times | 0 | |
| WaPo | 0 | |
| CNN | Dead wrong: Man attends own funeral after mix-up over body’s ID |
0 |
| Politico | 0 | |
| McClatchy | 0 |
Audacity of Truth
Brutal Honesty:
"We [the US] tax everything that moves and doesn’t move, and that’s not what we see in Pakistan."
- Sec. of State Hillary Clinton, 10/29/09
Why it was important to keep the cat in the bag
… or to put it another way, why the NSA eavesdropping leak will harm our national security. Orin Kerr at The Volokh Conspiracy explains:
3. Finally, and relatedly, the details of the program from Risen’s book arguably explains the national security interest in keeping the domestic surveillance program a secret. It’s not that terrorists may suddenly realize that they may be monitored; that argument never made much sense, as every member of Al-Qaeda must know that they may be monitored. Rather, I suspect the security issue is twofold. In the short term, terrorist groups now know that they can stand a significantly better chance of hiding their communications from the NSA by chosing communications systems that don’t happen to route through the U.S. And in the long term, some countries may react to the disclosures of the program by redesigning their telecommunications networks so less traffic goes through the United States. The more people abroad know that the NSA can easily watch their communications routed through the U.S., the less people will be willing to route their communications through the U.S. Cf. Bruce Hayden’s comment. No doubt it was a long-term priority of the NSA to ensure that lots of international communications traffic was routed through the U.S., where the NSA could have much better access to it. Indeed, Risen’s book more or less says this. The disclosure of the program presumably helps frustrate that objective.
In what was no doubt a quest to damage the President, our national security has no doubt been compromised by this leak (unlike the Lamegate non-story) in the process- which thankfully is being investigated.
Read more via Decision ‘08, Pete the Elder
Oh, and no doubt thanks to a concerted push by the media and the DC Dems, a majority of Americans now believe the President should be required to get court approval before wiretapping suspected terrorists and/or those who may be associated with them. In other words, it sounds as though a majority have been convinced that the powers that presidents past have had to protect us on the homefront should be stripped from the current President.
Happy now, Democrats? If there’s another terrorist strike, who should be blamed for it? The President – or everyone of you who have done your level best to undermine him? Why do I ask such a question? Because I know of so many Dems who believe the President was to blame for 9-11, so who would we blame for the next one? The people trying to bring down the man who is doing what he can via the powers at his disposal to fight terror? Or the man himself? Rhetorical, I know, but I’m getting disgusted at the road this appears to be headed down, and even more disgusted with the people who have pushed for it to be taken there.
Related Toldjah So posts: Related Toldjah So posts:
- The Rep. Jane Harman flip flop
- NSA initially acted on its own after 9-11
- Investigations begin into the NSA eavesdropping leak
- “… the only thing outrageous about this policy is the outrage itself”
- Michael Barone on the MSM’s ‘eavesdropping’ coverage
- Brief history of warrantless searches
- Past presidents and the NSA
- Bill Clinton and the NSA
- WSJ: “Thank you for wiretapping”
- The Prez fires back
- Prez essentially says ‘let me do my job’
- The undermining of this war
RSS feed for comments on this post.
30 Responses to “Why it was important to keep the cat in the bag”
Comments
Blogads
Disclaimer: The views expressed on this blog do not necessarily reflect those of ST's advertisers, nor do their opinions necessarily reflect ST's. Stats
No President is above the law. And if bush feels he is being stripped of power he should take his case to the Supreme Court.The only person in this administration who feels that the Presidency is an imperial authority is Dick Cheney and he got that false impression from another law breaker, Richard milldew Nixon. Peace
One last comment to Steve for awhile.
Steve, The president hasn’t broken the law in most Republicans and some Democrats opinion. It’s at the MOST… debatable.
You’ve been wrong enough too many times without any assertion of your knowledge of constitutional law to pursuade anyone here that your assertion is anything more than inaccurate. Your only pattern is to be incorrect, irresponsible, accusational and full of name calling.
Furthermore, you can’t say what ANYONE “feels” as you aren’t God. To assert that you could would be irresponsible and incorrect again.
Hope you can grow some peace because you are the furthest from peace that I’ve seen on ST’s blog. Bye.
“In the short term, terrorist groups now know that they can stand a significantly better chance of hiding their communications from the NSA by chosing communications systems that don’t happen to route through the U.S. And in the long term, some countries may react to the disclosures of the program by redesigning their telecommunications networks so less traffic goes through the United States.”
But neither of these are inferences that we need secret data to make.
If we were spying on US citizens just for the whims of W, why are steve, andrew, and ken still alive and posting?
The left has to be confronted with their follies. Make them acknowledge that they took things out of context to fabricate an attack. Force them to see the consequences of their actions.
I have this trackback to a post on where CLINTON HAD THE NSA SPY ON REPUBLICANS. Where is the same calls for investigations and jail by andrew, ken, and steve for Clinton?
LINK
As a leftie I’d stay away from this spying debate. Just like the right can’t have it both ways with regards to smaller government yet restricting a woman’s right to an abortion the left can’t say well that we’ll do a better job keeping America safe but we have to limit the ability of our security forces in the name of civil liberties. Stuff don’t work that like that.
Tommy, no need to be afraid of the right. What were the only things passed in the last 10 years on that subject? Bunch of scare mongering by the left has convinvced you of too much on more than this subject.
Er, I’m not a leftie at all (I’m a strict small-l libertarian), and I don’t know steve or his history, but at least the blurb Steve posted is correct. In america, at least historically, we are lex rex. Or, “Law is King”. Everyone, including our leaders, are subject to the law.
The fourth amendment is supposed to protect us from this:
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation
This president shouldn’t be any more or less trusted than any other president. If other presidents in the past did this, then they were in violation of the law as well, but that is not my understanding. It’s possible this is new information I haven’t seen yet, but I need more than your say so.
The president is required to get a warrant. There is even a “secret court” specifically for the purpose of handling such warrants, that is basically a rubber stamp process. If even this court won’t approve his wiretap requests then I have to say there is something definitely suspicious. However, I’d say it’s more likely that they don’t want to be bothered with due process. More than that, some people think they are beyond being questioned on matters such as this and find it a personal affront to be required to present evidence.
To my mind, these are the people who most need oversight. It is shocking to me to see the number of otherwise insightful and well-informed conservatives who are so willing to throw out the constitutional safeguards meant to protect our freedom because they happen to trust this one particular president.
Lets say for the sake of argument he is the greatest president ever known. You guys do realize he won’t be in office forever right? He only gets 2 terms. Are you that confident that there’ll never be a(nother) bad president? What are you going to do if the next president is hillary clinton, and she inherits all the powers you’ve so willingly endorsed for George Bush?
Sure the terrorists are a threat. It is highly doubtful they are smart enough to have foreseen the willingness of folks in this country to capitulate out of fear to such a radical departure to the founder’s idea of constitutional government.
If the last 200 years haven’t demonstrated the insight and wisdom of the anti-federalists, the last 5 have in a way that would make one wonder if they weren’t almost prophetic. As Patrick Henry asked, “Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery?”
Mark, go read your article 2 of the constitution again. Amendment 4 only is to protect you in CIVIL TRIALS, not to enable you to spy on this country or to plot actions against it with FOREIGN AGENTS.
Mark, look at the second post. What are your constitutional law credentials.
As long as Hillary is upholding the law and only listening to “international” calls (yes the media keeps calling them domestic calls) with terrorists, she won’t have any repercussions either.
Have you had a call with a terrorist abroad lately? If so why aren’t you proud (like I would be) that you were used as a tool to catch a terrorist? Specially since I believe and so do MANY Democrats that it is lawful foreign intelligence gathering spelled out by FISA as excluding the executive Branch.
Didn’t read that much about FISA did ya?
So..what…we now have to have 20 years in law school before we can read and understand documents written by people like you and me 200 years ago? I need to sit through ours of lectures by people who have a predisposition to liberal and anachronistic interpretations to understand the founding document of this country? I really don’t think the constitution is all that complicated. In fact I know it isn’t. Since then we’ve developed this mentality of letting lawyers write absurdly complex and incomprehensible laws, but that’s not the way we started out.
What are my credentials? I’ve read most of the works written by those who founded this country. I’ve read both the federalist and the antifederalist papers numerous times. I’ve studied locke, and smith, and Bastiat, and other contemporaries and predecessors of our founders. I’m probably more qualified to speak than most so-called constitutional scholars with their wonderfully postmodern approach to the constitution as a living document, granting permission to whatever abuse they happen to like today.
Your assertion that the fourth amendment protects only in civil trials is absurd on its face. It protects the rights of the accused in criminal trials every day in this country. Perhaps you meant it’s only to protect you in ‘domestic trials’? Again though you would be wrong. See, if you actually spent time trying to understand the intent of those who wrote the constitution, instead of assuming that the founders lived in our day, and thought the same way you do, you’d know that their belief was that the rights deliniated there are inherent to ALL PEOPLE. They are not granted, but recognized. They are restrictions on the government to attempt to prevent abuse of power. As such, the use of wiretaps on domestic citizens, even on international calls, is a grey area at best.
That said, I am curious about the assertion of the last post there. I’m interested in this issue as a general constitutional question, but I am only partially informed on the specifics of what Bush has done here. If the media is misleading in its reporting regarding who the US Government is spying on with these taps, then I’m all ears. Show me some evidence that these were only international calls. Otherwise, it’s just your word and I don’t know you well enough for that to be sufficient.
Even if that’s so, it doesn’t change the fact that the rules were that wiretaps required warrants. Warrants were not obtained. Said wiretaps were thus in violation of the law. Perhaps you all are ready and willing to abandon any pretense to the rule of law in this country, but I am not, and trying to browbeat me with some absurd notion that I have to be a constitutional scholar to have a valid opinion is just wasting your breath. If you really need an authority figure to tell you what to think, I’m sure I can dig up a constitutional scholar or two with a clue (CATO would be a good place to start probably) to tell you. I’d rather you simply listened to plain reason and made intelligent decisions for yourself.
Mark,
The truth hurts. You are a Constitutional Scholar, yet you cling to wrong opinions in the face of Constitutional Scholars saying your position is wrong. What does that say?
Maybe you ought to consider this, Josef Goebels preached about repeating a lie often enough that is becomes fact to the masses. Is that how you Democrats want to operate?
Mark wrote, “So..what…we now have to have 20 years in law school before we can read and understand documents written by people like you and me 200 years ago?
The least you can do is turn off the condescension and stop acting like you know better than anyone here that Bush broke the law. I’ve asked if you recognize that a deabte is going on and that some Democrats ACTUALLY think that Bush didn’t break the law.
You can INSIST that he did over and over again but there are scholars and lawyers who HAVE written pieces telling everyone in America why it is that Bush DIDN’T break the law. It’d be wise for you to take on their peices in some other way than discrediting them because they are from all across the spectrum politically.
The evidence as you asked in the second to last paragpraph? The evidence is Bush’s speech where and Q and A by the press afterward where he keeps correcting reporters where Bush said that it was calls only with people in the U.S. talking on an international call to a known terrorist. YET the press kept getting it wrong. You can go back to that press conference easy by going to White House.gov
The lawyers who think Bush broke the law have twisted what Bush has done to be “domestic” calls. The lawyers who think Bush didn’t break the law “give” that if Bush didn’t tell the truth and is tapping into “domestic only” calls that he’d have broken the law. But if what the NSA was doing was tapping into “international” calls as FISA spells out that Bush can do foriegn intelligence gathering perfectly plain and clear according to FISA and the constitution. I used to post the section of FISA to a guy named ANDREW a month ago but he couldn’t read. I posted it about 5 times for him. I’m actually tired on the subject and won’t do it anymore. If you want to act condescending and make INACCURATE ACCUSATIONS affirming the liberal/Democrat pattern of doing so then so be it. It’s your right.
BTW, Show me some evidence as you asked of us that they were “domestic” calls. There is no evidence in FRONT of the AMERICAN PUBLIC. We can only go on what was presented to us and what the Congress was briefed on and what the LIBERAL commentators are saying inaccurately.
It’s not just our word. It’s the evidence that exists. For you to assert otherwise is an inaccurate accusation until proven otherwise.
Another question. If you get on a flight from Dulles Airport to France is that called an “international” flight to you?
The truth hurts. You are a Constitutional Scholar, yet you cling to wrong opinions in the face of Constitutional Scholars saying your position is wrong. What does that say?
It says that I don’t go along with a lie just because lots of people believe it. If there wasn’such a vast body of work to go on, or if the topic under discussion was really complex and hard to understand, I would be inclined to doubt myself.
However, in our history, the best and brightest (often even still recognized have such) have held the same position I hold today. A mob of nitwits from some liberal university are not going to make me ignore the mountain of evidence against their position just because there are more of them than there are of me. There’s a heckuva lot more communists in China than there are republicans in the US. That doesn’t make them right.
Maybe you ought to consider this, Josef Goebels preached about repeating a lie often enough that is becomes fact to the masses. Is that how you Democrats want to operate?
-rofl- Apparently you haven’t been paying attention. I’ve never in my life been a democrat. When I was a foolish kid in High School I bought into some of the rhetoric they shoved down my throat, but that last until I was about 18 and took an interest in reading the works of history for myself.
“A mob of nitwits from some liberal university ”
Like a guy who was a cheerleader at yale?
PCD:
“If we were spying on US citizens just for the whims of W, why are steve, andrew, and ken still alive and posting?”
what kind of sense does this make?
I’ve asked if you recognize that a [debate] is going on and that some Democrats ACTUALLY think that Bush didn’t break the law.
No, actually, I just checked and you never asked me that. I’m sure some democrats do feel that way. I’m not sure what your point is. I can only assume that your mentality is such that if a political party feels a particular way, then a member of that party should also feel that way. This would be an accurate assumption for most democrats, but I’m not one. Sadly, these days, it is now also a valid assumption for most republicans.
You accuse me of being condescending, yet my post with source material and supporting arguments was met with derision and a challenge to demonstrate that I even had the right to comment on this situation. You got back what was well deserved in response.
You say later that other people you’ve spoken to couldn’t read. I’m guessing none of you can read either. Either that, or you’ve spent so much time in knee jerk reactions to posters who disagree with you here that it is overriding your good sense. So, one more time.
I am not a liberal. I am not a democrat. I am a small-l libertarian. I have about as much in common with liberals as Thomas Paine does with Karl Marx. Just because I disagree or take issue with some action on the part of a republican president doesn’t make me a democrat, or a liberal.
You can INSIST that he did over and over again but there are scholars and lawyers who HAVE written pieces telling everyone in America why it is that Bush DIDN’T break the law.
No, actually, I didn’t insist that Bush broke the law. I insisted that spying on domestic citizens IS breaking the law. There appears to be some question as to whether or not they were domestic calls. I don’t have enough information to say one way or the other on that point. I merely made the point that spying on domestic citizens without a warrant IS a violation. If he did it, then he broke the law, if he didn’t, then he didn’t. Either way, my point stands, that it is a violation.
The evidence is Bush’s speech where and Q and A by the press afterward where he keeps correcting reporters where Bush said that it was calls only with people in the U.S. talking on an international call to a known terrorist.
I’d like to see some corroberating evidence. Something other than Bush’s say so. Not because I think he’s a pathological liar like Clinton was, but because it’s an extremely serious charge, and now that it has been levelled I’d like som real evidence that the charge is false.
Another question. If you get on a flight from Dulles Airport to France is that called an “international” flight to you?
It’s an international flight. But even while on the plane, and in another country, I retain my citizenship, and my rights under US law.
andrew, I’m putting back the point you libs make all the time. Since you don’t get it, let me spell it out. If Bush was the evil dictator you on the left claim he is, and if he was directing all communications read for anti-Bush content as you on the left allege, why hasn’t he pulled a Saddam and have you treated like Uday and Qusay treated Iraqi athletes that didn’t win?
Mark wrote, “It says that I don’t go along with a lie just because lots of people believe it.
You’d rather go with an accusation with no facts to back it up. We could have a field day with that policy about you…
Mark wrote, “I just checked and you never asked me that. I’m sure some democrats do feel that way. I’m not sure what your point is”
Mark asserted incorrectly, “I can only assume that your mentality is such that if a political party feels a particular way, then a member of that party should also feel that way.
Nope. Reading comprehension bud. Not what I said. Read again. Recognize that there is a debate is what my point was.
Mark wrote, “You accuse me of being condescending”
You have been.
Mark wrote, “No, actually, I didn’t insist that Bush broke the law. I insisted that spying on domestic citizens IS breaking the law.
And that my friend is your opinion. I disagree. And the more I read FROM you the more I disagree because you MISTATE the case.
Way to be unpursuasive.
Mark wrote, “There appears to be some question as to whether or not they were domestic calls.
What evidence do you have to make this accusation?
Mark wrote, “I merely made the point that spying on domestic citizens without a warrant IS a violation.
Not if the citizens were in an international call with a terrorist. The president retains the right to gather international and foriegn intelligence and FISA excludes these activities from needing a warrant. Go READ!
Mark wrote, “I’d like to see some corroberating evidence. Something other than Bush’s say so.
Where it stands is for folks like yourself and liberals who have the same pattern of attack and accuse… you do not have the evidence to back up your accusations. To continue with your accusations without any evidence is the KEY problem here.
Mark wrote, “but because it’s an extremely serious charge,
Yes. AND in a time of war. Great going Mark ! WOOHOO! You are a winner ! Without any evidence you are making “extremely serious charges”.
Mark wrote, “It’s an international flight. But even while on the plane, and in another country, I retain my citizenship, and my rights under US law.
Yes. and your right is to be monitored when on an international call according to FISA. Game over. Go read.
Or better yet here the pertinent FISA law is:
(f) Nothing contained in this chapter or chapter 121 or 206 of this title, or section 705 of the Communications Act of 1934, shall be deemed to affect the acquisition by the United States Government of foreign intelligence information from international or foreign communications, or foreign intelligence activities conducted in accordance with otherwise applicable Federal law involving a foreign electronic communications system,
Mark is basicly wrong about the Constitution covering a US Citizen in a foreign country. The reach of the Constitution ends at the US Territorial limit. If a US Citizen breaks a law in a foreign country by doing something perfectly legal in the US, that US Citizen is going to suffer the foreign country’s punishment for breaking their law.
” The reach of the Constitution ends at the US Territorial limit. ”
Does it say that? Does that mean there is no article II power in guantanamo?
“If Bush was the evil dictator you on the left claim he is, and if he was directing all communications read for anti-Bush content as you on the left allege, why hasn’t he pulled a Saddam and have you treated like Uday and Qusay treated Iraqi athletes that didn’t win?”
Because I don’t allege that, would be the obvious answer.
Andrew, you are an advocate for terrorist’s rights to kill Americans over the Administration’s duty to protect Americans from those terrorists, plain and simple.
“Andrew, you are an advocate for terrorist’s rights to kill Americans over the Administration’s duty to protect Americans from those terrorists, plain and simple”
No no no. Only non-terrorists have the rights to kill americans. Once they’re terrorists I think they lose all their rights.
Yeesh. You people are absurdly combative. If you’re not going to read what I say, and are going to choose to be uncharitable and read it in the worst possible light then I highly doubt there is anything good that can come from having a discussion with you. I’m truly sorry I stirred your little pond.
Case in point:
Nope. Reading comprehension bud. Not what I said. Read again. Recognize that there is a debate is what my point was.
Which I did, despite your having claimed to ask me that when you did not. (You asked steve). I did so here:
There appears to be some question as to whether or not they were domestic calls.
Which got this response:
What evidence do you have to make this accusation?
For the sake of your argument, I granted that what you said was true, that there is a debate, and that it is possible that they may not have been domestic calls. In response, you ask ME what my evidence is.
Yes. AND in a time of war. Great going Mark ! WOOHOO! You are a winner ! Without any evidence you are making “extremely serious charges”.
Oh, yes, of course. In a time of war we dare not ever address charges that have been made against the president. Heaven knows that war is cart blanche for a president to do whatever the hell he wants w/out worrying about facing charges. That’s a brilliant idea.
And just one more time, not that anyone will actually listen. I’m not making the charges. However, the charges HAVE been made, and so I want to know if they are true or not. Given that the charges are against the president, I’d like to have something more than just his word they are not, however much I may not trust the media as a whole in this country.
Frankly, you people scare me. Conservatives in this country used to be for things like ’smaller government’, ‘rugged individualism’, and ‘personal responsibility’. In fact, I can even remember when this was the case…why..it was before they swept into power during the contract with america. Then they got that taste of power, and here we are. And the republican party that used to be full of individualists who held their own party to a certain standard, now seems to be suffering from the same sort of groupthink and idolotry that we always made fun of the left for. It truly is a sad display.
“Liberty is not a means to a higher political end. It is itself the highest political end…liberty is the only object which benefits all alike, and provokes no sincere opposition…The danger is not that a particular class is unfit to to govern. Every class is unfit to govern…Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.” –Lord Acton
Mark is basicly wrong about the Constitution covering a US Citizen in a foreign country. The reach of the Constitution ends at the US Territorial limit. If a US Citizen breaks a law in a foreign country by doing something perfectly legal in the US, that US Citizen is going to suffer the foreign country’s punishment for breaking their law.
It is correct that the constitution doesn’t protect me from punishment for violating the local laws of that country. However, just because I”m in that country doesn’t mean that the governement is no longer restricted in regards to me. They can’t send someone to arrest me, try me secretly, and execute me without due process just because I’m no longer on american soil. I’m still an american, with all of the rights and privileges that that entails.
Mark wrote, “In a time of war we dare not ever address charges that have been made against the president.
Yep. Because they are baseless accusations without evidence. If you have evidence I welcome anyone to come to the table so that we can start criminal proceedings. Your pattern of accusations without evidence is not enough (especially during war time) to even warrant a discussion.
Mark wrote again, “Heaven knows that war is cart blanche for a president to do whatever the hell he wants
You know Mark. This is easy. You make it hard. NOBODY is saying the pres can do whatever the hell he wants. What they are saying is that your accusation that they were domestic calls and therefore against the law is INACCURATE. He was following the law and you have no evidence otherwise.
Mark wrote, “I’m not making the charges.
Nope. Just irresponsibly repeating them.
Mark wrote, “the charges HAVE been made
Without evidence presented to back them up.
Mark wrote, “I’d like to have something more than just his word they are not
Mark raped me. No evidence. Just the accusation. Is that irresponsible or not. Yes. So… you tell me Mark.. will you learn that your pattern is irresponsible or not?
Mark wrote, “Frankly, you people scare me”
You scare me too. Good discussion point. Let’s dwell on this. Mark scares me because in a time of war he is interested in making serious charges against the president (or repeating them) without evidence. According to what’s been stated by the President, constitutional lawyers (including Democrats) have stated that the activity is legal. Mark knows better I guess.
Mark: and ‘personal responsibility’.
How are you being personally responsible again? Oh yeah. You aren’t.
Mark wrote, “Then they got that taste of power, and here we are.
Conservatives aren’t really in power Mark. This country has moved LEFT every year for over 6 decades. While the left is going bonkers they don’t realize that both parties are to the left of center and you as an extremist (libertarians want an 80% cut in government) want to get on conservatives when we are centrists who can’t even get a FREEZE in the size of government.
Mark: and idolotry
How about Setting the Record straight from irresponsible people making accusatios without merit and no evidence. I don’t agree with Bush probably 1/2 the time and yet you want to ASSERT idolotry. More irresponsible rhetoric from ya!
Mark wrote, “Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.”
I agree with ya. Unfortunately, conservatives have been VERY frustrated as we can’t get our ideas or policies or solutions even discussed. The left has been in charge for over 6 decades. The change to Republicans has not moved the country to the center or right. Hope you agree. Hope you tone it down…
Andrew keeps missing this text I see:
Or better yet here the pertinent FISA law is:
(f) Nothing contained in this chapter or chapter 121 or 206 of this title, or section 705 of the Communications Act of 1934, shall be deemed to affect the acquisition by the United States Government of foreign intelligence information from international or foreign communications, or foreign intelligence activities conducted in accordance with otherwise applicable Federal law involving a foreign electronic communications system
“Or better yet here the pertinent FISA law is:
(f) Nothing contained in this chapter or chapter 121 or 206 of this title, or section 705 of the Communications Act of 1934, shall be deemed to affect the acquisition by the United States Government of foreign intelligence information from international or foreign communications, or foreign intelligence activities conducted in accordance with otherwise applicable Federal law involving a foreign electronic communications system”
Didn’t I already address that? That’s in title 18. Does it talk about what title 50 prohibits? Title 50 contains FISA.
One law doesn’t matter to you? Pray tell why?