Court of Appeals Rules <I>For</I> Bush's Illegal Wiretapping
How much you wanna bet that we won't hear a peep from the rightwing about "activist" judges?
ACLU:
In a 2-1 decision, the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals today dismissed a legal challenge to the Bush administration's warrantless surveillance program. The challenge was brought by the American Civil Liberties Union on behalf of prominent journalists, scholars, attorneys and national nonprofit organizations who say that the unchecked surveillance program is disrupting their ability to communicate effectively with sources and clients.
Even though the plaintiffs alleged a well-founded fear that their communications were subject to illegal surveillance, the court dismissed the case because plaintiffs could not state with certainty that they had been wiretapped by the National Security Agency.
Like that? The plaintiffs have no standing because they can't prove they've been wiretapped by the most secretive administration in history. The legality of the wiretapping itself was not at issue--it's already been declared unlawful--but until you can prove they've done it, you're completely out of luck.
The sad thing is, if there was evidence that would prove they were wiretapped, it would probably be inadmissable in court due to "National Security." :-(
The title ""Court of Appeals Rules For Bush’s Illegal Wiretapping" is just plain wrong, it's the kind of thing that you'd expect to see on Faux News. The court did not rule for Bush's program. The law needs to be updated to handle situations like this - that's not the court's fault, that's the fault of Congress.
Yup, Sixth Circuit. Fucking figures.
equilibrio @ 1:
You can be sure Gonzalez's DoJ would argue exactly that.
They have no standing because they can't prove they've been wiretapped. Catch-22!
Next up - George Bush invents perpetual motion.
Surely they have further options, wonder what those would be. I doubt they'll just shut up and go home. We'll hear more about this.
bentmaTricks @ 7:
They should talk to Congress. Prior to the election, Specter said that Congress could pass a law granting itself standing to sue. Let Congress do that.
I agree with comment 2. Perhaps a more accurate title that still captures the frustration would be "Court of Appeals Upholds Bad Law in Ruling For Bush's Illegal Wiretapping." There's a reason the brain-dead at Fox News phrase things they way they do, and I hope C&L could continue to resist the sleazy way out.
bentmaTricks @ 7:
I was thinking the same thing. The net is cast so far and wide, and this administration is, to put it kindly, a sloppy bunch. Someone with standing will come forth soon enough.
This is less of a concern than the ever-obvious fact that the United States of America simply can no longer be trusted to lead the free world. This outcome is independent of which party is in power. You are a rogue state, and the rest of us now need to figure out how to defend ourselves from you.
Technicality on issue of standing.
Domestic spying without oversight is the road to tyranny.
...
Hold on a second. If they have an AT&T account...and AT&T was involved in this program, they can be certain they were tapped, and their bill will prove their standing.
Repeat.
If their phone company was involved and they were clients of that phone company, they were tapped.
Next case.
AConfederacyofDunces @ 12:
Some would call a warrant a technicality. You really don't want to go there...
Well this is in line with every other crime the Bush regime has committed. The prevailing attitude by the administration is "Prove we did it, bitches!"
If a person has nothing to hide, that person has nothing to fear.
Are we clear?
I'm sure this is naive of me, but every time another 'buahaha' roadblock such as this is tossed across the path, I nurture a small hope that the next administration might feel as though they might get a chuckle or two from releasing all manner of evidence and seeing some folk hang. Figurativelyish.
Glenn Greenwald talks about this at major length in his post today. Very long and lawyerly, but a really good explanation of it all.
LongTooth @ 16:
Oh puhleez!
With the Cheney administration EVERYONE has something to fear.
LongTooth @ 16:
Then you don't mind if I listen to all your phone conversations then do you?
IRT Topic:
The Dems in Congress need to show backbone and crack down on this stuff instead of leaving citizens to fend for themselves. We put them in office for a reason.
Nanderson @ 13:
Good luck trying to subpoena AT&T's phone records. I wouldn't put it past the Bush regime to classify all the phone company records.
That's OUR UNALIENABLE RIGHTS the court is trampling on. The court has lost it's legitimacy. WE THE PEOPLE are sovereign. We created a government to secure the blessings of liberty. This government is tyrannical, and trying to RULE rather than SERVE the people.
Congress won't rescue us. So, WE THE PEOPLE will take matters back into our own hands. We won't cooperate. We'll demand that this illegitimate government step down. And it will. Because without the active support of the people, it's absolutely impotent.
Wait. Watch. See.
Part of the problem with all these rightwing judges is that you can't fire 'em, and it's against the law to shoot 'em. Guess we'll just have to castrate 'em...maybe that'll gentle 'em down a bit. But if that doesn't do the trick, we may have to resort to something truly drastic. Either way we clearly can't live with these SOBs pulling this shit. I suspect when we hit rock bottom even they'll be so embarrassed they'll act as if they never heard of bush/cheney...kinda like old Nazi's.
And how much you want to bet that the 5 right-wing activist asshole idiots on the supreme court affirm this piece of shit?
Nanderson @ 13:
Really? Can you prove that?
Your position sounds like Cheney's "It's been pretty well confirmed..."
And....everyone is surprised by this?
Hitler wasn't defeated in six months either.
Keep fighting the Christofascists.
Fox news producer in "Orwell rolls in his grave," if you didn't hear about it did it happen. The ACLU didn't hear it, it must not have happened.
http://myfightfordemocracy.blogspot.com/2007/07/new-declaration-of-indep...
LongTooth @ 16:
If the Bush administration has done nothing wrong then why do they keep hiding it?
Of course this decision had to come from my hometown,Cincinnati,Ohio,"the Breadbasket of Corprochristofascism."How about those Reds?
So glad those newly elected Dems made a difference.
booo
Swashbuckler,
How is it that every one of your opinions lead to either: a) congress should do something about it; or b) those who filed the suit definitely have something to hide because they filed the suit?
On the former, the Court of Appeals did rule for Bush’s illegal wiretapping. Innocent until proven guilty is one thing, but innocent with no trial, despite reasonable cause is quite another. What the court basically said was that the plaintiffs had no grounds on which to take the case to trial, and one needn't offer proof-positive to get lawsuits to trial. You see, just the idea that unathourized and unknown monitors might be surveilling could easily alter behavior--in the same way that you hit the brakes when you see a cop even if you are not speeding--and that is the point being made here: the illegal program could possibly be improperly influencing those who have somewhat of a responsibility to act as watchdogs in our society. Now, that question may never be asked. The court does not need the approval of Congress to understand that, just some brains and intestinal fortitude.
On the latter, I think your bravado is a little over-the-top -- even for bravado. Beyond the "they must have something to hide" insinuation, you suggest "there is nothing to see here" WRT to the illegal wiretapping program. Your logic says, "Hey kids, do not look over there -- Look everywhere!" which basically attempts to diffuse the particular situation out into a larger web about which very little can be done all at once. That is, deconstructing this whole mess begins with small issues like this, but by your logic, it is insignificant.
I think you understood all of this completely. Please tell me how I am incorrect.
This isnt suprising. Its exactly what everyone said would happen when the case was brought.
What has been almost completely ignored is that the government suppression of knowledge of the illegal wiretapping program is in direct violation of the First Amendment. The New York Times waited one year to publish this information due to state coercion and threats. Gonzales argued that journalists should be prosecuted for relating this information. The US government has absolutely turned on its own people. And some of you are still placing your faith in the Democratic Party. How much inaction on these issues can you stand until you wake up? This is over.
The attack on our liberties and security by the cheney/bush administration has been insidious, carried out so slowly as to go un-noticed by most of us. The attack has been relentless and most detailed however, and is IMHO, approaching its culmination.
Do not forget that bush recently signed into law a provision that would allow him to become the "Unitary Executive", should the country be attacked by terrorists within its own borders. Also, do not forget that we have already had one such attack - the 9-11 incident (which some feel strongly may have been "allowed", if not orchestrated, by officials within the country). Another of these attacks, and cheney/bush could legally declare the suspension of all civil liberties and the overt institution of a DICTATORSHIP - with the chimperor at the helm.
Watch carefully what is happening over the next 1.5 + years. The ideal time to claim unitary powers would be just prior to the upcoming 2008 elections, expecially since it seems that the Republic Party will be handed their balls for dinner - due to the major lack of approval of what cheny/bush are doing.
The current administration must be stopped, before they can totally destroy the republic. Impeach, Indict, Try, Imprison, and Execute the Sentences - before it is too late.
Swashbuckler Says:at 25
Nanderson @ 13:
If their phone company was involved and they were clients of that phone company, they were tapped.
Really? Can you prove that?
Your position sounds like Cheney’s “It’s been pretty well confirmed…”
Yes I can prove it. The phone records exist and they have been accessed for criminal investigations in the past. Therefore they are available and it becomes a proveable event. "...pretty well confirmed..." doesn't meet that standard. The phone records have no connection to national security and should be called into court as evidence. Of course the admin won't allow this, but any reasonable person would say,"...tis true."
Glenn Greenwald has indicated in his latest article that Congress can enable or even compel the court to rule on the legality of the warrantless eavesdropping program.
But with the present Congress, fat chance.
However, maybe we can get a worker at AT&T who has the clearances to provide the court with the evidence of the wiretaps...and then accept the sentence of life imprisonment for releasing classified information. /sarcasm
Just read Franz Kafka's "The Trial" and you'll understand everything you need to know about Conservative jurisprudence. In it, the character named Josef K., awakens one morning and, for reasons never revealed, is arrested and subjected to the rigors of the judicial process for an unspecified crime. In a similar fashion to K, the plaintiffs in this case are told that they have no grounds to sue because they cannot prove that they have been the victims of unwarranted wiretapping by the Bush regime. The only reason they can't prove it is because the government has held that such information is a state secret. Cut off from access to information that may prove that they are being victimized by the Bush regime by that same regime is what we commonly describe as Kafkaesque. It is a distortion of any fairness or equality before the law that is the hallmark of a totalitarian regime.
Does anyone seriously doubt that the Bush regime used this program to spy on the Democrats and other domestic opposition? Why else would they need to evade FISA? No explanation that they have offered up holds water.
Judges are only activisist if they don't agree with the lunatic fringe!
Welcome to the police state.
SEIG HEIL! SEIG HEIL! SEIG HEIL!
It is the fear that a conversation is being wiretapped that causing people to feel they are not able to speak privately. Normally such fear would be considered tin foil hat thinking because we have the judicial branch to provide oversight on such intrusions.
Six Circuit ruling sounds like they wish to wash their hands of such matters.
RancidVenison @ 32:
It doesn't. I never claimed they had anything to hide.
Given the current law, the court's decision was legally correct IMO (IANAL). The flaw is not in the court's decision, but in the law that the court had to follow. Thus, if the flaw is in the law, then Congress needs to remedy that flaw. After all, legislation begins in Congress.
No, they didn't. Someone else already posted a link to an article by Glenn Greenwald on this subject - I suggest you read it.
That's exactly what they said.
No, what the court needs is a law that allows them to consider that when making their decision.
Dude, I know it's a Saturday night, but you need to quit drinking. I never said that; I never implied it; Nor do I believe it.
Well, since you don't understand my position, your view of my logic is questionable at best.
The law is about process. It's the legislature's job to create a process that courts can follow that will result in justice. Sometimes the legislature doesn't anticipate things, e.g. something as evil as the Cheney administration. It is not a court's job to come up with "the right result" (whatever that may be), it's a court's job to apply the law. The problem here is that you want the court to come to the "correct" conclusion and ignore the law. It's logic like that gets our civil rights trampled. It's logic like that that the Cheney administration uses to ignore laws such as FISA to spy on whoever they want to spy on.
I just have.
Nanderson @ 36:
Well shit, then the ACLU, et.al. can get those records and present them to a judge. Given that didn't happen, I suspect your "proof" doesn't exist.
If you want "proof". You have to bait them. I recall a scene in a WW11 movie where an intell officer allowed the Japanese to intercept a message indicating the fresh water conversion unit on Wake Island was down. When they intercepted the Japanese passing the info up, the intell people had "proof" of the Japanese intent to invade Wake Island.
Bill @ 45:
That was Midway, not Wake.
gotta pick your courts carefully.
Bush Bites @ 27:
Dude, I'm with you that these guys are fascists. But it gets more and more insulting to associate Christ with them. Yes it is they who waved the flag of Christianity to get elected. But that doesn't in and of itself make them bad. It's their woeful, willful, and dishonest hypocrisy that makes them so bad. If they indeed behaved in a manner Christ taught, then they wouldn't be the creeps they are. So I prefer to call them Anti-Christofascists.
Semantics.
As for this ruling, I'm not sure how I feel about it yet ... maybe some of you can help.
If the police were to show up at my door tomorrow and accuse me of a terrorist act, I'd like to think they couldn't haul me off just because I could have (yes, I know Cheney/Bush would have it that way if it were up to them). I'd like there to be at least a crime that I could have possibly committed, instead of an unknown crime I may have committed or may commit in the future.
My point is, doesn't there have to be some crime to begin with? Unless I misunderstand, these plaintiffs aren't filing suit to challenge the administration's overall shitty policies--which needs to be done. They're specifically claiming that damage has been done to them. I would argue that the plaintiffs should be able to exhibit some level of crime ... not just the fear of one in order for this to be actionable. They don't have to prove who did it; but shouldn't they have to show that at least something was done to them? Phone company records or some sort of electronic means to show that one's line has indeed been tapped ... something has to be out there.
It's kind of like getting arrested for breaking into the neighbors house, when nobody can even show any evidence that the neighbors house was broken into. Yes, these fascists are crooks and assholes. I just think that a better case exists out there where there is some good research and history of wrongdoing to be brought.
Here's a guy that can prove he was under surveillance. The Feds accidentally gave him a transcript of the wire taps they made (marked "top Secret"). So he does have standing and is going to sue.
http://www.wired.com/science/discoveries/news/2007/03/72811?currentPage=all
LongTooth @ 16:
I hope you're being facetious - otherwise you're terribly naive.
This is not over. It is a minor setback, but the NSA will either show the documents or risk being completely dismantled through the power of amendments. Leahy will get to the bottom of it.
Like it or not, "standing" is a hurdle that a federal court cannot simply overlook for "really bad cases."
Ask any first-year law student, and they'll confirm that a case requires 1) an actual controversy, 2) a plaintiff with standing (injury, causation, remedy), 3) a question neither unripe or moot, and 4) no political questions.
Ask anybody involved in environmental or animal law - standing can be a real bitch!
Time to overthrow the corrupt group that supports warrantlesss wiretapping in any respect, including the judiciary. I would prefer a tar and feathering of these 2 judges.
Let's start here before moving on to your other baseless, snarky, and ad hominem comments:
Swashbuckler @ 43:
Arrest, Indict, Impeach. And yes judges most certainly can be impeached.
Arrest, Indict, Impeach--Bu$h, Dickless Cheney, Condom Rice, Rummyfeld, etc.
It should be extremely obvious that the bought and paid for Cuntgress whores will not do the job. Read the Constitution people. We The People have not only the RIGHT, but the DUTY to abolish a government that has become completely corrupt and despotic.
"If a person has nothing to hide, that person has nothing to fear." You are either the most naive poster or the most stupid one. Would you mind much if we all listen in on all of your phone calls, install a webcam in your bedroom and bathroom, etc? Get a grip on reality!!!
I am blogger, hear me roar!
We have a Catch - 22.
The only way to get standing would be for an insider to provide documents identifying a particular person or persons. A document dump, similar in scope to the Pentagon Papers, would be a great place to start.
Dream on ...
This is absurd. The ACLU brought a case against the government requesting that they cease doing something that they arent doing. Absurd.
How would the order be written? The court orders you to not do what you arent doing.
You will need to be smarter than that. If the surveillance has been ruled illegal then it is unavailable for protection from discovery under any legal theory. Start filing FOIA's, they cant object to protect that which is illegal. If you dont know what to request in the FOIA, then you would have no basis for a case in court.
You can only use fears in court if the fears are predicated on something that is extant and known - like say a tall pole in the neighbors yard that you fear may fall. You cant allege a fear of a non-existent pole that - should it exist - might fall.
Perhaps there should be some extensive "stings" set up to trap the administration into using information where the only possible way the information could have been gotten was by eavesdropping. That would accomplish two things, show their hand and make information gained this way too risky to use.
As a comment - please stop calling hypocrisy. They arent hypocrits. They are Zero Sum Social Darwinists (ZSSD) - which means winning to them is everything. Its all about obtaining the objective and defining the win as achieving the objective and causing you to lose. They have and will do anything to 'win' - including lies and inconsistent statements. By wasting time on such things you give them the advantage. People like this will never lament 'oh why did I lie' when confronted by evidence. Instead, they will counter with another lie. They are quite good at this and can do it spontaneously.
My sisters ex-husband was like this. When he wanted to go see his girl friend he would make a statement which he knew my sister would disagree with; the sun wont rise tomorrow. He would take her comments as an assault (of course the sun will rise tomorrow) and leave the house in a fit of feigned anger claiming she had driven him out. Of course he went straight to his girl friend - understand he blamed my sister for the whole thing. If she ever called him on it he would lie and blame her again. Clinton is often used by these thugs in a similar way. Its all lies. They know it, we know it. (Most of us know it).
ZSSD's go like a laser towards their objective. You must ignore side issues. You must identify their objective, identify their route to it and block them.
Accusing them of hypocrisy (after wasting time) gives them the option of deflecting you again with another lie - which will lead you to waste even more time. Meanwhile, they will be getting nearer to their objective.
It isnt hypocrisy, its tactical. And it works.
They need to be exposed for what they are and blocked.
I want some of what anon is smoking! :O
soothsayer @ 60:
Whatever that means.
Its not even ad hominem - more like ad humina humina.
"Start filing FOIA’s!"
That's the best line I've heard all day! You do realize that under the Bush administration the time to get a FOIA request responded to has multiplied by a factor you wouldn't believe. We'll get that to you about 2020 is their response. You are so uninformed it is amazing. Are you seriously that stupid at this point? Do you not understand that they are subverting our government and have given a roadblock for a future coup at some point. They have shown how it can be done. We might stop it this time, but the groundwork has been laid. We all know now how it can be done. Our constitution offers no real protection. We all thought it did, but we were wrong. They have used our apathy to the utmost. That is our downfall, the apathy of people like you. Your attitutde is that there is no way they can be doing something this bad, so don't look for it!
LongTooth @ 16:
The same could be said of the Bush administration.
Remember that Bush himself personally blocked an investigation into his warrantless wiretapping program:
In July 2006 it was revealed that the Office of Professional Responsibility in the Justice Department — the office "responsible for investigating allegations of misconduct involving Department attorneys" — repeatedly attempted to investigate whether DOJ lawyers acted improperly concerning their role in the President's warrantless eavesdropping program, but finally stopped their investigation because the President refused to give them the security clearances they needed to conduct the investigation.
Yet the President had no problem giving clearance to individuals, some who where civilians, when he wanted to find out who had leaked information regarding the warrantless wiretapping program to the public.
Of course Bush couldn't let the OPR investigate; they would have surely found out what we recently learned, and that is that despite Bush and Gonzales telling us that there were no disagreements about the program within the administration and the WH lawyers were telling him that the program was legal, there were indeed disagreements serious enough that (1) the legality was questioned, and (2) several members, including John Ashcroft, considered resigning due to the program.
If Bush has nothing to hide, and the warrantless wiretapping program is perfectly legal and Bush has the law on his side, then he has nothing to fear.
Are we clear now?
Aliens are listening to my phone calls. Sometimes they break in a tell me what Tom Cruise and John Travolta are up to. Usually when shit is going wrong on their planet they blame the jews. Its pretty weird.
Isn't there another lawsuit where they actually have information that the plaintiffs were listened in on? I recall reading that the information was accidentally released, and then the govt petitioned the court to get it back and pretend it never existed. Maybe I'm wrong. Anyone have info on that?
I keep trying to get supporters of Bush and the warrantless wiretapping program to answer this one tiny contradiction:
Bush says he can't go to the FISA court when one end of the call is outside the U.S., because there just isn't enough time and we need to act quickly to monitor a terrorist in case an attack is planned.
Yet when monitoring a domestic-domestic call (which obviously could easily involve one terrorist talking to another), Bush says he goes to the court for a warrant. Thus...
Domestic-international call: no time, must act quickly, terrorist might get away.
Domestic-domestic call: go to FISA court, time to get warrant is no problem.
A reporter once caught this contradiction; here's how it played out (from http://www.lp.org/printer_253.shtml) (highlights are mine):
On thinkprogress.org and here on C&L I've presented this situation on numerous occasions, and generally do not get any response from the Bush-loving trolls. The other day I did (on TP), and this was his explanation: calls with an international aspect are much more difficult to wiretap, and thus Bush must bypass FISA.
Thoughts?
Where's Paul in LA on this issue?!
The die-hard "everything is under control", "Bush has failed", "Impeachment bad" Democrat is what's wrong with this country. Party before country is all these people are all about. Where are the democratic presidential candidates on this issue?!
Peaverok @ 62:
Hey buddy, fuck you and your personal attacks ... OK?
Here are your options asshat ... work within the law or get a gun ... you choose. I choose to work within the law. I dont think you would have much luck with Gonzales, so FOIA is about what you have. FOIA's are being services - ask Melanie Sloan - it may not be fast but it is all that is available.
And fuck you for trying to use me as a strawman ... you cant support any of your assertions about what I do or dont think. You dont know me asshole or what I think in any detail.
Apathy, me? Piss off kid.
Site monitors, do your goddamn job please.
"Arrest, Indict, Impeach–Bu$h, Dickless Cheney, Condom Rice, Rummyfeld, etc."
While I agree with the first half of the thought... so we HAVE to use the insipid nicknames? It's soooo Rush Limbaugh.
RancidVenison @ 54:
Oh puhleez!
No and no.
Freedom and liberty are dying in this country.
It is funny, but "standing" has always been a tool used by the conservative wing of the court to throw out cases that they do not either a) want to address or b) think are worthy of addressing. The beginning of the 'standing' framework came in Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife where, surprise surprise, Scalia laid the groundwork and threw out a claim from environmentalists against actions the government were taking that were threatening to further the extinction of a number of different species. Anyway, point is, standing is a tool used by the right time and again to surpress or ignore claims by certain parties. It is no surprise that they would use that again here. If this gets appealed, let's hope that Kennedy comes through and agrees to have the case heard. If not, it could be a long while before this case sees the light of day.
Unless, that is, someone wants to be a test case and start calling their buddy to see if the NSA is listening. If the Man shows up at their door, they will probably have a claim.
This falls into one of the other RepubliCON arguments I'be heard lately. Basically unless you've been personally affected by the dimishment of civil liberties and rights you cannot say that this administration has taken any away and shredded the constitution.
But one cannot find out whether one has been the subject of any investigation, wire tapping, seek and peek because any civilian who knows (like a librarian, your next door neighbor) has been threatened with imprisonment if they tell you.
This is a very slippery slope. As with criminal cases, the burden of proof is on the one bring the suit. Unless, the plaintiff can get a res ipsa loquitur (things speak for themselves) ruling to shift the burden to the defense, the ruling is in line with law. I don't think this country would like to see criminal law changed to guilty until proven innocent; and for anyone that has ever been on the defense side of a lawsuit, it certainly helps when plaintiffs are required to prove their case and their damages. The court is not saying people can't sue. It is just saying the components to bring the suit have not yet been met......no evidence.
This is only a minor setback. The ACLU does not give up easily, and it's only a matter of time before someone files another suit.
Catch-22, or what??
It's impossible to prove to a court that the illegal, SECRET government spying program has violated your rights, because the program is SECRET, and therefore immune from scrutiny, accountability or rules of evidence.
Circular logic like this would appear to be illogical, but in the War on Terror . . .
War is Peace
Love is Hate
and pigs can fly.
How can anyone trust EITHER political party--any outrage over this is at best anemic and at worst pretense.
Since both political parties are funded by big money, seeing the solution in terms of "who" wins the White House in 2008 is just as facile as seeing a solution in the 2006 victory in Congress.
Republicans and Democrats are two sides of Ceasar's same coin--Republicans are just the backside.
What we need is someone among the men in black growing a conscience and bringing to light a modern era 'Pentagon Papers' expose. Of course, that someone would have to go to Britain to get them published, since the US press has become an organ of the repuglican party.
So let me get this straight. The 2 Republicans were activist judges but the democrat who voted against is not?
Moon @ 74:
I respectfully disagree. I believe that the court is not even allowing the plaintiffs to get into court to even have their case heard. The burden shifting that you refer too happens after the parties are joined in court. Standing is a threshold issue. Without it, you cannot even bring your case to light. As I mentioned above, if this were another issue, the plaintiffs might well be able to claim the same injury and be allowed to have their case heard. Because it is a politically sensitive subject and, arguably, one that is 'liberal', the court has no problem with throwing it out for lack of standing. The ACLU should have filed in the 9th Circuit.
Comments are closed on this entry