Big Brother is watching...

[BHS]

That last line about unimaginable incompetance is absurd. Where's Black Dog? I've just been handed the best example of a false dichotomy posted on this board to date.

Yup, that's a F.D. alright. The possibility does exist that Bush et al were labouring under the belief that they're intelligence was bang on. But, given the political interference in the intelligence gathering process, that possibility seems like a small one.

None of which changes the fact you're full of crap on this whole domestic surveillance thing.

Okay, so from Bush's lips to my ears. Who's orifice are you pressed up against?

Oh lookee! You didn't try to counter a single point! I look forward to your future scintillating contributions such as "I know you are, but what am I?" and the delightful couplet that begins with "I 'm rubber, you're glue."

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Oh, wait, was I supposed to reply to your missives in order? I was in the midst of writing my larger reply when you came out with this bit of wisdom.

[!!!]

So, either you've been reading posts on this forum for a while without comment (unlikely, given your style), or you've taken the time to go through my old posts (possible, but damn, you're a quick reader), or you're a current member posting under a new pseudonym (which is a little fishy too) or you're a banned member posting under a new pseudonym, in which case you'll be making a lot of posts in a hurry before the powers that be discover your TCPIP address is blacklisted and ban you again.

I'll pick "longtime member with a new identity for reasons I won't bore anybody but the moderator with (if he asks) for 200, Alex."

If you haven't been following the story lately, it turns out that it wasn't Rove or Libby who outed Plame, at least not in a manner consistent with the timeline pieced together by Fitzpatrick. Regardless of Libby's perjury, some other, as yet undetermined source was responsible for reporters knowing Plame's secret. Since Joe Wilson is remembered to have been very casual when discussing among aquaintances the details of his wife's work before going to Niger, it remains a possibility that he himself was the original source of the leak.

But you admit perjury was involved. Plame was just the MacGuffin.

But that's a discussion for another thread.

Why don't you finish your ideas before commenting about other people's judgement? FISA is all about setting up rules to permit electronic surveillance, and doesn't prohibit it.

I didn't say it did. In fact, I specifically said it allowed it:

We're talking about Bush doing an end run around FISA, which allows the government to conduct the kind of surveillance they were undertaking, provided they had a warrant.

And again, your statement misconstrues the nature of the warrant required. Yes, a special court is convened to grant the warrant, and almost never refuses to do so. Yes, a warrant can be obtained post hoc.

Which raises the question (which I already asked): "Why, given the apparatus already in place to authorize spying on Americans, did they forego the process?"

And yes, the President's legal advisors reviewed the powers granted to him after 911 and concluded the warrants weren't required in all cases. Yes, the President was dilligent in following all of the legal advice given and reviewed the situation every 45 days. Yes

And if the "legal advisers" are wrong (which they certainly appear to be)?

Yes, members of Congress from both parties were informed about this state of affairs and saw fit to go along with it, as did the New York Times itself, for more than a year.

I don't believe there was any Congressional oversight of this program. In fact, reps from both sides are saying they had no idea this kind of thing was going on. And even if they are lying and simply making the most of Bush's current low popularity, that doesn't mitigate the fact that the President authorized warrantless spying on Americans in violation of the law.

If I see you kill someone and opt not to turn you in until a year later, that doesn't make you an innocent man.

[America1]

Please, try to educate yourself on the subject that you're speaking on. To say Bush "lied" about WMDs make you look like a fool.

It is a well established fact from the various commissions that have looked into the issue. The only people who look like a fools are those who continue to insist on justifying the war in Iraq because of WMDs.

Clinton may have said that Saddam could have WMDs (as did France and other countries), however, Clinton would have recognized that intelligence reports are not necessarily accurate and committing to a expensive war based on those reports was a rash and irresponsible act.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Please name the various commisions that said Bush "lied".

-MI5

-KGB

-CIA (Tenant, a Clinton appointee said it was a slam dunk)

-Israeli Intelligence

ALL SAID SADDAM HAD WMDs

not to mention that Saddam had used them prior.

To say Bush "lied" means that all of these independent sources lied as well.

[BHS]

I'll pick "longtime member with a new identity for reasons I won't bore anybody but the moderator with (if he asks) for 200, Alex."

Very well, then. I hope it's not an issue that requires medication. (He said, in a gently amusing and non-threating manner.)

But you admit perjury was involved. Plame was just the MacGuffin.

But that's a discussion for another thread.

I couldn't care less about what the future holds for Scooter Libby. Or George W. Bush or his entire junta, for that matter. I have a set of small c conservative values that I like to espouse from time to time, and beyond that I enjoy poking sticks and bickering. Keeps me out of trouble in the real world. The fact that Libby's perjury charge has nothing to do with the substance of the case being investigated makes it kind of a waste, though.

I didn't say it did. In fact, I specifically said it allowed it:

We're talking about Bush doing an end run around FISA, which allows the government to conduct the kind of surveillance they were undertaking, provided they had a warrant.

Right, from your earlier post. Put two and two together, BHS. I need a coffee.

And again, your statement misconstrues the nature of the warrant required. Yes, a special court is convened to grant the warrant, and almost never refuses to do so. Yes, a warrant can be obtained post hoc.

Which raises the question (which I already asked): "Why, given the apparatus already in place to authorize spying on Americans, did they forego the process?"

And yes, the President's legal advisors reviewed the powers granted to him after 911 and concluded the warrants weren't required in all cases. Yes, the President was dilligent in following all of the legal advice given and reviewed the situation every 45 days. Yes

And if the "legal advisers" are wrong (which they certainly appear to be)?

Indeed. I'm assuming that question will be sorted out in the next short while.

Yes, members of Congress from both parties were informed about this state of affairs and saw fit to go along with it, as did the New York Times itself, for more than a year.

I don't believe there was any Congressional oversight of this program. In fact, reps from both sides are saying they had no idea this kind of thing was going on. And even if they are lying and simply making the most of Bush's current low popularity, that doesn't mitigate the fact that the President authorized warrantless spying on Americans in violation of the law.

If I see you kill someone and opt not to turn you in until a year later, that doesn't make you an innocent man.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

From the New York Times article that started it all (quote taken from JustOneMinute):

After the special program started, Congressional leaders from both political parties were brought to Vice President Dick Cheney's office in the White House. The leaders, who included the chairmen and ranking members of the Senate and House intelligence committees, learned of the N.S.A. operation from Mr. Cheney, Lt. Gen. Michael V. Hayden of the Air Force, who was then the agency's director and is now a full general and the principal deputy director of national intelligence, and George J. Tenet, then the director of the C.I.A., officials said.

It is not clear how much the members of Congress were told about the presidential order and the eavesdropping program. Some of them declined to comment about the matter, while others did not return phone calls.

I read something earlier today, that I'm quoting to the best of my recollection: "the Democrats have already managed to spin this story to make is sound like The President was spying on Americans, when the more accurate characterization is that he authorized spying on suspected terrorists with American citizenship."

The findings of 911 Commission were used to shrilly denounce Bush as being equal in responsibility to Clinton for the security failures that lead to the attack. Now the same smug group of Clinton admirers are angry that the President was willing to shake off the regulatory shackles his predecessors imposed, no matter how targeted and non-invasive the actions taken were. (Tell me again, who was hurt by this? How does that hurt weigh against the hurt that would be caused if terrorists were able to co-ordinate another attack free from security services' eavesdropping?)

What's worse, that the President didn't dot a regulatory i, or that the terrorists are now aware to what degree the US government is willing to go to monitor their actions?

This reminds me of the hubub leading up to the recently passed McCain amendment. It was brought up, most forcefully by Charles Krauthammer (but also by others), that there are potential situations when it would be absolutely necessary to use the most brutal interrogation tactics to get the information needed to stop an attack. How could this be squared against the proposed amendment? To which Senator McCain responded that the President should, in those limited circumstances, proceed to take the necessary actions and deal with the legal consequences later, relying on history and the good will of the American people to exonerate him. I think we're seeing a miniature, much less serious, test of that kind of situation here.

[Renegade]

With Republicans and Democrats in Congress calling for investigations into whether the secret surveillance violated laws protecting American civil liberties, a defiant President Bush said it is his duty to make sure the eavesdropping continues.

"This authorization is a vital tool in our war against the terrorists. It is critical to saving American lives," said President Bush. "The American people expect me to do everything in my power under our laws and Constitution to protect them and their civil liberties, and that is exactly what I will continue to do so long as I am the President of the United States."

from...

http://www.globalsecurity.org/intell/libra...51217-voa01.htm

A slippery slope indeed, for when rights and freedoms are curtailed in the name of rights and freedoms, you lose a bit of what you are fighting for.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I'm repeatedly disgusted by the extent the Bush administration goes to in undermining individual freedoms and rights all in the name of national security. I never supported the Patriot Act but these actions go even further. It seems that the US has become a place where "National Security" gives anyone free pass to violate constitutionally protected rights. The worst part is I think that Bush actually believes he is on the side of right. He is one dangerous man, probably more dangerous to the American People than any terrorist.

[BHS]

With Republicans and Democrats in Congress calling for investigations into whether the secret surveillance violated laws protecting American civil liberties, a defiant President Bush said it is his duty to make sure the eavesdropping continues.

"This authorization is a vital tool in our war against the terrorists. It is critical to saving American lives," said President Bush. "The American people expect me to do everything in my power under our laws and Constitution to protect them and their civil liberties, and that is exactly what I will continue to do so long as I am the President of the United States."

from...

http://www.globalsecurity.org/intell/libra...51217-voa01.htm

A slippery slope indeed, for when rights and freedoms are curtailed in the name of rights and freedoms, you lose a bit of what you are fighting for.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I'm repeatedly disgusted by the extent the Bush administration goes to in undermining individual freedoms and rights all in the name of national security. I never supported the Patriot Act but these actions go even further. It seems that the US has become a place where "National Security" gives anyone free pass to violate constitutionally protected rights. The worst part is I think that Bush actually believes he is on the side of right. He is one dangerous man, probably more dangerous to the American People than any terrorist.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

How, precisely, is freedom being underminded by eavesdropping on communications? Besides which, you don't appear to have read about this issue to the extent that this sort of thing has been happening in the US (and indeed, throughout the developed world) since the dawn of electronic communications, and is fully Constitutional. If you sincerely believe that Bush is more dangerous than, say, Timothy McVeigh, I am truly sad for you. The world must be a very scary place.

[Renegade]

With Republicans and Democrats in Congress calling for investigations into whether the secret surveillance violated laws protecting American civil liberties, a defiant President Bush said it is his duty to make sure the eavesdropping continues.

"This authorization is a vital tool in our war against the terrorists. It is critical to saving American lives," said President Bush. "The American people expect me to do everything in my power under our laws and Constitution to protect them and their civil liberties, and that is exactly what I will continue to do so long as I am the President of the United States."

from...

http://www.globalsecurity.org/intell/libra...51217-voa01.htm

A slippery slope indeed, for when rights and freedoms are curtailed in the name of rights and freedoms, you lose a bit of what you are fighting for.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I'm repeatedly disgusted by the extent the Bush administration goes to in undermining individual freedoms and rights all in the name of national security. I never supported the Patriot Act but these actions go even further. It seems that the US has become a place where "National Security" gives anyone free pass to violate constitutionally protected rights. The worst part is I think that Bush actually believes he is on the side of right. He is one dangerous man, probably more dangerous to the American People than any terrorist.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

How, precisely, is freedom being underminded by eavesdropping on communications? Besides which, you don't appear to have read about this issue to the extent that this sort of thing has been happening in the US (and indeed, throughout the developed world) since the dawn of electronic communications, and is fully Constitutional. If you sincerely believe that Bush is more dangerous than, say, Timothy McVeigh, I am truly sad for you. The world must be a very scary place.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Privacy is an important right. Does a peeping tom infringe on his victim's right?

Yes the world is a scary place. Bush is more dangerous because of scope. Bush's actions affect many more people than McVeigh or bin Laden ever could.

The Constitution sought to limit the state's powers and protect individual rights by forcing the state to resort to processes (eg a warrant) in order to infringe on individual rights. Since 9/11 the trend seems to be to take away any obstacles to infringing individual rights. This is very scary indeed because I certainly don't trust the government to respect my rights.

[America1]

I'm repeatedly disgusted by the extent the Bush administration goes to in undermining individual freedoms and rights all in the name of national security. I never supported the Patriot Act but these actions go even further. It seems that the US has become a place where "National Security" gives anyone free pass to violate constitutionally protected rights. The worst part is I think that Bush actually believes he is on the side of right. He is one dangerous man, probably more dangerous to the American People than any terrorist.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I guess by the out come of the 2004 elections, we're willing to take our chances with George W.

[BHS]

Privacy is an important right. Does a peeping tom infringe on his victim's right?

Yes the world is a scary place. Bush is more dangerous because of scope. Bush's actions affect many more people than McVeigh or bin Laden ever could.

The Constitution sought to limit the state's powers and protect individual rights by forcing the state to resort to processes (eg a warrant) in order to infringe on individual rights. Since 9/11 the trend seems to be to take away any obstacles to infringing individual rights. This is very scary indeed because I certainly don't trust the government to respect my rights.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

The American Constitution does not protect the right to privacy directly. The ongoing debate about the abortion issue is deeply rooted in this concept. It is often argued from the strict Constitutionalist standpoint that the cases of Griswold v Connecticut and Row v Wade were improperly decided, because the right to first marital privacy, and later personal privacy, had to be contrived from a particular and selective reading of prior Supreme Court decisions and not from anything directly stated in the Constitution.

A peeping tom's activities are as much a violation of property rights and security of the person as they are a violation of privacy.

Not to worry, though. Hillary will be inaugurated in 2009, and she can undo all of Bush's evil, and then everyone will love the US and all of the terrorists will go away forever.

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear BHS,

How, precisely, is freedom being underminded by eavesdropping on communications?

Surely you jest. Do you recall the title of the thread?

Corporate espionage would be rampant (moreso than it is), stalking, etc would all be legal without rights to privacy. (bear in mind, electronic surveillance is now advanced enough so that tresspassing is not required).

[sharkman]

I'm repeatedly disgusted by the extent the Bush administration goes to in undermining individual freedoms and rights all in the name of national security. I never supported the Patriot Act but these actions go even further. It seems that the US has become a place where "National Security" gives anyone free pass to violate constitutionally protected rights. The worst part is I think that Bush actually believes he is on the side of right. He is one dangerous man, probably more dangerous to the American People than any terrorist.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

These are the most laughable comments I have read in some time. The worst part is I think this guy actually believes he's right.

[!!!]

BHS:

I read something earlier today, that I'm quoting to the best of my recollection: "the Democrats have already managed to spin this story to make is sound like The President was spying on Americans, when the more accurate characterization is that he authorized spying on suspected terrorists with American citizenship."

"Suspected terrorists with American citizenship"? In another time this could just as easily read "enemies of the revolution". Now this is not to catagorically dismiss the notion that there was/is legitimate grounds for spying (I've no doubt there are radical elements at work inside the U.S.A). But the point here is that no one really knows who was being spied on and why. The fact that the Bushies were willing to ignore the legal requirements for domestic surveillance (when, as we've already discussed, it's not to hard to get a warrant), tells me something's amiss.

The findings of 911 Commission were used to shrilly denounce Bush as being equal in responsibility to Clinton for the security failures that lead to the attack. Now the same smug group of Clinton admirers are angry that the President was willing to shake off the regulatory shackles his predecessors imposed, no matter how targeted and non-invasive the actions taken were.

FISA was enacted in (IIRC) 1978, so we're not talking a product of Clinton, but a longstanding and court-tested piece of legislation designed to check the power of the executive branch. And, again, FISA's provisions are hardly rigorous

Tell me again, who was hurt by this? How does that hurt weigh against the hurt that would be caused if terrorists were able to co-ordinate another attack free from security services' eavesdropping?)

Again: we. Don't. Know. It could be terrorists. It could also be they were spying on dissidents, anti-war protestors, etc etc. The lack of judicial oversight here is a recipe for abuse.

This reminds me of the hubub leading up to the recently passed McCain amendment. It was brought up, most forcefully by Charles Krauthammer (but also by others), that there are potential situations when it would be absolutely necessary to use the most brutal interrogation tactics to get the information needed to stop an attack. How could this be squared against the proposed amendment? To which Senator McCain responded that the President should, in those limited circumstances, proceed to take the necessary actions and deal with the legal consequences later, relying on history and the good will of the American people to exonerate him. I think we're seeing a miniature, much less serious, test of that kind of situation here.

*shrugs* Well, what can you do? I guess there will always be people so goverened by fear of some otehr that they will hand over their freedoms to a benevolant power. But, as a wiser man than I said, "people willing to trade their

freedom for temporary security deserve neither and will lose both."

[Renegade]

I'm repeatedly disgusted by the extent the Bush administration goes to in undermining individual freedoms and rights all in the name of national security. I never supported the Patriot Act but these actions go even further. It seems that the US has become a place where "National Security" gives anyone free pass to violate constitutionally protected rights. The worst part is I think that Bush actually believes he is on the side of right. He is one dangerous man, probably more dangerous to the American People than any terrorist.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I guess by the out come of the 2004 elections, we're willing to take our chances with George W.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

No doubt you are right. If I was an American citizen in 2004 I may have done the same and voted for GW. I doubt I'd do the same today.

I wonder if the American people would make the same choice today as they would in 2004.

[!!!]

These are the most laughable comments I have read in some time. The worst part is I think this guy actually believes he's right.

Why laughable? Hyperbole aside, I think he hits some important points. For all the talk of terrorism, the single greatest threat to personal freedom is, and always has been, the power of the state. Terrorists can kill people, destroy buildings and sow discord, but only the state has the power to throw an entire people into bondage. What's even more disturbing is that the threat of the former brings the latter even closer to reality. And when you have examples where a government is willing to bypass the legal protections granted to the people to safeguard their fundamental rights to pursue its own agenda, well, that's some scary shit.

[America1]

I'm repeatedly disgusted by the extent the Bush administration goes to in undermining individual freedoms and rights all in the name of national security. I never supported the Patriot Act but these actions go even further. It seems that the US has become a place where "National Security" gives anyone free pass to violate constitutionally protected rights. The worst part is I think that Bush actually believes he is on the side of right. He is one dangerous man, probably more dangerous to the American People than any terrorist.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I guess by the out come of the 2004 elections, we're willing to take our chances with George W.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

No doubt you are right. If I was an American citizen in 2004 I may have done the same and voted for GW. I doubt I'd do the same today.

I wonder if the American people would make the same choice today as they would in 2004.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

well, since his poll # have been going up over the last 2 months, I'd think he's in good shape. Regardless, Kerry has already proven he is a way to weak on national security, he is pulling his "we can't win" crap that he did after vietnam again.

[!!!]

well, since his poll # have been going up over the last 2 months, I'd think he's in good shape

What polls are you reading?

[!!!]

BHS:

I came across the following while surfing around. I don't think it's related to the surveillance program in question, but it does raise some questions as to who the government is spying on:

Secret database obtained by NBC News tracks ‘suspicious’ domestic groups

The DOD database obtained by NBC News includes nearly four dozen anti-war meetings or protests, including some that have taken place far from any military installation, post or recruitment center. One “incident” included in the database is a large anti-war protest at Hollywood and Vine in Los Angeles last March that included effigies of President Bush and anti-war protest banners. Another incident mentions a planned protest against military recruiters last December in Boston and a planned protest last April at McDonald’s National Salute to America’s Heroes — a military air and sea show in Fort Lauderdale, Fla.

Other sources have indicated the OPentagon doucment also shows the Pentagon keeping tabs on GLBT groups oppossed to the military's ban on gays in the service.

Can you trust the government not to abuse their powers?

[America1]

well, since his poll # have been going up over the last 2 months, I'd think he's in good shape

What polls are you reading?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

since you probably wouldn't trust US media reports...

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4544444.stm

'Sharp rise' in Bush popularity

US President George W Bush's popularity appears to have received a significant boost from last week's Iraq elections.

[!!!]

since you probably wouldn't trust US media reports...

Yep. It looks like he got a bounce (no doubt in part due to the Iraqi elections). I wonder, though, how long happy images of finger-paint adorned Iraqis will hold up in light of these spy revalations.

[!!!]

No to distract from the substance of this story (which, for those of you just tuning in, is George Bush authorizing secret, illegal electronic surveillance of U.S. citizens), but it is interesting to see that the Times held the piece for a year rather than publish it before the 2004 election.

Damn you, left wing New York Times!!

[America1]

since you probably wouldn't trust US media reports...

Yep. It looks like he got a bounce (no doubt in part due to the Iraqi elections). I wonder, though, how long happy images of finger-paint adorned Iraqis will hold up in light of these spy revalations.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

1.) The spy revelations are only with those who were receiving calls from known Al Qaeda members, in which, I agree that they should have been looked into. Don’t forget we are at WAR. The Bush admin would have been remiss if they did not look into these calls and another attack happened.

2.) Or you could look at it that, we have hit all of our major "bench marks" and this is just one more, reinforcing that G.W does in fact have a plan and that it is working (perhaps not as well as we would like at times but, name 1 war that did go 100% as planned).

[America1]

No to distract from the substance of this story (which, for those of you just tuning in, is George Bush authorizing secret, illegal electronic surveillance of U.S. citizens), but it is interesting to see that the Times held the piece for a year rather than publish it before the 2004 election.

Damn you, left wing New York Times!!

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

-the wire tapes are not illegal.

- Note: that the author of the article is putting out a book on this subject very soon. Coincidence???

-If you think the NY Times was/is protecting the President you are out of your mind.

- On a conspiracy angle,,, the NY Times put this out the day after the Iraqi elections to possible squash any positive press that Bush might get from it (which he clearly has).

-

[!!!]

1.) The spy revelations are only with those who were receiving calls from known Al Qaeda members, in which, I agree that they should have been looked into. Don’t forget we are at WAR. The Bush admin would have been remiss if they did not look into these calls and another attack happened.

So they tell us. But there's a reason warrants and such are required and that's to ensure that the government is using its powers to fulfill its role of protecting th epeople and not, say, keeping tabs on dissenters. Without that oversight, we have to take the government at its word and, frankly, that's just stupid.

2.) Or you could look at it that, we have hit all of our major "bench marks" and this is just one more, reinforcing that G.W does in fact have a plan and that it is working (perhaps not as well as we would like at times but, name 1 war that did go 100% as planned).

Yeah...sure.

-the wire tapes are not illegal.

Yes they are, for the reasons I set out in my discussion with BHS.

- Note: that the author of the article is putting out a book on this subject very soon. Coincidence???

And this has what to do with the secret spy program?

-If you think the NY Times was/is protecting the President you are out of your mind.

Why? If this had come out before the elections last year, it could have hurt Bush's campaign. I can't think of any otehr reason why they would hold off on such a story than to help Bush (just like they helped spread Bush's WMD propaganda durin the run up to the Iraq war).

- On a conspiracy angle,,, the NY Times put this out the day after the Iraqi elections to possible squash any positive press that Bush might get from it (which he clearly has).

So lt me get this straight: you dismiss the notion that the Times conspired to hold the story when it could have really hurt Bush, but contend they conspired to publish it now (when Bush is already floundering in the polls)? How does that make any sense?

[PocketRocket]

1.) The spy revelations are only with those who were receiving calls from known Al Qaeda members, in which, I agree that they should have been looked into. Don’t forget we are at WAR. The Bush admin would have been remiss if they did not look into these calls and another attack happened.

You are at war??? Who with??? Bush said quite some time ago that the war in Iraq was over.

Is there another one I don't know of??? If so, who is the enemy???

[Shady]

There wasn't anything manifest that prevented them from sharing

Lie.

Jamie Gorelick's wall

The disclosure that Jamie Gorelick, a member of the September 11 commission, was personally responsible for instituting a key obstacle to cooperation between law enforcement and intelligence operations before the terrorist attacks raises disturbing questions about the integrity of the commission itself. Ms. Gorelick should not be cross-examining witnesses; instead, she should be required to testify about her own behavior under oath. Specifically, commission members need to ask her about a 1995 directive she wrote that made it more difficult for the FBI to locate two of the September 11 hijackers who had already entered the country by the summer of 2001

WT

Hmm, a 1995 directive. Sure sounds like something "manifest". I'd suggest that from now on, if you don't know something, don't pretend you do, liar.