Bradley Manning: Traitor?

[BigBallinStalin]

What is my view of morality?

You appear to be advocating that any action can be justified by claiming "morality". That is not a view I can agree with.

Moral thought or ethics and virtues aren't a strong point of mine, but can't one's concept of morality be used to justify the actions of their own group?

[SirSebstar]

i dont think you can just pick and choose what morals you live by, they have to be obvious, driving forces of an entire group.

[Haggis_McMutton]

I should have specified, I meant ask john mccain and pows about torture meaning their nails being ripped out, limbs repeatedly broken for years, watching friends die off one by one wondering when its your turn,living in cages in the jungle, those sort of things. I have no doubts confinment would do terrible things for the human mind and does more harm then good considering the return rate of convicts and the well documented mental issues they have.

Absolutely and I understand your point, but all I'm saying is that McCain and other POWs said that solitary confinement was the worst part.

The quote again:

“It’s an awful thing, solitary,” John McCain wrote of his five and a half years as a prisoner of war in Vietnam—more than two years of it spent in isolation in a fifteen-by-fifteen-foot cell, unable to communicate with other P.O.W.s except by tap code, secreted notes, or by speaking into an enamel cup pressed against the wall. “It crushes your spirit and weakens your resistance more effectively than any other form of mistreatment.” And this comes from a man who was beaten regularly; denied adequate medical treatment for two broken arms, a broken leg, and chronic dysentery; and tortured to the point of having an arm broken again. A U.S. military study of almost a hundred and fifty naval aviators returned from imprisonment in Vietnam, many of whom were treated even worse than McCain, reported that they found social isolation to be as torturous and agonizing as any physical abuse they suffered."

Reading the whole article changed my mind about a lot of things I assumed about long term solitary confinement. It's up to you if you find it worth your time- as I said, it's long. I would recommend it though.
Is Long Term Solitary Confinement Torture

That was a very interesting article.
I think it might deserve it's own thread.

[Hannibał]

I second that haggis.. I'm still not done though..After the bruins smash toronto I will continue. Thankyou for the link Symmetry

[Juan_Bottom]

And he was never able to continue again.

[Symmetry]

I should have specified, I meant ask john mccain and pows about torture meaning their nails being ripped out, limbs repeatedly broken for years, watching friends die off one by one wondering when its your turn,living in cages in the jungle, those sort of things. I have no doubts confinment would do terrible things for the human mind and does more harm then good considering the return rate of convicts and the well documented mental issues they have.

Absolutely and I understand your point, but all I'm saying is that McCain and other POWs said that solitary confinement was the worst part.

The quote again:

“It’s an awful thing, solitary,” John McCain wrote of his five and a half years as a prisoner of war in Vietnam—more than two years of it spent in isolation in a fifteen-by-fifteen-foot cell, unable to communicate with other P.O.W.s except by tap code, secreted notes, or by speaking into an enamel cup pressed against the wall. “It crushes your spirit and weakens your resistance more effectively than any other form of mistreatment.” And this comes from a man who was beaten regularly; denied adequate medical treatment for two broken arms, a broken leg, and chronic dysentery; and tortured to the point of having an arm broken again. A U.S. military study of almost a hundred and fifty naval aviators returned from imprisonment in Vietnam, many of whom were treated even worse than McCain, reported that they found social isolation to be as torturous and agonizing as any physical abuse they suffered."

Reading the whole article changed my mind about a lot of things I assumed about long term solitary confinement. It's up to you if you find it worth your time- as I said, it's long. I would recommend it though.
Is Long Term Solitary Confinement Torture

That was a very interesting article.
I think it might deserve it's own thread.

I've got a lot of respect for the guy who wrote it- Atul Gawande. He writes on a lot of different topics, but mainly in the field of healthcare and medical issues. Not many journalists are as thorough.

If you feel like starting a new thread though, please do so. I've not seen any really good rebuttals to that article. I'd be interested if anyone comes across something though.

[Woodruff]

Sometimes, I think the Washington Post reporters would be sitting in prison somewhere if the Watergate scandal had broken in today's mindset.

Well, what do you know: http://wlcentral.org/node/1497

[Symmetry]

Sometimes, I think the Washington Post reporters would be sitting in prison somewhere if the Watergate scandal had broken in today's mindset.

Well, what do you know: http://wlcentral.org/node/1497

Wow. The e-mail sent out justifying this is a piece of work:

"Subject: Possible threat to MCBQ

Ladies and Gentlemen,

There are substantiated indications and warning of possible denial of service attacks on MCBQ by supporters of Wiki-leaks and PFC Manning. It is possible that these attacks will be timed to coincide with protest activity that is scheduled to take place in the vicinity of MCBQ on 20 Mar. Possible threat courses of action could include denial of service attacks on phone, email, and internet services, and could include harassing phone calls (i.e. bomb threats) and mail disruption (i.e. suspicious packages). Additionally, though there is no direct threat, it is possible that actual physical penetrations onto MCBQ property may be undertaken to cause infrastructure damage, vandalism, or harass USMC personnel."
Here

So now you can arrest people because you can think of a way they could harm you. The really odd thing is that pointing out how terrorists could harm the military was one of the reasons Manning was charged. This is practically a checklist published by the military.

[Woodruff]

Sometimes, I think the Washington Post reporters would be sitting in prison somewhere if the Watergate scandal had broken in today's mindset.

Well, what do you know: http://wlcentral.org/node/1497

Wow. The e-mail sent out justifying this is a piece of work:

"Subject: Possible threat to MCBQ

Ladies and Gentlemen,

There are substantiated indications and warning of possible denial of service attacks on MCBQ by supporters of Wiki-leaks and PFC Manning. It is possible that these attacks will be timed to coincide with protest activity that is scheduled to take place in the vicinity of MCBQ on 20 Mar. Possible threat courses of action could include denial of service attacks on phone, email, and internet services, and could include harassing phone calls (i.e. bomb threats) and mail disruption (i.e. suspicious packages). Additionally, though there is no direct threat, it is possible that actual physical penetrations onto MCBQ property may be undertaken to cause infrastructure damage, vandalism, or harass USMC personnel."
Here

So now you can arrest people because you can think of a way they could harm you. The really odd thing is that pointing out how terrorists could harm the military was one of the reasons Manning was charged. This is practically a checklist published by the military.

Yep. And folks think this is really no big deal and not at all an example of the very real threat to our liberties.

[Symmetry]

Sometimes, I think the Washington Post reporters would be sitting in prison somewhere if the Watergate scandal had broken in today's mindset.

Well, what do you know: http://wlcentral.org/node/1497

Wow. The e-mail sent out justifying this is a piece of work:

"Subject: Possible threat to MCBQ

Ladies and Gentlemen,

There are substantiated indications and warning of possible denial of service attacks on MCBQ by supporters of Wiki-leaks and PFC Manning. It is possible that these attacks will be timed to coincide with protest activity that is scheduled to take place in the vicinity of MCBQ on 20 Mar. Possible threat courses of action could include denial of service attacks on phone, email, and internet services, and could include harassing phone calls (i.e. bomb threats) and mail disruption (i.e. suspicious packages). Additionally, though there is no direct threat, it is possible that actual physical penetrations onto MCBQ property may be undertaken to cause infrastructure damage, vandalism, or harass USMC personnel."
Here

So now you can arrest people because you can think of a way they could harm you. The really odd thing is that pointing out how terrorists could harm the military was one of the reasons Manning was charged. This is practically a checklist published by the military.

Yep. And folks think this is really no big deal and not at all an example of the very real threat to our liberties.

This is definitely one of the areas where I find myself conservative. It does seem like you just have to be put on a list of potential troublemakers and any kind of restriction on liberty is justified. It reminds me of the old joke about a guy who sells bear-protection sticks. How do you know they work? Well- do you see any bears?

I don't see how we're getting anywhere with this war on terror if we're increasingly more paranoid, and people like Manning (maybe) and Assange are punished for telling us the truth.

[Woodruff]

Wow. The e-mail sent out justifying this is a piece of work:
"Subject: Possible threat to MCBQ
Ladies and Gentlemen,
There are substantiated indications and warning of possible denial of service attacks on MCBQ by supporters of Wiki-leaks and PFC Manning. It is possible that these attacks will be timed to coincide with protest activity that is scheduled to take place in the vicinity of MCBQ on 20 Mar. Possible threat courses of action could include denial of service attacks on phone, email, and internet services, and could include harassing phone calls (i.e. bomb threats) and mail disruption (i.e. suspicious packages). Additionally, though there is no direct threat, it is possible that actual physical penetrations onto MCBQ property may be undertaken to cause infrastructure damage, vandalism, or harass USMC personnel."
Here
So now you can arrest people because you can think of a way they could harm you. The really odd thing is that pointing out how terrorists could harm the military was one of the reasons Manning was charged. This is practically a checklist published by the military.

Yep. And folks think this is really no big deal and not at all an example of the very real threat to our liberties.

This is definitely one of the areas where I find myself conservative. It does seem like you just have to be put on a list of potential troublemakers and any kind of restriction on liberty is justified. It reminds me of the old joke about a guy who sells bear-protection sticks. How do you know they work? Well- do you see any bears?
I don't see how we're getting anywhere with this war on terror if we're increasingly more paranoid, and people like Manning (maybe) and Assange are punished for telling us the truth.

It's interesting that you feel this makes you conservative. I believe it makes you liberal. The conservative standpoint would be that security is more important than liberty, because protection should come first. Whereas the liberal standpoint would be that liberty is more important than security.

[Symmetry]

Wow. The e-mail sent out justifying this is a piece of work:
"Subject: Possible threat to MCBQ
Ladies and Gentlemen,
There are substantiated indications and warning of possible denial of service attacks on MCBQ by supporters of Wiki-leaks and PFC Manning. It is possible that these attacks will be timed to coincide with protest activity that is scheduled to take place in the vicinity of MCBQ on 20 Mar. Possible threat courses of action could include denial of service attacks on phone, email, and internet services, and could include harassing phone calls (i.e. bomb threats) and mail disruption (i.e. suspicious packages). Additionally, though there is no direct threat, it is possible that actual physical penetrations onto MCBQ property may be undertaken to cause infrastructure damage, vandalism, or harass USMC personnel."
Here
So now you can arrest people because you can think of a way they could harm you. The really odd thing is that pointing out how terrorists could harm the military was one of the reasons Manning was charged. This is practically a checklist published by the military.

Yep. And folks think this is really no big deal and not at all an example of the very real threat to our liberties.

This is definitely one of the areas where I find myself conservative. It does seem like you just have to be put on a list of potential troublemakers and any kind of restriction on liberty is justified. It reminds me of the old joke about a guy who sells bear-protection sticks. How do you know they work? Well- do you see any bears?
I don't see how we're getting anywhere with this war on terror if we're increasingly more paranoid, and people like Manning (maybe) and Assange are punished for telling us the truth.

It's interesting that you feel this makes you conservative. I believe it makes you liberal. The conservative standpoint would be that security is more important than liberty, because protection should come first. Whereas the liberal standpoint would be that liberty is more important than security.

On the whole I think of myself as pretty central, but definitely to the left of centre. I think of myself as conservative on this issue in terms of government power, but yeah- certainly liberal when it comes to freedom of information. On this issue I try to strike a balance.

I can accept that leaking state secrets should be a crime, but I can't accept that labeling anything uncomfortable as a state secret really justifies punishment for leaking them.

Likewise, I have sympathy for the argument that it puts people in danger, but I've also not seen anything actually justifying that argument.

But yes- I think that the security argument has now become the trump card for any kind of curtailment of liberty, and that is something I will never agree with.

[TA1LGUNN3R]

It's interesting that you feel this makes you conservative. I believe it makes you liberal. The conservative standpoint would be that security is more important than liberty, because protection should come first. Whereas the liberal standpoint would be that liberty is more important than security.

Wouldn't true conservatism include reduction of centralized gov't, hence greater liberties? Not right-wingers, but conservative?

In other words:

Define: Conservative

-TG

[Woodruff]

It's interesting that you feel this makes you conservative. I believe it makes you liberal. The conservative standpoint would be that security is more important than liberty, because protection should come first. Whereas the liberal standpoint would be that liberty is more important than security.

Wouldn't true conservatism include reduction of centralized gov't, hence greater liberties? Not right-wingers, but conservative?

Possibly, I suppose. I guess it's just my view that conservatism is the train of thought that leads to "being careful" (conservative with your risks, etc.). And "being careful" leads to security over liberty. Again though, I don't know that that follows any real definition or anything...it just seems logical to me.

[Symmetry]

It's interesting that you feel this makes you conservative. I believe it makes you liberal. The conservative standpoint would be that security is more important than liberty, because protection should come first. Whereas the liberal standpoint would be that liberty is more important than security.

Wouldn't true conservatism include reduction of centralized gov't, hence greater liberties? Not right-wingers, but conservative?

In other words:

Define: Conservative

-TG

I think the counter to that would be "Define: centralised government". How centralised? By nation. by state or county, or by individual?

[TA1LGUNN3R]

That, of course, would have a greater impact on the term, its effects ranging from libertarianism to anarchism. I meant it in the context of the current view of conservatism. That they're all bible-thumpers whose support borders on fascist policies, where the State has all the power for the benefit of our safety. I think the original idea of conservatism, in regards to U.S. gov't, was as much power to the people as possible, with only basic federal gov't to provide defense and mediation between the states (separate entities).

Of course, one could argue that such a definition is no longer valid for conservatism, since the majority now view it as the right-wingers. Times change, so what was previously "conservatism" is something different.

I merely meant to point out that those who may identify themselves as "conservative" may not support greater security at the detriment to liberty, and they don't have to be exclusive. One could espouse reduction of an Authority for the exact reason of wanting greater liberty.

-TG

[Symmetry]

That, of course, would have a greater impact on the term, its effects ranging from libertarianism to anarchism. I meant it in the context of the current view of conservatism. That they're all bible-thumpers whose support borders on fascist policies, where the State has all the power for the benefit of our safety. I think the original idea of conservatism, in regards to U.S. gov't, was as much power to the people as possible, with only basic federal gov't to provide defense and mediation between the states (separate entities).

Of course, one could argue that such a definition is no longer valid for conservatism, since the majority now view it as the right-wingers. Times change, so what was previously "conservatism" is something different.

I merely meant to point out that those who may identify themselves as "conservative" may not support greater security at the detriment to liberty, and they don't have to be exclusive. One could espouse reduction of an Authority for the exact reason of wanting greater liberty.

-TG

I'm not sure that I really buy into the appeal to originalism that forms such a core part of modern American conservatism either. What I wanted to point out is that a drive towards or away from centralisation won't necessarily entail greater liberty. It will more likely lead to a different kind of centralisation.

A homosexual might, for example, have fewer liberties if local government was given power over same sex marriage or civil unions when a national government might be inclined to pass a blanket provision.

A gun owner might feel the opposite when it comes to gun control.

A lot of the arguments about government power dwell on this issue. I don't think it's a zero sum game between centralisation and liberty.

[BigBallinStalin]

That, of course, would have a greater impact on the term, its effects ranging from libertarianism to anarchism. I meant it in the context of the current view of conservatism. That they're all bible-thumpers whose support borders on fascist policies, where the State has all the power for the benefit of our safety. I think the original idea of conservatism, in regards to U.S. gov't, was as much power to the people as possible, with only basic federal gov't to provide defense and mediation between the states (separate entities).

Of course, one could argue that such a definition is no longer valid for conservatism, since the majority now view it as the right-wingers. Times change, so what was previously "conservatism" is something different.

I merely meant to point out that those who may identify themselves as "conservative" may not support greater security at the detriment to liberty, and they don't have to be exclusive. One could espouse reduction of an Authority for the exact reason of wanting greater liberty.

-TG

I'm not sure that I really buy into the appeal to originalism that forms such a core part of modern American conservatism either. What I wanted to point out is that a drive towards or away from centralisation won't necessarily entail greater liberty. It will more likely lead to a different kind of centralisation.

A homosexual might, for example, have fewer liberties if local government was given power over same sex marriage or civil unions when a national government might be inclined to pass a blanket provision.

A gun owner might feel the opposite when it comes to gun control.

A lot of the arguments about government power dwell on this issue. I don't think it's a zero sum game between centralisation and liberty.

You bring up an interesting point; but that may not be the case considering the following: There are higher costs of someone leaving from a nation-state because of their dictating LAW X is significantly higher than a mere city dictating LAW X. And that decentralization enables higher responsiveness from local governments to cater to their communities needs; whereas, a nation-state steps on the freedoms and liberties of many because it doesn't have to be nearly as responsive to the needs of its people. (there are many reasons why nation-states do so, but let's focus on one part).

For example, let's use your homosexuality example. If the nation-state bans homosexuality, well, it goes underground of course, but also it's hard to avoid the enforcement of it. If that decision is left to cities to decide, then the people there have a more direct vote on the matter, thus making the local government more responsive to the needs of its citizens.

What decentralization of government provides is a significantly higher capability for local governments to be held more responsive to the needs of their communities.

Now, what the above does is greatly enable people to opt out of that city/community, and join another one (because it lowers their moving costs significantly). It lowers the costs because it's much more difficult to leave a nation-state than it is to leave a city/community.

This can't be done within a nation-state because the law is applied everywhere, but if such a law were to be enforced by each city, then it acts as an advertisement: "We don't like fags." So others can look at that city and say, "Well, f*ck that city and it's narrow-mindedness, I don't want to live there."

You may be correct in stating that a decentralization doesn't necessarily promote greater liberty; however, more centralization definitely does not bring greater liberty. (There's this sweet spot,or diminishing returns, on centralization v. decentralization).

tl;dr: Decentralization of government greatly increases one's capability to avoid harsh regulations, thus increasing one's liberty.

Another great example is shown through the reason as to why having taxes decided by a State is much better than having all taxes dictated by the federal government for each state. This is basically the central planning v. spontaneous order issue (or statist v. decentralized for this case).

[Symmetry]

That, of course, would have a greater impact on the term, its effects ranging from libertarianism to anarchism. I meant it in the context of the current view of conservatism. That they're all bible-thumpers whose support borders on fascist policies, where the State has all the power for the benefit of our safety. I think the original idea of conservatism, in regards to U.S. gov't, was as much power to the people as possible, with only basic federal gov't to provide defense and mediation between the states (separate entities).

Of course, one could argue that such a definition is no longer valid for conservatism, since the majority now view it as the right-wingers. Times change, so what was previously "conservatism" is something different.

I merely meant to point out that those who may identify themselves as "conservative" may not support greater security at the detriment to liberty, and they don't have to be exclusive. One could espouse reduction of an Authority for the exact reason of wanting greater liberty.

-TG

Interesting, but that makes liberty mainly a function of economic ability. I'm not sure that I buy into the idea that "if you don't like it, you should get out." I'm very much in favour of localism when it comes to supporting the needs of a local community, but I'm less sympathetic when it boils down to ostracizing groups in the minority.

Plus, the option to move somewhere more tolerant simply isn't available to many people. There are plenty of obstacles beyond having enough money to do so: moving away from friends and family; starting up in a new and unfamiliar place; or even simply not being old enough to do that.
I'm not sure that I really buy into the appeal to originalism that forms such a core part of modern American conservatism either. What I wanted to point out is that a drive towards or away from centralisation won't necessarily entail greater liberty. It will more likely lead to a different kind of centralisation.

A homosexual might, for example, have fewer liberties if local government was given power over same sex marriage or civil unions when a national government might be inclined to pass a blanket provision.

A gun owner might feel the opposite when it comes to gun control.

A lot of the arguments about government power dwell on this issue. I don't think it's a zero sum game between centralisation and liberty.

You bring up an interesting point; but that may not be the case considering the following: There are higher costs of someone leaving from a nation-state because of their dictating LAW X is significantly higher than a mere city dictating LAW X. And that decentralization enables higher responsiveness from local governments to cater to their communities needs; whereas, a nation-state steps on the freedoms and liberties of many because it doesn't have to be nearly as responsive to the needs of its people. (there are many reasons why nation-states do so, but let's focus on one part).

For example, let's use your homosexuality example. If the nation-state bans homosexuality, well, it goes underground of course, but also it's hard to avoid the enforcement of it. If that decision is left to cities to decide, then the people there have a more direct vote on the matter, thus making the local government more responsive to the needs of its citizens.

What decentralization of government provides is a significantly higher capability for local governments to be held more responsive to the needs of their communities.

Now, what the above does is greatly enable people to opt out of that city/community, and join another one (because it lowers their moving costs significantly). It lowers the costs because it's much more difficult to leave a nation-state than it is to leave a city/community.

This can't be done within a nation-state because the law is applied everywhere, but if such a law were to be enforced by each city, then it acts as an advertisement: "We don't like fags." So others can look at that city and say, "Well, f*ck that city and it's narrow-mindedness, I don't want to live there."

You may be correct in stating that a decentralization doesn't necessarily promote greater liberty; however, more centralization definitely does not bring greater liberty. (There's this sweet spot,or diminishing returns, on centralization v. decentralization).

tl;dr: Decentralization of government greatly increases one's capability to avoid harsh regulations, thus increasing one's liberty.

Another great example is shown through the reason as to why having taxes decided by a State is much better than having all taxes dictated by the federal government for each state. This is basically the central planning v. spontaneous order issue (or statist v. decentralized for this case).

Interesting, but that makes liberty mainly a function of economic ability. I'm not sure that I buy into the idea that "if you don't like it, you should get out." I'm very much in favour of localism when it comes to supporting the needs of a local community, but I'm less sympathetic when it boils down to ostracizing groups in the minority.

Plus, the option to move somewhere more tolerant simply isn't available to many people. There are plenty of obstacles beyond having enough money to do so: moving away from friends and family; starting up in a new and unfamiliar place; or even simply not being old enough to do that.

[BigBallinStalin]

To expand on this, because I feel like I'm on a roll, this is the main reason why Communist states fail (to my understanding, why socialist economics fails).

I forget who said this so succinctly, but one main problem with socialism in general is that 'it requires people to align their perceived self interests with the social good; whereas, capitalism doesn't make such a requirement. Instead, it allows for one to align their perceived self interests with the social good.'

This requirement of socialism must be involuntarily enforced, which I'm not a huge proponent of.

[Symmetry]

Apologies for the bizarre editing. It's now fixed (probably).

Anyway- here is the response part again:

Interesting, but that makes liberty mainly a function of economic ability. I'm not sure that I buy into the idea that "if you don't like it, you should get out." I'm very much in favour of localism when it comes to supporting the needs of a local community, but I'm less sympathetic when it boils down to ostracizing groups in the minority.

Plus, the option to move somewhere more tolerant simply isn't available to many people. There are plenty of obstacles beyond having enough money to do so: moving away from friends and family; starting up in a new and unfamiliar place; or even simply not being old enough to do that.

[Symmetry]

As an update on this one, the guy who had to resign from the State Department for criticising Manning's treatment just spoke to the press:
I Have No Regrets

Money quote:

In an interview with the BBC, his first since the resignation, Crowley said he had recently been asked why the US was torturing Manning.

"The United States is doing no such thing, but I understand why the question was asked," Crowley said. "I thought the treatment of Bradley Manning - the fact that he had to sleep naked and stand in a jail cell naked - was counter-productive to our broader effort of appropriately prosecuting someone who has violated his oath of office," he told Hardtalk.

Crowley said he was a believer in "something like strategic narratives", saying: "The United States, as an exceptional country in the world, has to be seen as practising what we preach."


There's plenty to pick at for both sides of the debate on this one.

[pimpdave]

History will remember Bradley Manning as a hero.

[Symmetry]

I'll put this here instead of starting a new thread- the NYReview of Books just published an open letter about Manning's detention and conditions signed by some top constitutional scholars:
Here

From the letter:

"For nine months, Manning has been confined to his cell for twenty-three hours a day. During his one remaining hour, he can walk in circles in another room, with no other prisoners present. He is not allowed to doze off or relax during the day, but must answer the question “Are you OK?” verbally and in the affirmative every five minutes. At night, he is awakened to be asked again “Are you OK?” every time he turns his back to the cell door or covers his head with a blanket so that the guards cannot see his face. During the past week he was forced to sleep naked and stand naked for inspection in front of his cell, and for the indefinite future must remove his clothes and wear a “smock” under claims of risk to himself that he disputes.

The sum of the treatment that has been widely reported is a violation of the Eighth Amendment’s prohibition of cruel and unusual punishment and the Fifth Amendment’s guarantee against punishment without trial. If continued, it may well amount to a violation of the criminal statute against torture, defined as, among other things, “the administration or application…of… procedures calculated to disrupt profoundly the senses or the personality.”



Also, apparently one of Theodore Roosevelt's descendants is called Kermit.

[pimpdave]

It's cynical to say, but the best hope for Manning is just time.

Look up the Scottsboro boys. That's what eventually saved them. If Manning can keep his sanity long enough, people will give up caring, and eventually he'll be let go. That's the only real hope he can have at this point. I don't foresee the DOJ doing anything proactive to at least bring him to trial.




And yes, many of us know about Kermit.