NO NO NO.. I cannot support this...

I cannot support the killing of an American citizen without due process of law. I cannot support the killing of anyone without due process of law.

Even terrorists, people who do not have the best interests of our country in mind.. Catch them, hold them for trial..

But assassination without trial.

NO NO NO

http://news.blogs.cnn.com/2010/04/07/feds-target-american-born-muslim-cleric-for-kill-or-capture/?hpt=T2

... that we wouldn't expect anything less from someone named "Peacetrain." ;)

This does not alleviate you of your cookie duties, however.

I know how much you support President Obama. I am with you on this.

He chooses to conduct his business against the US from safe haven in Yemen.

... I dont generally support the killing of anyone.

But that's why I'm not President .... or in the military .... or Governor of Texas.

Unfortunately, the practicalities and cold realities of the modern world dont always jive with my idealized personal belief system. It's never that simple.

source electricity through those mountains for his kidney problems! Even Bush knows he is dead, he is a friend of bush. George Junior, please speak out! We are waiting!

This is so not funny, more sad than anything else. I wish President Obama will bring home the troops from Iraq and get the UN to send in a peace keeping force and the wealthy countries help to rebuild the infrastructure that the US bombed.

As for Afghanistan, bring the troops home too and do the same for the country with the help of the UN. Effing 21st century and the US still want to remake Afghanistan. The poor people in Afghanistan are suffering the most and not to mention the amount of money being taken from the US to prop up these two frikking quasi invasions!

Pull out and give the money to education and health care, please President Obama. And whilst am ranting, cut down on US bases around the world! Did any body vote for the US to police the world?

I guess the killing must go on and the war machine people getting richer. Am so sick and tired of this bullshit.

End of rant!

the "collateral" damage victims, were off limits too.
I wish our soldiers and, by extension, their families were off limits too.
Hey, I've got an idea. Why don't we just extricate our country from this war for oil (the Middle East in general) and end this whole horrible chapter in our country's history?

:wtf:

This place has taken crazy pills.

Who has the power to deem someone's future plans worthy of a death sentence?

If it is the President, I shudder to consider our next repug president.

is hopefully stopped, by either capture or death. This guy isn't here, he's not somewhere in the US where we can simply arrest him.

See how easy that was?

Watch out for drones...

.... see my point?

he is an enemy combatant and a foreign national. We are talking about setting the precedent of killing Americans by a President who thinks he has the power to piss on the Constitution. Oh right. That 'quaint' little thing. Even bush didn't do this.

for the purpose of planning attacks against Americans. The explosion won't feel any better to people on a plane because the organizer was born in New Mexico.

Bhutto discussed his death with a British interviewer some weeks before she was killed.

It is common knowledge throughout the Far East that he is dead.

Arrest the motherfucker, I say, if we can...and if we even remember what the charges against him are supposed to have be.

Being an accessory to wingnut masturbation, last I heard, wasn't illegal.

Let's say you have reasonably credible info that he's holed up in the Pakistan mountains, and it's too remote/dangerous to send in a few troops or agents to capture him and the people around him. Do you just...what? Keep monitoring the situation? Wait until he disappears? Or do you drop a bomb or send a drone and put an end to it? Not saying for sure that OBL is alive or dead or still an active threat, but he's the best example I can think of in terms of "terrorist".

"Inspiring" terrorists? Probably. Given material aid? Could be.

I doubt the government's ability to build a capital case against him, and I doubt that he could get a fair trial anywhere--that well's been poisoned, and not just by Osama himself.

I do not grant my government the power to execute anybody, and this is especially true for what might be non-capital crimes. Outright assassination? Nope.

on the situation. If the official position of the US government is that he is the mastermind and organizer and funder of mass murder of American civilians, and commits what amounts to an act of war against the US, then they'll act accordingly (and have done so, and continue to do so--the case of Awlaki is just a continuation of the policy, with the twist that he was born here). If you disagree with either the analysis or the resulting action, that is your right. I'm personally OK with the CIA or military acting (kill or capture) before another incident can happen. Can the intelligence be wrong, or trumped-up? Sure. Is killing the ideal way to handle this? No. But that's where we are.

I doubt it will ever be proven that he's killed anyone.

I don't believe in capital punishment, even after a trial. The official position of the US government is wrong.

of an individual or organization from blowing American civilians to bits. My only concern is that the intelligence is accurate, and that such a group or individual can't be captured first. These are two big "ifs". It's not an easy thing to judge.

...with the order to capture him. I could get behind doing that now, based on his alleged past masterminding. Take him in just for questioning, even. I would even understand if taking him alive were impossible, but I think that that attempt must be made.

That's always better anyway, in terms of possibly getting more information (that's waterboard-free info, of course).

K&R

if we are unable to extradite him in a legal manner. We simply have to accept that he can murder people since he is beyond the reach of the law?

he gets a pass.

I would imagine that he would probably not kill unless it were necessary, i.e. he resists capture violently.

.... it does fall within the parameters of international law as well.



If it is likely that Awlaki will plot imminent terrorist acts that lead to murder if not apprehended or killed, and if it is impossible to apprehend him in a timely fashion because he is in hiding in Yemen with other members of Al-Qaeda, then due process would not be violated by killing him.

This is why we must oppose this extraordinary expansion of Bush's war on terra policies.

<<This is why we must oppose this extraordinary expansion of Bush's war on terra policies.>>

Wrong. This decision is in line with international law and Congress' approval of military force to deal with Al-Qaeda:



If it is likely that Awlaki will plot imminent terrorist acts that lead to murder if not apprehended or killed, and if it is impossible to apprehend him in a timely fashion because he is in hiding in Yemen with other members of Al-Qaeda, then due process would not be violated by killing him.

We might as well burn the Constitution and proclaim ourselves a dictatorship!

"Congress approved the use of military force against Al Qaeda after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks. People on the target list are considered to be military enemies of the United States and therefore not subject to the ban on political assassination first approved by President Gerald R. Ford."

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/07/world/middleeast/07yemen.html?hp

I am not drinking that Kool Aid again!

A propaganda that fails to inform the American people as to the complex situation in Yemen, and the tyrant we back (together with the Saudis).

:tinfoilhat:

living is the very thing that makes us insecure.

He (Awlaki) is being used as the reason to use our military/CIA force in Yemen. We have a nice easy target now, for all of the Americans who hate Americans who hate America to focus on. Hell Yeah! US fucking A! We'll get our man.

... when we've been conducting/aiding air strikes in Yemen since January and no one cared?

Google it!

I realize I should have said "except for five people on DU." ;)

:crazy: :tinfoilhat:

Al-Awlaki does not provide an "instant" threat. The threat he poses can be argued as to "overwhelming"-ness. Al-Awlaki most decidedly does not pose a threat "leaving no choice of means, and no moment for deliberation." I can prove this latest point quite simply, in fact: What I am doing now is deliberating, therefore the threat posed by al-Awlaki does leave a "moment for deliberation," and thusly we prove that the criteria for "imminent threat" fail in this case.

So much for your international law brief.

Due process returns to relevance, absent the support for a case of imminent threat. Kill or capture of a US citizen, without recourse to due process, is, legally speaking, murder. Announcing it to the press in advance makes it premeditated.

Not that it matters. As Nixon pointed out, and Bush proved by example time and time again, "if the President does it, it isn't illegal."

Maybe John Yoo has a better legal theory for you to try out...

I mean, great, sweet, non-existent Jeebus, are you really citing the Caroline Affair as your 'proof?'

Jeebus---do you get that Webster defends an anticipatory, defensive strike?

He's on Obama's side, not yours.

You do understand the difference between 'proof' and 'precedent', I presume?

"Jeebus---do you get that Webster defends an anticipatory, defensive strike?" Yes, I get it. The problem here is that al-Alawi does not meet the criteria, as defined in the precedent of the Caroline Affair, to qualify as a legal target for an "anticipatory, defensive strike." If al-Alawi were toting an RPG on board a boat approaching something US-ey... that might qualify. He's currently residing in his tribal home in Yemen, and there has been no conclusive evidence provided... or even suggested... which definitively links him any more directly to hostilities against US "targets" than the urging of Sarah Palin to tea baggers: "Don't retreat. Instead, reload."

Not that I'd have any personal qualms with a kill or capture order targeting Sarah Palin... but it would still rankle the notions of legal limitations upon, and considerations of checks and balances upon, the Executive, were Obama to make it so.

I will re-iterate my cynicism, however. Obama has merely to do it, which he has, in order to invoke the Nixon Precedent: If a President does it- it's not illegal.

Yet another manner in which Obama is carrying on in Bush's tradition.

of hypothetical events. And you're right, it's uncalled for.

We are seeing the same double standard that we find in those conservatives upset about the budget deficit when they remained silent while Bush bankrupted the country (and pissed away Clinton's surplus).

.... holding people as enemy combatants I mean, spying on his own citizenry, etc. ... sure, the idealist might get upset over something that MIGHT happen, but as we've long ago proven, not all of us are idealist.

Can't anyone else see the irony of folks being preemptively mad at the President for preemptively assassinating someone? Both things are motivated by something that MIGHT happen in the future.

If al-Awlaki is given the benefit of the doubt that he hasn't been tried or confessed to doing anything only that he MAY have, does the President not deserve the same treatment?

Lol, or did we long ago classify Barack Obama as an enemy combatant? :rofl:

The Left consistently called for the prosecution of the law breakers in Bush/Cheney regime, and for the impeachment of Bush and Cheney for lying this country into a war of choice in Iraq. Where were you?

Again, can you not at least appreciate the irony? ;)

Are we mad at the President for imminent assassination?

I'm not defending anything ... I'm asking a question.

A Presidency run amok, drunken with power, is a threat to all of us regardless of who the President is, or what political party holds power.

... that you dont appreciate the irony.

But once started, it was a war, and I would expect it to be conducted as a war.

A declared enemy on the battlefield doesn't get a trial - neither side does that.

... the Yemeni government has been doing all of our dirty work on its own soil lately. Doesn't go along with the current strategy for us to suddenly begin offensive maneuvers when we havent been for the last few months. I think this isn't so much that the Feds are literally planning to take him out as it a public statement that there will be no retribution if someone else does (assassinate an American citizen.)

Whether an indirect sin is a damning as a direct one is a debate for another thread.

I think you are starting to separate policies from personality. It's the policies someone enacts that matter!

This particular policy smacks so much of Bush, amd it's a frightening expansion of the power of the state over its citizens.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

This decision is in line with international law and Congress' approval of military force to deal with Al-Qaeda:



If it is likely that Awlaki will plot imminent terrorist acts that lead to murder if not apprehended or killed, and if it is impossible to apprehend him in a timely fashion because he is in hiding in Yemen with other members of Al-Qaeda, then due process would not be violated by killing him.

do you have any grasp of the concept of the "rule of law" within a nation-state?

do you know how incredibly difficult it is to establish this, in a nation, and, therewith, for it to begin to democratize?

clearly you don't!

this decision to allow the state to murder a U.S. citizen, without any judicial review of the charges brought against the individual is the end of the rule of law

whose decision is it, may i ask, that someone be murdered?

who decides the person is an enemy of the state? what evidence is adduced?

are you really seriously defending this decision?

This decision is in line with international law and Congress' approval of military force to deal with Al-Qaeda:

you did not answer my questions to you

do you support the rule of law?

do you comprehend its implications? especially the implications of its erosion, as in this case?

you are clearly unable to reply cogently

you keep re-posting a quote; but you fail to explain how evidence was adduced re: this individual, so that your quote might be applicable; currently, it's not relevant, because there is no assurance that any judicial review of the charges filed against this individual occurred, or that the charges are valid

Do you have any legal facts that state that Awlaki does not fall under this law approved by Congress?

try doing some research, i recommend!

otherwise, you have no answers, do you? you keep reposting a quote but are unable to answer the questions posed to you;

This is the rule of law I'm talking about:

"In addition, Congress approved the use of military force against Al Qaeda after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks. People on the target list are considered to be military enemies of the United States and therefore not subject to the ban on political assassination first approved by President Gerald R. Ford."

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/07/world/middleeast/07yemen.html?hp

You keep asking people to prove something because it disagrees with a law.

Well, laws in this country have at various times, made some of our citizens less than others. I don't have to prove that's wrong --it is wrong.

has never been wrong before.

Here's more on this innocent chap:

Reminds me of Hogan's Heroes in which a German says "you have the right to a fair trial and then you'll be shot!" Judge, jury and executioner via the Executive Branch. Screw the rule of law, anti-terrorism officials think said terrorist "is believed" to have.....whatever the crime of the day is. Who oversees this? What are the checks and balances on this program? What about the next president? This is Pandora's box that is going to lead to nothing but trouble. When the President says that an American can be killed without trial, we are in a world of hurt.

Do you have any legal facts that state that Awlaki does not fall under this law approved by Congress?

my principles and the Constitution. This is a slippery slope that can be easily abused and that's what concerns me.

If so and he is plotting against the US, he has got to go.

And I know that J. Turley said US citizens have protections whether or not they are on US soil, BUT I don't think that is the case if the guy leaves the US FOR the express purpose of plotting against the US. It is different if the guy says something against the US while on vacation somewhere but doesn't denounce and doesn't plot against. Then a trial for treason would be warranted. Not in this case.

And if John Walker Lind had been taken out, it would have been OK, too. He did the same thing.

I suppose that's another virtue we must now defend.

http://travel.state.gov/law/citizenship/citizenship_776.html

As to this:
"It is different if the guy says something against the US while on vacation somewhere but doesn't denounce and doesn't plot against. Then a trial for treason would be warranted. Not in this case."

Treason is also a legal term, and it doesn't mean what you think it does, which is "say something against the US while on vacation." That'd clog up the courts pretty much full time, don't you think?

Killing an unjust aggressor in self-defense, or other-defense, is justified if it is immediately necessary to preserve innocent life. The case at hand is tricky for a variety of reasons. One basic question is whether the self-defense standard should apply in such a case. In other words, should the government be required to have enough evidence to make it reasonable to believe that killing the citizen in question is immediately necessary to prevent him from unjustly inflicting severe harm? Another question is what role the Courts should play in ensuring that there is adequate evidence to justify the killing.

terrorism= waging war or should the US have individually tried and convicted German soliders during WWII

Where did I hear that before?

They don't have to get search warrants and arrest someone. Some people don't seem to get it.

the POTUS do? Treason is punishable by death, isn't it? So if it is punishable by death, and this U.S. citizen isn't extraditable (is this a word?) .....what do we do..

Article III

Section 3.

Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort. No person shall be convicted of treason unless on the testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act, or on confession in open court.

The Congress shall have power to declare the punishment of treason, but no attainder of treason shall work corruption of blood, or forfeiture except during the life of the person attainted.

and I'd say that has attacked and continues plot more that AQ is leving war against the US.

Your point?

Sorry, but what Congress decides is the rule of law. And the law they passed after 9/11 directly relates to this case.



Do you have any legal facts that state that Awlaki does not fall under this law approved by Congress?

... and make sure they understand that they have a approved a WHOLE heck of a lot of money for a war they haven't declared.

Clearly, some of them are confused.

Oh yeah, a TRIAL.

If the U.S government could have stopped his terroristic act by taking him out would you have approved?

Driving enroute to the Murrah building?
Bomb in truck and ready to detonate?

Timothy McVeigh assasinated the following
<snip>
claiming the lives of 168 victims, including 19 children under the age of 6. More than 680 people were injured
<snip>


Does he simply get a pass because he's an American? If he was on U.S soil absolutely if we can arrest and try him great. But all bets are off now because he is on foreign soil committing terroristic acts.

This terrorist has made his choice to attack the U.S and kill Americans. (Sounds like the very threats that OBL stated and carried out)

By the way this terrorist will assasinate American soldiers and U.S citizens if he gets the opportunity.....when and if it happens what will our collective response be knowing that we could have eliminated the threat!

And is known to be fighting against us - there are no trials on a battlefield and a war is the negation of law and order.

Timothy McVeigh was in the US and had a right to trial, which he got.

But people fighting in Afghanistan don't (and the other side does not give our troops trials either).

So while I'm not in favor of continuing the war, accepting the fact that it is going on, I can accept it as a war in a war zone, these things will happen.

I'm not saying that the cops are always right when they do it, but a lot of times they are.

That's why there's such a thing as "suicide by cop".

You act as if we can just throw away due process because someone's a "terrorist"...we know they're a terrorist HOW? Because a government official says so that's how.
And you actually had the nerve to oppose this sort of policy under Bush.

<<And you actually had the nerve to oppose this sort of policy under Bush.>>

Um, wrong, because Bush never did this. However, this decision is in line with international law and Congress' approval of military force to deal with Al-Qaeda:

is fucking disgusting

:crazy:

He's calling *himself* a terrorist.

that we later learn was coerced...I suppose if it's "our side" that did the coercing right?

Or are you just creating absurd hypotheticals for the sake of argument?

Our President is empowered to put out a capture or kill order on certain persons who meet defined criteria. Now you may not like the law, but it is within Obama's powers to do so.

Define the "due process" this person is being denied.

or any one plotting to murder abortion doctors or clinics if we can't get evidence sufficient about the plot at least we can arrest them after they bomb the clinic or office building...

I don't want a government with the power to arbitrarily determine that it can just take out citizens it claims are terrorists.

who've actually been killed by us without due process. Questionable morality here.

speak for yourself...oh, you are.

who are in cohoots with those who want to kill us. Further more, with the number of people we'd have to arrest, where would we place them? Guantanimo is out since the same people who may want these people arrested don't want Gitmo...leaving us with what?!

I was just arguing with someone over this. He retorts, "Why don't you worry about the people he tried to kill on Christmas, like __ and __," the blanks representing the names of my aunt and her three-year-old grandson. Now, those two relatives of mine weren't on that flight (referring to the one involved in the Christmas bomb); in fact, they have never been on a plane and are from AL. But, out of nowhere, he dangles the two of them over my head. As if that should influence my argument in any way. It was "sexy" for the sake of argument, so he just threw out the names of people I love.

my book, I don't care where he comes from. Not every American is an 'American', and that doesn't allow him to be a terrorist asshole who has our worst interests at heart.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=385x452857

In the beginning when these two were talking it was sort of angry at Obama's actions. But when Keith asked if we do have the evidence that says this guy is actively trying to take us out isn't this what Obama is supposed to do. And the guy responded with a resounding YES. American or not. Which is rather interesting. This would kind of throw out the idea that it's unconstitutional. Our real debate now is finding out if the evidence is justified.

is spot on how easily this can be abused. Not necessarily by Obama but by his successors.

By a court of law, from what I read the Judge can decide the punishment for Treason. Normally it's followed by death. However if this guy was actively plotting a take out of us in the US currently and we have proof of that, what would people say? Bring him in and try him, or take him out without giving him time to try anything else. Duno, I think this issue is difficult to understand really.

since the news came out. I have not commented upon it before.

Let us ask ourselves this: what is the primary function of government? In my view, the primary function of government is defined by the primary right of its citizenry: there is no greater freedom than the right to live, to draw breath. It took top billing when Tom Jefferson cited, "Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" as inalienable rights. And since there is no greater right than the right to life, government has no greater purpose than protecting the people.

Do not speak to me of the Constitution; I am quite familiar with it. Let us look deeper. The Constitution is an amazing document, the most brilliant work of its kind in human history, but it is not infallible, and was intended only as a framework for actual governance. Let us think of governance. Let us focus on what government's role ought to be.

Is it wrong for government to kind of "skip over" our treasured concepts of law and justice? Of course it is. Is it wrong for government to allow someone to kill innocent Americans? Also, of course it is. So we find ourselves in a moral quandary: what's more important? The rule of law or the lives of people?

Government should indeed establish justice, and government should certainly obey the law. But government MUST protect the lives of the people, for if it does not, it is not a functional government. I figure, damage done to the rule of law can be undone. Dead people cannot be brought back to life. Life is precious, beyond all reckoning, beyond calculation.

Then there is the matter of justice. Justice is a word with several meanings. Some will say "justice" when they think of appropriate punishment. Appropriate punishment is an aspect of justice. Some will say "justice" when they mean the legal system, which we have charged with determining guilt and applying appropriate punishment. But the original definition of justice is what I mean: justice means everyone getting what they deserve. If you commit a crime, and thereby do harm, it is entirely fair and appropriate - it is just - that you should spend some time incarcerated both so you can learn a lesson and also as an example to society that such harm will not be tolerated. If you're not doing any harm, then justice dictates you should be left alone, not interfered with. Interference is the antithesis of justice.

Now, acts of violence against society are deemed crimes because obviously, harm is being done. Part of the reason governments exist is to establish justice, which means set up a society where people have a reasonable expectation of not being harmed. Establishing justice means passing and enforcing laws, but it also means preventing harm where possible.

The only time it is ever permissible, in my philosophy, to do harm is to prevent a greater harm, or harm to the innocent. That's my litmus test, my tool to determine whether a harmful act is acceptable or not, whether one calls it "war" or not. If killing this jerk over in Yemen saves American lives, government is not being ridiculous when it decides to take him out. Because that prevents more harm, and preventing harm is what government is for. Among other things.

Last, were I commander in chief, and I have a guy who's renounced his American citizenship and is actively trying to kill my countrymen, you bet your sweet ass I'd take him out (assuming capture is impractical)! Just as harm is justifiable in self-defense or defense of family (an extension of self, really), so also harmful acts are justifiable in defense of a people.

I suppose a bunch of you would call me all kinds of nasty names for defending this "slippery slope," and I bet some of those nasty names are ones I've heard before. It's all right; I don't much care. But if someone could read what I've written above, and dispassionately explain to me why I'm out of my mind, I'd like to see it. Because as I wrote at the beginning, I've given this some thought and this is the conclusion I've reached.

Should a suspect who they don't quite have enough evidence to bring to trial be executed because it MIGHT save the lives of innocents?

In answer to your question, though, if there isn't sufficient evidence to prove the suspect is the killer, I don't think he should be executed. It occurs to me, though, that the police might keep an eye on the dude for a little while just in case.

Also, I don't think there's any doubt that left alone, the jerk in Yemen will probably be responsible for more American deaths. Should we allow them because we can't arrest the jerk? I just don't think so.

however, he won't be the last, and the next target's guilt may not be as assured.

...if the suspect is guilty, then obviously it would be wrong to take him out.

Let me ask this: which is more important, doing what is right or doing what is legal? My wife feels "it's illegal" is more important than "it's wrong," whereas the way I look at things, I don't even get to the question of legality: if it's wrong I don't much care if it's legal or not, I won't do it. But I get my wife's point too; law is a very important thing, much more important than most people realize. I suspect that way you answer this question might reflect your opinion on the issue.

As I wrote above, if I were in office, I suspect I'd bend a few rules myself - but I must admit I think it's a good thing I'm not in government. Maybe I am too inclined to cut the government some slack here. Dunno.

Thanks for disagreeing nicely, anyway. :)

or tyranny, neither of which are good alternatives.

he can't hide behind his American citizenship. Obviously it'll be better to catch him and bring him to trial - as it will be with Bin Laden - but the fierce defense of that "American" is amusing.

That's pretty much the process for just about any criminal. If he is sufficiently violent, it's likely he will force officers to kill him before he's taken alive.

I see nothing at all unusual here.

If a secret service sniper sees a man with a gun in a crowd around the president and the guy refuses to put it down, should the secret service just shrug and let him go until they can catch him without his gun?

is tagging onto the grandness of it all.

Anwar al-Awlaki is an asshole.

Anyone who wants to kill others because they believe in superstitions and want to turn the World into a mindless theocratic 7th Century state and kill all the "Unbelievers" needs to be fucking taken out like common trash.

I hope he gets captured and stares at a wall 2 feet in front of his fucked-up head the rest of his life.

If there is substantial evidence that a person is plotting to kill American citizens he shouldn't be stop with any means required? I wouldn't have any difficulty in taking out anyone who is plotting to kill my fellow citizens.

and his mushroom cloud we were assured would be seen over our cities. That was the screamer from the Republicans you now understand so well.

is a bit of a different beast, don't you think?

you support assassination without trial.

of those miserable fucks who would terrorize, enslave, and murder.

Fuck 'em. If some dumbass american decides to join them, then he's made his bed and can lay in it.

of a hydra. Its knee jerk reactions like this that don't help. Considering that all Al Qaeda needs is a guy with a chemistry book and a grudge, the whole idea of finding and killing ALL of them is just stupid. Its simply not possible.

It's become rather Twilight Zone-ish around here with so many supporters of assassination suddenly popping up. What's changed?

They operate in secret, so you can't even oversee what they do.