Senate Proposal To Clarify 'State Secrets' Doctrine 190
I Don't Believe in Imaginary Property writes "Sen. Edward Kennedy (D-MA) and other lawmakers are pushing legislation to limit the power of the state secrets doctrine in blocking lawsuits. The doctrine has been used as a 'get out of jail free' card in cases like the EFF's warrantless wiretapping lawsuit. This new legislation would make it harder for the administration to invoke the doctrine, and provide new allowances, such as using attorneys with security clearances to enable the lawsuits to go forward even when the issue is appropriately raised." Update: 04/28 16:58 GMT by KD : The New Yorker is running a detailed piece, State Secrets, by Patrick Radden Keefe, about how the use of the state secrets doctrine is playing out in one particular case.
Fat Chance! (Score:5, Insightful)
Is anybody gullible enough to believe that Bush would actually sign a bill that could hold his administration responsible for its crimes?
Re:Fat Chance! (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Fat Chance! (Score:4, Funny)
There, fixed that for you.
Re:Fat Chance! (Score:4, Interesting)
And the United States Congress can override a veto with a 2/3 majority. If a Democrat wins the Presidency and Bush tries to veto this in the lame-duck period, they would probably be able to get the numbers they need to do it.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I'm pretty sure the Supreme Court would (to use a legal term) "call bullshit" on that one.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
http://www.coherentbabble.com/signingstatements/TOCindex.htm [coherentbabble.com]
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
No, the bigger threat is getting it past a Republican filibuster in the Senate (unless they flip flop on issues of Presidential power back to where they were when Bush replaced Clinton).
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I'd pretty much count on that, if somebody from the Democratic wing of the Republicrat Party gets in. The Republicans screamed bloody murder when they thought Clinton was 'overstepping his authority', but it was a different story when one of their guys got in. They couldn't vote him enough power fast enough.
And no, that
Re: (Score:2)
No, the bigger threat is that a Democratic President would veto it in a heartbeat too.
Face it, there are a lot of things that are considered vile beyond belief...until YOUR Party does them. Then they're just "proper use of Executive Power". Note the War Powers Act as an example. Created by Congress to rein in a Presiden
Lawyer with a security clearance (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
And also, when there is a copyright or patent on work that is done by defense companies that come out of classified research, who do you think writes up and approves the patents? Engineers? No, lawyers do.
Re: (Score:2)
And this is the problem. (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
That'd be a cool job... suave lawyer type during the day, secret agent spy CIA-type at night
Suspect under interrogation: You don't know who you're dealing with, do you, Mr. Government Lawyer? The people I work for are way above your paygrade. All I have to do is sit tight and wait for the sun to come up tomorrow, and you'll get a phone call, and I'll walk right out of here! What do you think of that?
Suavely dressed man: What do I think? I think a lot can happen between sunset and sunrise. Sure, I ha
Re: (Score:2)
Who are these "Senators" anyway? (Score:5, Funny)
Who appointed them as the law makers?
Next thing you know those "Representatives" will claim they can hold the president accountable for lying, breaking the law, and violating his oath of office.
I'd like to see them just try something like that.
Really. I would.
Please.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
After all our Dear Leader has told numerous times, the state secrets is just.. a state secret.
I mean even the president can't divulge state secrets because they are a state secret.
Next thing you know those "Representatives" will claim they can hold the president accountable for lying, breaking the law, and violating his oath of office.
One of the rights of the president is to mislead the enemy by planting false information. If that is called as lying, then the congress needs to have its head examined. Misleading is not lying. After all i didn't say 'i did not have sex with that woman'. And which congressm
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I mean even the president can't divulge state secrets* because they are a state secret.
Re: (Score:2)
...discredit an ambassador...
It's nice to see someone remember an actual act of treason and remind us all that the purps are still running the show around here. The hypocrisy of that whole episode was phenomenal; had the sitting party been Democrats the Republicans would have been (literally) calling for officials throats to be slit. The media would have made it a 'known fact' that Ms. Plame was the only one standing between us and nuclear armageddon.
Sibel Edmonds tells an interesting tale as well, but unsurprising. To paraphrase
Re: (Score:2)
This seems so obvious. (Score:3, Insightful)
That said, "special attorneys" with security clearence are not that good of a solution if they are a small group and no one has to right to check on what they did.
Plus, I would hate to see a whole "secret justice" aside from the normal one. What I mean is that cogress rejected the idea of "secret laws" a while ago, and I wouldn't want the governement to use "secret attorneys" as a way to push that idea again.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Even Simpler... (Score:2)
If there is info that really can't be released without jeopardizing security, then of course it should be kept secret and not disclosed. BUT... for the purpose of the lawsuit, that failure to disclose should be treated the same as any other failure to disclose. Which means "in the worst light possible" for the
Basically, invoking the privilege is fine, but it should mean the government basically loses the case automatically.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
So, you can't see anything that President Obama, as he's re-sending Secretary Of State Carter back to have another friendly sit-down with Hamas (who just endorsed Obama - fabulous!), might have a need to keep secret... AND which should be that way? Or should his political opponents be able to sue him for political reasons, and automatically "win" (and what? get whatever they want?) because
Re: (Score:2)
Thinking, thinking
I'm about as committed a Democrat as any, and I can tell you that I have no more problem with the idea of President Obama or President Clinton having to deal with this kind of condition than I do with President McCain having to do the sa
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Right! And it is with that consent that a president is hired for four years, and trusted to do his or her job. Part of that job includes dealing with things that absolutely, positively should not be talked about in open court. If you don't like a particular administration well enough to give them that job (or re-hire them for another four years)... then all you have to be is persuasive enough to get people to vote your way. But you seem to be suggesting that no president can be
Re: (Score:2)
the consent of the governed Right! And it is with that consent that a president is hired for four years, and trusted to do his or her job. Part of that job includes dealing with things that absolutely, positively should not be talked about in open court.
Who said anything about open court? The government could file any state secrets under seal, meaning the court and the involved parties are the only people with access. There should be basically nothing the government does that is so secret that filing it under seal in a case is completely unthinkable. And in those few cases, the government is not likely to get sued in the first place. If it does, then it will lose, simple as that.
Re: (Score:2)
So, we're back to you being OK with a structure wherein the only thing protecting covert activities, the people asked to risk their lives performing them, and the delicate relationships that realy upon them from disclosure in court is the unlikeliness that someone will sue? Are you even hearing yourself, here?
Re:Even Simpler... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
:)
But in all seriousness, even if it were relevant, that's a case where the *past* itinerary is relevant -- which has absolute zero legitimate reason to be classified, imho. Security concerns are valid for future itinerary, but not past. I think most such plausible state secrets defenses are similar.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Ah, so you're saying that we CANNOT trust a politician (the president, whose job is to head up the executive branch, which runs the sorts of operations in question) to use good judgement and keep the appropriate information from leaking out and damaging foreign relations or getting people killed, but you're willing to trust 400 politicians to exercise that judgement flawlessly? Do you m
Re: (Score:2)
This does not mean that the President must report to Congress every single thing he plans to do, bu
Re: (Score:2)
Only because he insisted on seeing an attack on a naval vessel in a foreign port, and attacks on our embassies, as criminal matters. Many quiet conversations with third parties would never, ever get started or go anywhere useful if those third parties knews (as they absolutely would) that anything said would wind up in the news.
You mean there hasn't been already? (Score:2, Informative)
Unfortunately, this has already been shown to be the case with respect to the allegations of illegal wiretapping by President Bush. It was the responsibility, and duty, of Congress to demand and conduct an (at least partially public) investigation into the activities of the president and his minions.
Congress also let him off the hook on WMD misrepresentation (Gulf of Tonkin, anyone?),
Re:Even Simpler... (Score:4, Interesting)
I don't mean the judge simply declaring an automatic worst case interpretation to the jury either, but there are things that just about any jury will take into consideration once they are said, even if the judge orders them to disregard those bits, and if that tips the whole judgment of the jury, than that's the risk the prosecution takes.
Note that the government takes that sort of risk with perfectly normal, non-secret testimony too. That's why they should still face the risk if they use secret testimony.
If the government wants to file a case against someone for espionage for example, and declares that some of their evidence is secret to protect the identity of an agent in place, it would probably be reasonable for the court to accept as a given that if said agent really exists then there is a real need to protect that agent's identity from disclosure. This still means we have testimony that would normally fall under hearsay rules, i.e. someone else has to testify, in court where he faces the possible penalties for lying under oath, that he heard the agent say something (or read or otherwise acquired the information that is now second hand). Even if the court were to accept that this situation is an exception to normal hearsay rules, in the same way as a deathbed confession can be, it's still reasonable to limit what can be used in the case, to make somebody be accountable for swearing that the reason for secrecy actually exists as stated, and all classification is based on that reason.
If the source can't reveal even the cloudiest details about the location where the testimony originated, or the time it occurred, then the Defense should, at the very least, get to ask for something definite enough to be cross examined as a precondition of the evidence being admitted at all, and somebody to direct the cross examination at.
For a protecting an agent's identity based claim, someone highly and publicly placed in the related intelligence agency should have to testify under oath that the information originated in their agency, from sources who were active agents at the time. We probably should have a lot more than that, but it's a necessary start for any kind of fair trial. Evidence that cannot be disproved is just like a scientific theory that can't be falsified - there is no such thing. If there is no ability to challenge, it's not evidence.
If the government can't somehow offer evidence that has some testability or potential to be challenged, and limit the effects on the trial to ones relating to those parts of the testimony that can be examined, then they are in the position of asking the judicial system and the public to take any and all executive branch testimony on sheer, blind faith. At that point, what the executive branch is really violating is the principle of separation of church and state.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Except in this case, of course, it was the Hamas spokesman on the radio in New York, doing an interview, and expressing his preference for Obama. I'm really not thinking that McCain's people, or Hillary's, have a lot of influence over the Hamas PR machinery in that way. Obviously, Obama was quick to say, "la la la! I'm not lis
Re: (Score:2)
Except in this case, of course, it was the Hamas spokesman on the radio in New York, doing an interview, and expressing his preference for Obama.
Hamas is using reverse psychology. Their entire existence depends on a continual state of conflict. If the conflict were removed, there would be no need for any of their terrorist or military activities, leaving only a political party. If their party were to remain in power, the people that they lead would quickly realize that they are no less corrupt or ineffective than any other Palestinian government has been, and would be voted out of power within a couple of years.
Hamas needs to have an adversary
Re: (Score:2)
Non-issue (Score:2)
1. Individuals in a religion (or a country) can have substantially different beliefs from their leaders. An analogy would be a Democrat voter holding different beliefs from a Republican president. The president is supposed to represent and lead all citizens in the country, even though not everyone agrees with him/her.
2. The term antisemitic in the article is a bit misleading. I assumed you were using the term to mean "racist" and "hates jews"; however, the article appears to be using the ter
Re: (Score:2)
Wow.
It's call a hypothetical example, used to make a point. I could have used any name.
Re: (Score:2)
It's about time (Score:5, Insightful)
It's about time.
I wouldn't mind seeing the whole concept of "state secret" repudiated. It really has no place in a free society.
If we really have a government of the people, by the people, and for the people what gives some part of that government the right to keep secrets from every other part, including the parts that are supposed to be watching over them and keeping them in check? The very notion should set warning bells off from here to next Tuesday.
Think about it? In what other context would that sort of inversion of ultimate authority be considered even remotely reasonable? If you told your boss that you were working on a project that was so secret you couldn't tell them about it, or any of your co-workers, including accounting, HR, the legal department, and it involved you needing to have building security look the other way while you took things in and out of the building...how long do you think you'd be employed?
-- MarkusQ
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Best part was when you had to go to the bathroom. The spec
Re: (Score:2)
Not quite (Score:2)
Not quite. He's "the Executive," which makes him a rather important boss (roughly equivalent to a CEO), but n
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It's a sham (Score:2)
What a crock of shit. Especially since it is so hypocritical. The effect would be almost the opposite of the stated intent.
Re: (Score:2)
So, yes, it is a sham, to coerce the Judiciary.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
They should pass a law, a constitutional amendment, or get the Supreme Court to rule, to the effect that the most an officer or agent of the government can do in the name of state secrecy under congressiona
Re: (Score:2)
Isn't that exactly what the Democrats are trying to do here? Bills tend to become laws if passed.
Re: (Score:2)
About time, but it doesn't go far enough (Score:5, Insightful)
If the government truly has secret information that bears on the case, they should have two choices. The first is to follow established legal procedures to present the information off the official record for the judge to make a decision on. And the second is to lose the case.
But they should not have the right to say, "You'll have to trust that we could defend ourselves if we could tell you the full story, but we can't for national security reasons." Because giving them that right gives them the ability to wave a "get out of jail free" card whenever it is convenient. And it is convenient far, far more often than it is true.
Re: (Score:2)
The result will be that the Executive will be doing one thing, the Legislature another, and the Judiciary will be left to decide which branch has a strong
Re: (Score:2)
The difference being that his/her role as Commander in Chief is actually in the constitution. But where in section two do you see anything at all that
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The problem with the way the state secrets privilege is currently used is that there is no oversight. The government says that they can't give evidence because it would compromise national security; all right, fair enough. But there has to be a check on that claim; someone relatively
Re: (Score:2)
PDF of the bill (Score:2, Informative)
I believe this link works:
http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=110_cong_bills&docid=f:s2533is.txt.pdf [gpo.gov]
That's for the bill as it was introduced -- couldn't find a copy of the bill post-committee amendments, probably because it hasn't been formatted by GPO yet.
Analogy (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:I got $5 on fail, anyone want some? (Score:5, Insightful)
Well, remember that Bush is on his way out anyway. If a Democrat gets elected President, then their administration will be held to a higher standard of accountability through this legislation. So who knows? There's a tiny (tiny) possibility that Bush could conceivably sign such legislation just before he leaves office. He's already gotten away with murder (quite literally).
The thing is, what would you have Congress and the courts do, anyway? The time for action has long passed, and it's useless to now look back in hindsight and accuse them of playing along. Their power to enact change comes from their respective constituencies, and when the people were shaking in their boots over 9/11, that's when the administration struck.
So yeah, the legislation is likely to fail. Yeah, it's probably dead in the water, and as such it's just more politics as usual. But again, what would you have them do? They've been neutered and cowed into submission by a group of very rich and powerful white men and their cronies, who have trampled upon our Constitution with impunity.
I say that, even as a piece of political theatre, the introduction of this piece of legislation is more useful than not having introduced it. Granted it's too little to late to make any REAL difference. But for as low as our nation's so-called "elected" officals have sunk, lip service is all we can get right now.
Re:I got $5 on fail, anyone want some? (Score:5, Insightful)
If a Democrat gets elected President, you can guarantee they'll be held to a higher standard of accountability, period. In particular, all the Republicans who have been giving Bush a free pass pretty much ever since he took office will be all over anything Obama or Clinton does that even appears the least bit improper. Especially if it's Clinton -- their paranoia about that family knows no bounds. "B-b-but he lied about a blow job! That's the worstest thing any President has ever done EVAR!"
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
I don't have a problem with Clinton getting a blowjob. I don't have a problem with him lying about it. I DO have a serious problem when the lying is under oath as part of testimony in a court of law. They call this perjury [cornell.edu]. Last time I looked, it was a crime.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
But honestly, here's how that sounds in my head when you say things like that:
Bush lied and people died... but they were mostly our teen to twenty-year-old boys and girls in the sandbox, not to mention the tens of thousands that are coming back without arms, legs, or worse.
Clinton lied, babies died because for a while there we couldn't think of a blowjob without Linda Tripp's face. Then Viagra was invented.
You
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Clinton lied, and people died [cnn.com].
He attacked Iraq to "wag the dog" on the Lewinski scandal. You can believe that, or you can believe his stated motive:
"Saddam (Hussein) must not be allowed to threaten his neighbors or the world with nuclear arms, poison gas or biological weapons," Clinton said.
For the record, I think both Clinton and Bush are dicks, but I can't sit idly by while you parrot incorrect sl
Re: (Score:2)
But... when Clinton said that Iraq had those weapons, he knew it was true because Bush Sr. and Reagan gave Saddam those weapons to fight Iran, and Chemical Ali had used a couple on some towns. When Bush Jr said it, those weapons had probably already been moved. So, while you're probably very correct about the wag the dog idea, I don't think parroting incorrect slogans is the way I'd describe it. If anything, I was making up my own incorrect slogan. While I do appreciate the fact that you think it's slog
Re:I got $5 on fail, anyone want some? (Score:5, Insightful)
I had always that eerie feeling to be in one of those criminal novels where the lonely private eye is convinced that Person A is the murderer, even though all evidence points to Person B or even suggests suicide. And then the lonely eye tries to trick everyone (by planting false evidence or by lying to police men or whatever) into finally giving him access to Person A's privatest and intimest places to finally find that evidence to finally prove Person A's guilt.
The problem was twofold:
1) The president of the United States is no lonely private eye. He is the single most powerful military commander of the world. So when he screws up because his gut feeling is misleading him, then he screws up really big time. But he never asked himself: What if we are all wrong? Everyone actually asking this or at least asking for some evidence was just a hindrance for him to reveal the truth he was so strongly believing in. And he and his administration felt justified to remove those road blocks at all cost, even at the price of the Constitution.
2) The administration got it terribly wrong. There was no hidden truth to reveal. It was exactly as it seemed at the beginning: al Qaeda is fundamentalist network, and Saddam Hussein was a grotesk dictator. And both were detesting and mistrusting each other: For al Qaeda Iraq was much too secular, and for Saddam Bin Ladin was too fundamentalist, too independent to be controlled and thus a danger to Saddam's own powers. And the WMDs were really destroyed and all attempts to restart the weapon program were thwarted by the inspectors, by the embargo, and by the normal incompetence of a dictatorial bureaucracy. The zigzagging was just to keep some street cred with the neighbours, and making them think there would be at least some military power left with the local bully, so they wouldn't start the war.
Saddam probably wasn't expecting the world greatest power to be so naive and to fall for his stunt. In the end his little deceitment and the stubborn naivety paired with a feeling of a higher mission of a bunch of hillbillies in power was costing at least the life of 30.000 Iraqi soldiers and 4000 U.S. soldiers. It put Iraq in the most serious political instability since World War I when the Turkish Empire was dying, and this instability killed another 250.000 Iraqis. So the last five years were as devastating to the Iraqis as the 30 years of Saddam Hussein's dictatorship before.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
1) The Duelfer Report [umich.edu], clearly stating that there was no connection between the Baathist movement and al Qaeda, and just the dysfunctional remainings of a weapons program.
2) An interview [usma.edu] with the Number Two of al Qaeda, al Zawahiri.
3) The history of the Baath Party [wikipedia.org] as a secular, socialist and nationalist Arab movement.
4) The biography [wikipedia.org] of the Number Two of Iraq, Tariq Aziz, who is no muslim at all, but a Chaldean Catholic. So whatever Iraq was, it was surely not ruled by islami
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
And obviously, you should be up in arms abou
Re: (Score:2)
Bush should ahve been a two term president alright - one in office, one in JAIL. The Libby pardon cranked my blood pressure up another 5 points, which, in my current physical condition, is NOT good. But that's neither here nor there. Point I've been trying to make in the last 8 or 10 years is, it's my opinion that we need to hold politicians to a higher standard. If a prostitution bill comes up in the Senate,
Re: (Score:2)
The republican party you want back is the one I would switch to i
Re: (Score:2)
I don't have any idea who the "glass eaters are" but "neo-cons" aren't what you think. Hint: Hillary is a neocon. Cheney is not. Bush.. maybe..ish..if he could be described as conservative at all. Religion mixers didn't vote for Bush in either election as he was a pretty clearly secular candidate.
Further, for those of us who did vote for Bush, he was o
Re: (Score:2)
The co
Re: (Score:2)
As I said, compromise candidate. Which is a nice way of putting that we were voting against Albert Gore, Jr. and John "F" Kerry. I also don't know anyone who voted for Bush the second time.
As you can see from my sig, I learned the important lesson from my mistake: Avoid having a president and congress of the same party. The president won't be willing to veto and Congress will push through every
Re: (Score:2)
I do know reasonable and intelligent free-thinking people who voted for Bush Jr twice, who are able to vote for non-republicans and who aren't voting based on their religious beliefs. The ones I'm thinking of no longer support Bush.
I'm swayed by your gridlock argument. The best times of both Bush Sr and Bill Clintion, IMO, happened while they faced the opposite party in congress. I'm not sure I'd
Re: (Score:2)
However, to respond to your other specific points:
- His tax cuts for the rich actually would benefit me... guess I'm guilty of self-interest there
- He dumped is injured wife to marry a 25-yr-old $100M heiress? Wow... that's pretty impressive! Not sure if it affects my vote. At least he ha
Re: (Score:2)
Clinton was being sued for sexual harassment by Paula Jones. To help win her case, her lawyers chose to show a pattern of behavior [wikipedia.org]. This is a common way of bolstering a case against someone.
So calling the President to testify was eminently germane and important. Who is most at fault? Unless you want to say it's the fault of a woman who was sexually harassed, it was Pres. Clinton's fault for having a state trooper escort a w [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:2)
The scenario that runs around in my mind, now that he pretty much has the power to do it, is for Bush to declare martial law the day b
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I don't understand how you can play the race or class card in this context.
Re: (Score:2)
My statement was specifically about the current Bush administration. As such, your statement about someone not in that administration is irrelevant, because it is factually correct that Bush, Cheney, Wolfowitz, Rove, and the rest of the neocons in power are all rich, white men.
If most clouds are white, that does not imply that a marshmallow, which is white, is a cloud. Nor does it imply that things which are not clouds are necessarily black.
In a similar vein, not all rich, powerful white men seek t
Re: (Score:2)
Oh puuuhlease....if a dem is elected then they (neocons, bad guys, power elites, whatever...) have EVERYTHING so perfectly gamed that they ALLOWED them - or maneuvered them - into being elected. In case you have neglected to notice, THEY have privatized everything, including and most importantly, the AMERICAN ELECTION process, the AMERICAN INTELLIGENCE community, etc., etc. That's it for democracy forevermore.
I
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Why not just do what they usually do---sign it now and issue a signing statement that says it doesn't apply to the Bush administration.... :-)
Depends on what the courts do (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
There are many, many parallels between the Bush administration and the Lincoln administration (re:habeas corpus, unilateral declaration of war, unitary executive theory, etc.), but that brings up an interesting historical anecdote: President Lincoln actually did ignore court orders coming from the Supreme Court.
Lincoln suspended the writ of habeas corp
Re: (Score:2)
Ah, but see; that's where the rub is.
Read the Constitution. It says in Article I that "[t]he privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in cases of rebellion or invasion, the public safety may require it." Article I is the Article that covers the legislative branch, not the executive.
Beyond that, here's something I think is interesting: the South seceded. That's not rebellion as I understand it; reb
Re: (Score:2)
Geez, already, with the nonsense....."their legacy" has ONLY been about rising the price of oil - EVERY single action has been to control - and rise - the price of oil - thus their buddies and oil stocks make mucho big bucks.
To ascribe anything other than criminal behavior - when virtually every action they have taken has broken one or th
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It doesn't have to work on the everyone.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
It stopped being cool to spell things with a K replacing a C in like, 1995. Stop.
You're one of those people who spells Microsoft as Micro$oft too, aren't you?
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Hmmm...because Amerika won't allow them to turn the cloak room into their private brothel? Instead, they have to go over to the K Street Project to get it on.....
Re:The executive should have a "secrets budget" li (Score:2)