Poll: Majority Not Scared Of KSM’s Trial — But Opposes It Anyway
The new Rasmussen poll gives us a bit more of a fine-grained look at the public’s opposition to trying Khalid Sheik Muhammad and his co-conspirators in a New York court. It finds:
* Fifty-one percent oppose trying him in a court rather than a military commission.
* Seventy-six percent oppose giving suspected terrorists all the rights of U.S. citizens.
* Fifty-eight percent are confident that New York will be safe and secure during the trial.
So public opposition is not a response to all the lurid fearmongering we’ve heard from Rudy Giuliani and other diehard anti-terror warriors. It’s more rooted in a sense that the justice system isn’t a proper venue to prosecute terrorism, because it places suspected terrorists — symbolically, perhaps more than legally — on an equal footing with your run-of-the-mill suspected murderers.
By the way, speaking of fearmongering from die-hard anti-terror warriors, GOP Rep. John Shadegg doesn’t appear to agree with Mayor Michael Bloomberg’s claim that the New York cops are up to the job of keeping people safe during the trial. Last night he said:
I saw the Mayor of New York said today, “We’re tough. We can do it.” Well, Mayor, how are you going to feel when it’s your daughter that’s kidnapped at school by a terrorist?
While a majority does oppose the trial, it appears that most Americans aren’t quite as fearful of it as Rep. Shadegg is. They’re probably in denial because so much time has passed since 9/11.
This blog’s homepage is here. RSS feed here. Twitter feed here. Email me here..
They’re not scared, they’re bloodthirsty.
“* Seventy-six percent oppose giving suspected terrorists all the rights of U.S. citizens.”
This is what is at the crux of the public polling. The GOP is terrified that the Gitmo inmates are going to be reclassified as POWs and that what the Bush Administration did is going to come out in court.
Innocent until proven guilty – the single most revolutionary idea in the entire constitution – has been under attack right from the start and a large segment of the population would love to just get rid of the presumption.
Tena — I wonder what the result would be if that were polled directly: “Do you believe that suspected terrorists are innocent until proven guilty?”
Might be a different result. Seems to me that people don’t like the symbolism of suspected terrorists being tried in a courtroom, and haven’t thought through the legal implications.
OT but have to run and thought it ought to be noted…
“November 17, 2009
Democrats – Don’t be misled. The media is going to call Obama’s new Afghan strategy a “betrayal” of the Democratic base – but it’s not. It’s actually a decisive rejection of the Republican/Neo-Conservative strategy of the “Long War”
by James Vega, November 17, 2009 10:23 AM EST
When Obama presents his new strategy for Afghanistan in the next few days it is inevitable that many in the press will describe it as a profound betrayal of the Democratic “base”. Obama will face fierce criticism from many progressive and anti-war Democrats who will consider his decision to significantly increase the number of troops as representing a complete capitulation to the military and Republican neoconservatives.
This reaction is understandable, but it is actually profoundly wrong….”
(more at link) http://www.thedemocraticstrategist.org/
These polls are nuts. Incredibly complex issues… We might as well be asking people to decide on SCOTUS Consitutional law cases.
“and haven’t thought through the legal implications.”
I’mnot sure you’d get a clear result with that question, Greg. I don’t necessarily think they’d tell the truth about it.
Jury panels will tell you they agree with the presumption, but they’re lying. Most people have a gut reaction that if someone is charged, that means they are guilty.
And in this instance – forget about it – you know everyone believes he’s guilty. But if you ask people if they believe in the presumption, they will likely say they do. And they don’t. It’s a conundrum built into our system.
Nervousness is expected. I don’t blame people for that. However, this trial would have never gone forward if they didn’t know 100% that they would get a conviction. AG Holder said he’d seek the death penalty and he’ll likey get it.
Take this poll again after a guilty verdict is given, after a sentence of death recieved or carried out…and you’ll see people much more confident in the system.
Right Wing Scare Mongers’ Logic.
The Terrorists attacked us on 9/11/2001, and killed three thousand people.
We should not put the mastermind of those attacks on trial, in a civilian court of law, because that would antagonize those terrorists who attacked us on 9/11/2001, and they might try to attack us, again.
Right Wingers want to appease The Terrorists who attacked us on 9/11/2001 by only doing things that will not upset them.
According to those Right Wing Fear Mongers, killing their leaders with drone attacks, will not upset the Terrorists enough to make them want to attack us again, but trying one of their leaders, will surely make them really really really really mad. According to the Right Wing Fear Mongers, the last thing we would want to do is not please The Terrorists.
According to The Republican Leadership, The Terrorists Are all Powerful, and we must make sure to do nothing that might provoke them.
Can you say: Republican Appeasers Of Terrorists, Boys and Girls?
“Seems to me that people … haven’t thought through the legal implications.”
Couldn’t agree more, Greg – but I think we draw different conclusions! How can we justify using CIA-operated drones to assassinate “suspects” (and innocent citizens) in Pakistan without even a trial while we are arguing here that admitted mass murderers that declared war on us should be tried in Federal courts and be given all the same rights as US citizens?
I believe the idea here is that trying the suspects in NY makes the city a better symbolic target. No one is scared that the terrorists are going to escape.
Basically, the presumption of innocence is something people believe in in the abstract, but they don’t believe it should be applied.
Greg, do you seriously think that all these meaningless polls and the breathless reporting of them is going to move the judiciary even an inch ? Criminal justice systems are not open to “public” to “vote” on.
“Take this poll again after a guilty verdict is given, after a sentence of death recieved or carried out…and you’ll see people much more confident in the system.”
The Bush Administration did not successfully prosecute anyone for terrorism. No wonder people are wary.
@Greg
“I wonder what the result would be if that were polled directly: ‘Do you believe that suspected terrorists are innocent until proven guilty?’”
I think we all know the answer to that question. Overwhelmingly “no”. In most people’s minds, if our armed forces grabbed them…”it was for a reason”. This may not be correct, but it’s the current mindset.
“Criminal justice systems are not open to “public” to “vote” on.”
No they are not and nor should they EVER be subject to public opinion. Ever.
amk, I thought the point of this post was pretty clear: To demonstrate that the fearmongering has yet to work. No?
And sbj, whatever the alleged nature of the threat, a majority is not afraid of it.
“And sbj, whatever the alleged nature of the threat, a majority is not afraid of it.”
But that does not mean that the risk is now elevated.
So, Greg – how do you justify killing suspects from the air without a trial while we give those we capture the presumption of innocence? Wasn’t KSM captured in Pakistan? Perhaps we should have just put a bullet in his head right then…
Americans want to see KSM fry. Period.
He will – they don’t need to worry.
Republicans are afraid that a trial will make the Terrorists mad.
Republicans want to avoid doing that. They want to appease The Terrorists who attacked us on 9/11/2001.
Media; Do your damn jobs.
Ask those Republican Appeasers of Terrorists, if they also want us to stop attacking Those Terrorists, in their camps in Pakistan, because surely that must upset them also?
Greg
“It’s more rooted in a sense that the justice system isn’t a proper venue to prosecute terrorism, because it places suspected terrorists — symbolically, perhaps more than legally — on an equal footing with your run-of-the-mill suspected murderers.”
Teh Public is not the master of he/she surveys. If you ask the public about “run-of-mill” murderers, they will ask them to be fried too. So, they are not best “judges” – pun intended – regardless what the frigging media and the pollsters seem to think (which seems to be about stirring up only stoopid nontroversies)
“in Pakistan without even a trial while we are arguing here that admitted mass murderers that declared war on us should be tried in Federal courts and be given all the same rights as US citizens?
”
So, should the FBI just put a bullet in Roman Polanski’s head? He’s not here, either, though he’s wanted here.
If you want to make the argument that we should not give KSM a trial in federal court, then you are going to first address his status. What is he?
“Americans want to see KSM fry. Period.
He will – they don’t need to worry.”
Is there any problem with Holder’s answering the question of what happens if they fail to convict one of these terrorists by saying that won’t happen? If he is saying the outcome is already determined, or we in any event would never let one of these guys go, is it really a fair trial?
Reality Check:
It was the Bush/Cheney Administration that decided to transfer KSM out of Pakistan, and like most of their decisions, once they made that first decision, they never came up with any further steps to resolve the situation.
Bush pulled KSM out of Pakistan and placed him in Gitmo. After that, Bush was clueless as to what to do next, just like he was with his decisions to invade Iraq, and Afghanistan. Bush was great at lighting matches, but he never was worth a d@mn at putting out the fires he started.
Terrorists attacked us, and will attack us, regardless of how we try those we capture. Republican Fear Mongers want to trick the American people into believing that Al Qaeda Terrorists will only attack us, if we do not appease them.
“Is there any problem with Holder’s answering the question of what happens if they fail to convict one of these terrorists by saying that won’t happen? If he is saying the outcome is already determined, or we in any event would never let one of these guys go, is it really a fair trial?”
You know this isn’t an ordinary criminal trial. You know that – why even try to make this argument when you don’t believe in it anyway?
Forgotten somewhere is all this noise is that alleged Al-Qaeda conspirator Zacarias Moussaoui was tried and convicted in U.S. District Court in Alexandria,VA. If the US can do that, why shouldn’t KSM be tried in civilian court?
Rudy Giuliani, BTW, applauded Moussaoui’s trial saying that it showed we are a “nation of law.” http://mediamatters.org/research/200911130056
“In a CNN interview Mr. Holder said the following in response to a question regarding terror detainees “It seems to me that given the way in which they have conducted themselves, that they are not, in fact, people entitled to the protection of the Geneva Conventions. They are not prisoners of war. If, for instance, Mohamed Atta had survived the attack on the World Trade Center, would we now be calling him a prisoner of war? I think not. Should Zacarias Moussaoui be called a prisoner of war? Again, I think not.”
“How Mr. Holder has moved from detainees not being eligible for Prisoner of War status to granting criminal trials, with constitutional protections on U.S. soil is a trail of logic that is, at best, difficult to follow, absent political considerations.”
“once they made that first decision, they never came up with any further steps to resolve the situation. ”
Other than to waterboard KSM 183 times. That’s all they came up with to do with him.
If the US does not try this man, we might as well just resign our position on human rights forever. Because we will have proven that we are no longer the free democracy that operates by the rule of law. We will be another rogue, bullying, empire.
sbj — I’m not sure where you get the idea that I’m in favor of predator drone strikes.
Reality check check.
A wealth of intelligence information was obtained through interrogation of KSM.
Bush’s approach to trying terrorists and unlawul combatants in military tribunals. Failure to grant KSM the full due process rights of US citizens accused of ordinary domestic crimes is hardly novel or a renunciation of “the rule of law.”
Go ahead and disagree, but don’t make up stuff.
“they are not, in fact, people entitled to the protection of the Geneva Conventions.”
Man, you don’t get it. Holder has no frakking choice -that’s the box Bush left us in. If Holder said anything else, the Bush Administration is in major legal trouble.
“A wealth of intelligence information was obtained through interrogation of KSM.”
O really? That’s not what the reports on all this said. The reports debunked Cheney’s claims about the efficacy of torture.
What this continues to show is that the media and the GOP continue to give a megaphone to the 25% of Americans who want to take away the basic right to a trail that everyone is allowed under the Constitution.
I’m also looking at the number of folks opposed to allowing these guys in court and wondering if there is a connection there between a fear that civil courts might (for whatever reason) let these terrorists “get away”, while a commission would assure that they are convicted for what they have done. I think if you included the information that A) the federal courts allow for the death penalty B) the DOJ has said that it is absolutely confident that they will be convicted, you would find those numbers shift dramatically.
“You know this isn’t an ordinary criminal trial. You know that – why even try to make this argument when you don’t believe in it anyway?”
That’s a nonanswer. What is it even supposed to mean? Of course it is an “ordinary criminal trial.” That is the whole point of Holder/Obama’s decision. It is just what you folks here have been demanding — treating these guys as the common criminals they are and not POWs.
I think convictions are likely, but don’t pretend they are guaranteed — or can be guaranteed unless the trials aren’t going to be real trials meeting all the standards you are demanding. There were WTC terrorists who escaped conviction.
“O really? That’s not what the reports on all this said. The reports debunked Cheney’s claims about the efficacy of torture.”
No, that IS accurate. He sang like a bird before we tortured him.
The most damning of the info came voluntarily when the feds were making their case against Hamdan.
Of course, the torture “evidence” is as worthless as it is inadmissible in a court of law.
Reality Check:
Bush/Cheney had KSM in their custody for several years, and they never brought him to trial in any court or tribunal. Right Wingers are just a bunch of Incompetent Fear Mongers. Fear is all they have.
Nixon bows to Mao!
Here:
Mohammed’s answers to interrogatories could be the most damaging statements he has made since he was captured. Because they were given upon request of a fellow detainee’s attorneys, they lack the taint of possible coercion carried by statements he made under sometimes brutal interrogations by U.S. intelligence agents.
“He flat out gives himself a leadership role and a level of intimate knowledge of the plot that is damning,” said Daniel Richman, a Columbia University law professor and former federal prosecutor in New York. “There’s a clarity and specificity of his statements here that makes for impressive evidence.”
http://blogs.wsj.com/law/2009/11/17/exhibit-a-against-ksm-his-own-uncoerced-statements/
This is all literally one big non-issue trumped up by the partisan Right Wing neo-confederates.
“He sang like a bird before we tortured him.”
That’s right – I actually forgot that part.
@Greg: I don’t read you complaining about them too much!
How can tena and liam and ethan and many others here defend drone strikes that kill suspects while demand at the same time that KSM be given the presumption of innocence?
We justify those drone strikes because we are using them on those who have declared war against us. There is a different standard for use of violence on those with whom we are at war. KSM was at war with us – we couuld have killed him without a trial. But we didn’t – we chose to interrogate this “enemy combatant” to gain extremely valuable intelligence that helped our war effort. At this point it is only appropriate to try him in a military court – where we will probably not use any intelligence that was gained through enhanced interrogation, and we will give him all the rights that our congress has twice deemed he derserved. If we now insist that un-uniformed terrorists who are at war with us must receive all the rights of Federal criminals then shouldn’t we also discontinue air strikes in Pakistan? I don’t understand how to square this circle.
OT, per Bernie. That post he linked from TDS is really good everyone, long if you read the entire thing, but very encouraging for mainstream Dems and even more progressive. sbj, Ethan, Liam and ruk will all get quite a bit of information out of it. Even if we end up with a troop increase our basic strategy is changing.
“Obama’s specific plan for Afghanistan may turn out to be right or wrong – there are entirely reasonable and cogent arguments that a smaller military “footprint” could actually enhance our ability to achieve our ultimate objectives more than a larger one. But, in any case, the method Obama has used to reach his decision is one that has profoundly undermined the basic foundations of the strategy neoconservatives have been following to embroil America in a perpetual “Long War” — an endless series of open-ended, military campaigns that drag on for decades, constantly requiring more and more troops to achieve hopelessly vague and unquantifiable objectives of fundamental social and cultural transformation across the Muslim world.
In fact, years from now, Obama’s strategic review this fall may be seen by historians as the moment when America first began to “step on the breaks” to slow the “Long War” and Progressive and anti-war Democrats should keep this clearly in mind as they express their understandable disappointment and frustration. The basic underlying struggle that has gone on this fall has not really been over the exact number of troops to send to Afghanistan but rather between the advocates of the open-ended “long war” and those who favor a carefully defined and limited mission. In this crucial and fundamental debate Obama has clearly and forcefully embraced the second alternative.”
“That’s a nonanswer. What is it even supposed to mean? Of course it is an “ordinary criminal trial.” That is the whole point of Holder/Obama’s decision.”
From a PR standpoint, Holder is walking a very sharp razor’s edge because the public is in the mood for blood not to see a fair trial. Holder is sure of his evidence and if you will pay attention, most prosecutors will tell you on the eve of trial that they have a sure case.
Tortured KSM was the poisoned pill that darth-shrubco left for the repugs. They could chew that and fall on their own swords.
“Even if we end up with a troop increase our basic strategy is changing.”
God this is exactly what I hoped for, Imsinca. This is excellent frakking news.
“Tortured KSM was the poisoned pill that darth-shrubco left for the repugs. They could chew that and fall on their own swords.”
that and the tinkering around with the legal status of the people they picked up and locked up. That’s what that series of memos between the DOJ and the WH were about. John Yoo – the horror who came up with a lot of these ideas?
Thanks lmsinca and bernie – i will read the link. But I wanted to get provocative first:
“At the same time that Obama’s plan will authorize additional troops, his new strategy already represents a powerful repudiation of the fundamental Bush/neoconservative strategy…”
Wouldn’t it also represent “a powerful repudiation” of Obama’s own strategy that he so recently announced?
“Wouldn’t it also represent “a powerful repudiation” of Obama’s own strategy that he so recently announced?”
I don’t really know that it does but if it does – so? Can’t he change his strategy if the facts warrant it?
He’s obviously studied the situation at length in depth.
And Greg, the proper response to Rudy is why has he flip- flopped on this issue?
Read the post first sbj.
No joke Lmsinca. Anyone who wants to see a flopper should watch what John Stewart did to Giuliani last night. It was pretty good.
SBJ wants us to not take out the Al Qaeda Leadership in Pakistan. You know, those ******** who hit us on 9/11/2001, but SBJ also wants us to send many more Troops to die in Afghanistan, where Al Qaeda is not.
SBJ is the sort of illogical war mongering loon that The Terrorists love. He is a big help to them.
“I don’t really know that it does but if it does – so? Can’t he change his strategy if the facts warrant it?
“He’s obviously studied the situation at length in depth.”
So what you are saying is that the first strategy he announced was NOT the result of careful study?
Of course he can change his strategy – he’s CiC. It’ll be interesting to see if he acknowledges that he messed up the first time – in the process costing us billions of dollars and lives lost, right?
O my god – Bernie and Imsinca – that is a stunning article. thank you so much for the link and the further explanation that made me go read it in depth.
edit;
This useless software also censors the word; b@stards.
“t he messed up the first time – in the process costing us billions of dollars and lives lost, right?”
How many times, sbj? Obama inherited Afghanistan.
And nobody can talk about money and lives wasted who supported Bush and the Iraq War.
Just a reminder:
Bush/Cheney hand picked Ahmed Chalabi and Hamed Karzai to be the leaders who were going to plant the seeds of Democracy in Iraq and Afghanistan.
That is all you need to know about the level of competence of the Bush/Cheney admn. If they are against something, you can be damn sure that it is most likely the wise thing to do.
Sam Stein over at HuffPo.
“In a joint statement prepared by the Constitution Project, David Keene, founder of American Conservative Union, Grover Norquist, president of Americans for Tax Reform, and former representative and presidential candidate Bob Barr say moving suspected terrorists to the Thomson, Illinois prison facility, “makes good sense.” Taxpayers, they note, have already invested $145 million in the facility, which has been “little used.” And the surrounding community, they add, could benefit from increased employment once the prison becomes filled.
“The scaremongering about these issues should stop,” they add, noting that there is “absolutely no reason to fear that prisoners will escape or be released into their communities.”
The letter is a bit of a boost for the Obama administration, which has had great difficulty finding a politically palatable way to transfer prisoners and close Gitmo.”
sbj
You are like a broken record on the subject. All CIC decisions should be based on the best information at the time. If the situation changes then so should the strategy. It’s simple and straight forward to me, not the decision obviously, but the process to forming the decision.
“sbj
You are like a broken record”.
Yeah, what else is new ?
@lmsinca: I read the article and I am not impressed.
It repeatedly obfuscates in that it pretends the Af-Pak strategy that was outlined in the white paper was somehow NOT Obama’s strategy! It describes the Af-Pak strategy as (inappropriately) “breathtakingly ambitious” while failing to point out that this was the strategy that Obama presented after taking office and after implementing his own thorough review! This article says that neoconservatives “tried to stampede Obama into giving his generals the right not only to determine the tactics and strategy for Afghanistan but also to define the mission.” Again, McChrystal proposed a troop increase to implement the white paper strategy that Obama decided on.
If the first strategy he selected was somehow foisted upon a powerless Obama (which I do not believe for one second), then this shows Obama to be … ? Well, it does not reflect well upon him, IMO.
“@lmsinca: I read the article and I am not impressed. ”
Quel surprise.
Hahahahahahahahahaha!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
The neo-con strategy of pushing Obama into making a quick decision was thwarted by Obama himself. I believe it shows his clear understanding of the realites we face in Afghanistan and will be reflected in both his definition of our goals and the strategy to achieve them.
“I believe it shows his clear understanding of the realites we face in Afghanistan and will be reflected in both his definition of our goals and the strategy to achieve them.”
I believe right along with you and once he made it clear he wasn’t going to be hurried, I began to feel rather good about where we might be headed.
If that article is right, and it sure sounds right, I am going to die a happy woman. I want us to get our culture back from the military. They’ve just increasingly dominated our entire national life with the Endless War.
“No, that IS accurate. He sang like a bird before we tortured him.”
Complete baloney. Are we really going to rehash that nonsense? This is part of the BIG LIE that I completely debunked way back in the summer when Greg was making ridiculous claims that Cheney had lied about the efficacy of EIT. And all of you liberals fell over yourselves to embellish those claims, only to look foolish. The reports unequivocally document that KSM became an encyclopedia of information after EIT. Now Ethan tries to resurrect discredited claims to the contrary — sorry, but I don’t think you were even here when we went through it and debunked that nonsene the first time.
Give it a rest already.
Quarterbrain thinks that he can just lie, and he will be believed. Ignore the lying Right Wing weasel.
Hey, it’s a Rasmussen poll – what do you EXPECT it to say?? Something other than what Beck or Hannratty want it to say?? HA!
Dirt piles equal dirt piles any way you package it up….
Ethan’s supposed proof that KSM “sang like a bird” before and not after “torture” is a WSJ report that the the best evidence against him might be “in interrogatories given last year in the case concerning Salim Hamdan” (they presumably mean answers to interrogatories).
That’s right — last year, not before “torture.” Go back and read the reports about KSM. After EIT he opened up like an encyclopedia. Ethan’s proof is proof that Ethan is still wrong and Cheney was right.
What a complete joke.
I think most people would say innocent until proven guilty, but they don’t want anyone getting off on a technicality…like torture.
Liam the Liar,
You were here when I completely refuted all your ridiculous lies about the efficacy of EIT last summer. Pretend all you you want. We all know what happened. You buffoons couldn’t defend your claims that “torture didn’t work” and couldn’t even identify the EITs at issue or which ones were “torture.”
“but they don’t want anyone getting off on a technicality…like torture.”
I think that’s part of it alright, Kathleen.
qb – still a stoopid fvcking wingnut troll.
The thing is I don’t understand what makes them think torture is more apt to come into evidence in federal court as opposed to a military court. I don’t see that that is so.
I suspect KSM’s lawyer will bring it up anywhere and everywhere unless there is an understanding reached before trial on what evidence is admissible and what isn’t. And there well might be.
“Man, you don’t get it. Holder has no frakking choice -that’s the box Bush left us in. If Holder said anything else, the Bush Administration is in major legal trouble.”
Another piece of complete bs and evasion. Holder agreed that Geneva didn’t apply YEARS AGO.
And there is no “box” left by Bush. Military tribunals are still available. Your heros Obama and Holder still reserve that option.
Thank You, Bush/Cheney Confederacy Of Fear Mongering Incompetents. This is what the trillions of dollars they have squandered, and the thousands of our Troops lives which they have squandered, has wrought.
Ask yourselves; why should we keep doing the same thing again and again?
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20091117/ap_on_bi_ge/eu_corruption_index/print
”
Afghanistan slips in corruption index despite aid
Nov 17, 10:17 am ET
BERLIN – Afghanistan has slipped three places to become the world’s second most-corrupt country despite billions in aid meant to bolster the government against a rising insurgency, according to an annual survey of perceived levels of corruption.
Only lawless Somalia, whose weak U.N.-backed government controls just a few blocks of the capital, was perceived as more corrupt than Afghanistan in Transparency International’s Corruption Perceptions Index.
Iraq saw some improvement, rising to 176 of 180 countries, up two places up from last year. Singapore, Denmark and New Zealand were seen as the least corrupt countries in the list based on surveys of businesses and experts.
In Afghanistan, President Hamid Karzai’s inability or unwillingness to tackle cronyism and bribery the past five years have resulted in an increase of support for the Taliban insurgents. That has prompted calls by the Obama administration for Karzai to tackle the practice or risk forfeiting U.S. aid.
Since 2001, the U.S. Congress has appropriated more than $39 billion in humanitarian and reconstruction assistance for Afghanistan, according to a report by the U.S. Special Inspector General for Afghanistan Reconstruction. European nations send about 1 billion euros ($1.49 billion) a year, a total of 9 billion euros since 2002.
International donors are increasingly questioning how much of the billions of dollars in aid might have been misappropriated.
The report said examples of Afghan corruption ranged from the sale of government positions to daily bribes for basic services.”