What was it like to be the guy saying these men deserve hearing a year in to that tragedy when nobody wanted to hear that?

Yeah, that was more like six months in.

You know, I showed up as a volunteer in November 2001 to work on Some air traveler issues, basically.

Sick Americans who were being asked to remove their turbines, even though the metal detectors didn't go off, as kind of a form of security theater, right, to prove to the other passengers that it was safe to fly, that we were taking, you know, every step, including racial profiling, basically.

Yeah.

To keep you safe, right? And that's kind of a continuing theme with all of this stuff we litigated after 9-11.

And then, you know, that got resolved because Norman Mineta, who was Bush's one Democrat in the cabinet, there was a tradition of having one member of the other party.

everybody else.

Is there any context grounding that you think it's important for people to have in mind from the post 9-11 so-called war on terror that is helpful grounding for this?

For this being talking about sanctions, sure.

You know, look, when 9-11 happened, I think, you know, the Bush administration was full of a lot of sort of former Nixon era rejects, you know, lawyers from from who were youngsters working in Nixon's administration who deeply resented what the Warren court had done in the 60s in terms of extending all sorts of procedural rights to criminal defendants.

And in particular, things like, you know, exclusion of evidence being a penalty for illegal searches and seizures.

Right.

All these technicalities that became, you know, the centerpiece of every 1970s police procedural drama.

Right.

Okay, so what does this mean for people who... may not interact with these organizations financially, what do they need to know about how the law may be used to criminalize their interactions that you haven't already said? Is just going to a web page illegal? I know it's intentionally vague, but from what can you tell us that is clear about what can and can't be done?