Democracy Arsenal

« A Budget for Halloween | Main | Protecting Sources »

October 28, 2005

Once again the cover up
Posted by Morton H. Halperin

As I write, official Washington remains focused on who, if anyone, will be indicted by special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald.  The only thing that is clear is that he knows how to keep a secret, although the New York Times is reporting this morning that I. Lewis Libby Jr. will be indicted for misleading the Grand Jury and that Karl Rove will remain under investigation.  I will have more to say this morning once Fitzgerald announces the results of his investigation.

We appear to have escaped the worst outcome of an indictment under the espionage statutes for disclosing classified information to the press.  As I wrote last week, this would have been a serious threat to the public debate about national security, a threat still posed by the ongoing AIPAC case (an issue I will return to later as well).  (You may have heard Steve Aftergood of the Secrecy News and me on this issue on NPR's Morning Edition this morning.)

Libby and Rove have certainly by now learned the lesson of Watergate -- once there is a criminal investigation begins, tell the truth and the full truth.  "Forgetting" what no reasonable person would forget can lead to indictment as easily as deliberately saying something that is not true.  One hopes that at least some Republicans will remember what they said about perjury before a Grand Jury during the Clinton years when they react to this story.

For the rest of us the larger issues relate to how the nation goes to war and how much truth and how much debate we should have before the President can send Americans into harm's way.  Allowing the president to make the decision to go to war without Congress declaring war leads inevitably to deception.    

I believe that the President and most, if not all, of his advisers believed that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction.  However, it is equally clear that for most of them this was not the primary reason to go to war. For many in the administration this was a classic case of a group of people with a solution -- topple Sadam -- looking for a problem.  They found it with 9/11 and used the President's feeling that he needed to do more than invade Afghanistan to persuade him to invade Iraq. For others, including the President, it was the need to show resolve in the face of the terrorist attacks.

There were clearly others in the administration who were not sure the time for war had come --including Secretary Powell, who had his usual doubts about ever using force -- and who had concerns about some of the evidence.  While the intelligence community came to the conclusion that Iraq still had chemical and biological weapons, many had doubts about some of the sources and few believed that Iraq had an active nuclear program.

The fault was in not laying out all of these uncertainties and differences so that the American people and the Congress could fully debate the issues. 

The most important lesson to learn therefore is that we need to restore the role that the framers intended Congress to have before the nation goes to war.  They understood how momentous a decision this is and therefore required that the Congress "declare" war before the nation goes into battle unless there is an urgent need to respond to an attack.  (For a post-Iraq bi-partisan re-assertion of this "conservative" view, see a report of the task force of the Constitution Project.  Full disclosure -- I was on the task force and serve on the Board of the Project.)

The key is to insist that only the Congress can take us to war.  Once this was accepted by all, the responsibility would clearly be on the Congress and it would insist on full disclosure of information, including disagreements within the Executive branch, and would conduct full hearings that would include outside critics of the proposed war.  At least after the Gulf of Tonkin fiasco it is hard to imagine Congress doing less if its support for the war is understood to be essential and not just a side show.  The administration of the day would have to focus on making its case to the public and the Congress and not on deciding what to keep secret and what to say in public to get the support it thinks it needs.

Taking the nation to war without a full debate not only violates the Constitution, but it also leads to the deception of the public which in the end undercuts support for the war.  This was one key lesson of Vietnam, as it will be of Iraq.  And when the deception somehow becomes the subject of a criminal investigation, it leads inevitably to deception and criminal conduct and the destruction of people who set out to do what they believe is right for the nation.

October 28, 2005 at 08:39 AM |

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d83451c04d69e200d8345f66ee53ef

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Once again the cover up:

Comments

I have a problem with this logic. It depends too much on reality. But suppose in an alternative universe the neocons had been mostly right?

Suppose that they were right to apply military force for nonproliferation. With US forces in kuwait and turkey we could have crushed iraq like a nutcracker. Suppose that iraq was seriously considering WMDs. And in this alternate universe, iraq, iran and north korea were the only serious offenders for nonproliferation -- israel was completely responsible etc.

Then a sudden attack would break iraq, and whle we were creating a liberal democracy there we'd have a staging area to attack iran. And in the meantime our agents could cross the long border and connect up with the pro-democracy forces in iran. We could support them and maybe get a change in government without needing a direct invasion. That would leave only the hard case. Supposing that china supported us in negotiation with NK maybe NK would fold. And if not maybe china would invade NK for us, or would help us invade NK. With forces north and south we'd have another nutcracker. And if china didn't invade maybe they wouldn't object to us invading and getting close to the chinese border. It might be possible to achieve the whole thing, though it might require three invasions.

Now, suppose that Saddam's WMDs weren't quite ready. But after the sanctions were ended they would be ready pretty fast. Would the US public go along with a pre-emptive invasion based on what Saddam might do a few years down the line? We could argue about it for a year or three. (In reality we delayed a long time looking for UN approval etc.) All the time we spent arguing would be time Saddam could develop his WMDs to make our invasion costly. If the iraqi military hadn't been a basket case it would have been extremely dangerous for us to wait a year to invade, while they prepared for us. As it turned out it was no problem, they were like a hamster in a cage and we could lay out the dissection kit before their eyes and they couldn't do a thing.

When we spend a year or three arguing whether to invade some other nation, it kind of poisons the atmosphere. Say we ventually decide not to invade, by a close vote. How will our relations be with that country then? If it's a fairly weak country, once they think we seriously want to invade them we're probably better off to go ahead and do it and get a new government. We won't get anything good out of the current government for a very long time.

While it's true we've had a series of stupid excuses for wars (They're threatening our med students. Their president sells drugs. Etc.), it could be almost as likely that the government really does know best and shouldn't tell us the truth.

Given the reality to balance the possibilities that didn't actually happen, I'm not willing to trust the government to decide secretly what's best. We lose too much when we lose that gamble. But calling for a national debate is equivalent to calling for war only when it's so obvious there will be no debate.

It means giving up pre-emptive war. Because if we debate whether to start a pre-emptive war in a situation where there truly is a threat to our security, we can expect our enemies to pre-empt *us*.

I wouldn't mind giving up pre-emptive war too. But it's better to say what we're doing.

Posted by: J Thomas | October 28, 2005 at 11:58 AM

I'm going to cause a small stroke and agree with J Thomas here.

However, only in part, and only for different reasons.

Namely:

1. What you propose will inevitably mean that, during this discussion period, someone who would never be eligible for a security clearance (and in some cases, would never be granted one if they were) is going to want to see the (presumably classified) intelligence backing up that decision.

OK...Say you do let them see it.

Well, remember, this is DC. Leaks happen with amazing frequency.

What leads you to believe that significant details of said intelligence would not find their way back to the target, perhaps through the media?

And what do you think said target figures out that we've (more than likely) got spies in their midst?

Aren't we currently indicting people because of such concerns, pretty much?

2. Once you even breathe the possibility of a potential war with a country, let alone get to the point of having a serious debate on the topic, it's rather like "partial mobilization" (or, actually, mobilization of any sort) immediately prior to WWI. You can't stop that ball; As soon as you do that, you basically have to go to war.

3. In expecting an administration, any administration, to air its disagreements in public, you seem...naive. I mean, c'mon, even little kids know that you don't win anything if you show off your disagreements in public. It tends to undermine your authority.

4. Most of those in the House or Senate, to be frank, would be waaaaaaaay over their head trying to digest the factors, data, etc. involved in such decisions. It's not like they're elected with anybody expecting them to have any clue about foreign affairs or defense issues.

5. These hearings...We're supposed to expect the discussion of classified information in (presumably, given the appearance of out-of-government opponents) open hearings?

Uh, see point 1.

There's a reason why such things are typically only given actual discussion in closed hearings.

(On a similar note, there's a reason why, prior to 1929, all treaties were debated by the Senate in closed session. I could see a reason for that custom to be resumed, given recent treaty hell. We could do with honest debate on such matters.)

Posted by: John Penta | October 28, 2005 at 03:13 PM

The real problem is that no matter how long it takes Fitzgerald to close his investigation or when Libby's trial is over at the end of the day we are still going to be in Iraq. So where is the plan to deal w/ Iraq and redefine how to execute the war of terror? The jihadists aren't going away.

Posted by: Robert M | October 28, 2005 at 07:59 PM

I still want to know at the end of the day what is the plan to one, deal w/ Iraq and two, what are the plans to pursue the war on Terror. The Jihadists are not going to just go away.

Posted by: Robert M | October 28, 2005 at 08:02 PM

Robert W, there's no point in making a plan for iraq while Bush/Cheney are in office to veto it.

In the short run, anybody who says "I have a plan to win some goals in iraq using military force" will be heard as "I support Bush's plan to stay the course.".

If you have a plan, send it to somebody in the military who might forward it to the military guys in iraq who might do it secretly. If they can't do it without announcing it publicly, it won't get done.

Alternatively, if it sounds good on the surface, it might get announced as the new plan and still not get done.

Here's a plan for WoT: reduce our critical vulnerabilities. This includes: partially subsidise our dangerous chemical plants etc in bad places to relocate. Don't pay the whole thing, just enough to reduce the pain if they relocate or shut down. Incease security for ports etc.

This is a long-term project, but it's necessary. Even if the jihadists did all go away, they've shown our vulnerability to the world. Anybody in the world who wants to hurt us this way can do it. If we're going to have enemies we can't afford to be this exposed. And we will have enemies -- any time we critically support group A against group B, group B might want to hurt us or group A might want to hurt us and blame it on group B. We might get hit if we take sides anywhere. So infiltrating jihadist groups is not nearly enough. We would need to infiltrate every foreign group that might choose to hurt us, plus every crackpot group in idaho etc. And every intelligence failure might be the one that lets a WMD attack through.

So we need to harden our defenses. And we need to set up some dummy sites that look weak. We'd have lots of media and blog reports about it. "We're spending all this money to improve security, but look at this facility at Naugahyde! It's an attack waiting to happen! I personally walked in there and nobody even asked me what I was doing, if I'd been a terrorist millions of people would have died!" Make a continuing fuss about it and then if some terrorist group pays attention and tries for it we mousetrap them.

There's no sure defense but carrying the war to one particular enemy is beyond stupid when we're sulnerable to everybody.

Posted by: J Thomas | October 29, 2005 at 04:40 AM

You are all missing the big picture here. What has every president tried to do while they were in office for the past 20-30 years? They have tried and failed to bring Peace to those Palis and Israelis.

This war was an end to a means. Would Israel ever give up the West Bank and Gaza with an armed Iraq, Iran and Syria? They would have to be nuts.

These Neocons are facilitating the process here. Knock out Iraq, Israel gives back the Gaza Strip, knock out Iran and Syria and you might see a handover of the West Bank and perhaps the Golan Heights.

This is the only reason why I see Tony Blair involved in this middle east fiasco, because he has nothing to gain otherwise by siding with us.

I believe the initial plan was to disarm the axis of evil and then Israel would not have to relinguish anything, plans of course have changed with facts on the ground and some arm twisting by what is left of our soveriegn nation that Israel has hijacked.

Everything is connected in form or another.

Posted by: AntiMonkeyism | October 29, 2005 at 07:09 PM

You have parroted the Bush talking point concerning the support of the intelligence community:

"While the intelligence community came to the conclusion that Iraq still had chemical and biological weapons, many had doubts about some of the sources and few believed that Iraq had an active nuclear program."

The CIA repeatedly questioned the assertation that Iraq had WMD's. It was the 'White House Iraq Group' set up by Cheney and the "Defence Intelligence Agency" set up by Rumsfeld, both staffed by neo-cons that were consistently wrong in their claims that Iraq had WMD's. To lump these group in with the CIA as "The Intelligence Community" does a disservice to intelligence and supports the administration's contention that the "intelligence Community got it wrong.

Posted by: Johan | October 31, 2005 at 08:23 AM

Johan, a minor point, we've had something called "Defense Intelligence Agency" since 1961. I was surprised to see you say Rumsfeld set it up. Did Rumsfeld set up a different one, or was Rumsfeld involved in setting it up in 1961?

Posted by: J Thomas | October 31, 2005 at 09:09 PM

杭州办公室清洁|杭州清洁公司|杭州地毯清洁
杭州办公室清洁|杭州清洁公司|杭州地毯清洁
杭州办公室清洁|杭州清洁公司|杭州地毯清洁
杭州办公室清洁|杭州清洁公司|杭州地毯清洁
杭州办公室清洁|杭州清洁公司|杭州地毯清洁
杭州办公室清洁|杭州清洁公司|杭州地毯清洁
杭州办公室清洁|杭州清洁公司|杭州地毯清洁
杭州办公室清洁|杭州清洁公司|杭州地毯清洁
杭州办公室清洁|杭州清洁公司|杭州地毯清洁
杭州办公室清洁|杭州清洁公司|杭州地毯清洁
杭州办公室清洁|杭州清洁公司|杭州地毯清洁
杭州办公室清洁|杭州清洁公司|杭州地毯清洁
杭州办公室清洁|杭州清洁公司|杭州地毯清洁
杭州办公室清洁|杭州清洁公司|杭州地毯清洁
杭州办公室清洁|杭州清洁公司|杭州地毯清洁
杭州家政|杭州家政服务|杭州小时工|杭州钟点工
杭州家政|杭州家政服务|杭州小时工|杭州钟点工
杭州家政|杭州家政服务|杭州小时工|杭州钟点工
杭州家政|杭州家政服务|杭州小时工|杭州钟点工
杭州家政|杭州家政服务|杭州小时工|杭州钟点工
杭州家政|杭州家政服务|杭州小时工|杭州钟点工
杭州家政|杭州家政服务|杭州小时工|杭州钟点工
杭州家政|杭州家政服务|杭州小时工|杭州钟点工
杭州家政|杭州家政服务|杭州小时工|杭州钟点工
杭州家政|杭州家政服务|杭州小时工|杭州钟点工
杭州家政|杭州家政服务|杭州小时工|杭州钟点工
杭州家政|杭州家政服务|杭州小时工|杭州钟点工
杭州家政|杭州家政服务|杭州小时工|杭州钟点工
杭州家政|杭州家政服务|杭州小时工|杭州钟点工
杭州家政|杭州家政服务|杭州小时工|杭州钟点工

Posted by: 杭州空调维修公司 | August 22, 2007 at 11:26 PM

杭州家装|杭州家装公司|杭州家庭装饰|杭州家庭装修
杭州家装|杭州家装公司|杭州家庭装饰|杭州家庭装修
杭州家装|杭州家装公司|杭州家庭装饰|杭州家庭装修
杭州家装|杭州家装公司|杭州家庭装饰|杭州家庭装修
杭州家装|杭州家装公司|杭州家庭装饰|杭州家庭装修
杭州家装|杭州家装公司|杭州家庭装饰|杭州家庭装修
杭州家装|杭州家装公司|杭州家庭装饰|杭州家庭装修
杭州家装|杭州家装公司|杭州家庭装饰|杭州家庭装修
杭州家装|杭州家装公司|杭州家庭装饰|杭州家庭装修
杭州家装|杭州家装公司|杭州家庭装饰|杭州家庭装修
杭州家装|杭州家装公司|杭州家庭装饰|杭州家庭装修
杭州家装|杭州家装公司|杭州家庭装饰|杭州家庭装修
杭州家装|杭州家装公司|杭州家庭装饰|杭州家庭装修
杭州家装|杭州家装公司|杭州家庭装饰|杭州家庭装修
杭州家装|杭州家装公司|杭州家庭装饰|杭州家庭装修
杭州家装|杭州家装公司|杭州家庭装饰|杭州家庭装修
杭州家装|杭州家装公司|杭州家庭装饰|杭州家庭装修
杭州家装|杭州家装公司|杭州家庭装饰|杭州家庭装修
杭州家装|杭州家装公司|杭州家庭装饰|杭州家庭装修
杭州家装|杭州家装公司|杭州家庭装饰|杭州家庭装修
杭州家装|杭州家装公司|杭州家庭装饰|杭州家庭装修
杭州家装|杭州家装公司|杭州家庭装饰|杭州家庭装修
杭州家装|杭州家装公司|杭州家庭装饰|杭州家庭装修
杭州家装|杭州家装公司|杭州家庭装饰|杭州家庭装修
杭州家装|杭州家装公司|杭州家庭装饰|杭州家庭装修
杭州家装|杭州家装公司|杭州家庭装饰|杭州家庭装修
杭州家装|杭州家装公司|杭州家庭装饰|杭州家庭装修

Posted by: 杭州商铺装修 | August 29, 2007 at 02:10 AM

深圳印刷网内容包含介绍深圳印刷行业信息，主要提供深圳不干胶印刷、深圳包装印刷的生产服务厂家。为寻找深圳印刷公司朋友引导导航!

Posted by: 深圳印刷网 | September 12, 2007 at 09:58 PM

深圳空调网内容包含介绍深圳空调维修行业信息，主要提供深圳空调维修，深圳空调安装，深圳空调加雪种,深圳拆装空调,深圳空调拆装的服务公司。为需要空调维修的公司提供帮助！
我房子上次在深圳装修的时修，我发现了深圳装修网、上面介绍的深圳装修公司和深圳装饰公司服务都还不错、如果你们要选择深圳装饰公司！请到装修网！
为优秀的深圳律师进行服务！深圳律师网，共同推荐优秀的律师事务所

Posted by: 深圳印刷网 | September 12, 2007 at 09:59 PM

使用硬盘数据备份功能在紧急关头进行数据恢复

关键词：数据恢复，数据恢复资料，服务器数据恢复技术
杀毒软件也有备份硬盘和数据恢复的功能，有时，还能起到Ghost的作用，你想知道是怎么实现的吗？看看瑞星的硬盘数据备份和数据恢复

功能吧。
　　1.瑞星硬盘数据备份和数据恢复工具原理

　　瑞星的硬盘数据备份并不是全盘备份，主要是由于全盘备份需要大量的时间及硬盘空间，非常不便。尽管如此，它还是备份了许多关键数据，因此，在绝大多数时候能够恢复

出被损坏的硬盘数据。

　　要想了解这一点，就要知道硬盘数据的存储结构。硬盘数据存储有四个区域:引导区、文件分配表、目录区、文件数据区。引导区在最外层，它决定着硬盘是否可以启动，其他

分区是否可以显示，CIH发作时系统会找不到硬盘，就是因为该区域的数据被损坏了，一些硬盘备份工具备份的是该区域的数据，因此，只能保证将分区恢复出来，而数据就无法恢

复了。

　　瑞星硬盘数据备份工具的备份原理是将以上提到的引导区、文件分配表、目录区等三个区域的数据备份出来，以压缩的形式放在硬盘的尾部，像CIH、硬盘杀手之类的病毒一般

只会破坏到硬盘前面的数据，只要将备份的硬盘的这三部分数据按照原来的位置拷贝过去，就把原来的数据恢复出来了，因此恢复成功率很

高。
　　2.恢复已经被删除的数据

　　瑞星硬盘数据备份和服务器数据恢复工具备份硬盘的时间默认是每天在中午12点钟备份一次，当然也可以选择在任一时刻备份。如果

你的电脑在备份完不久被不小心格式化了，或者一些关键的目录及文件被误删除了，且这种删除不能通过“回收站”来恢复，那么这时你可以试试用瑞星的硬盘备份功能进行恢复:

只要进入DOS模式下，启动瑞星DOS版，选择恢复备份就可将近期的误删服务器数据恢复出来。不过，备份时间与恢复时间之间的差越小越好

，因为瑞星硬盘备份和数据恢复工具并不是完全备份硬盘数据，而一般的删除操作也只是在扇区上做标记，修改一下文件指针指向的信息，真正的文件内容信息是没有改变的，这

就像我们用橡皮擦去一句话中间的一个字一样，字虽然没了，但是字的空间还留着，硬盘的这种数据存储方式使得瑞量的硬盘数据备份工具有着很好的使用效果。

　　不过，随着时间的推移，这些被删除文件的空间将会发生变化，从而改变被删除文件或目录中的内容，最明显的是碎片整理操作，在进行碎片整理时，整个硬盘空间将会重新

分配，因此那些被删除文件的实际内容将遭到完全破坏，如果这时还用原来备份的旧信息进行恢复的话，将会出现严重错误，因此，只有在那些文件被删除不久进行恢复，恢复的

成功性才会大。
　　3.瑞星硬盘数据备份工具的使用步骤

　　第一步:调出瑞星硬盘数据备份和数据恢复工具。点击“开始→程序瑞星杀毒→硬盘数据备份和硬盘数据恢复”，打开”瑞星硬盘数据

备份和数据恢复”的主界面，当然用户也可以在瑞星杀毒软件主界面中的“工具”菜单中选择“硬盘数据备份”来调出该工具。

　　第二步:开始备份和备份设置。在主界面中点击“开始备份”，”硬盘数据备份和Raid数据恢复”工具即开始工作，这期间不需

要用户做任何操作。如果用户想要选择定时备份的话，则需在主界面上点击“备份设置”调出配置界面，然后选择相应的备份频率，共有每小时、每天、每周、每年四种自动备份

设定。

　　第三步:恢复数据。如果用户需要恢复硬盘数据则需要用启动光盘或者启动软盘启动系统，进入DOS模式，找到瑞星安装目录，默认为“C:\progra~1\rising\rav”，然后键入

”RAVDOS”启动瑞星杀毒软件DOS版，如果用户手上有最新的瑞星杀毒软件软盘版，则可以省去上述步骤，直接用瑞星杀毒软件软盘版启动，这时可自动出现瑞星杀毒软件DOS版主

界面。在该界面上选择“实用工具→硬盘数据恢复和数据恢复”，即可恢复备份的数据了。

重庆数据恢复成都数据恢复
上海数据恢复深圳数据恢复
北京数据恢复西安数据恢复
硬盘数据恢复
硬盘数据恢复重庆数据恢复
成都数据恢复 上海数据恢复
深圳数据恢复 北京数据恢复
西安数据恢复

Posted by: 数据恢复 | November 22, 2007 at 12:46 AM

like youu

Posted by: oyunlar | December 02, 2007 at 02:53 PM

If you have a TypeKey or TypePad account

Posted by: Replica Gucci handbag | April 22, 2009 at 04:22 AM

If you have a TypeKey or TypePad account

Posted by: Replica Gucci handbags | April 22, 2009 at 04:23 AM

thanks for your article!
Shoring scaffolding for construction is a very useful tool.
Books printed by China printing is very good quality and good prices.
Plastic products made by injection molding services with low costs and supeior quality.

Posted by: plastic injection molding | June 02, 2009 at 11:44 PM

thanks for your article!
Shoring scaffolding for construction is a very useful tool.
Books printed by China printing is very good quality and good prices.
Plastic products made by injection molding services with low costs and supeior quality.

Posted by: plastic injection molding | June 03, 2009 at 12:13 AM

CHEAP rs gold
MY lotro gold
CHEAPEST aion gold

Posted by: ghghg | July 03, 2009 at 11:01 PM

Thank you for your sharing.! seslichat seslisohbet

Posted by: muhtar | January 11, 2010 at 12:03 PM

Thank you for your sharing! I like i very much!

Posted by: cheap coach handbags | January 29, 2010 at 10:04 PM

Time is money, and many people pay their debts with it.Do you like the ugg boots?

Posted by: Ugg Classic Short | July 04, 2010 at 09:13 PM

Rome was not built in a day.

Posted by: paddle | August 30, 2010 at 03:58 AM

thanks for sharing Sohbet many people are pay more attention to one's wearing than before, especially a watch. Chat .
Perhaps when you went to some place far away Chat you must borrow it from friends Sohbet you can get everything you want in this game
Chat money to invest in other industry which will return you good profit. Sohbet when you look at the surface of the watches
Egitim from the city you live in and thought you knew nobody there exsohbet

Posted by: chat | December 17, 2010 at 01:50 PM

Rather useful article. Myself & my neighbor were preparing to do some research about that. We got a high quality book on that matter from our local library and most books were not as descriptive as your information. I am really glad to see such information which I was searching for a long time.

Posted by: Divorce Attorneys NY | February 23, 2011 at 07:55 AM

Rather useful article. Myself & my neighbor were preparing to do some research about that. We got a high quality book on that matter from our local library and most books were not as descriptive as your information. I am really glad to see such information which I was searching for a long time.

Posted by: New York City Divorce Lawyers | February 23, 2011 at 08:09 AM

Post a comment

If you have a TypeKey or TypePad account, please Sign In.

Guest Contributors
Founder
Subscribe
Sign-up to receive a weekly digest of the latest posts from Democracy Arsenal.
Email: 
Subscribe to this blog's feed
RSS 2.0
Powered by TypePad

Disclaimer

The opinions voiced on Democracy Arsenal are those of the individual authors and do not represent the views of any other organization or institution with which any author may be affiliated.
Read Terms of Use