# Extend PATRIOT Act? Moyers has 'scoop' **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [February 8, 2003, 12:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/extend-patriot-act-moyers-has-scoop/153605 "2003-02-08T00:10:03Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 6
**Author:** ![Dewey\_Cheatem\_Undhow](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/13edae/32.png) [@Dewey\_Cheatem\_Undhow](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dewey_Cheatem_Undhow)\ **Post date:** [February 9, 2003, 2:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/extend-patriot-act-moyers-has-scoop/153605/101 "2003-02-09T14:33:05Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by elucidator \* > **If, as you say, my ire is more correctly aimed at procedural questions, I hasten to point out that this proposition would nullify those procedures _in advance_. That Mr. Padilla is held without recourse to the procedures we would offer to the vilest murderer is repulsive. Do you suggest that this proposed amendment somehow ameliorates that? I think not, but if I am wrong, kindly advise me.** Assuming for the sake of argument that everything you say about the Padilla case is true, what does that say about this amendment (on the narrow portion we’ve been discussing)? Does it ameliorate the harms you describe? No, but then again neither does the tax bill. The crucial point is that _it doesn’t make it worse_. The procedural safeguards you describe are not harmed by the content of the proposed item. They may be harmed _other_ actions of the administration, true, but not by the language in question. That being the case, your ire is misdirected. To say otherwise means you may as well criticize every single act Congress passes – up to and including “National Gopher Week” resolutions – because they do not deal with the procedural safeguards you find lacking in the Padilla case. To put it simply: Mr. Padilla is being held without the passage of this act. This act does nothing that would worsen Mr. Padilla’s position w/r/t procedural safeguards. Ergo, your concerns regarding Mr. Padilla are better directed elsewhere. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [February 9, 2003, 3:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/extend-patriot-act-moyers-has-scoop/153605/102 "2003-02-09T15:29:23Z")
> [@](#): > > But whereas a citizen formerly had to state his intent to relinquish his citizenship, the new law affirms that his intent can be “inferred from conduct.” Perhaps I’m a bit dense, **Dewey** , but it seems to me this does rather raise the stakes a bit. After all, how often does one see a bill designed to do nothing in particular? Keeping in mind that Mr. Padilla represents nothing more than a handy reference point, am I mistaken in my assertion that this bill would permit that he be declared a non-citizen? Would he then become, instead of a US citizen denied his civil rights, a non-citizen without any such rights to be denied? ---
**Author:** ![Dewey\_Cheatem\_Undhow](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/13edae/32.png) [@Dewey\_Cheatem\_Undhow](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dewey_Cheatem_Undhow)\ **Post date:** [February 9, 2003, 3:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/extend-patriot-act-moyers-has-scoop/153605/103 "2003-02-09T15:54:23Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by elucidator \* > \*\*Perhaps I’m a bit dense, **Dewey** , but it seems to me this does rather raise the stakes a bit. After all, how often does one see a bill designed to do nothing in particular? Keeping in mind that Mr. Padilla represents nothing more than a handy reference point, am I mistaken in my assertion that this bill would permit that he be declared a non-citizen? Would he then become, instead of a US citizen denied his civil rights, a non-citizen without any such rights to be denied? \*\* Yes, yes and yes. But you’ve been arguing on procedural grounds, not substantive grounds. You’ve NOT been saying “the penalty for the acts described in this bill ought not be loss of citizenship;” you’ve instead been arguing “the procedural safeguards – specifically, the right to trial by jury where the jury finds all elements of a crime are present – for conviction under this bill are insufficient.” Here, I’ll try to clarify: assuming _arguendo_ that conviction under this bill must be both (i) by a jury and (ii) all elements must be proven to the jury’s satisfaction, do you believe that the crime and punishment described in this legislation is appropriate? If the answer to that question is “yes,” then your ire is properly directed at procedural matters that are problematic whether or not this legislation is passed. If the answer to that question is “no,” well, fine, but that simply isn’t the case you’ve been making. You need to shift your criticisms from procedural to substantive grounds. ---
**Author:** ![Eva\_Luna](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/e495f1/32.png) [@Eva\_Luna](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Eva_Luna)\ **Post date:** [February 9, 2003, 3:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/extend-patriot-act-moyers-has-scoop/153605/104 "2003-02-09T15:56:14Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by zigaretten \* > \*\ ***Eva Luna** … > > Does the prospect of the state being able to strip citizenship for “joining or providing material support to” a terrorist organization strike you as worse than their ability to strip one’s citizenship for “committing an act of treason or other seditious act?” If so, why? > > And if they the government were really determined to run roughshod over the rights of the people, couldn’t they already do so under this provision? > > I’ll simply repeat again, I don’t see any evidence that this “new legislation” would change things as much as some people seem to fear. \*\* IANAL, and maybe I tend to think the worst, but I have done quite a lot of reading in the case law in this area (being an immigration paralegal and all, and one who’s been doing some geneaology-related immigration research into ways to lose one’s citizenship. Long story.). From the plain language quted here, it seems to me that it’s a much lower burden to prove that someone has “provided material support” to an organization, which could be something as simple as writing a check for $10, than to prove that someone has committed treason. Especially if we have no idea how a “terrorist organization” will be defined. Will the ACLU become one, since they tend to disseminate material which undermines the authority of the U.S. Government? Oh, and **Apos,** “acts inconsistent with U.S. citizenship” have historically been defined as things mentioned earlier such as service in a foreign army, policy-level service as an employee of a foreign government, and indefinite residency abroad. There was a law in force until 1922, however, under which U.S. citizen women, even native-born ones, automatically lost their citizenship when they married non-citizens (thus my geneaological research; let’s just say it’s entirely possible my grandmother has been here illegally since 1930). The law wasn’t classified under the “acts inconsistent with U.S. citizenship” category, but it does illustrate the insane things the U.S. Government has done to the concept of nationality over the years. (and it’s an episode I guess I forgot about when stating that the PARIOT Act II might be the first time the law allowed stripping legally acquired citizenship). If anyone’s interested, I’ll try to dig up some cites at work tomorrow. Last I looked, though, the marriage to aliens thing was even listed as a colorful historical episode on INS’ Web site. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [February 9, 2003, 4:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/extend-patriot-act-moyers-has-scoop/153605/105 "2003-02-09T16:08:07Z")
> [@](#): > > Here, I’ll try to clarify: assuming arguendo that conviction under this bill must be both (i) by a jury and (ii) all elements must be proven to the jury’s satisfaction, do you believe that the crime and punishment described in this legislation is appropriate? Well, if I’ve somehow given you that impression I apologise. I see nothing in this bill that touch upon (i) or (ii). I see no mention of procedural safeguards whatsoever, hence, it is my impression that this is intended to obviate, pre-empt, and nullify any such possibility. Whether or not loss of citizenship is an appropriate penalty after a full and fair trial is a matter I did not intend to discuss, and if I have given you the impression that this is somehow central, or even relevent, to my concerns I apologize. It most assuredly is not. ---
**Author:** ![Dewey\_Cheatem\_Undhow](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/13edae/32.png) [@Dewey\_Cheatem\_Undhow](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dewey_Cheatem_Undhow)\ **Post date:** [February 9, 2003, 4:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/extend-patriot-act-moyers-has-scoop/153605/106 "2003-02-09T16:15:37Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by elucidator \* > **Well, if I’ve somehow given you that impression I apologise. I see nothing in this bill that touch upon (i) or (ii). I see no mention of procedural safeguards whatsoever, hence, it is my impression that this is intended to obviate, pre-empt, and nullify any such possibility.** Bollocks. Silence on procedural issues means that existing procedures are used. Whenever a new crime is codified into law, the bill most assuredly does not include procedural descriptions – such a bill does not change existing procedures, for good or ill. If existing procedures are insuffficient, then they are insufficient whether this bill becomes law or not. Your ire, again, is misplaced.\*\* > [@](#): > > Whether or not loss of citizenship is an appropriate penalty after a full and fair trial is a matter I did not intend to discuss, and if I have given you the impression that this is somehow central, or even relevent, to my concerns I apologize. It most assuredly is not. \*\* Then your arguments are not substantive; they are procedural. And since the instant bill does not deal with procedural matters, your ire is misplaced. ---
**Author:** ![carnivorousplant](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/carnivorousplant/32/3563_2.png) [@carnivorousplant](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/carnivorousplant)\ **Post date:** [February 9, 2003, 4:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/extend-patriot-act-moyers-has-scoop/153605/107 "2003-02-09T16:28:56Z")
“…an American citizen could be expatriated “if, with the intent to relinquish his nationality, he becomes a member of, or provides material support to, a group that the United Stated has designated as a ‘terrorist organization’.” But whereas a citizen formerly had to state his intent to relinquish his citizenship, the new law affirms that his intent can be “inferred from conduct.”” What is to stop Mr. Ashcroft from deciding that my watching the Palestinain satellite channel is providing material support (by a subscription fee) to a terrosiat organization and removing my citizenship? ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [February 9, 2003, 4:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/extend-patriot-act-moyers-has-scoop/153605/108 "2003-02-09T16:41:04Z")
Apparently nothing. But you will have the great comfort of knowing that your problem is procedural, and not substantive. Boy, its a good thing we got lawyers to explain this stuff to us, otherwise we might think this is a bad thing. ---
**Author:** ![carnivorousplant](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/carnivorousplant/32/3563_2.png) [@carnivorousplant](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/carnivorousplant)\ **Post date:** [February 9, 2003, 4:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/extend-patriot-act-moyers-has-scoop/153605/109 "2003-02-09T16:52:01Z")
Thanks, 'lucid. I feel much better. Anbody want to buy a satellite receiver? ---
**Author:** ![Evil\_Captor](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/f17d59/32.png) [@Evil\_Captor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Evil_Captor)\ **Post date:** [February 9, 2003, 4:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/extend-patriot-act-moyers-has-scoop/153605/110 "2003-02-09T16:52:09Z")
Let’s see if I can put Dewey’s lawyerly language in English. Apparently Dewey thinks that because Patriot II doesn’t say anything about procedure, existing courts and court procedures will be used to enforce it. So, to get stripped of your citizenship, he thinks you’ll have to be tried in open court, by a jury, with all the evidence known to you, and everybody knowing you’re being tried, instead of all this secret stuff that has us all worried (and with good reason). Or maybe he’s saying that we could be tried in secret by government tribunals under the new laws, and all our concerns might be justified, but our real problem is with the secret tribunals that have already been established, and instead of bellyaching about Patriot II we should be directing our ire at the secret tribunals created by Patriot I. I know this is putting words in Dewey’s mouth, but he’s a lawyer and may not be able to speak English very clearly any more. ---
**Author:** ![carnivorousplant](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/carnivorousplant/32/3563_2.png) [@carnivorousplant](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/carnivorousplant)\ **Post date:** [February 9, 2003, 5:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/extend-patriot-act-moyers-has-scoop/153605/111 "2003-02-09T17:02:00Z")
I think that those associated with the legal system expect it to work fairly and those of us at the bottom of the food chain expect it to be manipulated to screw us as has been my experience. Just as Mrs. Plant expects her dogs to be well behaved and I expect them to crap on the floor. My citizenship is a tad more important than the carpet. ---
**Author:** ![Dewey\_Cheatem\_Undhow](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/13edae/32.png) [@Dewey\_Cheatem\_Undhow](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dewey_Cheatem_Undhow)\ **Post date:** [February 9, 2003, 5:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/extend-patriot-act-moyers-has-scoop/153605/112 "2003-02-09T17:43:05Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Evil Captor \* > **Or maybe he’s saying that we could be tried in secret by government tribunals under the new laws, and all our concerns might be justified, but our real problem is with the secret tribunals that have already been established, and instead of bellyaching about Patriot II we should be directing our ire at the secret tribunals created by Patriot I.** YES, EXACTLY. Why this point is so difficult for **elucidator** to grasp is beyond me.\*\* > [@](#): > > I know this is putting words in Dewey’s mouth, but he’s a lawyer and may not be able to speak English very clearly any more. \*\* 😃 True dat. ---
**Author:** ![Dewey\_Cheatem\_Undhow](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/13edae/32.png) [@Dewey\_Cheatem\_Undhow](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dewey_Cheatem_Undhow)\ **Post date:** [February 9, 2003, 5:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/extend-patriot-act-moyers-has-scoop/153605/113 "2003-02-09T17:50:12Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by elucidator \* > **Apparently nothing. But you will have the great comfort of knowing that your problem is procedural, and not substantive.** The problem you’re claiming (and assuming _arguendo_ that it is a problem) is not a problem created by Patriot II. The problems you’re claiming are with procedural safeguards wholly unrelated to the content of Patriot II. Jesus, I’m _helping your argument_ for Christsakes. If you want to change something, it really helps if you direct your ire at the _thing that needs changing_.\*\* > [@](#): > > Boy, its a good thing we got lawyers to explain this stuff to us, otherwise we might think this is a bad thing. \*\* :rolleyes: Yes, it’s a good thing we have lawyers to focus your attention on the legally operative things before us. Your ire is misplaced. Here’s an analogy to what you’re saying: you’re a doctor. A patient complains of a headache. You prescribe cutting off his foot. DAMMIT, IF YOU WANT TO CHANGE THINGS IT REALLY HELPS IF YOU SEEK TO CHANGE THOSE THINGS THAT WILL ACTUALLY MAKE A DIFFERENCE. ---
**Author:** ![zigaretten](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/z/91b2a8/32.png) [@zigaretten](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/zigaretten)\ **Post date:** [February 9, 2003, 5:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/extend-patriot-act-moyers-has-scoop/153605/114 "2003-02-09T17:51:29Z")
> [@](#): > > _Originally posted by Juastabouteverybody_ > But whereas a citizen formerly had to state his intent to relinquish his citizenship, the new law affirms that his intent can be “inferred from conduct.” But is this **true**? Let’s look again at Vance vs. Terrazas: > [@](#): > > “When the State Department ruled Terrazas was no longer a US …………he tried to argue in the courts that he hadn’t really meant to renounce his US citizenship, despite what was on the Mexican document he had signed. The Supreme Court disagreed (by a 5-4 majority)……… > > The Terrazas decision established two major points. First, although **intent to give up US citizenship could be ascertained either from an individual’s specific statements or by inference from his actions and conduct** , the “assent” principle of Afroyim v. Rusk required that intent to be proved separately from a potentially expatriating (citizenship-losing) action. **Congress could not sidestep the issue of intent** by declaring a certain action to be inherently incompatible with keeping US citizenship, and then decreeing that voluntary performance of such an action conclusively proved intent to give up citizenship. > > Second, **although intent to give up citizenship had to be proved, Congress was free to establish the standard of proof.** Specifically, it was OK for such intent to be established via a “preponderance of evidence” standard (as in a lawsuit). It was not constitutionally necessary for a loss-of-citizenship case to be treated like a criminal trial, requiring intent to be proved by “clear and convincing” evidence. > > “Vance” in this case was Cyrus Vance, who was Secretary of State under President Carter.” **Eva Luna** …To me, “seditious act” is so vague that it could be anything. This worries me far more than “providing material support” which at least requires proof of some concrete action. And from the "New York Law Journal: > [@](#): > > An American woman who married a foreigner took her husband’s nationality (and lost her own when she went abroad), but could reclaim her U.S. citizenship when the marriage ended. **carnivorousplant** …what stopped Janet Reno from deciding that all militia members were guilty of seditious acts and stripping their citizenship? **Dewey Cheatem Undhow** …maybe we should actually be directing our ire toward former president and Nobel Peace Prize winner Jimmy Carter and Cyrus Vance. ---
**Author:** ![carnivorousplant](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/carnivorousplant/32/3563_2.png) [@carnivorousplant](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/carnivorousplant)\ **Post date:** [February 9, 2003, 6:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/extend-patriot-act-moyers-has-scoop/153605/115 "2003-02-09T18:06:30Z")
carnivorousplant…what stopped Janet Reno from deciding that all militia members were guilty of seditious acts and stripping their citizenship? Er, She was a Demorcrat? She is sensible? The law wouldn’t let her? Monica Lewenisky took up all her time? Is this a test? ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [February 9, 2003, 6:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/extend-patriot-act-moyers-has-scoop/153605/116 "2003-02-09T18:47:01Z")
So that’s it, **Dewey**. All this lawyerly Bushwa comes down to: Me: This could be used to screw us! You: No, you dumshit! You’re _already_ screwed! Well, whoopty-fuck-a-doo! One might be forgiven for harboring the notion that you are more interested in proving me wrong about something than advancing any particular opinion. For, in truth, my ire is not specificly directed at one or another example of legal chicanery, but to the scoundrels who advance it. May I assume that you share that dismay and repugnance, evidenced by: > [@](#): > > Jesus, I’m helping your argument for Christsakes. If you want to change something, it really helps if you direct your ire at the thing that needs changing. What needs changing? The rulership of our nation by a band of flint-eyed authoritarian cynics. Your enlistment in our cause is much appreciated. Comrade. ---
**Author:** ![Dewey\_Cheatem\_Undhow](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/13edae/32.png) [@Dewey\_Cheatem\_Undhow](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dewey_Cheatem_Undhow)\ **Post date:** [February 9, 2003, 8:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/extend-patriot-act-moyers-has-scoop/153605/117 "2003-02-09T20:08:39Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by elucidator \* > \*\*So that’s it, **Dewey**. All this lawyerly Bushwa comes down to: > Me: This could be used to screw us! > You: No, you dumshit! You’re _already_ screwed! > > Well, whoopty-fuck-a-doo!\*\* Assumes a position not in evidence. I specifically stated that I was only assuming that the current state of procedural protections were insufficient for the sake of argument. That topic is a discussion unto itself, and one already hashed and rehashed many times in GD. At any rate, it is inapplicable to the OP, for the reasons given. You may or may not be “already screwed,” but that is beyond the scope of a discussion of Patriot II.\*\* > [@](#): > > One might be forgiven for harboring the notion that you are more interested in proving me wrong about something than advancing any particular opinion.\*\* Your accusation of bad faith on my part is duly noted. Dare I ask that you substantiate the accusation?\*\* > [@](#): > > For, in truth, my ire is not specificly directed at one or another example of legal chicanery, but to the scoundrels who advance it. > […] > What needs changing? The rulership of our nation by a band of flint-eyed authoritarian cynics. \*\* So, you’re just interested in yet another anti-Bush rant, rather than seriously discussing and critiquing the subject of the OP? Please do return to the children’s table. The adults would like to continue speaking uninterrupted. ---
**Author:** ![carnivorousplant](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/carnivorousplant/32/3563_2.png) [@carnivorousplant](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/carnivorousplant)\ **Post date:** [February 9, 2003, 8:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/extend-patriot-act-moyers-has-scoop/153605/118 "2003-02-09T20:16:15Z")
I think that constitutes an aside rather than a rant. Do I have to move, too? Can we watch TV now? ---
**Author:** ![Dewey\_Cheatem\_Undhow](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/13edae/32.png) [@Dewey\_Cheatem\_Undhow](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dewey_Cheatem_Undhow)\ **Post date:** [February 9, 2003, 8:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/extend-patriot-act-moyers-has-scoop/153605/119 "2003-02-09T20:41:14Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by carnivorousplant \* > \*\*I think that constitutes an aside rather than a rant. \*\* Quite the contrary. **Elucidator** said, in essence, he isn’t interested in discussing specific examples (e.g., Patriot II); he’s just interested in directing his ire at “the scoundrels who advance” such examples. IOW, he wants to rant at Bush and can’t be bothered with the specifics of the case at hand.\*\* > [@](#): > > Do I have to move, too? Can we watch TV now? \*\* Finish your broccoli and we’ll talk. 😃 ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [February 9, 2003, 9:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/extend-patriot-act-moyers-has-scoop/153605/120 "2003-02-09T21:17:59Z")
I was inclined to ignore that, but the repitition put it over the line. What utter rot, **Dewey**. You sniff disdainfully at what it pleases you to regard as childish. I am concerned with the erosion of our civil liberties at the hands of men I frankly regard as scoundrels. Pish and tosh, say you, the really important issue has to do with **elucidator’s** failure to understand the truly crucial matters, the ones having to do with procedural and substantive. You expend enormous amount of high-falutin’ ammo on this triviality and then congratulate yourself on the maturity of your analysis. To what end, may I enquire? What substantial distinction are you seeking to define? I note with alarm that the ship of state is heading full speed towards an iceberg, you sneer in rejoinder that it is only 3/4 speed. It is the argument of a sophist, and if I am to be excluded from your company of like minded pedants, I count myself the better for it. Put baldly, these repulsively named “Patriot Acts” are intended to expand the authority and power of men who have too much as it is, it is, or ought to be, repugnant to a free people who jealously guard thier liberties. _That_, sir, is the important issue. I note that aside from your implication that you are assisting me in making my case, assistance that I neither request nor appreciate, you have not expressed any stance on that issue. Are you unconcerned? Approving? Do you give a rat’s ass about any of this? Give us unvarnished candor. Do you approve, or not? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/extend-patriot-act-moyers-has-scoop/153605.md?page=5) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/extend-patriot-act-moyers-has-scoop/153605.md?page=7)