CAROL OFF: Hello, I'm Carol Off.
JEFF DOUGLAS: Good evening, I'm Jeff Douglas. This is As It Happens.
CO: A target’s targets. ISIS strikes in Iran, killing 12 people in two attacks on Tehran, and the country's Revolutionary Guard immediately pointing fingers at Saudi Arabia and the United States.
JD: Arguable improvement. An Ottawa law professor says the proposed expansion of Canada’s rape shield law would finally give complainants of sexual assault trials some say over whether their past behavior can be used as evidence in court.
CO: “Cardinal” Sin. She was the victim of a violent sexual assault, but Angela Cardinal herself was jailed and shackled. Tonight, I speak with her sister-in-law who only learned of Angela's story after it appeared in the news.
JD: When her daughter lost her life, she lost her self. Julie Nicholson left her job as a vicar after her daughter was killed in the 7/7 bombings, and wrote a book about her experience. Tonight, in the wake of more terrorist attacks in the U.K., she shares what she's learned.
CO: It hates shopping for booze, but its tail is a big fan. When a disgruntled female Peacock entered his liquor store, our guest first imagined he had a human interest story in his hands. But it turned out to be breaking news.
JD: And… pop quiz. A group of twenty-something guys in Spokane, Washington placed an ad seeking what they're calling a “generic father” to attend their barbecue next weekend. And if that seems like a long shot, well hope springs paternal. As It Happens, the Wednesday edition. Radio that hopes they find someone without farther ado.
[Music: Theme]Back To Top »
Part 1: Iran attack, Edmonton sex assault follow-up, liquor store peacock.
Guest: Azadeh Moaveni
JD: The attacks today struck two of Iran's most important symbols. At the Parliament building in Tehran, gunfire and explosions broke out. And then, at the mausoleum of the Islamic Republic's founder, Ayatollah Khomeini, more explosives. Twelve people were left dead, 42 others wounded. ISIS has claimed responsibility for the attacks. This is the first time it has done so in Iran. But today, Iran's Revolutionary Guard came out swinging saying that Saudi Arabia was also responsible. Azadeh Moaveni is an Iranian-American journalist based in London. And that is where we reached her.
CO: Azadeh, this is a shocking attack in Iran. What affect is it having on people? Because this is the first time we've seen ISIS do something like this.
AZADEH MOAVENI: It is. It is. Iranians are very shocked. They're reeling from it. They've been quite exceptionally buffered really from all of the violence in their region really for much of the last 10-15 years. Even though you know we have Afghanistan on one side, Iraq on the other. Even though Iran is involved in you know many of these conflicts you know in Iraq through proxies in Syria. There have been you know almost no attacks within Iranian soil, and Iranian security services are quite strong. They're on top of it. But also you know the fight has not been brought to Iran, so I think Iranians for the first time are kind of waking up to the realization that some of the things you know their government is doing in another region might have some blowback back home. And I think that's you know a shock for most people.
CO: There's tremendous security in Iran, but how vulnerable are people feeling then do you think?
AM: I mean I think there are jarred. The country's leading officials are really trying to downplay it. the supreme leader you know dismissed it as fireworks. The speaker of parliament kept speaking throughout the attack as it was unfolding and he said this is a really peripheral thing you know they try and do this. So they're trying to keep everyone very calm. The reality though is that even though these attacks were very iconic, you know they were on two very highly visible symbols of the revolution of democracy at the Parliament. Iran has been has been quite good at ensuring that ISIS doesn't really recruit amongst its Sunni population. Also, for domestic reasons, you know ISIS has not had a very strong or even you know decent kind of chance at attracting a lot of Iranian Sunnis for a lot of domestic reasons. So although it's quite a shock, you know the first attack really for a lot of young people ever that they have witnessed. I don't think that the regime is going to see this as something that will hopefully herald a lot more.
CO: ISIS has claimed responsibility but Iran is pointing the finger at Saudi Arabia. What evidence does Iran have the Saudi Arabian is behind this?
AM: There's no evidence that's been put forth yet and there may never be. It's simply a causal identification you know in the eyes of Tehran. I mean it was only a month or two ago that Mohammed bin Salman, the deputy crown prince of Saudi Arabia, said very clearly we don't want to engage with the Iranians diplomatically. We have nothing to say to the Iranians. We're going to take the fight to Iran. You know these are kind of unprecedented hostility coming out of Saudi Arabia. And then, two months later, you know or just short weeks later we have this. The Iranians are surely going to see this you know in light of these Saudi threats. Certainly from the Iranian strategic vantage point, you know they will certainly be looking at the possibility of Saudi involvement. And they watch out for that in other places too Carol. I mean in other areas of the country they watch over activists. They watch over people's bank accounts. I mean they're very aware that there is very serious Gulf money being spent on stoking unrest in Iran, and so they're watching closely and viewing it all within that prism.
CO: We've actually seen other places where that is and area of concern and is being pointed to. And that's been the WikiLeaks that we've seen of emails that came out of the State Department showing that there was great concern in the United States, at least under the Obama administration, that Saudi Arabia was channeling funds into ISIS. And so is Tehran trying to make the case that Saudi Arabia accuses Qatar of all kinds of state-sponsored terrorism. Is Tehran trying to make the case that it’s the pot calling the kettle black?
AM: Absolutely. I mean that’s certainly the case. And you're right, the Wikileaks information does make very clear that that the U.S. government was aware of that. That it was pressing the Saudis on this. In the region, you know it was widely known. There was a point at which the Saudis started to pivot on that, and that might have been perhaps a year or a year-and-a-half ago when it when it became clear that Assad was not going to fall. When it became clear that no matter how much money they funneled to these jihadist groups, and how much they supported them, they were not really going to get the upper hand and Assad was not going to fall. The Saudis kind of pivoted away from that. But you know be that as it may, we are where we are in the Syrian conflict you know in large part because of Saudi-Qatar other kind of Gulf funding for these groups on the one hand, and Iran and Russia on the other.
CO: All right. We have an entirely different administration though in Washington now and the president was in Saudi Arabia and it was his first official visit abroad. Did Donald Trump's visit to Saudi Arabia change the facts on the ground? Has it emboldened Saudi Arabia to some extent do you think?
AM: Absolutely. I think unequivocally it has. I mean I think what we're seeing with Qatar is a direct outgrowth of that meeting in Riyadh and the Trump visit. And I think what we're seeing is absolutely astonishing. I mean Qatar is an independent sovereign country in the Gulf. And it's effectively being threatened with a takeover by Saudi Arabia, by the United Arab Emirates; two American allies. I mean when Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait you know we went to war to protect the sovereignty of this little, tiny country and there might have been you know many strategic reasons for that as well. But today, we're looking at a president who is enabling and has essentially green-lighted threats of a coup — a takeover — of a country simply because these countries disagree with its foreign policy. They view it as inconvenient. They dislike Qatar's independence. So I think we're in a very strange and different moment in the region where essentially President Trump has said that Saudi hegemony will be the reality of the Middle East for the region that's been reeling under you know the conflict spread by the Saudi assault on Yemen. People dying of famine, you know what's happening in Syria. You know this is a part of the world that has been so bloody and devastated. And to see it kind of turning even more so, lurching towards more violence simply because President Trump you know embracing one hegemon in the region. As opposed to President Obama who said to the Saudis look you and Iran are both important countries. You have to learn to share. And we're no longer there anymore.
CO: All right. We will leave it there. Azadeh, thank you very much.
AM: Thank you.
JD: Azadeh Moaveni is an Iranian-American journalist. She is based in London, UK. And that is where we reached her.
Edmonton sex assault follow-up
JD: “Angela Cardinal’s” story was first reported by the CBC. It made national and international headlines this week. Angela Cardinal is not her real name. That is protected by a publication ban. She was an Indigenous sexual assault victim. She was jailed and shackled while testifying against her attacker in 2014, and she was killed in an accidental shooting in 2015. She never saw her attacker brought to justice. Ms. Cardinal's story forced Alberta’s Justice Minister to apologize to her family directly. And now, the provinces chief court judge has vowed to review the case. Lance Blanchard has already been convicted in the case. Yesterday, he appeared in court. And in that courtroom, Ms.Cardinal's family faced him for the very first time. We reached Ms. Cardinal's sister-in-law, whom we also cannot name in Edmonton.
CO: What was it like for you and your family to sit in the courtroom yesterday and see this man for the first time?
GUEST: It was horrific. Just to see him it was really hard.
CO: This story of your sister-in-law, who we're calling her “Angela Cardinal” because of the publication ban. It's a shocking story — a shocking case — and can you tell us when did you first learn of what had happened to your sister-in-law?
GUEST: About two weeks ago, we learned the horrors that she went through.
CO: And there’s two parts to this horror, isn’t there? I mean there's the part of the violent assault against her in 2014 by the man you saw in court yesterday, Lance Blanchard. And then there is what happened to her during the trial of Lance Blanchard where she was the victim of this violent assault. What can you tell us about what happened to Angela during that trial?
GUEST: She was locked up, shackled and forced to share a cell right beside the man who assaulted her. Share the vehicle with him twice on the way to court. That shouldn’t have happened. She's not a criminal, she's the victim.
CO: And do you know why that happened?
GUEST: No. They said that they were worried she wasn't going to make it to court. But she didn't miss any court dates prior to that.
CO: They said that she appeared to be falling asleep one day during trial.
GUEST: With trauma your body shuts down. You'll get tired. She went through so much trauma that night, and to relive it every day during the trial. Her body was just shutting down.
CO: And she was living rough too, wasn't she? She was on the streets at that point?
CO: And yet still she wasn't missing court dates. She wanted to take part in this trial against this man who had so brutally assaulted her.
GUEST: Yeah, she wanted justice for what he had done.
CO: Why do you think now that the judge orders this to happen that she is to be to be shackled, she is to be incarcerated for the duration of the trial. The judge says that she won't be put into the same van or near the man who attacked her. But in fact that happens. Why do you think that there was nobody else to advocate on her behalf? No one else in this whole court process who saw that there was something terribly wrong with this?
GUEST: To me, they didn't care. I think it was her race. Honestly, I think they just thought of another Aboriginal woman who lived on the streets homeless. They called her an addict, but she wasn’t. It is so appalling. I don't even know what to say about it?
CO: And after the fact, the justice system in Alberta is saying that this was so wrong. It never should have happened. It was just a travesty. But, at the same time, there were other people. They must have known what Angela was going through — what she had been put through — and why is it that you didn't even know — your family didn't even know — what she was going through?
GUEST: She was such a private person. She never liked burdening the family with her problems. She was just like that.
CO: What have you understood about what actually happened to your sister-in-law in the course of this assault? There is there's a 911 call, isn't there?
GUEST: Yes, I heard that the other day and my heart sunk. It is just crying for help. Somebody help me. It was heartbreaking to hear. I couldn't finish listening to that call because she's passed now. And to hear that sadness come from her.
CO: And that call was something she was able to make while she was being assaulted by this man…
GUEST: She was so brave.
CO: Tossed the phone away and allowed this recording as she called for help to 911 to happen. So she was able to do that. But she never got to see Lance Blanchard convicted.
GUEST: No, unfortunately not. She was killed in an unrelated shooting seven months before.
CO: Why were you in court yesterday? What was that about?
GUEST: To let him know that she has family and that she was loved.
CO: What was the purpose of yesterday's hearing?
GUEST: About his mistreatment in jail.
CO: He's challenging the time in solitary confinement he has spent, is that right?
GUEST: Yeah. And his complaints about wearing shackles when he goes out to dentist appointments.
CO: Has he been classified as a dangerous offender?
GUEST: I think that hearing was going on today. I am not too sure.
CO: What are you hoping comes of that?
GUEST: That he would be classified as a dangerous offender. This is not the first woman he's hurt. And it probably won't be his last. He was smiling when he left the courtroom yesterday in his wheelchair.
CO: You heard this week Alberta’s Justice Minister apologized directly to you and to Angela’s mother. And the Minister said she was shocked to learn that this had happened to Angela, and that actually she said it keeps her up at night. Were you satisfied by that response?
GUEST: Not really. It doesn't excuse what the judge did to her. We are opening up a formal complaint with the Justice Minister because no complaints were done before. No one complained about what the judge did. Nothing was done about it until now.
CO: And the other thing is that there's still a publication ban on her name. We’re using “Angela Cardinal” as a pseudonym, but why do you think there's still a ban?
GUEST: We don't know. We want it lifted. The whole family wants it gone because she's a human being. There's so many Angela Cardinals and giving her a fake name doesn't make her who she is. Her name makes her who she is. And I think that people need to know who she is.
CO: And who if she? We’re hearing this horrible chapter of your sister-in-law's life where she went through this assault and she was shot dead, but who is the woman that you'd like us to know?
GUEST: A loving, caring mother; my best friend. She had nothing. But me and her brother needed something, she would take the shirt off her back to help us. She loved everybody. She never hated anybody.
CO: Well, we're going to continue to follow this story and I really appreciate you talking to us today. Thank you.
GUEST: And thank you guys for covering this.
JD: That was was Angela Cardinal's sister-in-law, whose name is protected by the same publication ban that prevents us from using Ms. Cardinal's real name. Ms. Cardinal was an Indigenous sexual assault victim. Her shocking case made headlines this week. We have more on this story on our website: www.cbc.ca.
Meilleur Question Period
JD: Today, the federal Liberal government’s pick for Official Languages Commissioner took a pass on that job. Officially. From the beginning, Madeleine Meilleur was a controversial choice. As a former Liberal cabinet minister in Ontario, she was criticized for her connections to the party. Opposition parties also objected to her meeting with two of the Prime Minister's staffers before she applied for the position. In Question Period today, Conservative Party leader Andrew Scheer asked the prime minister about the appointment.
ANDREW SCEER: By trying to appoint a Liberal donor and activist, Madeline Meilleur, The prime minister made a mockery of a process he claimed will be open and transparent. But luckily Madame Meilleur has better judgment than he does and has withdrawn herself from a process that has become tainted. As a provincial minister, Madame Meilleur introduced a law that required multi-party support for positions like this. Will the prime minister learn a lesson here and ensure that the next officer of parliament — the Ethics Commissioner — will not be another partisan Liberal and will enjoy the all-party support in this House?
GEOFF REGAN: The Right Honorable Prime Minister.
JUSTIN TRUDEAU: Mr. Speaker, we know that Canadians need a strong, independent appointment process. And that’s why we reformed to an open way for the appointments process in this country. After 10 years of excessive partisanship by the former Conservative government, we know that picking the best people for the jobs, regardless of their backgrounds and people that reflect the full diversity of this country is what Canadians expect. That's exactly what we're delivering.
JD: from Question Period in Ottawa today, that was Prime Minister Justin Trudeau responding to Conservative Party leader Andrew Scheer. The government's controversial pick for Official Languages Commissioner, Madeleine Meilleur, announced today she was withdrawing her application for the job.
Liquor store peacock
Guest: Rani Ghanem
JD: A female Peacock walks into a liquor store and says, “Got any Wild Turkey? Not to drink, the bird. I want to make fun of its neck.” That's about halfway to a joke. And so is what happened to Rani Ghanem on Monday. And in the end, what happened to Rani Ghanem was equally unfunny. Mr. Ghanem was at work. He was helping his uncle manage the family liquor store. And then the peacock — the peahen of course — came in. It seemed amusing at first. And then it was not.
[Sound: A lot of broken glass]
JD: Rani Ghanem work at Royal Oaks liquor store. We reached him in Arcadia, California.
CO: Rani, at what point did you realize that you had an unexpected visitor at your liquor store?
RANI GHANEM: I did not realize until about three minutes in. A customer came in and she pointed the bird out to me. I got up. I was shocked. I was like whoa, a peacock!
CO: A peacock?
RG: Yeah. Immediately as I noticed, I took my phone out I got to record this. My friends have got to see this.
CO: And now this is a peahen, so it's a female peacock. So not the great big colorful plumes…
RG: No, that is a peahen, but I think they go all in the same category.
CO: What did she look like?
RG: Well the peahens awfully look like overgrown chickens. They have a very similar look to chickens or ducks. Unless you see the little you know feathers that are on top of its head they look a lot like chickens or ducks. They're just a little bit bigger.
CO: But they're big and they got sharp claws.
RG: Yes, they do.
CO: And so what did you do about this peahen?
RG: You know when it first took its first flight inside the store that's when I realized this is going to be a problem. First, I was excited to see a peahen inside the store. But when it took its first flight that's when I realized it was going to be a problem. I called the emergency line and I was like hey, I need somebody here. And they sent the Humane Society over. Until the Humane Society came over we had a little bit of action going on and a couple attempts to try to get the bird out of the store that ended up in failure. And then all we did was make the bird go crazy, kind of fly around the store a couple of times and panic in everybody's heart.
CO: Now just for people we have to describe because you are in a liquor store. This is a place where there are bottles all stacked up and precariously placed. Where you don't want to a big bird flopping around and so what did she do as she made her way around your shop?
RG: So surprisingly it took flight in here twice, but did not damage anything until the Humane Society got here and tried to get out of here with a fishing net. So when the Humane Society tried to get it with the fishing net, the bird kind of panicked and started to jump through the shelves. And when it started to jump through the wine and champagne shelves that's when the damage started. It was swimming through those bottles. I mean bottles getting knocked left and right. And I'm on the other side of the counter just looking heartbroken every time a bottle falls. I'm like no, what happened?
CO: And so obviously this bird had very expensive taste. I went for the champagne.
RG: Right, it went straight for the Moet, I mean looking at a $60-$70 bottle right there. That's the first thing it went for.
CO: And how much damage did she do?
RG: I estimated around $500 just because now I have literally empty sections in my wine isle.
CO: And how did you finally get her out?
RG: The Humane Society came here and the person that works for them had a fishing net and kind of guided it through. It ended up going through the wine shelves and after the wine shelves I end up helping him out. He pinned her down and I grabbed her from the back and we guided it outside. It was safely released and it was in perfect shape and no harm done to the bird.
CO: Now you just work at this shop. It's not yours. What did your boss say about this?
RG: I had to explain it about three times for him to believe. I'm like yes a peacock in the store, bottles, destruction is like a peacock. He was like wait, a peacock? Are you telling me a person? I was like no, a peacock. It was a hard to believe story.
CO: And knowing you had to do a lot of cleaning up.
RG: Yeah, I had to do a lot of cleaning up. Oh my god, I can still smell the wine in here
CO: Rani, thanks for speaking with us.
RG: Not a problem. You're welcome.
CO: Bye bye.
JD: That was Rani Ghanem, who works at Royal Oaks liquor store. We reached him in Arcadia, California. We have a video of that peahen in that liquor store at our website: www.cbc.ca/aih.
[Music: Old TV show theme]
Sound of the Day: Horsey McHorseface
JD: Last springm, the U.K.'s Natural Environment Research Council asked the public to name one of its polar research vessels. Most Brits agreed the best entry, hands down, was “Boaty McBoatface”. As you will likely recall, that brilliant name was sadly overruled, in favor of the RRS Sir David Attenborough. But a name of the caliber doesn't just disappear. At a recent race in Australia, the horses were neck and neck as they rounded the corner coming into the final furlong. “Big Dreamer” was out in front with “Supercharge” close behind and “Lilac Wine” vying for position. But “Horsey McHorseface” never wavered. Here is the call at Australia's Cessnock Racecourse. Our Sound of the Day.
ANNOUNCER: Supercharge got clear down the side of the six hundred lanes by three. Horsey McHorseface and Masking are next and moving up on the outside as they come up towards the home corner. Around the corner Supercharge is still in front. Horsey McHorseface is out now. The Big Dreamer back to the fence. And then fallowed masking, Lucky Starlet and Chastity Strikes. The Big Dreamer got through on the inside. Supercharge quickly beaten. Horsey McHorseface is coming. Horsey McHorseface and The Big Dreamer. Horsey McHorseface beats The Big Dreamer.
JD: What a finish on Horsey McHorseface pulling ahead to win a race in Australia on Monday. It was the first win for the three-year-old Steedy McSteed.Back To Top »
Part 2: Consent changes, dad wanted
Guest: Elizabeth Sheehy
The significance of the Trudeau governments update to Canada's sexual assault laws is up for debate. But the bill looks to change the criminal codes rules around consent, and to also expand what is called “the rape shield law”. And that particular aspect of the bill has defense lawyers warning that the government is actually tipping the balance in favor of the prosecution. But Elizabeth Sheehy thinks that the biggest change will be for complainants. Professor Sheehy is a law professor at the University of Ottawa.
CO: Professor Sheehy, let's look at these changes made to what’s called the rape shield law. Just before we do that though what is this law supposed to do?
ELIZABETH SHEEHY: Well, the law is supposed to provide some sort of screen before an accused person in a sexual assault trial is allowed to introduce evidence of the complainants past sexual relationships or sexual activity. And so the screen is what's called a Section 276 hearing. it's a voir Ddre, held only with the judge and the counsel and the accused. In which the defense needs to make the case before the judge that this proposed evidence about the woman, usually it’s a woman, about the woman's past sexual relationships or history ought to be admitted in the trial proper. We know that kind of evidence is usually quite prejudicial to a complainant. And it's the kind of evidence that we also know from numerous studies has the capacity to mislead the trier of fact you know into disbelieving the woman because she has had a sexual life you know before this particular assault.
CO: So how would the proposed changes to the rape shield law work? How would that change anything?
ES: Well, one very important change from the perspective of complainants is that complainants will now be permitted to stay in the courtroom and hear the arguments and the evidence. And currently, along with the public and the media, the complainant too is ushered out when this hearing — this voir dire — takes place. And of course I think that's quite hard on complainants because of course this evidence is a serious concern for them in a very fundamental way. You know it's about their past lives and you know the arguments and the evidence affects them quite profoundly. So you can imagine that for complainants to be able to sit and hear it will be important in terms of them feeling and knowing what's actually being said about them. And whether the weather and how the crown is you know defending the public interest in that context and so on. So that's very important. The other important aspect of the bill is that complainants also will have the right to legal representation in that hearing and they've never had that before either. That means that if she's able you know she might hire a lawyer who might advance arguments in that hearing that are different from what the crown might say. Or they might have different responses to the defense lawyer’s argument. The other big change that everyone's talking about is the fact that the new bill, if it passes, would characterize communications. Most importantly is social media communications like text messages, Facebook posts as sexual activity. And the significance of that characterization would be that those kinds of messages that are currently available to a defense lawyer are to introduce in a trial without any real limits would have to go through that same vetting process in a voir dire.
CO: I guess a very, very, public case of a trial that all these things came to play and was that of Jian Ghomeshi. And there was a great deal of the communications between Mr. Ghomeshi and the complainants in that trial that was entered as evidence. I know it's hard to revisit these things, but how might things have been different at The Ghomeshi trial if this law was in place?
ES: Well, I haven't undertaken an analysis of the specific items of evidence that were introduced in Ghomeshi. But what I can say is each one of them would have had to go through this voir dire process before it was used in the trial. And the judge would have had to undertake a balancing exercise to determine whether this evidence was too prejudicial or more probative than prejudicial.
CO: And one of the complainants in the Ghomeshi case, Lucy DeCoutere, she tweeted today about this change. She said this would completely change outcomes in sexual assault trials, level the playing field in a flawed system where there's no room for nuance. Would you agree with her?
ES: I think it's really hard to say. I think some of the other changes to the sexual history laws here do offer that possibility of more leveling of the playing field. The issue of the vetting of you know communications like social media. You know I think it's hard to say at this point. I think we're going to have to wait and see how judges grapple with it.
CO: Would there also eliminate sort of an element of surprise? Because the sense was is that the women who were in that trial. I hate to always go back to this one, but this is the most well-known trial — the Ghomeshi one. That they were caught off guard by the examination in court and the presentation of those emails that they that they did not know how to respond to it. They would know in advance that this was going to be entered as evidence, is that right?
ES: Well, it seems so from my reading of the draft bill. It seems that element of surprise might be eliminated. I think at the same time, defense forces will still have the opportunity to cross-examine a complainant in the trial itself as to allegations or concerns about collusion or shading of testimony. So will it stop defense lawyers from challenging complainant’s credibility? I don't think so.
CO: One other party in this is of course the lawyers who represent the accused. And they are saying that there's a good deal of pushback from the defense bar, who believes that this is not going to protect the rights of the accused. What do you say to that?
ES: Well, I certainly understand their concerns. And it certainly would be more onerous for defense lawyers in these trials. There's simply no doubt about that. You know I have no response to it except to say that you know this is I guess an effort to respond to what some have called a run around the sexual history evidence voir dire. Because if you can somehow slip in sexual activity through introducing text messages or other kinds of social media communications, as of today, you can avoid that whole process of vetting and balancing the competing interests at stake here.
CO: All right, very interesting. Professor Sheehy, thank you.
ES: OK. Thank you very much.
JD: Elizabeth Sheehy is a law professor at the University of Ottawa.
JAMES CLAPPER: I lived through Watergate. I was active duty then in the air force as a young officer. It was a scary time. I have to say though that I think you compare the two that Watergate pales really in my view as compared to what we're confronting now.