otherwise one of two events must occur for their counsel i don't want to interrupt but i want to i have a kind of a threshold question when i read the district court opinion it's started with the  original statute or the amendments that came in one thousand nine hundred and four was that put before the district or did you make some of the arguments did the government make some of the arguments they're making to us before the district court on those nine hundred and forty four amendment didn't grapple i found your arguments on the one thousand nine hundred and forty four amendment pretty compelling and i was sort of wondering why the district court didn't grapple with them at all but what i'm hearing from you is you may not have raised those direction there is two goals one is to preserve and protect the war effort and one is to protect protect the purse of the united states and the united states interests when its resources are nationally distracted by other more pressing  of real or personal property united states but it would be in connection with a concept which is related to the war or directly related to your position just so i'm following is that even if the conduct falls within guns are identified as terminating that up or that no other addition have come back to congress specifically clarified in two thousand the that type of event that would put the termination of and in this case there's been no argument that any of the that's correct and that is the that is the policy choice of of of congress with lance of two thousand and twenty one perhaps that looks like a policy choice that maybe is not the one that everyone will make out today but  statue then you add the statue imitations which runs now her high here's what it doesn't start until after the germination of hostilities the what the government is arguing is that only case because you would have these two canons that sort of conflict but what is your response to these nine hundred and forty four amendments where the which clause was specifically adopted you know before before d all three categories were in there and then when the categories changed order not dimmock order of the which clause followed the one that it was adopted with as that seems to be and two and two as a contract and that was the end of the clauses and then to which it shows the connection the you have to have a connection the nexus to the related the will of the war are now we have the authorization of war which was not you nine hundred and forty four his that has to be relayed to the prosecution of the present war it still requires that you have to have some nexus to these hostilities you just can't separate  separate the clauses are separated by commas here they're separated by semi colons but it's otherwise identical i mean it's word for word are you telling us that because they included semi colons but it adopted word for word they adopted a different and then you have to have it related to those otherwise you can just have any fraud or any property acquisition accounts where they're separated i mean to judge by the way to me where they're separated like that in the which causes three and it's not included in paragraph two war one i don't understand how your argument flows well then how can you have it in the ws they have can you have the nexus to hostilities not qualify because that was after the germination of hostilities so that that's very important that there's a link to the hostilities so if you take the witch plans out completely then then what are you saying that there is no relationship at all the uniform code of military justice it seems to be absolutely clear i just if we if the w s l a were written as the uniform code of military justice was i don't know how your argument stand and less there was something about the two thousand and eight amendment that changed the ws l a because i thought i'd have you have an argument that the two thousand and eight amendment the legislative history the senate and they proposed he said it was to make current laws has been such a limitations during wartime to put the bill to the ongoing conflicts in iraq and afghanistan well if you're only going to whole and chairs of this wartime statute just extend the limitations period so the government would have more time to find all these charges and i mean all these answers not just thirty one dollars and they all have to be related to this wartime statute which means it has to be related to the hostilities otherwise what's the point of the statute if you take out one in two and you only have three that's exactly that what you're actually saying is only three has to relate to the hostilities in actuality and they all have to relate otherwise why have the declaration of war of these authorisations and why have the germination related to the terminations of these hostilities that's the start of the news documentation period if it's only related to three then one channel are almost irrelevant because it has no meaning to the statute you have to have all of that together it has to relate you have to have some relationship to the hostilities in order to the extent extension of the statue limitation you just can't have it to contracts and in the ranger case that was fraud and i found that it was a political and it will only under the forty five dollars forty six cents counts because it happened before the germination and it happened during after the declaration of war and so you have to make that connection that it has to have a nexus to the one involving prod the united states or chill committee in connection with the hornets of any contract which that was all there was then related to the presentation of the proof of the present war so they're relating it to you have have some nexus otherwise why have this wartime statute if it doesn't have some net as to what the hostilities are you just can't eliminate it and say it's only applies to contract it applies also to all of the other two claims in the present statu and remember the proceedings thank you counsel thank you to both counsel for your arguments in this case the case is now submitted we'll move on to our nd case for argument today a friend scene where to versus andrew