alvarez says your honor is that you have to make a very careful distinction between what's a political issue was a political question and even though there may be in fact a speaker versus car points on foreign relations if you've answered that it's a question that i'd like to ask one more time is your contention that by virtue of actually that the political question doctrine is not applicable in any case which section thirteen fifty in proceeding forward with this litigation and again i come back to the point i want you know answering you to focus on is that in this case unlike al gore's mccain or  maybe other cases you can go through them you are intimately familiar with the connections with the dem last week united states were much more apparent than in this case which is  weighed in favor of finding the political question doctrine applies here and i would agree that we were always for my own view is you don't give the state department or anybody else an absolute veto power simply because they write a letter to the to the court but the question here is given the nature of the case the facts of this case why is  factors and what the quote there said that those factors would only come in if there's a decision on the issue by the executive branch there is no prior decision here executive branch's actions and interest matter because i think you know duty to say this is not a political question i have concerns about how it's going to affect the peace process that's a case management issue she could have said i'm going to put this case on hold for six months we'll come back to see how things happen sides like us to look out on the court to look at but what seems to be appropriate here is what did the state department conveying their position through the justice department articulate as their response to her question to court is starting gauging and looking at press conferences and diplomats which are directed at a different audience i think it's risky i think the point that  statement seems a little bit qualified and it's a little hard to tell how strongly the state department really feels about this they raised some concerns about it but  problem and there is some evidence in the record suggests the things that move beyond events that occurred that may have been fundamental to that statement so the question is why wouldn't it have been appropriate for example as counsel suggesting not to throw this case out on political question but to defer and postpone resolution to give time for the s court your honor this is a difficult question on which there's nothing on point and i think the correct answer is that to the extent that nothing had changed that was material to the political question at that point then it would christopher and negotiated an agreement with the arraigning ins to resolve the claims and the question was whether these pre agreement attachments could nonetheless continue to be in force so yeah  quoted out this was going on down close to australia halfway around the world and not one of our immediate spheres of concern of major proportions so the fact that it was important at the totally false we should be allowed to go forward then like that's the kind of evidence to be presented with a new case why not presented in this case there are a couple moving parts you know honestly in my answer to your last question one is the political question doctrine how i here we're talking about action against a corporation and why would you impose this exhaustion requirement i get on an individual to sue a corporation required individual travel to a place where they're being prosecuted to sue this corporation