I'm not going to make Mr. Hawn's case for him, but I want to say that one of the things that would occur to me to say, if you were a Canadian lawyer in court, would be that the counter-factual to what you've just said is that we have put in place measures that have proven sufficiently stringent that we do not believe, on the basis of our reviews.... We're not relying on the word of the Afghan government; we're not doing as in the Chahal case, in which they were relying on the word of the Indian government, and as in the other case, in which they were relying on the word of the Tunisian government. Under the most recent agreement that's been signed, we're not relying on the word of the Afghan government but relying on Canadian eyes and ears, which are going into those facilities and checking on whether or not our detainees are subject to abuse.
Is that good enough?