Frankly, I'd go back to my opening remarks about a process answer rather than a substance answer. First of all, you try to define it as well as possible to minimize the effect that we would be either tempted or able to do something indirectly that we couldn't do directly. The first thing you would try to do is come up with words that would ensure that wouldn't be the case.
Second, you would hopefully have a process, as we do with SIRC and the inspector general, of constant review so that if you did abuse it, it would pop up on the screen. People would be able to say, “Hold it. We think the intent of this is not being met, and we think in fact that this is being abused.” It seems to me these are not issues that necessarily lend themselves--as Mr. Justice O'Connor said in his report talking about foreign information sharing--to prescriptive rules, but rather they lend themselves to principles and then review.