When we say “cost-benefit analysis”, we have to differentiate what kinds of sanctions we're talking about. When we're talking about broad sanctions against Russia, for example, the cost-benefit analysis.... Again, you have to identify what your objective is. If the objective is to stop the war, these sanctions are not going to be effective.
What I'm getting at more precisely are targeted sanctions, with which we're targeting, for example, Russian oligarchs. The purpose of that is to try to exert some pressure on Russian policy.
When you're talking about cost-benefit analysis, I think it's more to the point that you have to look at the possible due process or human rights violations that are part of this. Do we have the right guy? What is the evidence it's based on? Is it appropriate that we are effectively punishing by seizing or freezing assets?
More to the point, when you get to the suggestion that you're going to expropriate the individual's assets and assign these to victims as a form of reparation, you are implicating serious issues of due process. You would not be able to do that in a criminal justice system absent a trial, a conviction and so forth. How is it that we are simply moving automatically beyond all those procedures and expropriating an individual's assets without providing the information—