We don't do advocacy, as I said, but of course we're happy to push positions occasionally privately with partners. We've been encouraging domestic prosecutors to accept as much assistance as we can give them to undertake some of their Daesh prosecutions, pursuant to, if you will, normal criminal law as opposed to terrorism law. Returning Daesh fighters in Europe, for example, are, in every case that I'm aware of, being prosecuted pursuant to terrorism law.
This is, in our opinion, counterproductive from a counter-messaging point of view. Think about the stereotypical disaffected young man—perhaps not in every case ethnically Muslim, but the majority—who are vulnerable to IS online recruitment propaganda. Labelling IS fighters who are prosecuted as “terrorists” is counterproductive, we believe, because young men will say, well, George Bush is a terrorist, or Tony Blair. You follow what I'm saying here.
If we can have, through criminal justice processes, some, although not all...because it's very easy to prosecute pursuant to terrorism law. If we can occasionally have some of these men prosecuted pursuant to normal criminal law for murder, theft, rape, and other normal criminal offences, if you will, or offences other than terrorism, we can send the signal to those would-be joiners that they're looking at joining a criminal syndicate: they're not on their way to becoming soldiers of the caliphate or fighters for the prophet and so forth. The objective is really a counter-messaging, countering violent extremism.