That's a series of good questions.
You're quite right: we see this differently. There's a difference of opinion. Frankly, you also have a different opinion from that of the Supreme Court on this, because they see it differently. I do think we're agreed that when it comes to fundamental liberties here, we have to be very cautious. Any time either a group or an individual is asking for a provision to grant increased security, you're going to look at taking away some freedom somewhere. If I want increased security, say, around this building, we may be able to get that, but it's going to limit some of our liberties in terms of coming and going. That's a formula we will always contend with in a free and democratic society, and it's one we should look at very carefully. So I think we're agreed on that in terms of fundamentals, and we disagree on when that should kick in.
This is different from pursuing somebody for a conviction for a crime, as you know. In one process, the criminal process itself, you have to have evidence that stands up in a court of law, sufficient that a person be convicted and actually put in prison.