I would just add very briefly that one of the recommendations Justice O'Connor made was that the inaccurate information shared about Mr. Arar be corrected, and that caveats that weren't attached to the information that was shared be attached now. The same has to be done for the other cases, and I think that would be an example of how with the right controls and that ongoing review and audit, information-sharing could indeed do as you're proposing and correct inaccuracies. It certainly didn't happen. As Mr. Allmand has pointed out, Justice O'Connor found no evidence of that taking place. And to date we have no concrete examples of how those steps have been taken, if they have, with respect to Mr. Elmaati, Mr. Almalki, and Mr. Nureddin, despite findings from....
I think what happened to Mr. Almalki's family earlier this month shows that the inaccurate information and those allegations, which had no basis--and who knows what the allegations against his family are--continue to keep his family on those lists.
So you're right, that is an important role for the agencies to play, with sufficient oversight and mechanisms in place. I would just add that as I said in my presentation, and as Mr. Neve raised, as did Justice O'Connor, the deterrent factor is important. The officers and officials must expect that the legality of their actions will be reviewed. Having that expectation in place was part of his vision for the 23 recommendations.