What we did was ask them to show us how they had come to that conclusion. We're in the interesting situation where we cannot second-guess them, and yet we have to hold them accountable. What we asked them to show is that they have done due diligence in ensuring that the measure they are putting forward is indeed based on a true, sound threat assessment. That's what they did.
They explained to us that they had sound intelligence--credible, sound intelligence--that the highest threat was a passenger-borne non-metal explosive. That was on October 6, 2009. Our offices worked together at my level and at the commissioner's level. We also had specific information on that. Therefore, we came to the conclusion they had done their due diligence.