it comes to the rule of law -- or, the use of force? And what did we learn in the Bush administration on this subject? David, I'll start with you. SCHEFFER: Well, a large question. TOOBIN: Yeah. SCHEFFER: I'll take only a couple of components of it. I think on the one hand you clearly see in the Obama administration a philosophy of some restraint with respect to the use of military force, in terms of the preference of trying to find, when possible, a multilateral buy-in to the use of military force. I think that's the rhetorical framework of what the administration has been articulating. On the other hand, of course, you see how we've continued to respond to threats on Pakistani territory with the use of military force, and that's not with any Security Council buy-in whatsoever. So that issue, I think, is still going to be out there in terms of how the United States occasionally uses and risks using force unilaterally. And the question is for what objectives, and under what legal rationales, and whether it's being done as an openly stated use of force or, frankly, as a no-comment use of force. TOOBIN: Where does Pakistan rank in -- is it a no-comment use of force, or is it an openly stated? SCHEFFER: It's a no-comment use of force at this point, in terms of the use of air power with respect to threats on Pakistani territory. Now, I happen to be one that believes