watching genocide going on in a country when those traditional use-of-force rules constrain us. TOOBIN: David, did you want to add -- SCHEFFER: Well, just to jump, and if I may, I'll try to put something provocative on the table here. (Cross talk.) There's been a little bit too much agreement, I think. (Laughter.) I think a tremendous amount of energy has been expended, intellectually and otherwise, in recent years to try to develop a new, legal theory that will justify what has traditionally been regarded as essentially violations of international law as it has evolved, not only in the last 50 or 60 years, but for hundreds of years, with respect to the use of military force. I understand the politics behind that, but that kind of energy is essentially being directed towards how can we change the rules of the game to basically justify particular types of actions so that we are risk-free legally, both under state responsibility and individual criminal responsibility, to do certain things. I could see the rationale for some modernization of international law, obviously. It always has to evolve. But I think the focus should be more on how do we structure our policies within widely accepted traditional frameworks of international law, but develop a -- an approach to it such that if we are in non-compliance with that law, rather than trying to change it so that the law says you are in compliance now for doing X, Y, and Z, we have