but close to it. Just one final point. This whole debate about the International Criminal Court and concerns about it, understand all of the points out there and the legitimacy that they seek to invoke. The real threat actually comes from national courts that are seeking to exercise universal jurisdiction. You see this playing out now in real time. It is in Spain where it's playing out. So the argument that somehow we cannot tolerate the International Criminal Court because of the fear of universal jurisdiction which, in fact, the Court does not have, is actually a greater threat today from national courts that are simply enacting national laws of universal jurisdiction than they are from what might be considered a more conservative International Criminal Court. QUESTIONER: (Off mike.) Who would initiate this on the American side, the attorney general of Alaska or somebody? Who starts this moving? SCHEFFER (?): Well, can I -- I think I can quickly say this. Interestingly enough, in federal law now we have two new laws, the Genocide Accountability Act and the Child Soldiers Accountability Act, which has a fairly -- it's not total universal jurisdiction, but it basically means if you're a foreigner and you've committed genocide overseas and you decide you want to come to Florida and live comfortably in that nice home, we can prosecute you. You didn't commit it in the United States; there are no U.S. victims; we can prosecute. Same thing with child soldier recruitment and use. The