intelligence, absolute certainty about whether a state has or does not have those weapons of mass destruction. And look back, with respect to all three axis of evil countries -- Iraq, Iran, North Korea -- there were either huge errors or huge gaps in our intelligence with respect to exactly what WMD capability do those countries have. And those are the ones that we're focusing our intelligence assets on. So I think the traditional rule of anticipatory self-defense is difficult to apply and use to meet our security requirements in this era of proliferating weapons of mass destruction. Is the right alternative to articulate instead a broad doctrine of pre-emptive self-defense? I don't think so. I agree with David that policy makers need to be prepared to act under some legal risk, but there are some real downsides to actually trying to codify a new doctrine of the use of force. TOOBIN: Let's try to get some more questions in. How about this gentleman in the front there. QUESTIONER: Herbert Levin. Could you give us the European definition of universal jurisdiction, our definition of universal jurisdiction, and a couple of examples where it's been applied where you think it may have been right? There are a number out that we think are wrong. TOOBIN: And maybe if I could just add to that, this famous Spanish judge/prosecutor, has talked about bringing cases against Alberto Gonzales, John Yoo, Jay Bybee -- I think that's all. Talk about that possible case in