When the policymakers create a policy, you have to account yourself for the consequences unintended or intended. The question we ought to ask these civilian authorities is, What was your intent in creating those illegal policies? What was the intent? Was the intent in the interest of national security, which is broad and contestable? What was the intent and what were the lawful precedents, if any, that led them to these highly questionable opinions? Real objective isn't he? Define the policymakers wrongly as lawbreakers, then ask them how they could justify it. I suppose we'll see him on the hangin' commission. He's a shoe in.