is that facially illegitimate? the order, theat order says that these countries that you ignore the fact current national security officials have determined that it does not serve and national security purpose -- >> why don't you stick to the face of the order. you keep bringing in extraneous facts. you, is the is to face of this order legitimate? >> if you look at the face, if you look at the interface organizations, if you consider the same sources that were cited in this order, you would come up with a different list of countries, including non-muslim countries. >> what is wrong with the face of this order? you keep going off on tangents. what is wrong with the face of this order? where does it go wrong? in the language of the order? >> what i am saying is that there is a logical problem with the order. if you try to apply the logic in the order, you would come up with a policy different than -- >> in the six countries that are state sponsors of terrorism, that provide havens for terrorism, that are basically no

is that facially illegitimate? >> if you look at the order, the order says that these countries -- if you ignore the fact that current national security officials have determined that it does not serve and national security purpose -- >> why don't you stick to the face of the order. you keep bringing in extraneous facts. the question is to you, is the face of this order legitimate? >> if you look at the face, if you look at the interface organizations, if you consider the same sources that were cited in this order, you would come up with a different list of countries, including non-muslim countries. >> what is wrong with the face of this order? you keep going off on tangents. what is wrong with the face of this order? where does it go wrong? in the language of the order? >> what i am saying is that there is a logical problem with the order. if you try to apply the logic in the order, you would come up with a policy different than the order itself. >> in the six countries that are state sponsors of terrorism, that p

what about what the order says renders it facially illegitimate? >> well, i think if you look -- >> or is it facially -- >> if you look at the order, sticking to the four corners of the order itself, if you look at the reasoning of the order, the order says these are countries who based on -- again, if you ignore the fact that national security, current national security officials have determined that it actually does not serve a national security purpose. >> current -- >> answer just on the face. >> yes, your honor. >> why don't you stick to the face of the order? you keep bringing in extraneous facts. the question to you, is the face of the order legitimate? >> if you look at the face of the order, your honor, if you look at the process in the order for identifying these countries, if you look at the brief of the interfaith organizations and actually consider the same sources, the same source that cited in this order, you would come up with a different list of countries, including nonmuslim countries. >> but what's wrong with the face of this orde