Networking & Communications

I don't y know Mr Panetta's agenda, so it is hard to judge his effectiveness. Historically, the CIA has been very unwelcoming to outsiders of the intelligence community and for good reasons and playing politics is only part of the role of the director.

Regardless, it appears that the current administration strongly believes that the CIA's role should be more of a diplomatic one rather than an intelligence gathering role. It also appears that President Obama would rather the CIA have one-on-one therapy sessions with terrorists. If that is the case, Dr. Phil may have been a better choice than Mr. Panetta.

Whatever happens in the coming years will be interesting. The world sees our president as both wet behind the ears and naive. Already the leaders and thugs of the world are pushing and testing the resolve of President Obama. On the foreign policy front he will either grow into the job or be consumed by it.

If there is another successful attack on America again, Obama's credability will be finished. So far it would appear that he is stacking the odds against heimself.

"If there is another successful attack on America again, Obama's credibility will be finished. So far it would appear that he is stacking the odds against himself."\

I couldn't agree more. But, perhaps there's hope:

http://www.bostonherald.com/news/international/middle_east/view/2009_01_24_Missiles_rain_on_al-Qaeda_area__killing_18/

Certainly, Obama knows his credibility is on the line, at home and abroad.

It also appears that President Obama would rather the CIA have one-on-one therapy sessions with terrorists.

In point of fact, the President is mandating the use of Army Field Manual techniques in interrogating terrorists. That document is the same one that's been used so effectively in Iraq, isn't it?

No. Well, at least my understanding is that the Army Field Manual has not been the effective technique. Given the sensitive and secretive nature of this business it is difficult (if not impossible) for the citizen to know the truth.

The effective techniques that I have heard are outside the Army Field Manual. Some of this information comes from first hand knowledge from individuals who fought in Iraq and some of it through second and third hand sources.

One tool employed concerns the very nature of the enemy. That enemy wears no uniform and represents no country. Such a status exempts those fighters from the protections of the Geneva Conventions. The Geneva Conventions are quite clear on this. Legally, these combatants have no rights except what we choose to endow upon them. It is perfectly legal to shoot them dead as spies on the battlefield rather than take them prisoner. However, the US tends to take the high road in most cases.

In some cases these combatants disappear and are sent to foreign countries for interrogation where laws for prisoners do not exist or are much more relaxed. It depends on the value of the target.

Even so, the treatment these terrorist prisoners receive is almost always far better than what the combatants show for the prisoners they take. I like to think that we hold ourselves to a higher standard, but there seems to be little or no outrage at the way the terrorists conduct the captivity of Western prisoners.

Anonymous Hero,

"The world sees our president as both wet behind the ears and naive." - I could not disagree more. I believe the world see your president as a hope for the future. The manner in which G.W. Bush conducted his regime (in certain circumstances) was nothing short of disgraceful.

I am the first to admit that in certain other circumstances G.W. Bush done a lot of good things, for example in the fight against HIV - If I am not mistaken I believe his regime donated more to the eradication of HIV than any other president.Unfortunately he will not be remembered for these things.

"leaders and thugs of the world" - some would say that your previous president fell into this category.

Trying to bully the world into your belief system is never going to work and I don't mean "belief" just in the religious sense of the word.

Kind Regards

Mr. W.A Snow

As far as I'm concerned they need totally revamped form the core out.

War crimes? How about 9-11 either they are the most incompetent or the most corrupt. Which one is moot but grounds for major fixing.

Brad

Perhaps your opening statement should have read, Can someone with intelligence lead the CIA. From the moment they put twin towers on the drawing board they knew it was suseceptable to air craft crashing into it. So it was only a matter of time before some cammel trader caused billions upon billions cost to the american purse by having politicians back up their rhetoric of defending against terrorism. Noboby seemed to notice the terrorist was sending vids out of Affganistan, or perhaps they did and thats why they sent so many children to their death in Iraq, instead of pursuing Bin Larden. Nothing is more easily lead than a mob of sheep, using a goat.

How about NO!

This administration is a re-clooning of the Clinton administration lead by the political thugs from Chicago.

We will return to the whiny policies of worrying about how it "looks" to the "World" and we'll end up with terrorist attacks on our home soil and these morons will track them down and "put them on trial"

Hold onto you hat!