CENTRAL INTELLIGENCE AGENCY



CENTRAL INTELLIGENCE AGENCY

MEDIA ROUNDTABLE

WITH CIA DIRECTOR LEON E. PANETTA

WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 25, 2009

Transcript by

Federal News Service

Washington, D.C.

CIA DIRECTOR LEON E. PANETTA: Well, welcome to Langley. It’s nice to have you all here. What I thought I would do is open up with just a few words and then just open it up to your questions, if I could. First of all, thank you for coming. Many of you I’ve had the opportunity to work with in other capacity, and most of you I will continue to work with and look forward to the opportunity of working with you as I proceed in this job.

The ground rules are a little different here than other capacities, as you can imagine. You know, when I was in Congress or, for that matter, even the administration as OMB Director or

Chief of Staff, you know, I could, it was a lot more free-wheeling. Here, obviously, there are areas that I have to be sensitive to, and I apologize to you for that. But all of you are smart enough to know that there are some areas where because of their sensitivity, I just have to be careful. So I’ll indicate that as you ask your questions.

I thought what I would do is just kind of make use of this opportunity to share with you some of my impressions from the time that I’ve been here, a little bit on our work schedule and some of the things that I’m working on and then some of the priorities, in particular, that I want to focus on. And I’ll share those with you as well.

On the impressions, I’ve taken over a number of agencies in the time that I’ve been in Washington. I think I started off as the Director of the Office for Civil Rights and then, obviously, took over the Office of Management and Budget, then the White House. This Agency, in comparison to the others that I’ve taken over, has probably the highest level of professionalism that I’ve seen. These are very professional people that are involved in their jobs.

And they are truly on the front lines of trying to protect the safety of this country and protect our national security. They are far-reaching; they are in remote areas; their lives are oftentimes on the line; and they are truly dedicated to what is a very difficult and tough mission. And it has been very interesting for me to have the opportunity to really understand just how far-reaching the operations of this Agency are in terms of dealing with the rest of the world.

Obviously, they are targeting on intelligence and counterintelligence and the analysis of that and most important, as I said, trying to protect the safety of the American people. And I am finding this to be a very unique place with a very unique mission and some very unique challenges that we’re confronting.

On the work schedule and kind of the work that I’m involved with, I obviously have been through a large number of briefings over these last few weeks and continue to do that, looking at a number of the areas that we have responsibility for. Each morning, we review the PDB – same that the President gets. And as you know, a large portion of that is done by the CIA. And it’s a good starting place to kind of review the potential threats that are out there and the intelligence that we’re getting from throughout the world.

I get an update on operational developments three times a week in terms of counterterrorism and what’s happening in the Middle East, in terms of operations in that part of the world and the war zones and our operations against terrorist organizations worldwide. That’s a regular twice-a-week briefing and sometimes daily, depending on what’s going on. I’m beginning the process of meeting with our liaison partners – I’ve had three that I’ve met with today, and I’ve met a number by phone. And I hope to soon begin to take trips abroad to engage with those liaisons personally. Obviously, we cannot do this job without our liaison partners – just too many challenges that are out there.

I’ve initiated a daily staff meeting each day. And it’s something that I’ve done in other positions and I just find it a good way to bring the team together. And in that meeting, obviously, we have our National Clandestine Service along with the directorates on intelligence support, science and tech. Those are the key individuals that I deal with each day and who report to me what activities they are engaged in.

I’ve already, obviously, attended a number of meetings both at the White House and at the DNI. He and I are talking almost each day – Admiral Blair and I have developed, I think, a very good relationship and are trying to coordinate, obviously, on intelligence. And I think it’s a – I feel very good about the relationship that we’ve developed. In addition, I’ve been to the White House in a series of meetings – some with the President – to discuss key issues there as well.

So the work is intense, it’s obviously very important and very consuming – more so than any other operation I’ve been involved with – and there are very long days. But I feel very good about the team effort that we have here.

Let me talk a little on priorities that I want to focus on. Obviously, I’m focusing on missions first and foremost that are essential to our safety – protecting the safety of this country.

Primary mission is counterterrorism. We are going after those who are killing Americans on the battlefield and those who threaten to kill Americans here at home. Al-Qaeda has obviously suffered some key setbacks in recent months and with the support of the President – strong support of the President, the Vice President, National Security Director. We are not going to let up on that effort.

We are going to continue to pursue. We are going to continue to bring pressure. We are going to continue a very aggressive effort to go after terrorists and to go after bin Laden until we bring them to justice. That is a fundamental mission that we are committed to here. We are also focusing on counter-proliferation, and we are obviously involved in the effort to try to do what we can to deter Iran and North Korea from the effort to develop nuclear weapons.

We’re also continuing to devote significant resources to the intelligence effort, both in Iraq and Afghanistan. In Iraq, obviously, we have to be concerned about having a sufficient intelligence presence there once there is a drawdown to ensure that al-Qaeda does not return and that we do everything possible to protect stability in that country. So that will require a continuing presence in that area. Secondly, in Afghanistan, obviously, we will have to, as the troops increase in Afghanistan, provide them with the intelligence that they need in order to complete their mission there as well.

I’m also, obviously, making sure that we continue to focus on areas like Russia and China, Latin America and Africa. There are two areas I wanted to point out in particular. Mexico is an area of concern because of the drug wars that are going on there. The President has courageously taken on that issue; but nevertheless, it is an area that we are paying attention to – a lot of attention to.

In addition, I’m particularly concerned with Somalia and Yemen. Somalia – as you know, the relationship between Somalis here and in Somalia raises real concerns about the potential for terrorist activity. Somalia is virtually a failed state. Yemen is almost there. And our concern is that both could become safe havens for al-Qaeda, so we are watching those situations very closely.

Obviously, there are a number of other threats that involve our stability and the stability of the world. The DNI – Admiral Blair – in his testimony pointed out the area of economic crisis. And what I wanted to do was to share with you that at the Administration’s request, the Intelligence Community with the CIA in the lead is producing a publication each day focusing on global economic issues.

It’s called the Economic Intelligence Brief, and it will cover overseas developments – economic, political, leadership developments. And obviously, the implications of those developments in terms of the U.S. economy is going to be analyzed as well. That first one went out today, and it will proceed each day and be distributed to key players within the Administration.

The other area obviously related to all of those missions that I just described is that I have to have the best-trained and motivated and capable intelligence officers in the world – those that understand the world and that in many ways reflect and look like the world that we have to deal with. There have been very important strides that have been made here at the CIA with regards to attracting a dedicated workforce – we’ve got a lot of young people. If you just go to our cafeteria, there are an awful lot of young people that are now part of this Agency – I think over half since 9/11, over half of this workforce has come on since then.

It’s a huge development. We get about 100,000 resumes annually – we’ve already gotten about 40,000 just in the first part of this year. So there are a lot of people that obviously are very interested in working here. Our retention rate is very good. We have an attrition rate that is at a historic low – something like 3.9 percent. So obviously I’m very pleased with that.

Having said that, we have got to increase the language ability here at the CIA. At present time, although there have been some increases, it represents almost less than 13 percent of the Agency – those that have a language ability. And what I’d like to do is to get to a point where every analyst and operations officer is trained in a foreign language. I think that’s important, I think they have to – foreign languages are extremely important, not only to communicating but to understanding that part of the world that we have to gather intelligence from.

Obviously, it’s going to involve working with both the Administration and the Congress to achieve that goal. And look, I’m not kidding myself; this is not just a problem we confront, it’s a problem the United States of America confronts. This country does not have sufficient language training nor do we emphasize language training in this country, and that creates an additional problem for us. But I really do feel that our ability to try to do the things that we have to do involves the capacity to not only speak with but to understand other cultures.

On diversity, we’ve also made some progress there. In 2008, about a third of our new hires were minorities, and overall, I think we’re about at 22 percent. I would like to increase that to 30 percent so that we resemble America, particularly doing better outreach for Muslims, Arabs, African-Americans, and Latinos. Those are areas that I think we need to have additional hires. Hopefully, we can reach that 30 percent figure as a result of these efforts.

And the last area I wanted to mention in that discussion is contractors. As you know, I’ve received questions during the confirmation hearing regarding contracting out – there are a number of employees. Since 9/11, clearly there was a need in gearing up to reach out to contractors. Now, it seems to me that we have to begin the effort to bring some of those responsibilities in house. General Hayden began that process in 2008. There was a 10 percent reduction in terms of contractors. This year we’re looking at 5 percent overall, about 15 percent over two years. Frankly, I want to continue that trend. I think we have to bring those capabilities in house.

There’s always going to be a need to bring some contractors on for support to try to meet areas where we simply need to have those particular abilities, but I think overall we can begin to reduce our dependence on contractors and save money as a result of that. So that’s something I’m going to focus on as well.

The other area, obviously, is to try and continue coordination with the DNI and with the other members of the Intelligence Community. The law requires that we coordinate; but frankly the law is not enough to make that happen. It depends really on the people who are involved in these positions and whether they’re willing to do that. And I can share with you that Admiral Blair and I have developed a good relationship. And frankly, it’s what should happen. We do need to coordinate these efforts. I guess I regret that past Directors of the CIA didn’t take that responsibility serious enough in the past. And you know that ultimately this action had to be taken; but having said that, we need to coordinate the Intelligence Community. I think it makes sense for us. We are an operational arm of that Intelligence Community. We have to be tasked, we have to be given missions. But I think it absolutely does have to be coordinated in terms of presenting that information to the President and to policy-makers.

And lastly, the relationship with the Hill has to be repaired. It obviously is one that had a lot of problems, and having – I just appeared before the House members yesterday, and having appeared before the Senate members, there is a common Republican, Democratic, bipartisan complaint that there was not enough notification to the members about what was going on. There was not enough discussion with them getting their guidance. And that relationship was badly damaged as a result of that. I hope to restore the trust between this Agency and Capitol Hill because frankly I can’t do my job unless I have their trust. And since I’m a creature of the Hill and understand what it means to be a member up there and have this kind of information, I’m prepared to try to do whatever I can to try to repair that relationship.

As the President said and he repeated it last night, I don’t think we have to choose between our ideals and the safety of this country. As a matter of fact, if we stand by our ideals, if we stand by the beliefs that we have about what this country is all about, I think it makes us stronger, not only here but throughout the world. Obviously, the CIA has a proud history. The stars downstairs in the lobby that you came into are a reflection of those who gave their lives for this Agency. And I guess my goal as the Director is to try to hopefully continue that proud history in the future. Okay. Open it up.

QUESTION: Could you talk to us a little bit about the Obama rendition program? You said that you’ll continue doing it, but your focus will be on, you know, making sure that nothing bad happens to the prisoners once they are handed over. That’s always been the U.S. policy. How will what you all do be different? And, can you talk to us a little bit about the problem that we’re seeing more and more, which is people who have been rendered to other countries and released and are returning to the battlefield? And can you tell us if any prisoners are ever going back to Gitmo while it’s still open? If not, where they’re going.

DIR. PANETTA: All right, let me start – (chuckles).

(Cross talk.)

DIR. PANETTA: Please, thank you. (Chuckles.) First of all, on the rendition issue: Obviously, the executive order that was issued by the President sets, you know, the ground rules for dealing with that issue. Number one, we are obligated to follow the Army Field Manual, and we will do that. Secondly, we are closing black sites, and we are doing that. And thirdly, rendition is still permitted, but obviously – and it’s been used in the past to obviously send people to countries where there are jurisdictional issues for purposes of trying individuals. If we render someone, we are obviously going to seek assurances from that country that their human rights are protected and that they are not mistreated. And we are going to make very sure that that does not happen. Well, I guess, you know, A, make sure, first of all, the kind of countries that we render will tell us an awful lot about that, number one. Number two, I think diplomatically we just have to make sure that we have a presence to ensure that that does not happen.

On the – what was the other issue?

Q: Recidivism.

DIR. PANETTA: On the recidivism issue, as you know, one of the things that’s going to – that’s provided by the executive order. There are several reviews that are going on as a result of the executive order. One is, with regards to interrogation, there is a review that I am a member of that will look at the issue of interrogation, look at the results of the Army Manual, and also look at the what so-called enhanced procedures and determine, you know, the validity of those efforts if any. And we will then make recommendations based on that review.

The other is the Gitmo review that is taking place. And under that, I am not a member of that review; but obviously that’s led by the Justice Department, and they are looking at, obviously, analyzing those that are at Gitmo, determining which ones can be tried, which ones can be transferred, and which ones will have to remain in prison. I’m not going to second guess the results of that. Obviously, there is always the concern about recidivism, particularly with those that are transferred, and we’ve seen some of the results in Saudi Arabia where they have made an effort to try to see if they can rehabilitate, and it’s had some nix results. So I think all of that is going to have to be taken in consideration as part of this review process.

Q: Any new prisoners going to Gitmo in the year that it’s open?

DIR. PANETTA: Not that I’m aware of.

Q: Can I follow, please? Where do you personally stand on enhanced interrogations? Do you believe there are situations where enhanced interrogations, aggressive interrogations could be necessary?

DIR. PANETTA: You know, my position is pretty much in line with the President’s. It is in line with the President’s. I think the Army Field Manual gives us all of the capabilities we need in order to interrogate, and that’s based on my own military experience plus having talked to the FBI Director and others who have direct experience with this. I think, you know, the purpose of the review is to, obviously, determine how these interrogation techniques are being used under the Army Field Manual, the quality of the information that’s provided, and whether or not in fact these other enhanced efforts produce that kind of information, I don’t know. I mean, I don’t know the answer to that. And that’s why I’m going to participate in that review. But my personal view at this stage is that the Army Field Manual gives us all of the tools we need.

We’re going to do everything necessary to protect the safety of this country. And as I mentioned in my testimony, obviously, you know, the President, under Article II, is going to have to – if we ever have that kind of situation that would require something beyond that, the President has the ability to review that. But knowing this president and what he said, I think his position would be we stand by the Army Field Manual.

Q: So would you personally be willing to order enhanced interrogation?

DIR. PANETTA: No.

Q: You would not. So that would have to go to the President?

DIR. PANETTA: Are you kidding me? You better believe it. (Chuckles.) Under this executive order.

Q: Would you personally recommend to the president enhanced interrogation?

DIR. PANETTA: No. No, I think at least from – the purpose of the review process is to look at that and determine just how valid that is. And look, there are views on both sides. But my sense right now from my position is, I think what the President has provided in the executive order gives us more than enough to derive the information.

Q: The last time we were in this room about a month ago, there were different pictures on the wall and somebody else was in that seat. (Laughter.) General Hayden was actually asked similar questions about this. And in fact, he said – there was, I believe, an IG report, which allegedly came up with statistics showing that enhanced interrogation, the CIA’s program, had produced a zillion intelligence reports and a bunch of – foiled a bunch of plots. And General Hayden said he was convinced it worked. Other officials have said that they were convinced it worked.

By the same token, Senator Wyden told me that he had been asking for quite some time – and I guess the whole Senate Intelligence Committee had been asking for some time – repeatedly for evidence demonstrating whether this program operated by the CIA worked. And they had never seen, according to Senator Wyden, any evidence of that. In your briefings to date, have you seen any evidence that demonstrates one way or another with the program as it was conducted by the Agency in the use of enhanced interrogation techniques actually worked, whether it produced the kind of results that some people said it did?

DIR. PANETTA: Well, first of all, I have not had briefings on that because the review process that I will be part of will in fact look at those issues. And it will be as part of that review process that we’ll be able to determine whether General Hayden is right or whether others who believe that the Army Field Manual is sufficient are right.

Q: Can you talk a little bit about this daily economic briefing that you’re doing? Admiral Blair referred a little bit to – as he said, obviously, this is the biggest threat. And he talked about, for example, you don’t want the cost of living in China to go below a certain level. That would cause some instability. Is that – would you say that’s one of the big issues? Or could you – what are some of the concerns you have worldwide with that?

DIR. PANETTA: Well, you know, I mean, I think it’s obvious that as we’ve seen the impact of a worldwide recession occur throughout the world. And it’s beginning, obviously, to have impacts not only in China and other countries throughout Europe, but I just met with someone from Latin America who discussed the fact that there are some serious problems that we have to pay attention to in Latin America that involve economic instability.

So clearly it’s related; what happens in the economy and what’s happening as a result of that is affecting the stability of the world. And as an intelligence agency, we’ve got to pay attention to that because we have to know whether or not the economic impacts in China or Russia or any place else are in fact influencing then the policies of those countries when it comes to foreign affairs and when it comes to the issues that we care about.

So I think that’s the purpose. The purpose is to try to give policy-makers a feel for what is going on so that they can take it into consideration as they make the decisions they have to make on policy.

Q: Well, what countries in Latin America? What was this person telling you?

DIR. PANETTA: The concern particularly involved Argentina, Ecuador, and Venezuela.

Q: I’m sorry. Argentina, Venezuela, and?

DIR. PANETTA: And Ecuador.

Q: I wonder if you could talk a little bit about the cultural changes for you. You had a pretty good life in California and –

DIR. PANETTA: I probably should have my wife answer this one.

(Laughter.)

Q: And when you were in two branches of government, you enjoyed the social parts of it. This is not a very relaxed place. I wonder if you could just talk about what it’s been like for you.

DIR. PANETTA: Well, you know, I really spent my 40 years in government taking on a number of interesting challenges. And I guess that really has been something that always has excited me is the ability to take on challenges and try to deal with them. When I was Director of the Office for Civil Rights, this was at a point in history where we were still dealing with the 17 Southern and border states and trying to implement equal-rights laws at that time. And that was not easy to do. And frankly, I lost my job as a result of that.

And then, when I – obviously, as a Budget Committee chair and Director of the Office of Management and Budget, we were particularly concerned about the deficit in those days. And as a result of both the work I did in Congress and as Director of the Office of Management and Budget and certainly the leadership of both Republican and Democratic presidents on this issue, ultimately, we were able to balance the budget as a result of that.

And then, in the White House, obviously, going in the White House from OMB and trying to, you know – try to be able to take an operation of that and make it disciplined and be able to serve the president was another challenge at the time. So I guess I’m a sucker for challenges and this is one of them. When the President called me on this and indicated he wanted me to consider this, he said look, I need somebody I can trust, I need somebody who will be independent and will bring honest judgments on intelligence to me.

And when I looked at the situation in the world as well as the fact that there are an awful lot of crisis going on – a lot of threats to our security, I kind of viewed this job as an opportunity to be able to take that kind of challenge on. And I don’t regret it. I think – this is a fascinating and challenging world and there’s a lot of responsibilities associated with it and I kind of look forward to those challenges.

Q: And Mr. Director, what kind of constraints are on you that you wouldn’t have experienced in your other jobs in government?

DIR. PANETTA: I can’t go anyplace without a security detail. (Laughter.) I’m never – even as Chief of Staff I’ve never been in that situation. But of course that was before 9/11, so it’s a different kind of world.

Q: Can you tell me – I’m interested in Pakistan and how things may have changed since it came up in the Congressional hearing that the Predator strikes are being launched from Pakistani airbases.

DIR. PANETTA: Well, obviously again, because of the classified nature of that, I can’t go into particulars. But I can say that nothing has changed our efforts to go after terrorists and nothing will change those efforts. We are continuing at a level of action that is on a par with the challenges we’re confronting. None of that has diminished and none of it will.

Q: The previous administration described this as a war on terror. How do you describe it?

DIR. PANETTA: Well, there’s no question this is a war. We are engaged in a war in which, you know, when our men and women are at risk and are being killed in the battlefield and when there are those who threaten us to come here and kill Americans, there’s no question in my mind that we are facing the terrorists; and we are facing a threat to this country that requires that we do everything possible to try to protect our safety. CIA is engaged on the front lines to try to develop the intelligence necessary to make sure that that doesn’t happen, and that’s what we’re trying to do. But I think we clearly are facing a terrorist threat in the world – not only in the battlefield but in other parts of the world.

Q: Could I just follow up on my question? If we pick up bin Laden tomorrow, you said earlier we’re not going to send him to Gitmo; where do we send him?

DIR. PANETTA: If we get bin Laden, you can be assured that we are going to take him to a secure facility and we will clearly do everything possible to bring him to justice.

Let me go this way and then I’ll get to you.

Q: In terms of – just kind of going off of that, compared to the previous administration, during your confirmation hearing you spoke with Senator Rockefeller, I think, and he was asking you about the previous administration’s policies, and you said that they had made some mistakes. And I was just wondering if you could talk a little bit more about what those are and what you’re seeking to do about it maybe to fix those mistakes. It was in the context of –

DIR. PANETTA: Just to, you know, again I’m not going to go into all of the particulars. I think it’s enough to say that this country has to operate by a set of rules that are in line with our Constitution and in line with the laws of this country. And I believe we have an obligation to – and in fact we swear to support and defend that Constitution in taking these jobs. I think that, unfortunately, there wasn’t a clear set of ground rules here.

And for that matter, there wasn’t a clear set of ground rules in terms of how to deal with the Congress. The reality was that as things occurred, sometimes a gang of four were notified, sometimes a gang of eight were notified, sometimes nobody was notified, sometimes staff members were notified. And one of the things I’d like to do, frankly, is set some ground rules as to when we do notify the Congress and who we do have to notify – do we notify the gang of eight; do we notify all of the members plus their staffs so that both, you know, so that we all know the rules that we’re operating by.

And I think there were times when frankly, there was a deliberate effort to not develop firm ground rules in order to be able to do this in a haphazard manner depending on what the issues were. And I just think that’s wrong.

Q: With establishing – so you’re looking to maybe just establish more ground rules. Do you feel like that’s going to change the actual operations of CIA, because there’s lots of discussion about the rules? But at the same time you’re saying we’re pressing ahead with the same operations that were ongoing under the previous administration. I’m just wondering how much actually is going to – how much change should we expect?

DIR. PANETTA: In terms of dealing with terrorists, in terms of dealing with the threats that are out there, we are going to implement every tool at our disposal to try to go after people. And the difference will be that when it comes to interrogation, when it comes to how we treat prisoners, that under the executive order, we’re going to abide by the President’s will on that, which is to use the Army Field Manual, to not have black sites and to treat people in line with our ideals.

Q: Director, can you tell us what you think might be going on in North Korea with respect to whether they are preparing a rocket launch or a missile launch and beyond that, how do you assess sort of their increasingly provocative posture these days?

DIR. PANETTA: Again, we’re dealing with sensitive information, and I can’t go into particulars here. But it’s obvious the North Koreans have said that they are in the process of deploying a missile with, I think they’ve said, a satellite. And obviously it’s something we’re paying a great deal of attention to because of its implications in terms of the policy that this country has tried to develop with the North Koreans.

Q: Mr. Panetta, during the Congressional hearing, you were asked about providing records of what happened in the enhanced interrogations – you’d make them public. I was wondering how you feel about this issue of transparency in general. What degree should the actions of agents in the past and facilities that we had in the past – black sites – to what extent should these be made public?

DIR. PANETTA: Well, as I said to the Senate Committee, and I emphasized it with the House Committee as well. You know, obviously if those committees are seeking information in these areas, we’ll cooperate with them. I think that we have a responsibility to be transparent on these issues and to provide them that information. What I have expressed as a concern, as has the president, is that those who operated under the rules that were provided by the Attorney General in the interpretation of the law and followed those rules ought not to be penalized.

And I don’t – I would not support, obviously, an investigation or a prosecution of those individuals. I think they did their job, they did it pursuant to the guidance that was provided them, whether you agreed or disagreed with it. But as far as the Congress reviewing these issues and trying to gain lessons learned, we’ll obviously cooperate.

Q: Mr. Director, could you – just a follow-up on the North Korea. What can you tell us about the health of Kim Jong Il and whether he’s still in firm control?

DIR. PANETTA: Again, without getting into classified information, I think certainly the indication is that he continues to be in control of that country.

Q: On Iraq, two years ago, you were immersed in Iraq – a study group (ph) – and you said one of your great fears was that Shia leaders and groups would turn on others in Iraq and there was no political reconciliation. How do you see that situation now, and if there’s a drawdown that continues, what happens if your analysts and some in the military say a rapid drawdown puts Iraqis, you know, in a vulnerable spot – there could be the return of civil strife and even, as you said, the return of al-Qaeda?

DIR. PANETTA: Well, you know, obviously, again without going into some of the classified information that we’re providing the White House, we are doing an analysis on that issue so that they can have that as guidance in terms of allowing the president to make the, you know, whatever decision he’s going to make on the drawdown. Our view is obviously that we need to have an intelligence presence there because under any drawdown scenario that I see there’s still going to be a fairly significant U.S. presence that’s going to be there in order to ensure that problems do not develop there.

I guess our hope is that as the government achieves greater stability and implements the kind of reforms that we talked about in the Iraq Study Group that ultimately they’ll be able to bring that stability about and that both the Shias and Sunnis and Kurds will be a part of the government.

The purpose of having intelligence there is to make sure that al-Qaeda does not come back and take advantage of the situation and to also provide information as to, hopefully, the stability of the country so that our forces will know and for that matter, the Iraqis will know what the situation is and what they’re confronting.

Q: There’s been a lot of talk about paying more attention to Mexico, and you mentioned this yourself a bit earlier. In terms of this agency as opposed to the Department of Homeland Security, police force, FBI, DEA, in terms of this Agency, what can this Agency do both intelligence-wise and operational-wise to, you know, help sort out or help deal with that crisis or developing problems in Mexico?

DIR. PANETTA: Yeah. I can’t go into the particulars on that, but obviously, those of you that are familiar with our, you know, efforts in Colombia, that tells you a lot about our efforts and our guidance in Mexico. Yes?

Q: How dire is the situation? You have some analysts saying there is a huge risk that this could become another Afghanistan where large portions of it, particularly along our border, could be controlled by the cartels. Today, you had the Texas Governor asking for a thousand more troops. How critical is this?

DIR. PANETTA: Six thousand people have been killed, and you know, there are obviously areas where, you know, the heads of the different cartels that are fighting each other are engaging in pretty much open warfare. The President, to his credit, however has said that he’s going to go after this effort. He’s made a very serious commitment to do that. He certainly is deploying, you know, the kind of force that’s necessary to try to deal with it. He’s implementing judicial reforms which are very important to trying to deal and to provide equality of justice to deal with it if necessary as well.

So I give him a tremendous amount of credit for his leadership on this issue. Having said that, anytime you take on that kind of, you know, organized drug operation – and don’t forget these are also competing cartels that are going at each other – anytime you take that on, you are really getting involved in not only, you know, increased violence, but you are really raising threats not only to yourself but to other members of the government. Right now, you know, my sense is that they are approaching this correctly, they are trying to get control of it, but it is a dangerous situation because of the people they’re taking on and the fact that they’re willing to, you know, to go to war on this issue, which is essentially what’s happening.

Q: There’s been some conversation about the value of National Intelligence Estimates and the use of them – (inaudible, background noise) – then do you think – (inaudible, off mike). What are your thoughts on the National Intelligence Estimate?

DIR. PANETTA: National Intelligence Estimate is a question that – clearly, there is a role for National Intelligence Estimate. It is the vehicle we use in order to, you know, to really try to bring the Intelligence Community together to focus on a particular issue and give the best information we can regarding that issue to the President and to policy-makers. So I’m a believer in putting together those National Intelligence Estimates. They are very important; they are a good vehicle to present our best views. The problem has often been as to, you know, should they be classified, how do you deal with the classification on these documents?

I think my view is that they have to be classified. You’re not going to get people to talk straight in a National Intelligence Estimate unless, you know, they’re able to do it in classified way. So I think that’s very important. I do think that one thing we may have to look at is how do you present summaries of these in a way that, you know, allows the rest of the country to understand, you know, what we were providing, and that’s a tricky part. I don’t have an answer to that, but I do not think we ought to pull back from doing NIEs. I think they are very important.

Q: You talked about sustaining a lot of the current counterterrorism operations and there’s been some concerns in the Agency and out over the years about that the Agency’s become too focused – too operational – too focused on paramilitary or straying from traditional, you know, stealing secrets, analyzing them. How do you do everything? Or do you need to cut back on things to sort of strike a balance?

And then, just secondly, on the economic brief, the Agency’s always done economic analysis, but do you have to, then, bring new people in? Do you have to bring economists in? Do you have to ramp up your staff on this?

DIR. PANETTA: Exactly the question I asked. (Chuckles.) On the war issue, you know, I guess my view is, you have to bring every weapon to bear that you can when you’re dealing with the enemy. Obviously, that involves operational elements, it involves paramilitary elements, it involves intelligence elements, it involves a broad sphere of tools that need to be used. I do think that, you know, obviously, in the end, we have to maintain a balance, here. Our primary role is intelligence, but we also do counterterrorism and we also do human intelligence gathering.

And so I guess my view is, you know, we need to stay focused on our mission, but in a war zone, our mission is to go after terrorists, to go after the bad guys. And that’s exactly what we’re doing here. But I guess I can assure you that, from my point of view, moving away from the war zones, our fundamental mission is to gather intelligence so that this country is not surprised in the future. And that takes me to the economic piece.

On the economic piece, obviously, the purpose of that is to make sure that we aren’t surprised by, you know, the implications of the worldwide economic crisis and what happens with countries throughout the world as a result of that. We have, actually – our analysts in the intelligence side of the Directorate on Intelligence has an awful lot of capable analysts who already focus on economic issues. It may requires some additional strengths as we deal with different issues, but I think right now, we’ve got a pretty good crew that can develop that briefing.

Q: Director, on the issue of prosecuting officials for past action, you’ve said that you don’t support prosecutions that were operating under Justice Department guidance, but you also testified that, if officials deliberately broke the law, then there should be prosecutions. So how do you determine if anybody deliberately broke the law? I mean, are you going to initiate a process? Do you have any intention of doing that, or would you support a commission to look into whether the laws were deliberately violated?

DIR. PANETTA: No. I mean obviously, that’s the venue of the Justice Department to make that determination as to whether or not there were people that, in fact, broke the law here. And I’ll leave that to them. You know, obviously Congress has raised questions on this, but it just – it seems to me that if there are to be prosecutions, it ought to be based on evidence that, in fact, the law was broken.

Q: Mr. Director, can I ask you if you’ve had a chance to meet with any of the Pakistani officials in town this morning?

DIR. PANETTA: Yes.

Q: And can you talk about your impressions from those meetings and whether you think that this Agency in particular needs to, I don’t know, alter its relationship with Pakistan – (inaudible, background noise) – alter the approach with Pakistan?

DIR. PANETTA: I’ve had very good meetings with the Pakistanis that are in town and, you know, I’ve obviously indicated that we need to maintain a close relationship in dealing with what I believe are common threats. You know, they face militants, they face terrorists, in Pakistan that threaten the stability of that country. And we need to work together to confront those issues. And I think we’ve been doing that; hopefully, we’ll continue to do that. I did raise concerns about the agreement on Swat and whether or not, you know, that represented a retreat, in terms of the war on terrorism. They have assured me that that is not the case, that this is a special situation that goes with the history of Swat and they don’t view that as, you know, as a turning back on the fight against terrorism.

Q: Director, the last agreement really kind of blew up in our faces.

DIR. PANETTA: And I raised that with them. I said, you know, other agreements have fallen apart. They assured me that this was not the same as past agreements, but I guess I remain skeptical.

Q: Director, on that subject of Pakistan, you know, Baitullah Mehsud has now – you know, in Pakistan, sources have been saying that he’s met privately with other militant commanders, they’ve joined forces, there’s obviously a serious concern. I also spoke with Pakistani sources who’ve confirmed this here in the U.S.

Could you expand on that a little bit and the possibility of that posing some serious problems for our efforts in Afghanistan and also, how you think that nexus can kind of benefit al-Qaeda, is what they were saying, in that region? And the second question: Iran – is there anything that you can update us on Iran’s nuclear program and anything new or new policies that you’re looking at, trying to deal with the Iranians on?

DIR. PANETTA: On Iran, there’s really – there’s nothing I can tell you that, you know, doesn’t – the best way to say it is, you know, what we’re working on is classified, and I can’t really share with you any of the actions that we’re taking on that front. With regards to – what was the first issue – oh, on Mehsud. Obviously, you know, we have identified those militants and terrorists that constitute a threat not only to U.S. forces and to Americans and people in Afghanistan, but also those that constitute threats to the Pakistanis, and we are working with the Pakistanis to identify those who represent common threats to both of us in our efforts.

Q: Sir, going back to your earlier point about the primary responsibility of the CIA being intelligence gathering, when you’re looking at al-Qaeda leadership from the top rung down to the bottom of leadership, in your estimation, is it more important to capture al-Qaeda leadership and interrogate them for intelligence, or is it more important to just kill them, at this point?

DIR. PANETTA: What is important is that we do everything possible to disrupt their leadership and to make sure that they are not able to come together in a way that makes them effective in terms of going after Americans. I think the efforts that – and the operational efforts that have been put in place have been successful at disrupting them and at going after members of al-Qaeda. And I think that it is for that reason that the President and the Vice President and everyone else supports continuing that effort, because it probably is the most effective weapon we have to try to disrupt al-Qaeda right now.

Q: On a related question, this is something that came up during your hearing, Director, that the Predators are flying out of Pakistan and have been controlled from there. Can you comment on whether that is accurate?

DIR. PANETTA: I can’t discuss that.

Q: Follow-up: The foreign minister is (inaudible) said that Pakistan is looking to get drones – armed drones, as opposed to just surveillance ones. Would the CIA have a recommendation on that for or against?

DIR. PANETTA: I’m not aware of that request.

Q: Mr. Director, also on al-Qaeda. Director, you’ve said and Admiral Blair said the other day that al-Qaeda’s taken some significant hits over the last month. But do you worry that this could be a Pyrrhic victory in the sense that some of the methods we’re using are further destabilizing a very unstable Pakistan, and – I’m sure you heard that from your Pakistani –

DIR. PANETTA: Yeah, no, no – and I read the article in the New York Times this morning, too, that made that point. I don’t think we can afford to simply, you know, beat our chests and say that, you know, we’ve been so successful here that somehow, we don’t have to worry about them pulling back to other areas, seeking other safe havens and trying to regroup. This is a very persistent enemy that we’re dealing with. And you know, they clearly – when they are attacked, they go and they find ways to regroup; they find ways to make their way to other areas. And, you know, that’s why I’m concerned about Somalia, that’s why I’m concerned about Yemen, is because of that kind of possibility. So I don’t think we can stop just at the effort to try to disrupt them; I think it has to be a continuing effort because they aren’t going to stop.

Q: Mr. Director, back to the question of rendition: You said in the second day of your hearing that there might be a need to render people for the purposes of interrogations in other countries with the assurances that there would be no torture.

DIR. PANETTA: Right.

Q: What would be the purpose of rendering them to another country for interrogations if it wasn’t to go around the system?

DIR. PANETTA: You know, my view is that the only purpose of rendition would be if, in fact, there is a jurisdiction in which they can – they will take charge of that prisoner because of, you know, their legal requirements. Otherwise, if it’s someone that we are interested in, there really is no purpose to render anybody.

Q: I have a follow-up on the Somalia –

DIR. PANETTA: Particularly if it’s a high-value target.

Q: – issue: This domestic radicalization, or the fear of it – FBI Director Mueller mentioned it the other day and I think Secretary (inaudible). Is there new information or anything that has particularly triggered this – I don’t know?

DIR. PANETTA: Obviously, there are concerns that indicate that, you know, individuals that are part of the Somalia community in St. Paul have, you know, engaged in activities that raise serious questions with regards to their intentions. And as a result of that, there is a very serious focus not only on what’s happening there, but what’s happening back in Somalia because, as you know, the situation in Somalia is – it is virtually a failed state.

There are – I’m not sure who’s in charge, but it clearly is, you know, a militant force that is engaged there – a terrorist group that are engaged there. And the result of that, I think, constitutes a potential threat to this country.

Q: Mr. Panetta, you gave us a great headline earlier, when you said you were excited for the challenges – (laughter) – so I’m wondering, what’s your biggest challenge – not necessarily personal, but in taking this job and looking forward?

DIR. PANETTA: I think, look, the biggest challenge is to do exactly what I told the President that I have to do, which is to present him with independent, accurate, objective intelligence that is not impacted by political views, that is not impacted by partisan views, but is as honest and straight as possible. That’s – you know, sometimes that’s easier said than done, but I think the most important thing I could do in this job is to make sure that the CIA is not only credible in its information, but that it operates with integrity. And if I can accomplish that, then I will have done my job.

Q: Mr. Director, you said at your swearing-in – you made the same comments and Vice President Biden made the same comments. How far do you think the previous administration actually went with politicizing the intelligence, especially in the Iraq war and the other –

DIR. PANETTA: I don’t know. You know, there are a lot of different views out there, and I’ll let you make your own judgments on that.

Q: What are your views?

DIR. PANETTA: I’m trying to look forward, not backward. You know, obviously, all of us have different views about what, in fact, took place and what was impacted. As I’ve said – and I told the House Committee this – you know, following 9/11, I think all of us understand, you know, the concern that the government had and that this country had about what had happened and that, you know, there were people that were willing to directly attack this country – that we had to be concerned about the potential of other attacks.

So I don’t question their motives – I really don’t. I disagree with some of the decisions they made, but I don’t question their motives. What we have to do is to make sure that we do everything possible to protect the safety in this country as well, but do it in a way that abides by the law and abides by our ideals. That’s the challenge that, I think, the Administration faces and it’s the challenge that this Agency faces.

Q: Mr. Director, also at your hearings, you talked about repairing the image of the Agency. Could you talk a little bit about how you intend to do that?

DIR. PANETTA: I think the best way of doing that is by doing our job. You know, if we present good intelligence – if we present – if we continue our counterterrorism efforts, if we continue our counter-proliferation efforts, if we continue to try to anticipate those areas of the world that represent potential threats to this country, and if we can get ahead of it – not behind it, but ahead of it – then I think that’s the most important thing we could do. That’s really – you know, this Agency was established because of what happened at Pearl Harbor.

And that’s why Truman established this operation. And I guess I view my responsibility is to make sure that we are not surprised again in the future. 9/11 was another surprise – it was another Pearl Harbor. We’ve had others, you know, that have taken place. In many ways, that represents the failing of this Agency and that represents the failing of this government in general not to anticipate those problems. I have to make sure that doesn’t happen again.

Q: Sir, following up on that, you do not have any – the Agency is kind of a fraternity as a lot of what goes on here is not well known. You’re coming from outside; you’ve got Steve Kappes underneath you. All the other prior people are still here. To the extent that you come to the conclusion that reforms are needed in the way the Agency works, how are you able to kind of, you know, get behind the scenes and really know what needs to change if you’re such an outsider and depending on people who’ve been here for a long time?

DIR. PANETTA: Well, you know, every agency that I’ve taken charge of, I’ve basically implemented the same SOP, which is that I don’t walk in and kick everybody out the door. I think that’s a bad mistake. I really do try to work with the people that are there – they have the experience, they have the abilities, they have the professionalism to deal with these kinds of issues. To go in, to understand the nature of the challenges that are out there, the nature of the programs, to work with those people – if I find them competent, if I find them capable, if I find them experienced and they do their job, then we’ll be a team. If I don’t find that they’re capable or experienced, then you know, I’ll replace them.

But I think it is a particular mistake, particularly for this Agency, to come in and throw out of a lot of professional people that are doing their jobs. I think that mistake was made in the past, and I think that this place paid a price for that. And I think having people like Steve Kappes, having people like the professionals who are head of these directorates, it just – it gives me a tremendous advantage because, you know, look, in the end, I have to make the decisions. In the end, I’m the Director of the CIA, but I need to have the best people with the experience giving me that information in order to make those judgments.

Q: Can we do Syria? The Syrian nuclear site – the IAEA said there was uranium found at the site and it was a significant-enough amount. What’s the CIA’s assessment of the origins of that uranium?

DIR. PANETTA: I can’t comment on that.

Q: Mr. Director, what’s the best advice and the most surprising advice you got from George H.W. Bush and other previous Directors?

DIR. PANETTA: You know, it was very interesting: The Directors that I talked to, with some exceptions, basically said, you’ve got a very professional operation here, and you ought to rely on the people that are here to do their jobs, because they know what they’re doing, they’ve been involved in it. What they need is the assurance that they will be supported in their efforts and that the mission that they’re required to do is one that is in keeping with, you know, our ideals as a nation. George Bush, Sr. basically said, you know, that the most important thing I learned from the CIA was that there are, in fact, a group of very professional people who are committed to trying to protect the safety of this country.

(END)

................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download