WHO IS IN CHARGE?

First, there was a "list" of Al Qaeda leadership targeted to be killed during the Bush administration, which was proposed to be debated in the House of Representatives, by a parasitic Democratic Congressman from Texas; then yesterday, the Attorney General Eric Holder appointed a special prosecutor to investigate allegations that "terror suspects were abused at the hands of their CIA interrogators". What a smack idea.

The near surprise of the announcement to appoint Justice Department prosecutor John Durham, came soon after the President had left for his vacation in Martha's Vineyard, Massachusetts, amid the turmoil of his comprehensive health care proposals. Although he, President Obama, had previously remarked that the issue should be "put behind us", and that there would be changes in the interrogation styles under him, when the story broke several weeks back.

Now, Holder's move to investigate CIA employees and agency contractors and subject them to criminal prosecution for the alleged mistreatment of terror suspects after September 11, went contrary to what was said by the President only a short while ago. Therefore, who is in charge?

The question stemmed from the fact that the President, Mr. Barack Hussein Obama, was responsible for the security of the United States, and so he controlled all the policies that affected national security. Well, finally prosecuting CIA agents and finding them guilty if they went overboard in questioning terror suspects during a war, was a matter of national security; and therefore, it (issue) should be left to him. Mr Holder's intentions also ran counter to the President's stated wishes to leave the matter in the past.

In view of that, it could be said that the Attorney General's actions were based on the wishes of Organizations as Move-on.org and the ACLU, who were endeavoring so hard, and even desperately, to politicize the CIA issue. It would therefore be just a political witch hunting expedition on his part, pure and simple; and particularly, with him knowing that the agents concerned were all acting on the orders given by their superiors. The chain of command would climb into the upper echelons of the Bush administration.

If that was his aim, just to please his political associates, then he should know that his decision would only polarize the nation even more so as it already was; and also it would bring havoc into the operations of the CIA, whose members were on the front lines fighting to protect the U.S. from the same terrorists he considered as "victims". He should know that they (terrorists) had nothing better to do than to kill, kill, kill. Mr. Holder, who is in charge?