There is an art to driving inquiries to conclusion. There's an organizational skill in getting the work done for sure. I think that's one reason that people like judges: They're used to running courtrooms.
In this particular instance, I think that if you don't have some familiarity, life experience or background in the world of security and intelligence, you might not really know the right questions to ask and the right lines to pursue. That's a part.
My colleague might want to comment on that. The problem, if you go to people who are deeply inside the security and intelligence community, is this: Do they have the objectivity about those institutions they grew up and work in. It's not easy to find somebody who has enough knowledge but enough distance to do a good job, which is why I'm kind of inclined to go to Canberra to find the national security adviser to the Australian government. I'm only being semi-facetious there. It's not easy to find that skill set.
Each inquiry has its own subject area and its own purpose. Why I go to Australia and the U.K. is that they use the British Westminster system of government and the accountability of ministers and prime ministers is very familiar territory to anybody who works in the U.K. or Australia. If you go to Americans, the French or Germans, they have completely different software.