Watching the watcher

Given the secrecy that shrouds the Central Intelligence Agency, it’s impossible to say whether Director Michael V. Hayden’s “management review” of the agency’s internal watchdog is an exercise in accountability or an attempt at intimidation. But amid the controversy inside and outside the agency over “enhanced” interrogation techniques and the rendition of suspected terrorists to foreign jails, Hayden’s decision to have a close aide review the work of CIA Inspector General John L. Helgerson is imprudent at best.

Hayden asked a team headed by Robert Deitz, his senior counselor, to review Helgerson’s performance in light of unspecified “questions in my mind” about the inspector general’s operation. What were those questions? The Times has reported that senior CIA officers have complained to Hayden that they were unfairly criticized by Helgerson in classified reviews of the secret prisons program. That fact alone makes it unlikely that the review of Helgerson’s performance will be “low key,” as Hayden put it.

More likely, the review will be interpreted as an attempt to intimidate Helgerson and his investigators. Frederick P. Hitz, who served as the agency’s inspector general from 1990 to 1998, told The Times that the CIA’s rank-and-file will see the review as an effort by Hayden “to call off the dogs.” Similar concerns have come from members of both parties in Congress. Sen. Christopher Bond of Missouri, the ranking Republican on the Senate Intelligence Committee, promised to ensure that “nothing is done to restrain or diminish” the inspector general’s office.

Like any other official, an inspector general is capable of making errors or abusing his authority. But these watchdogs, the federal government’s equivalent of a police department’s Internal Affairs Division, do important work. Earlier this year, for example, Justice Department Inspector General Glenn A. Fine reported to Congress that FBI employees repeatedly failed to follow proper procedure in the issuing of national security letters, which allow the agency to obtain business and telephone records without a court order. Fine is now investigating whether former Atty. Gen. Alberto R. Gonzales misled Congress about the firing of U.S. attorneys and disagreements within the Bush administration over electronic surveillance.

If Hayden believed that Helgerson behaved improperly, he should have alerted Congress, the White House or the President’s Council on Integrity and Efficiency, an agency established to evaluate the work of inspectors general throughout the government. By undertaking this management review on his own, the director -- whatever his motives -- has created the impression that a watchdog is being muzzled.