They don’t usually generate much attention, but federal agencies have Inspectors General as a kind of internal check on abuse. The point is to have an independent “watchdog,” with oversight authority, who can ensure agencies’ integrity, while preventing fraud, mismanagement, and potential crimes.
Of course, given the last several years, and the White House’s unique interpretation of various measures such as the Geneva Conventions, being the IG at the Central Intelligence Agency has apparently been pretty challenging. John Helgerson and his office have had to look into the CIA’s activities in a variety of controversial areas, and issue plenty of unflattering reports, including one notable account in which the IG concluded that “some C.I.A.-approved interrogation procedures appeared to constitute cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment, as defined by the international Convention Against Torture.”
Apparently, the independent IG office at the Agency has been a little too independent for the administration’s tastes, and the pushback has begun.
CIA Director Michael V. Hayden has mounted a highly unusual challenge to the agency’s chief watchdog, ordering an internal investigation of an inspector general who has issued a series of scathing reports sharply critical of top CIA officials, according to government officials familiar with the matter.
The move has prompted concerns that Hayden is seeking to rein in an inspector general who has used the office to bring harsh scrutiny of CIA figures including former Director George J. Tenet and undercover operatives running secret overseas prison sites.
The NYT noted that the independent investigation against the guy who does independent investigations is “unusual, if not unprecedented, and would threaten to undermine the independence of the office.”
Which, one supposes, is the point.
U.S. intelligence officials who are concerned about the inquiry said it was unprecedented and could threaten the independence of the inspector general position. The probe “could at least lead to appearances he’s trying to interfere with the IG, or intimidate the IG or get the IG to back off,” said a U.S. official familiar with the probe.
Frederick P. Hitz, who served as the CIA’s inspector general from 1990 to 1998, said the move would be perceived as an effort by Hayden “to call off the dogs.”
“What it would lead to is an undercutting of the inspector general’s authority and his ability to investigate allegations of wrongdoing,” Hitz said. “The rank and file will become aware of it, and it will undercut the inspector general’s ability to get the truth from them.”
And just to keep things really interesting, Hayden has picked a Bush crony to investigate Helgerson, which strikes some as a conflict of interest.
Then, of course, there’s the timing: “Officials said Mr. Helgerson’s office was nearing completion on a number of inquiries into C.I.A. detention, interrogation, and ‘renditions,'” leading some to wonder if a) this is an attempt to intimidate the IG’s office; b) this is intended to undermine his credibility before he issues a critical report; or c) both.
If this starts to sound like an organized crime family to you, we’re on the same page.