In this corner, Justice; In this corner, the C.I.A.

The lead story in The New York Times this morning is titled, “Abuse Issue Puts the Justice Dept. and C.I.A. at Odds.” The article describes a series of contentious debates between the Central Intelligence Agency and the Justice Department over the abuse of detainees after 9/11.

The article starts by describing a visit by the chief lawyer of the C.I.A.  in an unsuccessful attempt to persuade aides at the Justice Department to forego an investigation. The C.I.A. told the Justice Department that the transgressions had already been reviewed by prosecutors from the Bush White House, and, in their view, it was either impossible or unlikely to prove anything in a court of law. Furthermore, the C.I.A. noted that any inappropriate actions had been handled internally.

In my opinion, these conflicts primarily represent an attempt by each institution to defend its territory. Eric Holder at Justice has been sworn in to defend the law of the land, and he can’t just ignore actions that go beyond even the brutality allowed under the Bush administration. Leon Panetta, on the other hand, is trying to boost the morale at the C.I.A. and wants to avoid a long drawn-out investigation.

Both attempts may be well intentioned, but we need to go beyond the squabbling to determine what’s best for the country. I think a good compromise has already been struck. The prosecutor selected has already been investigating the erasure of tapes showing the interrogations so he won’t be starting from square one. This will shorten the investigation. In addition, the charge given to the prosecutor involves specific transgressions of guidelines from the Bush administration, not an investigation of those guidelines themselves.

Compare it to a band-aid over a wound. The band-aid (interrogations) may have been necessary at the time, but afterwards, the best course of action is to take off the band-aid quickly. This investigation should do just that.