There used to be a character on the Ally McBeal show who would do phenomenally inappropriate and inconsiderate things. When people would call him on his actions, he’d shrug and say, “Bygones,” as if the injured party was harping on the distant past and all should be forgiven. That’s roughly how I feel about DCI Leon Panetta’s column today in the Washington Post. Panetta starts off with a formulaic introduction:

Last month, at a meeting overseas of intelligence service chiefs, one of my counterparts from a major Western ally pulled me aside. Why, he asked, is Washington so consumed with what the CIA did in the past, when the most pressing national security concerns are in the present? It was a very good question. In fact, I’ve become increasingly concerned that the focus on the past, especially in Congress, threatens to distract the CIA from its crucial core missions: intelligence collection, analysis and covert action.

Panetta introduces an anonymous character (the head of MI6, perhaps) to make his argument for him. “Why is Washington so consumed” with the murder, torture, and mistaken (and indefinite) detention of hundreds of people that took place during the Bush Era? It beats me. I haven’t noticed more than the faintest hint of a consuming interest in these matters in Washington, or much anywhere else in this country. But a month ago there was a little fleeting moment of interest when Panetta came clean on Cheney’s assassination squads that had never been divulged to the Congressional intelligence committees or leadership. Since everyone has forgotten about that already, I’m not sure why Panetta wanted to remind us about it. After all, his message is that we should let it all go.

Here’s how Panetta frames his argument.

We need broad agreement between the executive and legislative branches on what our intelligence organizations do and why. For much of our history, we have had that. Over the past eight years, on specific issues — including the detention and interrogation of terrorists — the consensus deteriorated. That contributed to an atmosphere of declining trust, growing frustration and more frequent leaks of properly classified information.

Frankly, I agree with Panetta about this. If the president pursues foreign policies that are based on deceit and do not enjoy broad bipartisan support, the Intelligence Community will very quickly get politicized and crossways of Congress. During the Bush Era, the Intelligence Community was not allowed to brief Congress on much of what they were doing, so many in the Community resorted to leaking classified information to Congress and the press as the only way to prevent even greater disasters and unconstitutional behavior. We don’t want a repeat of that. But Panetta glosses over the difficult history of the CIA. Starting with the Kennedy administration, the CIA has more often than not been forced to operate without a broad agreement between the executive and legislative branches. In the 1970’s, Congress was trying to re-exert some control over the ‘Imperial Presidency’ by exposing and reining in the excesses of the CIA, NSA, and Pentagon. In the 1980’s, Congress was opposed to aiding the Contras and shut off funding for them. Congress knew very little about Charlie Wilson’s War in Afghanistan. Only during the Clinton years did there seem to be a truce between Congress and the CIA, and it didn’t last more than a year and a half into Bush’s term. The truth is, the CIA gets in trouble over and over again because they are asked by presidents to do things that do not have the support of Congress or the American people. Panetta wants to fix this, but it isn’t clear that it is a thing that can be fixed by the CIA’s director. The same problems will arise the next time the CIA is asked to do something that they cannot divulge to the appropriate Congressional designees.

… my agency continues to pay a price for enduring disputes over policies that no longer exist. Those conflicts fuel a climate of suspicion and partisanship on Capitol Hill that our intelligence officers — and our country — would be better off without. My goal as director is to do everything I can to build the kind of dialogue and trust with Congress that is essential to our intelligence mission.

Again, it’s hard to disagree with Panetta. In a real way, we would be better off without mutual suspicion and partisanship in intelligence matters. Reducing those things should be a high priority of any DCI. But, how many CIA officers have been tried for murder or for torture? How many of the people that authorized or covered up murder and torture are still working at the CIA? I remember that a CIA officer was fired for raping someone in Algeria, but I don’t remember anyone answering for murder or torture. If you want to erase the climate of suspicion, put some heads on a platter and stop pretending the Office of Legal Counsel authorized murder and rape and waterboarding people nearly 200 times in a matter of days. As morally decrepit as the OLC lawyers were, they didn’t authorize what was done by the CIA, other intelligence agencies, and contractors. Those memos covered no one, not just because you can’t legalize war crimes, but because the war criminals never abided by their restrictions.

One of the repeated defenses the CIA raises every time someone ask them disclose something that they’ve done wrong is to say that complying with inquiries is a distraction from the job of protecting America. Panetta doesn’t disappoint.

I recognize that there will always be tension in oversight relationships, but there are also shared responsibilities. Those include protecting the classified information that shapes our conversations. Together, the CIA and Congress must find a balance between appropriate oversight and a recognition that the security of the United States depends on a CIA that is totally focused on the job of defending America.

Then Panetta makes the ‘Bygones’ argument.

The time has come for both Democrats and Republicans to take a deep breath and recognize the reality of what happened after Sept. 11, 2001. The question is not the sincerity or the patriotism of those who were dealing with the aftermath of Sept. 11. The country was frightened, and political leaders were trying to respond as best they could. Judgments were made. Some of them were wrong. But that should not taint those public servants who did their duty pursuant to the legal guidance provided. The last election made clear that the public wanted to move in a new direction.

Mistakes were made. Move on.

The idea that these public servants limited themselves to ‘doing their duty pursuant to the legal guidance provided’ is a myth. Dozens of people are dead, and none of the ‘enhanced interrogations’ we’ve learned about were conducted within OLC guidelines. None. Even if they were, many of these interrogations still involved war crimes. But that is a distraction. People were murdered and tortured beyond any degree of ‘interpretation.’ They need to go to prison and so do their superiors.

If Panetta’s pleading hasn’t convinced you yet, perhaps a veiled threat will be more convincing.

Intelligence can be a valuable weapon, but it is not one we should use on each other. As the president has said, this is not a time for retribution.

He doesn’t want to use intelligence as a weapon against you because this isn’t a time for retribution. But…

Panetta concludes:

Having spent 16 years in the House, I know that Congress can get the facts it needs to do its job without undue strife or name-calling. I also know that we can learn lessons from the past without getting stuck there. That is what the American people expect. The CIA is ready to do its part. The nation deserves no less.

I can say, having spent more than 16 years observing Congress and the CIA, that Congress doesn’t have anywhere near the tools they need to conduct oversight of the Intelligence Community. The Bush Era was just the latest proof of that. I talked to Rep. Patrick Murphy of Pennsylvania in early 2008, after he has spent a full year on the House Intelligence Committee. I asked him if he felt like he was getting good briefings. He said that they were told nothing. I believe Panetta when he says he wants to change that, but I don’t believe that letting people get away with murder and torture is a good way to establish trust.