In the CIA, the Inspector General is supposed to be an independent investigator. But what happens when there is reason to suspect that the IG is not being independent, but is instead operating with an agenda designed to direct policy in a certain direction? Who investigates?

That is the problem today.

The director of the Central Intelligence Agency, Gen. Michael V. Hayden, has ordered an unusual internal inquiry into the work of the agency’s inspector general, whose aggressive investigations of the C.I.A.’s detention and interrogation programs and other matters have created resentment among agency operatives.

A small team working for General Hayden is looking into the conduct of the agency’s watchdog office, which is led by Inspector General John L. Helgerson. Current and former government officials said the review had caused anxiety and anger in Mr. Helgerson’s office and aroused concern on Capitol Hill that it posed a conflict of interest.

The review is particularly focused on complaints that Mr. Helgerson’s office has not acted as a fair and impartial judge of agency operations but instead has begun a crusade against those who have participated in controversial detention programs.

Any move by the agency’s director to examine the work of the inspector general would be unusual, if not unprecedented, and would threaten to undermine the independence of the office, some current and former officials say.

Now this is dangerous ground, I'll concede that. But if you have a supposedly neutral party that isn't neutral, isn't it reasonable that there be an investigation launched? Especially given the number of possible leaks and one-sided assessments that have come out of the IG's office.

Some don't see it that way.

Members of the House and Senate intelligence committees expressed concern today about an unusual inquiry into the work of the Central Intelligence Agency’s inspector general, John L. Helgerson, saying that it could undermine his role as independent watchdog.

The inquiry was ordered by General Michael V. Hayden, the C.I.A. director. Representative Silvestre Reyes, the Texas Democrat who is chairman of the House committee, called news of the inquiry “troubling,” noting that the inspector general’s independence is written into law.

“It is this independence that Congress established and will very aggressively preserve,” Mr. Reyes said in a statement.

Senator Ron Wyden, Democrat of Oregon, said he was sending a letter to Mike McConnell, the director of national intelligence, asking him to instruct General Hayden to drop the inquiry.

“I just don’t want to see I.G.’s intimidated,” said Mr. Wyden, using the abbreviation for inspector general. “People who know they’re doing the right thing are not afraid of oversight.”

Interestingly enough, Reyes and Wyden are both partisans that like the fact that the Inspector General's office has operated as it has, consistently taking positions supported by the Democrats rather than the administration. They certainly don't want that to stop -- even if it is the result of ideology, not impartial investigation. But it begs the question -- what should be done if the IG is not being impartial and independent?

Well, there are two routs.

Under federal procedures, agency heads who are unhappy with the conduct of their inspectors general have at least two places to file complaints. One is the Integrity Committee of the President’s Council on Integrity and Efficiency, which oversees all the inspectors general. The aggrieved agency head can also go directly to the White House.

If serious accusations against an inspector general are sustained by evidence, the president can dismiss him.

Both those routes avoid the awkward situation officials describe at the C.I.A. and preserve the independence of the inspector general.

Which, of course, would result in all sorts of political problems, given that the issue is whether or not the Inspector General's office is operating with a bias against the President's own policies. It would appear, even if it were not true, that there was an attempt to undermine the office's independence.

And besides -- where do you get the evidence that could sustain the accusations of wrongdoing unless you conduct an investigation.

Catch-22.