When Bobby Kennedy became Attorney General he inherited a sound department with an apolitical law enforcement tradition. His relationship with the president gave the department additional prestige and influence when it came to law. His only management problem was with J. Edgar Hoover's FBI, serious in its right wing obsession with communism and its dislike of Dr. King and black demonstrators. Attorney general-designate Eric Holder has quite different problems, the most serious of which are restoring the constitution and law to government and eliminating any remnants of politicization in the department itself. The latter will take time, but he will have the support of the bulk of the attorneys in the civil service and he can make sure that new appointments are on the merits. Bobby was always concerned that the process of appointing U.S. Attorneys, which involved a recommendation from the Democratic political leadership in the relevant state, exposed the President and the department to local politics. Young politically ambitious prosecutors with an obligation to their Senator could easily begin political investigations into alleged Republican corruption. This was, of course, the opposite of recent problems where such activity was encouraged, but it could have easily looked the same to the public. Bobby brought all potential appointees to Washington and told them in no uncertain terms that he had to be informed and approve any such investigations before they were authorized.

(Note: Nick Katzenbach is the author of the new book Some of It Was Fun: Working with RFK and LBJ.)

Dealing with the restoration of law throughout governments is more difficult because of the political attention Guantanamo, torture, the trial of "illegal combatants," warrantless wiretapping, and the activities of the CIA overseas have attracted. Further, it is not a job the attorney general alone can accomplish. As always, effective compliance with the law requires work within the departments and agencies themselves. Justice can and should play a role, but it is one of oversight and support.

My experience as assistant and then deputy attorney general--and then attorney general under LBJ--was that often other departments depended on opinions of Justice (or today possibly White House counsel) from prior administrations of which the current administration is unaware. Those opinions should ordinarily be respected. Indeed, on the rare occasions when we differed with our predecessors, Bobby made it a practice to call the responsible AG and seek his thoughts on why we saw a need for change--invariably with acquiescence from the member of the old guard. But I suspect that today, after eight years of an administration that often disdained legislation and took an expansive view of presidential power number of opinions which should be withdrawn or modified, and it is the responsibility of the AG to do so. It need not be vindictive, critical, or publicized. I refer particularly to those opinions on terror and treatment of persons held in custody in connection with terrorism. But there must be more on the powers of the president which go well beyond any previous claims to executive power, executive privilege and the power to withhold information from Congress. I think it is important to get these matters straightened out.

Holder will undoubtedly be pressed to bring prosecutions for past unlawful conduct by government officials, despite President Obama's opposition to investigations into these activities. Many in the CIA, for example, are reported to fear indictment. Yet successfully cleaning up unlawful practices will generally require cooperation of just those people and I am skeptical in any event that there are many sound cases to be made if, as I believe is likely, they have had the protection of legal advice, however bad. A number of prosecutions would simply politicize in the public mind a process of depoliticization. The effort must be to reform, not punish, and the exceptions to that rule should be few, based on irrefutable evidence, and principals, not pawns in the process. In some ways this is unfortunate, but now is not the time to create divisive issues.

Getting us back to government that respects law will require reform within departments and agencies. The AG should attempt to keep a close watch on this reform by meeting with general counsels and others to give advice and support. He should involve his principal staff in such meetings so they can share the burden. While he can, for example, use the criminal division to investigate and determine which cases from Guantanamo can be tried in court, he should do so in a way which involves and supports the general counsel and others who are trying to build respect for law.

Politics is legitimately involved in composing, supporting, and enacting legislation. It is never legitimately involved in enforcement of that legislation.