Does the release of the now-infamous set of memos on harsh methods used by CIA operatives to obtain information from terror suspects constitute honest, refreshing government openness or a Pandora's box? For the Obama administration, the answer probably is some of both. Now the question is, what's next?

President Barack Obama last week rightly sought to reassure CIA staffers that their work is valuable, that the apparent excesses employed under the Bush administration can provide lessons learned without being a catastrophe for credibility.

Previously, he had vowed that those officers who carried out interrogation techniques such as waterboarding, which many critics believe to be torture, will not be prosecuted. That was fair, because they were, after all, operating under directives approved by the Justice Department.

But the administration indicates that all may not be legally forgiven so far as the Bush administration Justice officials who devised the policies are concerned. Indeed, the actions of those officials are worth a closer look. Members of Congress who are considering a further investigation of the interrogation techniques may have a point as well regarding the value of full disclosure who did what, on whose authority, by what rationale and with what results.

From Obama's standpoint, the country needs a functioning CIA, not one torn apart by recriminations over past actions taken in good faith, even if misguided. And Director Leon Panetta is a smart and savvy former congressman and Clinton administration official who can be counted upon to keep things on the straight and narrow from here forward.

Still, further disclosure, so long as it does not endanger current CIA activities, might not hurt. The cloak of secrecy was employed so often by the Bush administration that it grew threadbare. Even now, former Vice President Dick Cheney is critical of Obama's candor and openness. He wants more information released as to the kind of intelligence that was received during these tough interrogations.

Cheney contends that the techniques employed were justified because they yielded valuable intelligence helping to prevent further terrorist attacks after 9/11. This is where Pandora is making mischief. While Cheney may have a viable contention, though he's blatantly trying to save face for policies he helped institute, release of the kinds of sensitive intelligence that may have been gained as a result of waterboarding, for example, might well be too much, too soon. The battle against terrorism, after all, goes on.

President Obama is discovering that there are few easy issues and even fewer simple answers when dealing with matters that involve national security, covert operations and partisanship, all rolled into one. He also has to protect an agency whose maneuvers are by necessity a mystery to most of us, but that also is responsible to the American people, in whose name it serves.

This president seems inclined to tell the people as much as he believes he can, even if disclosure might tread on the toes of some in his administration. Yet he also is adding a measure of caution. If there is a word to describe such an attitude at this point, it would seem to be "sensible."