The CIA has plenty to hide; they are in INTELL agency. "Secret" is their business. Duh...

__________________
" That government governs best, which governs least." - Thomas Jefferson...maybe.

The problem is what is "legal" keeps changing. The CIA acted to the best of their knowledge, in a legal manner.

__________________
" That government governs best, which governs least." - Thomas Jefferson...maybe.

Intell........ yes right..very funny that.

__________________
The Right Wing hand book. How to debate on the internet.

When confronted with someone criticising American foreign policy please use the following lines.

1.You hate America..
2. You support Terrorism.
3.You are Anti-American.
4.They hate our freedoms.
5. I have been water boarded..

Please repeat ad nauseum...

Exactly.

__________________
The Right Wing hand book. How to debate on the internet.

When confronted with someone criticising American foreign policy please use the following lines.

1.You hate America..
2. You support Terrorism.
3.You are Anti-American.
4.They hate our freedoms.
5. I have been water boarded..

Please repeat ad nauseum...

Which is why tenured officials within the agency quit out of protest? Huh?

__________________
And now, a message on trolling the forum.

This is completely different. The matter of national security is on opposite sides here.

Libs say that warrantless wiretapping is wrong, but we do it as a matter of national security. Investigating the CIA is wrong because it interferes with our security. Is anything in the name of "national security" acceptable? Not necessarily. You have a stronger case for the wiretapping, but not even close with this investigation.

The biggest fear is not that they will find illegal activities, but that the "investigation" will expose secrets that could really hurt us. Stuff won't just come out about the illegal activity, but about all the context of perfectly legal stuff surrounding it.

From the joint letter:

While they try to make a distinction between "career prosecutors during one administration" and "political appointees in the next," the truth is that the decision NOT to prosecute had to be cleared by political appointees of the first administration. In effect, the "political appointees" of the new administration are overturning a decision made by "political appointees" of the old. That goes nowhere.

What is important, and the ONLY thing which is important, is "Did the interrogators break the law." That question cannot be answered without an investigation. And, if the law is found to have been broken, those responsible should be brought to account, whether they be "career prosecutors," "political appointees," or elected officials. Otherwise our Constitution, our laws, and our posture that we are a nation of laws is worth nothing.

That's a false claim. The Constitution of the United States prohibits the enactment of ex post facto laws. That means that a person can be tried ONLY under the laws that were in effect at the time of the offense.

Besides, things like illegal arrests and torturing prisoners to make them talk have been illegal since the adoption of the Constitution and the formation of the government in April, 1789. I doubt that any proposed investigation will look back any father than that.

I think those 7 are right-on and that this political move by Holder should have never begun.

__________________
"If the President simply adds a couple of Republican solutions to a trillion dollar health care package that the American people don't support, it isn't bi-partisan. It's political cover," Rep Eric Cantor (R-Va.)

Except that some of the 7 were under Democrat administrations.

__________________
"If the President simply adds a couple of Republican solutions to a trillion dollar health care package that the American people don't support, it isn't bi-partisan. It's political cover," Rep Eric Cantor (R-Va.)