(3 of 3)
Once a decision is made, it seems to me your options are rather limited. You can continue to argue against it inside the system. In my experience, you can walk your way up the line to various people in positions of authority and argue against it. You can go to the inspector general and say, "I think this is immoral, wrong and illegal." Or you can go to the general counsel and say, "I don't think this is legal, and I object to our being involved in it, and I objected to being involved in it personally." And I guess if that doesn't work, you can go to the oversight committees in Congress.
There are just a lot of other ways to express your unhappiness with the program than going to the press, and before that, you should resign and then argue against it from the outside. As a serving officer, I think it's more than inappropriate. There is zero doubt in my mind that the director can fire someone who takes that into their own hands. And the polygraph is quite a legitimate way to find out whether you have leakers.
Maybe the CIA needs to give officers more ways of coming to terms internally with a serious and legitimate question, How do you protect American values, and how far do you go down the line of changing your own values? I think the CIA should look at some of its internal debate channels. We have kind of come full circle. But that does not mean an officer can make an independent judgment and then go to the media.