Leaving them out to dry.

A lawsuit was filed by the American Civil Liberties Union and the Center for Constitutional Rights, claiming that Obama was too much like President G.W. Bush when it came to targeted killing of terrorists. The focus of the lawsuit is the alleged targeting of an American citizen, Anwar al-Awlaki, but it has been indicated that their objections are more wide-ranging. They object to treating the whole world as a battlefield (which they feel both presidents have done), to lethal actions outside of accepted theaters of conflict, and to the killing of individuals who do not represent an imminent threat. Legal scholars do not give the suit much of a chance, and the administration gave a robust defense of its actions through a speech by the State department's top lawyer.

So, in essence, the actions were approved as legal, and authorized by the President. Sounds solid. However. In a major disconinuity between the administrations, Obama allowed his attorney general to disclose classified details of one of Bush's anti-terror operations (actions of which were deemed legal and authorized), and to reopen investigations of CIA officers involved. This is not about the release of interrgotaion techniques (of which waterboarding was publicly disclosed by the CIA, and NOT used). The argument can then be made that the exposing of a previously authorized program was done on a purely political agenda. This bothers me, because the CIA has (technically) the authorization to do things that no one else is asked or is able to do, and that should not change along iwth an administration. When CIA officers agree to do these things we don't know about, they believe they are entering into a contract with the government, not the current administration. In order for those officers to perform to the best of their abilities and with the most zeal, they must be able to be confident that they will not be thrown under the bus by way of a new President. Personally, I believe that nothing done by the CIA should be disclosed, as it almost always deals with national security, and make that public is ridiculous. It's no wonder that senior CIA officials are now asking for more legal guarantees concerning the secrecy of their operations. I support that idea, and am completely against the need of one administration to sabotage the operatons of the last. Doing that creates a lack of trust with our most important intelligence force, and that's just irresponsible.