The report on the CIA's secret overseas prisons brings up two important questions.

First, where is the fine line between national security and civil rights? Very few people would oppose locking up terrorists....but what about those who are suspected terrorists? Shouldn't we give them a chance to prove their innocence? And what about precedence? Where do we draw the line? Only foreigners? What if some domestic terrorists surfaced and attacked us, as happened in England? Would the government have the right to lock up people in undisclosed locations where human rights may or may not be followed? Keep in mind that, after Stalin, torture was illegal in the USSR. But that rule was either ignored or worked around (e.g. euphemisms used). What is to stop that from happening here? One thing that concerns me is that Congress - which is supposed to have oversight of all CIA covert ops - did not know about this. Which raises the question....what else do they not know? Some things to think about....

Secondly, (this point was raised by a friend of mine at GMU) why aren't heads rolling over this? If a major investigation can be launched at the White House for the leaking of a CIA agent's identity (which was actually legal under the circumstances), they why isn't the Washington Post paying for this? It seems to me that the press is getting away with a lot of things. Sure, we don't want to restrict freedom of the press, but gone are the days when NBC did not report the bombing of Lybia until it was underway - despite the fact that they saw the bombers taking off from England. I think a little jail time would do the media some good....and they can't do the "Miller" thing and make a hero out of themselves...because they are the guilty party this time.

So what are your thoughts on these matters?