> I can't help but come to the conclusion that any 'marginally legal if that' activity that it administered by the government will suffer from a kind of Peter P

> I can't help but come to the conclusion that any 'marginally legal if that' activity that it administered by the government will suffer from a kind of Peter Principle, where it continues being expanded until a major mistake goes public. No institutional activity, "marginally legal" or otherwise, is at a stable equilibrium. That's why checks and balances should exist within most systems, that's why we have freedom of the press, and that's why whistleblowing is an important (albeit last-resort) activity. That being said, it's hard to be upset about anything in the article -- it was reasonably balanced. Moreover, you can bet that the fact this is being published will spur some degree of internal review. Seems like the system, as a whole, is working as intended.