> They're supposed to spy on the most important people in the world, and make sure that the important people don't plan anything the agency's employers may consider ... untoward.

Except of course for the part where the CIA is explicitly legally barred from domestic US spying, and where they were spying on their employers.

Am I surprised? No, not at all. I'm from Norway. Most people would probably consider Norway less likely to be involved in sinister surveillance activity than a country like the US.

Yet 20 years ago, an investigation into the Police Security Service finally got underway, and everyone were shocked - shocked, I say - to find out that the several decades of illegal surveillance of left wing groups that any member of either of the communist parties or socialist groups had known, and publicly alleged, were happening had actually been happening (they knew, because members of the security service made it abundantly clear, by e.g. occasionally stopping people on the street and making fun of them over details of conversations they'd had in the privacy of their own home).

When the establishment finally accepted that the security service had to be reigned in, a parliamentary commission was established. During the investigation into the security service, it quickly became clear that they were still engaged in the illegal surveillance while the commission was investigating them. Not only that, but it was revealed that they were illegally spying on the chairman - a well respected member of parliament - of the commission investigating their illegal spying.

So I'm not the least bit surprised. But that does not mean it is legal, or what they are "supposed" to do.

Are their employers the Congress or the American citizenry? Spying on Congresspersons on behalf of the American citizenry makes sense. Congresspersons have very sensitive access, very special privileges, and very substantial influence. If one of these Congresspersons were to go rogue and cooperate with a terroristic unit, which is not too far-fetched in the day of the Tea Party, the results could be catastrophic both to the government's ability to function and to American cultural heritage. It completely makes sense for an intel agency to spy on persons that have that type of capacity, regardless of title or location.

> Are their employers the Congress or the American citizenry?

Congress. They were created by an act of Congress, and the only ones with oversight powers are the intelligence committee that they spied on.

> Spying on Congresspersons on behalf of the American citizenry makes sense.

Except it is explicitly illegal for them to do so. The same act that authorised the creation of the CIA - the National Security Act 1947 - also bars them from domestic spying. Anyone tasking the CIA to do so have at the very least participated in a crime, whether or not they can be charged with anything.

> If one of these Congresspersons were to go rogue and cooperate with a terroristic unit

That being so, that would fall under the remit of the FBI, Department of Homeland Security or - in the case they communicate about this with foreign interests - the NSA (!). Only if they were to do something stupid like attend in-person meetings outside US borders would it fall under the remit of the CIA, or even be legal for the CIA to pursue.

> It completely makes sense for an intel agency to spy on persons that have that type of capacity, regardless of title or location.

Not when they are barred by law from doing so, it is the responsibility of other agencies if any, and the persons they spy on are the very people tasked with providing the checks and balances against the CIA going rogue. And in fact, in this very case they were explicitly investigating claims that the CIA had committed gross violations of human rights. In that case there's a massive conflict of interest - the CIA has every reason to want to minimise their findings, and possibly even to try to strongarm them into silence.

And in fact, the CIA has repeatedly made public statements to try to discredit this report - that in itself is shocking to the extreme; in any other organizations, heads would be rolling if a department started a PR campaign against a board committee, which is the closest equivalence.

And do I have to remind you that the CIA has decades of history of horrific operations behind them, including the illegal overthrow of multiple democratically elected leaders, a long range of assassinations, dealing drugs to fund illegal operations, and more, - they've proven time and time again that they badly need more oversight. When was the last time a member of the intelligence committee went rogue again?

Well, unless you count the times they were complicit in illegal CIA cover-ups, that is.

This.

I understand that now it's a little different because we had hard evidence, but it shouldn't be as surprising as it seems to be to people!

It is obvious that if something can be done and can benefit folks with enough money, it will be done. There are no "checks and balances" on the level of intelligence agencies, because by definition we pay them to do things that would be prosecuted if discovered.

It smells to me like the "hammer and nails" proverb in reverse. Spies are building super sophisticated hammers and people really, really don't expect them to use those hammers to nail things everywhere?