You don't just get to sign up to work for the CIA and make things better - you'll spend years doing damn distateful things before you're ever in a position to affect positive change, assuming you haven't been properly corrupted by then. If you refuse to toe the line, then you'll find yourself fired or pressed with criminal charges.
Selling your soul for a small chance to change the CIA seems quite the price to pay.
(1) where their ilk means: the New York Times, the NewYorker, The Washington Post, The Intercept
The difference between this and activism would be...?
Activism can very frequently involve being fired from your job (which is why many activists end up forming organizations and getting paid specifically for their activism) and being threatened with charges pressed.
Having to deal with this inside the organization you're trying to change rather than outside of it isn't actually different. It's a different psychological experience (namely, it's far more hostile), but the threats don't change.
The people that do not want to work for the CIA to begin with are doing just that, only they make up their minds a bit earlier.
> and doing your best to cause the appropriate legal action to be taken to mitigate that criminal conspiracy.
Snowden did try to talk to his superiors about this sort of thing.
http://www.nbcnews.com/feature/edward-snowden-interview
He makes it quite plain that he tried to go through 'channels' first.