Collection of Intelligence
An element of the National Security Act of 1947 stated, “…No United States intelligence information may be provided to the United Nations or any organization affiliated with the United Nations…” Briefly defend this position from an ethical perspective.
The United Nations is known as a world organization that is dedicated to the rule of law, transparency, and impartiality. The United Nations (UN) play an important role in countries that lack military /law enforcement or government control to offer peace to its citizens. The UN was established as a world organization to provide military support to nations in conflict. Consequently, it is obliged to share information as well as offer assistance to the 193 nations, which support the United Nations. The National Security Act of 1947 states that “No United States intelligence information may be provided to the United Nations or any organization affiliated with the United Nations…” Sharing of intelligence information whether sensitive or classified with the UN put the United States in a situation where it is acting as world police. The United States would be forced to be involved in conflicts that would affect the country’s national security. Moreover, the United Nations is not needed to protect information such as intelligence products in the same way as agents of the United States. Although many nations gather information about other countries, it is not mentioned in the political situation. The United Nations need to adhere to the procedure prescribed to obtain information. Lack of ethical conduct when collecting information may lead to leakage of information to parties that may use it for personal gain.
How would you define “morally intolerable” and “morally acceptable” from an intelligence operation perspective concerning national security? Is the torture of terrorists or enemy combatants ever morally acceptable?
Morally intolerable decisions are decisions or acts that are considered too harsh or unbearable to deal with when it comes to government and personal agency morals. According to the intelligence operation perspective, morally intolerable are actions that would be considered morally wrong that regardless of the information obtained does not justify how was used to get it. On the other hand, morally acceptable is the opposite of morally intolerable in the perspective of intelligence operations. Morally acceptable are actions used by the government to obtain intelligence information using strategies that are both acceptable and legal.
In my perspective, torturing of an enemy or a terrorist is not morally acceptable. The Geneva Convention prohibits torture or degrading treatment of enemy combats in the name of obtaining intelligence. There are certain boundaries that intelligence personnel should not cross one of them being torture of an enemy. However, with the global war on terrorism and the increasing number of attacks, it is hard to decide whether torture of an enemy is morally acceptable or not. The overall decision about torture can be evaluated on a strategic level while examining case by case by a panel of specialists.
Explain what you would consider a working definition of integrity for an intelligence-gathering government agency. What sort of attributes would be absolutes?
When it comes to an intelligence-gathering government agency, integrity is when agent or collector continuously do what is legally or morally right regardless of the pressure or coercion to obtain information using morally unacceptable means. An agent of intelligence may often lose their way as they are forced to engage in actions that are against their moral principles for the best interest of the public and the national security. One of the greatest attribute to uphold when collecting intelligence is ensuring that put the need of the public and national security at the forefront rather their interests.
Essentially, the intelligence community possesses great power that can be executed covertly or overtly. However, it must also ensure that the decisions made for the public interests are not performed outside the rule of law. One of the major qualities that members of the intelligence community must follow s transparency. It is critical to note that not all actions performed by IC are made known to the public due to the fact there is a system of balances and checks within the various arms of government.
What sort of conclusion did Kent Pekel come to in his discussion of integrity and ethics at the CIA? What are his recommendations?
In his discussion of ethics and integrity in the CIA, Kent Pekel concluded that ethics training to be conducted when it was less effective. Many of the interviews conducted by Pekel about ethics were done amongst the coworkers, but not at a corporate level. According to Pekel, organizations did not have well-designed systems for ethics to promote or reward ethically sound individuals. He concluded that ethics training was often considered as a punishment for past preference and people within the agency were willing to talk about integrity. By using the interviews and analysis, he developed suggestions for future training on the ethics intelligence community. First, the CIA should design an ethic education program since intelligence is a special field and introducing an external party to teach ethics could be lead to issues for various reasons. Besides, he recommended that training on ethics should be performed the same across the agency regardless of which department the agent works. Ethics should also be considered as something to pursue self-reliance rather than a punishment. When studying ethics in an agency, it not important not to focus on the past failures of ethics, but to celebrate individuals who have upheld ethics.
Under what circumstances would war be a “just” war? The law allows one to act justifiably in defence of self or defence of others. Would war also be allowed in defence of others?
For a war to be considered as a just war, it must be waged after all peaceful actions have been considered. Also, it must be in reaction to an act of aggression or a forthcoming threat of wrongdoing to a country. A country can only engage in war only when there is a possibility of a win. In other words, a nation cannot enter into a war with which there is no predictable win at the end of the war. If a country engages in a just war must make an effort to avoid civilian casualties while at the same time trying to attack enemy proportionally.
More than in any other time in history, today the world is an intertwined society due to globalization. Unlike the ancient days, an attack against the United States allies can directly affect the Americans citizens on the U.S soil. For this reason, I believe that war could be allowed in defence of others and therefore countries should act to defend the United States as an allied country.