This coming Wednesday, we will be discussing the idea behind the use of spies and undercover policemen to protect our society.
The occupation of spies and undercover agents, by definition, is based on deception. Their work requires them to lie about their true identity when interacting with others.
If we normally do not trust lairs in our daily lives, (are we to trust them when they said they lie to us before but they are now telling us the truth?) why should we trust spies to tell us what they have found out when they by definition, found that information by lying about their identity?
Worst still, how can anyone trust double agents?
Is it just our own vanity to think that spies will lie to others but not to us?
As a country, we punish our corporations for bribing officials in other countries in trying to get contracts there. It is no defense to say that it is how business is done in those countries, we cannot let our corporations use local morals as an excuse.
So what is the justification for having spies and undercover agents? Is it because that our enemies, (the bad guys), do not always play by the rules and that we are too naive to think that we should play nice while others don't obey the rules?
How is this different from corporations saying that companies from other countries do not play by our lily white rules either? Why is there one rule for government and law enforcement but another rule for corporations?
Then there is the question of how far spies and undercover agents can go beyond the law in achieving their goals. Can they murder someone like a Bin Laden who had declared war on the US? What about someone like the previous Libyan leader who seemed like a tyrant but have not declared war and have not been tried?
Can utilitarian arguments of saving many lives by killing a certain person be used as a reason for spies to kill this person?
What about lessor transgressions like theft, kidnapping, wiretapping without a warrant?
Who is watching the spies and what code of ethics do they use to decide whether certain actions should be taken? I don't ever remember seeing a code of ethics for spies.
We also hear about countries trading captured spies. Does this not sounded like mafia and underworld dealings? How can the rest of the law abiding society reconcile this while imposing jail terms for their citizens for doing some of these same acts?
Necessity seems like a weak argument as most convicted criminals can likely come up with their argument of why they have to commit the crime in order to support their family, to preserve their lives, etc.
In the end, we seem to reconcile quite well that spies and undercover agents are a necessary thing. There is even a private investigation business supported by private citizens and corporations.
What limits should these private investigators go by?
Do the existence and acceptance of spies and undercover agents undermine trust in our society?
Who owns the information collected by these undercover agents? the client paying for the agents services or the target that the agent was spying on?
Where does privacy come into this?
Bring your ideas to the cafe on Wednesday and let's see if we can shine some light on this dark topic.
One thing I might have missed: Intelligence agencies network with each other and may form agreements to share resources and information and any "treaties" could be secret. I suppose this is as it should be, but it is a little disconcerting not knowing much about areas which may be highly secretive.
ReplyDeleteGill, in "Policing Politics" notes that secrecy and espionage operate together and may feed into each other. Likewise, persuasion and evaluation also operate together.
Persuasion is getting a target to believe what you wish them to believe with or without their knowing this. Evaluation is becoming disabused of attempts at persuasion.
If the truth does really make people free, then Intelligence may serve to free public officials from attempts to persuade them. But Intelligence (i.e., the agencies themselves) must remain free from the desire to persuade.
I guess I got deleted because I loaded too large a comment onto the server. I shall put my earlier comments in parts and load them separately.
ReplyDeleteCSIS has a website and often has their annual reports posted there with other sundry items. Also of note is that the "Security Intelligence Review Committee" (SIRC) also does annual reports probably on their website. There is also the CSE (Communications Security Establishment).
There is a CSIS Act which is the mandate given CSIS to act in Canada. The RCMP Act might also be relevant too. Much legislation may be "orders in council" which issue rules that do not go through Parliament and can be secret. An example might be the rules for using deadly force.
I hope these notes are not too unwieldy or unacceptable.
ReplyDeleteIdeally a Parliamentary committee should oversee Intelligence in addition to SIRC. They in principle have the right to demand all people (witnesses) and papers (documents) and call the Intelligence organizations to
accountability.
The United States is a special case. Each military service has Intelligence organizations. There is CIA, FBI, Homeland Security, NSA, DOE (Department of Energy oversees security for nuclear reactors among other things), Treasury runs the Secret Service which in turn runs security of political officials and money supply, Immigration, Transportation, as well as policing. There are probably others too (INS which is more than
immigation). Congress oversees US Intelligence.
Sorry about the last space in the last comment.
ReplyDeleteThe United Kingdom, like Canada, has an Official Secrets Act which may limit whistleblowing. The United States can harrass whistleblowers if need be. The UK is a unitary state also which gives it more power and secrecy. Canada and US, of course, are federalisms.
I have a small book on "best practices" for Intelligence agencies: "Making Intelligence Accountable" by Hans Born & Ian Leigh (Oslo: Publishing House of the Parliament of Norway, 2005). There are a goodly number of books on the topic. I have not yet read "Who's Watching the Spies?" edited by Hans Born, Loch K. Johnson, and Ian Leigh (2005) which is by some of the top authors. I have both books if you are interested in looking at them. (May not be at meeting).
A bit about Intelligence agencies:
ReplyDeleteIt is also good to know what Intelligence agencies do. There is the document cycle in producing and distributing of intelligence reports. There is counter-intelligence. There is security vetting. There are operations.
There is propaganda. There is maintenance and classification of records. There is financing of the organizations. There is recruiting and training of staff and assets. There are the different types of intelligence such as
military or commercial. Each of these areas are very broad with many subareas to study too.
Secrecy is of course keeping the exact details of people and procedures (tradecraft) secret.
These two questions come from my idea of reading Stansfield Turner's memoir where he suggests a role for Intelligence in economic competition.
ReplyDeleteDo countries national airlines routinely do surveillance on people riding the planes for information about commercial deals to report to the country's security people who in turn share intelligence with businesses to make them more competitive? Do national agencies collect commercial intelligence to help their countries compete more effectively?
To conclude:
ReplyDeleteIntelligence agencies operate within their own countries (domestic) and in other countries (foreign). The rules and protocols of these two may be very different with different organizations.
Private security is also on the rise. Security managers are often promoted to Vice President level. It is much more than loss prevention.
Thanks for taking the time and sharing your knowledge A.
ReplyDeleteMuch appreciated. Dan