![]() Rules like these cannot be ignored even when they prove to be personally inconvenient. Most of us recognize certain basic moral rules to be binding in most cases: tell the truth keep your promises care for your family avoid harming others respect the rights of others and so on. The proper question, then, is not whether ethical principles apply to statecraft but rather how they should be validly applied to statecraft. And because individuals have no right to murder and steal from their neighbors, there can be no morally sound raison d'état for waging aggressive war. ![]() War waged in defense of the nation can be morally justified in ways analogous to and derivative of individuals' rights to resist an assault on their family. Whatever interests or rights that states can legitimately be said to have must derive from the interests and rights of their individual citizens. This gap in the literature may be due in part to the lingering influence of the idea that ethical principles are not appropriate to apply to "statecraft" or international politics, as if doing so one makes a kind of "category mistake." But an amoralist view of international relations clearly cannot be sustained. But what is often missed in such examinations is substantive ethical analysis of intelligence operations themselves. Recent academic studies of intelligence that have had any intentional bearing on ethics or political philosophy have largely focused on procedural questions surrounding the proper degree of oversight of intelligence agencies. The sources and methods of espionage, the goals and tactics of covert action, and the professional conduct of intelligence officers are matters typically hidden from public scrutiny, yet clearly worthy of public debate and philosophical attention. Oliver CromwellĪ real diplomat is one who can cut his neighbor's throat without having his neighbor notice it. There are great occasions in which some men are called to great services, in the doing of which they are excused from the common rule of morality. Assets can be loyal to their country, but may still provide a foreign agent with information through failures in information safety, such as using insecure computers or not following proper OPSEC procedures during day-to-day chatting.(Reprinted with permission from Journal of Conflict Studies, Spring 1995.) 1 Do not even know they are being used (so called " useful idiots").Have been blackmailed and are forced into their role.Intelligence services often pay good wages to people in important positions that are willing to betray secrets. They often obtain useful information in the course of their other work and are sometimes tasked with seeking it out. Work in intergovernmental relations for a different part of their government but relay information to their country's intelligence agency.They may elect to work with a foreign power to change their own country because there are few other ways available. Willingly work for a foreign government for ideological reasons such as being against their own government, but live in a country that doesn't allow political opposition.There are different categories of assets, including people who: They are sometimes referred to as agents, and in law enforcement parlance, as confidential informants, or "CIs" for short. In intelligence, assets are persons within organizations or countries being spied upon who provide information for an outside spy. JSTOR ( June 2018) ( Learn how and when to remove this template message).Unsourced material may be challenged and removed.įind sources: "Asset" intelligence – news Please help improve this article by adding citations to reliable sources. This article needs additional citations for verification.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |