2 posts tagged “ethics”
May 1, 2003.
Back in the summer of 2004, I was asked if I would contribute to a book on ethics and espionage. It was only in April of that year that the Abu Graib scandal erupted and before the public knowledge of extreme rendition and other various CIA methods made its way to the press. It was an excellent time to be involved in this sort of ethical project because not only was I allowed to share my opinions on the matter, but I also found I had to clarify my own position to myself.
The author is James Olson is a former CIA Chief of Counterintelligence and a real Cold Warrior. He has previously written the well-regarded "Counterintelligence Ten Commandments" and, as the CIA Officer In Residence, currently teaches at the Bush School at Texas A&M University in College Station, TX. A friend of mine had become a student of his and asked me if I would be willing to participate in this project to gauge the opinions of the American public regarding a number of topics in which the CIA could be engaged. I say "could be" because while the topics are real, the fifty scenarios presented are hypothetical, though based on actual cases.
The purpose of the book is simple and necessary: to learn what educated Americans think about what the CIA does and how it ought to act. Olson's thesis is simple: the CIA officially belongs to the people of the United States and it is the responsibility for the people to express what they expect the CIA to do and handle itself. The answer is more complex. I've read that while lecturing about the CIA and ethics, he was quite surprised that there were people who wanted to CIA to be even more aggressive than it actually is, e.g., assassinate heads of state. (If I can find the article that said this, I'll link to it.)
Out of fifty, I contributed to six, including dilemmae involving homosexual blackmail, lying about medical conditions to a potential contact, and undercover academicians. I was asked to restrict my answer to one page, which, for me, is difficult, as Occam's Razor has never been a choice weapon in my argumentative arsenal. It was good, though, as I had to streamline my answers and cut to the chase. I was asked to read the scenario and then answer if the course of action the CIA wished to take was morally acceptable, morally unacceptable, or it depends. I submitted my answers, I waited. I was surprised that my own opinion on the matter often aligned with Olson's response. I consider myself to be a fairly "liberal" person and I was expecting my position to be at odds with the prevailing wisdom.
When the book came out, I was pleasantly surprised. It is a great read! And not just because I'm in it. Olson tells a brief history of the ethics of espionage from Biblical precendent of Jewish spies in the Land of Canaan, through Augustine and Aquinas to Realpolitik and even Pope John Paul II, who felt it was irreconcileable with Christian ethics. He also presents his own biography and experience with ethics in the field of espionage. Then, the bulk of the book are the fifty scenarios. For each of the scenarios, he picked as responders people from such diverse walks of life as professors, career CIA officers, diplomats, undergrads, clergy, and even a PETA activist. The scenario would be offered, the responses of six people would follow and the Olson would offer the CIA's take on the matter. Interestingly enough, the book first had to go through the CIA censors and there are, indeed, black bars through some of the text - sometimes, two paragraphs worth!
As a disclaimer, I was asked to respond to six scenarios and I did to the best of my ability. While unhappy with what the CIA is doing with its extraordinary rendition, for example, I cannot say that an intelligence agency is wrong, per se. However, though the nature of such an agency necessitates secrecy, its very nature demands closer scrutiny by the people. This means that the President is ultimately responsible for its activities and should be challenged by the Congress and the Court. We have seen mixed results. The CIA, being in the Executive Branch, establishes the President as ultimately responsible for it and its activities. Thus, the other two branches must be allowed to execute their own checks and balances. There should also be oversight upon presidential "signing order" and "executive orders". The CIA cannot be allowed to be the hatchetman of the State Department. It also should be allowed to do its job without undue pressure from certain offices, e.g. the Yellowcake forgery.
All in all, I am honored I was asked to participate in this project. I hope that my ideas make people think about the CIA and what it does. Is this essential reading? I think so, yes. For the person interested in such national and international affairs, it most certainly. And I am honored that I am allowed to be a part of it. Already, the book has been well praised and is even being used in graduate courses on intelligence. Perhaps, the most prestigious commentator is Admiral Bobby Inman, former Deputy Director of the CIA and Director of the NSA, who vocally opposed Bush's program of warrantless wiretaps. I don't mind at all being a book with him. After all, he's a fellow Longhorn.
The author is James Olson is a former CIA Chief of Counterintelligence and a real Cold Warrior. He has previously written the well-regarded "Counterintelligence Ten Commandments" and, as the CIA Officer In Residence, currently teaches at the Bush School at Texas A&M University in College Station, TX. A friend of mine had become a student of his and asked me if I would be willing to participate in this project to gauge the opinions of the American public regarding a number of topics in which the CIA could be engaged. I say "could be" because while the topics are real, the fifty scenarios presented are hypothetical, though based on actual cases.
The purpose of the book is simple and necessary: to learn what educated Americans think about what the CIA does and how it ought to act. Olson's thesis is simple: the CIA officially belongs to the people of the United States and it is the responsibility for the people to express what they expect the CIA to do and handle itself. The answer is more complex. I've read that while lecturing about the CIA and ethics, he was quite surprised that there were people who wanted to CIA to be even more aggressive than it actually is, e.g., assassinate heads of state. (If I can find the article that said this, I'll link to it.)
Out of fifty, I contributed to six, including dilemmae involving homosexual blackmail, lying about medical conditions to a potential contact, and undercover academicians. I was asked to restrict my answer to one page, which, for me, is difficult, as Occam's Razor has never been a choice weapon in my argumentative arsenal. It was good, though, as I had to streamline my answers and cut to the chase. I was asked to read the scenario and then answer if the course of action the CIA wished to take was morally acceptable, morally unacceptable, or it depends. I submitted my answers, I waited. I was surprised that my own opinion on the matter often aligned with Olson's response. I consider myself to be a fairly "liberal" person and I was expecting my position to be at odds with the prevailing wisdom.
When the book came out, I was pleasantly surprised. It is a great read! And not just because I'm in it. Olson tells a brief history of the ethics of espionage from Biblical precendent of Jewish spies in the Land of Canaan, through Augustine and Aquinas to Realpolitik and even Pope John Paul II, who felt it was irreconcileable with Christian ethics. He also presents his own biography and experience with ethics in the field of espionage. Then, the bulk of the book are the fifty scenarios. For each of the scenarios, he picked as responders people from such diverse walks of life as professors, career CIA officers, diplomats, undergrads, clergy, and even a PETA activist. The scenario would be offered, the responses of six people would follow and the Olson would offer the CIA's take on the matter. Interestingly enough, the book first had to go through the CIA censors and there are, indeed, black bars through some of the text - sometimes, two paragraphs worth!
As a disclaimer, I was asked to respond to six scenarios and I did to the best of my ability. While unhappy with what the CIA is doing with its extraordinary rendition, for example, I cannot say that an intelligence agency is wrong, per se. However, though the nature of such an agency necessitates secrecy, its very nature demands closer scrutiny by the people. This means that the President is ultimately responsible for its activities and should be challenged by the Congress and the Court. We have seen mixed results. The CIA, being in the Executive Branch, establishes the President as ultimately responsible for it and its activities. Thus, the other two branches must be allowed to execute their own checks and balances. There should also be oversight upon presidential "signing order" and "executive orders". The CIA cannot be allowed to be the hatchetman of the State Department. It also should be allowed to do its job without undue pressure from certain offices, e.g. the Yellowcake forgery.
All in all, I am honored I was asked to participate in this project. I hope that my ideas make people think about the CIA and what it does. Is this essential reading? I think so, yes. For the person interested in such national and international affairs, it most certainly. And I am honored that I am allowed to be a part of it. Already, the book has been well praised and is even being used in graduate courses on intelligence. Perhaps, the most prestigious commentator is Admiral Bobby Inman, former Deputy Director of the CIA and Director of the NSA, who vocally opposed Bush's program of warrantless wiretaps. I don't mind at all being a book with him. After all, he's a fellow Longhorn.
