The Central Intelligence Agency was established courtesy of the National Security Act in 1947. The agency has by large retained its structure and form until the recent changes introduced in 2004 courtesy of the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act. However, by and large, the agency has often remained with one primary mandate. This entails the collection of intelligence for the consumption of policymakers in the United States of America. This role calls for a higher threshold of ethics and moral conduct given the sensitivity of the function in question. It is imperative to appreciate the fact that intelligence forms an essential component of the safety of the citizens of America. In addition, it is critical to appreciate that ethical foundations play a major role in the preservation of the integrity of the employees in the agency. It is on that premise that this paper shall canvass the ethical premise of operations of the Central Intelligence Agency. More importantly, this paper shall take a look into the future and recommend some of the ethical considerations that the agency need to pursue. Interestingly, this paper borrows heavily from the arguments and assertion put forth by Gawthrop, Cooper, Owen, McKnight and Follet. It is the postulation of this paper that an integral application of the public administrative principles flouted by the mentioned would place the agency above board and position it strategically in its primary role of sourcing for intelligence for the purposes of securing the overall security of the United States of America, her citizens and related territories.
It is equally imperative to note that the concept of ethics remains relative and it mainly depends on the beliefs and aspirations of the individual. It is the collective beliefs of the individuals that form the communal premise that informs the ethical foundation of a community such as the Central Intelligence Agency. For that reason, it is critical for every individual involved in the operations of the agency to own an ethical foundation that jells well with the community in the agency. This paper appreciates the difficulty in attaining a joint front in the entire organization. However, it is premised on the conviction that with the greater majority being for the common good of the citizens, the overall ethical premise of the agency shall be within what the societal standards and rates consider acceptable and admirable.
It is unwise to recommend for an ethical application for an agency without first considering what suffices in the daily activities of the same agency. In that context, this paper shall begin with canvassing the ethical context of the Central Intelligence Agency. From the onset, it is this paper’s postulation that the ethical premise and foundation of the Central Intelligence Agency are neither exemplary nor mediocre. If the same was to be scored, it would be ranked within the averages. This is to say, the agency’s performance from an ethical premise is neither good nor bad. Perhaps one may say that the initial ethical foundation was bad given the admittedly scandalous and selfish interests the agency was established to achieve.
For starters, the Central Intelligence Agency was formed for the purposes of conducting espionage on foreigners during the deep seated Cold War. It was formed at the time that the United States of America was anxious about what was touted as international communism. This was the communist movement primarily supported and mooted by the Soviet Union. The main mission of the international communists was to promote communism at whatever cost. It revered on the concept of the end justifies the means and had no moral and or ethical foundation. On the other side, was the United States of America, keen not only to stop the emergence and promotion of international communism, but to defend to death its own brainchild, otherwise known as, capitalism. This was an all-out war and every arsenal had to be put in order for America to win. It was for this purpose that the Central Intelligence Agency was conceived. In fact, scholars have described the foundation of the agency as being of a fundamentally repugnant philosophy. This was essentially because it contradicted what the United States of America believed in. America, as the hallmark of democracy and equity, has often long held the tradition of fairness and equity to all. It believes that its citizens and indeed the world citizenry are entitled to some rights for the simple reason of being human. That America would approve something that contradicted its own virtues can only be justified by the very fact that international communism in itself threatened the existence and stability of America. This part of American history is essential in understanding the ethical premise in which the Central Intelligence Agency has operated. In its initial founding, the agency conducted mainly espionage activities. The intention of the same was the elimination of the supposed “enemies” threatening the existence of America. However, moving forward, the Cold War was to end with America claiming victory. Indeed, the fact that capitalism still persists today with almost every country in the world having its semblance and in particular free enterprising in their systems is a perfect confirmation of the supposed triumph.
However, the principles of free enterprising have since grown into other spheres and especially within the political circles with the introduction of democratic space for the citizenry. The same has led to a demand for accountability for the manner in which public affairs are carried out. It is on that strain that the Central Intelligence Agency has had to change. There was the argument adduced that the agency in carrying out espionage, dealt mainly with the international persons considered enemies of the nation. And that as such, these persons did not deserve the human treatment anticipated of persons acquiring public services. However, scholars have authoritatively argued in the converse. They have asserted that the treatment of the foreigners by government (read CIA) ought to be informed by the virtues and ethical premise of the people of America on whose behalf the agency operates. Indeed, applying that argument, one agrees that the agency needs to conduct itself from an ethical premise. It has to be guided by ethos that informs its own conduct. Indeed, this is the situation that characterizes the Central Intelligence Agency today. The agency has an ethical premise on which it operates. It is this ethical premise and foundation that the paper shall now canvass and consequently seek to give recommendations upon.
It should be noted that the agency has four main roles that it plays in the American intelligence community. An appreciation of these roles is necessary in order to understand the ethical premise of its operations. The main role of the agency remains that of gathering intelligence for consumption of the policy makers in the United States of America. This can be seen as a political role. Attesting to this is the fact that the agency is directly accountable and answerable to the office of the Presidency. The president equally nominates, and upon confirmation by the Senate, appoints the director of the agency. The other roles of the agency include the preemption of threats to the United States of America, furthering the national security objectives of America, collection of intelligence, conduct an objective analysis of the collected intelligence and conduct covert actions which include preserving the secrets of the United States of America for the overall interest of the nation. From the list, it is imperative to note that the roles of the agency, today, unlike during its formation, are broad, sensitive and core to the national security of the United States of America. In addition, the nature of these activities places them in confrontation with foreigners and aliens. Applying the typical American ethical premise would not necessarily address the issues at hand. In fact, it is factual that the foreigners that the agency interacts with may not appreciate the ethical approach that is uniquely American. However, this is not to say that the agency does not need to approach its operations without an ethical premise. In fact, the position as its stands is that the agency has eight main points that inform the ethical practice of its workforce. These points are discussed in detail in the ensuing sections.
The agency believes in accountability. Accountability dictates for accountable utility of public resources and accountable management of the affairs of the organization. This calls for transparency, honesty and fairness in the dealings. It should be appreciated that the agency runs a huge budget that costs the taxpayer billions of dollars annually. It is incumbent on the management and employees to use the resources only for the purpose for which they are intended for. It should be appreciated that the agency appreciates this fact and considers accountability as one of the main ethical issues for consideration.
Secondly, the agency believes in the responsible utility of public resources. This may easily be confused with the need for accountability. However, the distinction in the two lies in the fact that while accountability is being able to relate and show where the public resources were put, responsibility relates to making the right use of the resource. The latter goes beyond merely being able to state where what resource was used. It implies identifying why the resource was put to that particular use. Responsibility is considered ethical for it has moral undertones unto it. It dictates for the decision maker to apply some of the moral considerations including utilitarian principles in decision making on matters of resource allocation.
Further, the agency believes and upholds the concept of attaining the moral purpose of the organization. Unlike previously where the actual premise of its operations was for the facilitation of espionage with the intention of defeating international communism, today, the agency has a moral purpose of defending the people of the United States of America through the gathering of intelligence. The intelligence is critical in that it is the sourced information that informs the way forward in securing the United States of America. The agency believes that this is a moral obligation and that all efforts should be directly connected to or incidental to the attainment of the same. It should be appreciated, therefore, that moral convictions inform their approaches.
Equally, the agency believes in equality and calculated risks. Under the concept of equality, each and every employee is given a fair opportunity. This practice is informed by the need to shun discrimination of whatever nature in the workplace. It should be noted that the agency donates itself to the jurisdiction of the courts in as far as the implementation of employee rights are concerned. To that extent, the agency shuns discrimination among other anti-labor practices. This is considered ethical for it calls for the application of fairness and equity, virtues which in themselves have ethical ramifications. The same non-discriminative approach advanced within its internal system, is equally advanced when dealing with external parties. To that extent, the agency handles the external parties with a fair premise that seeks to attain justice for all. This approach is critical especially in its espionage activities. It is essential that the employees do not abuse their privileges and powers. This is a necessary limitation against the possibility of abuse of power by rogue employees working under the pretext of defending the United States of America. As to calculated risks, it is the organizational practice that employees in the implementation of their duties ought to take only calculated risks that maximizes the returns while minimizing on related losses. It is instructive, in that context, to note the highly risky nature of their operations. Indeed, the pursuit of intelligence involves interaction with terrorists, criminals, insurgents, among other perceived enemies of the state. These persons are often highly sophisticated and on the ready to defeat their pursuers. It is, therefore, essential that the agency applies itself within a calculated approach perspective. These, among others, inform the current ethical premise of the agency.
However, as mentioned previously, the state of affairs from an ethical perspective though not poor is equally not exemplary. For that reason, it is essential for the agency to consider integrating values that are currently considered ethical in nature. In the ensuing section, the paper shall assess some of the ethical recommendations that need to be implemented. At this juncture, it is essential to run in the arguments and assertions propounded by the authorities previously mentioned.
The Central Intelligence Agency needs to consider the concept of the moral good. This is the good for the common citizen. This argument has been propounded by both Gawthrop and Cooper. According to Gawthrop, the public administrator should often be influenced in his or her decision making by the common good of the citizen. In other words, this is to say that the decision maker ought to consider what would benefit the public over the selfish interests of the few. This utilitarian approach is yet to be ingrained in the culture and practice of the agency. One gets the feeling, albeit subtly, that the organizational structures do not necessarily appreciate the common good over the individual interests. It has been argued that over time, the organization has demanded loyalty of the members. Whistleblowers that have come out to highlight and bring to the public’s attention instances of corrupt practices alongside other inappropriate transactions have not been taken well by the larger organizational order. However, in order for the agency to live by the public nobles and fulfill its moral obligations, it has to walk the utilitarian path of inclusivity.
Secondly, it is incumbent for the agency to perform its functions beyond what is the legal minimum. This principle is well captured by Cooper when he discusses the limitations of the law. While the agency is expected to follow the law to the letter, it is equally anticipated that the organization is not merely informed by the law alone. It is critical that the agency goes beyond the law and consider what is morally right and useful. This ought to be blended well with the arguments propounded by Gawthrop as to the faithful execution of the law. According to the latter, it remains critical and essential for the agency to execute the law to the letter with the employees practicing fidelity to the law. This approach buoyed by Cooper’s suggestion as to the performance of more that the bare minimum need to inform the ethical premise on which the agency operates.
While it has been noted that the agency embraces responsibility as a virtue in-keeping with its sensitive roles on matters of nation’s security, it is necessary for the agency to have the understanding of responsibility right. According to Cooper, a dual dichotomy can be ascribed to the concept of responsibility. These are objective and subjective responsibility. While objective responsibility relates to the responsible behavior exhibited courtesy of the external forces, subjective responsibility is internal and is a product of the internal forces within the person exercising the discretion. Cooper calls for the application of internal and external controls. Interestingly, Cooper reminds us that in the end, it is critical for the public administrator to practice fidelity to the law with due consideration of the statutory and constitutional obligations. At the end of the day the loyalty of the employee resides with the citizenry who is the ultimate custodian of public power. For that reason, it is necessary for the agency to adopt ways in which responsibility shall be exercised with due consideration of the ethical and legal ramifications of the organizational activities.
Lastly, the agency needs to develop a clearly ethical base for the resolution of its conflicts. Like Follet, the organization must elect which of the three conflict resolution methods leaves the agency united. The interactionism method propounded by Follet would best address the ethical issues as the method demands for the application of communication and dialogue with the long term effect being that of improvement of relations within and outside the agency.
In conclusion, therefore, it is necessary to appreciate the critical role the Central Intelligence Agency plays. The agency needs a degree of discretion and power for the overall objectives to be attained. However, this may only be attained with the application of an elaborate ethical premise. It is on that context that the paper has discussed the ethical issues at hand and given some recommendations as to the way forward for the organization. As has been mentioned before, the organization’s performance on ethical foundations and culture is not as poor nor is it exemplary. There is sufficient room for improvement and an implementation of the recommendations is expected to improve the current state of affairs.
References
Bealy, F., & Chapman, R. (2009). Elements in Political Science. London: Edinburgh University Press.
Blair, D. (2009). Overview of the U. S. Intelligence Community for the 111th Congress. Washington D.C.: Diane Publishing.
Canon, D. (2009). Intelligence and Ethics: The CIA's Covert Operations. Journal of Libetarian Studies, 197-214.
Central Intelligence Agency. (2014, January 16). Central Intelligence Agency. Retrieved February 9, 2014, from Central Intelligence Agency: https://www.cia.gov/index.html
Congress, United States of America. (2014, January 20). Constitutional Amendments and Major Civil Rights Acts of Congress Referenced in Black Americans in Congress. Retrieved January 22, 2014, from USA House of Representatives: http://history.house.gov/Exhibitions-and-Publications/BAIC/Historical-Data/Constitutional-Amendments-and-Legislation/
George, R., & Kline, R. (2008). Intelligence and the National Security Strategist: Enduring Issues and Challenges. New York: Rowman & Littlefield.
Pekel, K. (2010). Integrity, Ethics and CIA. Journal of Ethics, 83-93. Retrieved from https://www.cia.gov/library/center-for-the-study-of-intelligence/kent-csi/vol41no5/pdf/v41i5a05p.pdf
Perry, D. (2010). Repugnant Philosophy: Ethics, Espionage and Covert Action. Journal of Conflict Studies, 10. Retrieved from http://www.scu.edu/ethics/publications/submitted/Perry/repugnant.html
Pollard, D. (2007). Constitutional and Administrative Law: Text with Materials. Cambridge: Oxford University Press.
Schram, S., & Caterino, B. (2010). Making Political Science Matter: Debating Knowledge, Research, and Method. New York: NYU Press.
Trento, J. (2009). The Secret History of the CIA. New York: Basic Books.
