Top Posters
Since Sunday
5
o
5
4
m
4
b
4
x
4
a
4
l
4
t
4
S
4
m
3
s
3
A free membership is required to access uploaded content. Login or Register.

AMU INTL 305 SHORT ESSAY QUESTIONS WK 8

Uploaded: 5 years ago
Contributor: Unit 300
Category: Political Science
Type: Assignment
Rating: N/A
Helpful
Unhelpful
Filename:   AMU INTL305 Short Essay Questions .docx (18.74 kB)
Page Count: 5
Credit Cost: 1
Views: 111
Last Download: N/A
Transcript
INTL305 Short Essay/Written Assignment #3 – Week 8d Instructions: Answer each of the following in approximately 200 words each. Answer directly on this page below each question. When you are finished, upload the file under the Assignments link. This must be finished by Sunday of week 8 at 11:55pm Eastern or you will get a zero – no exceptions. 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. Sharing intelligence with the United Nations places the United States in the central role of the world's policeman. Conditions and threats could arise forcing US involvement in conflicts that may affect UN members, but do not assault America's best interests or threaten national security. These are situations that would not warrant exploitation of our intelligence agencies and personnel. The Brownback Amendment to the 1947 National Security Act sought to prohibit the sharing of U.S. intelligence with the United Nations unless the President certifies to Congress the organization has implemented CIA, Defense, and State Department procedures to protect U.S. intelligence sources and methods. The Amendment called for the same level of protection of U.S. intelligence information from the United Nations that the United States requires in intelligence sharing with other states. In presenting his Amendment, Brownback stated, "Protecting our sources and methods of intelligence gathering is not an academic subject. It is a matter of national security. It is a matter of protecting lives. It is a matter of protecting billions of dollars of investments that the American people have made in our country's vital national security interests" (1996). From an ethical perspective, the United States' position is correct and defensible. UN peace operations intelligence must not compromise the organization's core principles of transparency and inclusivity, the source of the UN’s legitimacy. This explains the UN's preference for adaptation of a term like "information" to replace intelligence (Dorn 2010) in communications with member nations. "The United Nations is — with justification — regarded as something of a sieve. Historically this was due to penetration by its members’ intelligence services; today it is more generally attributed to a lack of rigor" (Staff, Government Printing Office (GPO). 1996). The risks of intelligence gathering, the dangers that crowd the everyday existence of agents and analysts in pursuit of information vital to national security demands the United States providing its assets everywhere with optimum security and back-up protocols. As long as the United Nations is a multiple-liaisons agency willing to sugarcoat intelligence acquisitions, the United States must proceed warily, if at all. Brownback, S. 1996. RESTRICTIONS ON INTELLIGENCE SHARING WITH THE UNITED NATIONS, 1996. AMENDMENTS (House of Representatives - May 20, 1996), p H5299. Retrieved from: https://fas.org/irp/congress/1996_cr/h960520a.htm Dorn, W. 1999. The cloak and the blue beret: Limitations on intelligence in UN peacekeeping. International Journal of Intelligence and Counterintelligence 12 (4) 1999, p 428. Retrieved from: http://walterdorn.net/16-the-cloak-and-the-blue-beret-the-limits-of-intelligence-gathering-in-un-peacekeeping Staff, Government Printing Office (GPO). 1996. Preparing for the 21st century: An appraisal of US intelligence. Washington, DC, Commission on the Roles and Capabilities of the United States Intelligence Community, 1 March 1996. Retrieved from: https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/GPO-INTELLIGENCE/content-detail.html How would you define "morally intolerable" and "morally acceptable" from an intelligence operation perspective concerning national security? Is torture of terrorists or enemy combatants ever morally acceptable? Although a relative term, "morally intolerable" can be sensibly defined in a general sense as an act or decision that violates usual accepted standards of personal, national, government and humanitarian values. From an intelligence perspective, violations of government and humanitarian codes that regulate intelligence actions are considered morally intolerable. In more rigorous and institutionalized terms, morally intolerable practices violate the fundamental human dignity that is observed across the religious divide. On the other hand, morally acceptable is an action or operation that promotes and preserves fundamental human dignity irrespective of one’s social, religious, political or economic background (LaFollette 2014). It is not a popular belief, but I believe whether torture of terrorists is morally acceptable or not depends on different perspectives within the context of the intelligence actions and its consequences. Consequentialists believe any intelligence activity is deemed to be morally acceptable or morally intolerable depending on the consequences. In normal circumstances, interrogation sessions are supposed to yield desired intelligence information; however, in the event that approach fails, torture may then become a tactical consideration. A deontological approach regards certain intelligence activities as morally intolerable irrespective of the consequences. For instance, even if millions of lives would be saved by torturing one terrorist or enemy combatant, the action itself still is, generally, morally intolerable. It is at this juncture where the slippery slope and moral exceptions collide. There can be, in the minds of many, a scenario where killing an enemy combatant to save millions of lives or prevent a catastrophic event can be morally acceptable; generally followed by articulated fears that the Intelligence Community is now on a slippery slope where eventually any act can (and will be) allocated to morally-acceptable status. The truth, as per norm, is somewhere in between. In a world that somedays seems to change before our eyes, universal truths are, at most, cherished ideals to which we owe our best efforts to preserve on an ongoing basis. LaFollette, H. 2014. Ethics in Practice: An Anthology, 4th Edition. New York: Wiley-Blackwell. February 2014. Retrieved from: https://www.scribd.com/document/358428303/Ethics-in-Practice-Hugh-Lafollette-PDF Explain what you would consider to be a working definition of integrity for an intelligence gathering government agency. What sort of attributes would be absolutes? A working definition of the integrity of intelligence-gathering government agencies must include two perspectives, individual and institutional. Both are equally important and one can't flourish without the other. In the context of an intelligence-gathering government agency, the working definition of integrity is commitment, without involving coercion, to the values and priorities that are deeply observed (Lafollette, 2014). Commitment to the agency and its values must be foremost, even when it contradicts personal interest or preference. In turn, any intelligence-gathering government agency, including the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) and Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), must be trusted intra/interdepartmentally and by the public at large to carry out morally acceptable actions, even when doing causes unwelcome or public problems. In simple terms, the FBI and CIA (and their actions) can be said to have integrity when they do the right thing, even when doing so might include giving account for rogue actions or events, revealing wrong situational choices, and publicly separating from leaders or agents that have violated the agencies' integrity code and general ethics. It is not the nature of the FBI, CIA or any intelligence-gathering agency to communicate publicly or without request, leaving the question of institutional integrity, for the most part, still unanswered. There are certain "absolutes" that must be associated with any intelligence-gathering government agency. In both leadership and agent capacities, agencies must demand desirable personal qualities such as sound judgment skills, responsibility and honesty. Now, more than ever, intelligence agencies partner with law enforcement in sensitive investigations that require dependable scrupulousness and probity, as well as the skills to handle sophisticated and complex crimes. Not only must the IC hire individuals whose deductive skills and intelligence levels are exceptional, it must emphasize physical fitness as aspects of the job that require physical prowess continue to increase. Most people do not realize that beyond government insitutionals, regional commands and forces, many federal agencies, such as the Commerce Department, the Energy Department, the Agriculture Department, the Drug Enforcement Administration, not to mention the State Department, also have their own intelligence-gathering units. It comes as no surprise that most Administrations, including the present one, have failed to get a grip on the intelligence apparatus and give it some central direction (Richelson, 2014). The integrity of the agencies, their actions and employees, therefore, resides well inside the halls of the departments and the men and women who inhabit them. LaFollette, H. 2014. Ethics in Practice: An Anthology, 4th Edition. New York: Wiley-Blackwell. February 2014. Retrieved from: https://www.scribd.com/document/358428303/Ethics-in-Practice-Hugh-Lafollette-PDF Richelson, J. (2014). The U.S. Intelligence Community (7th ed.). Boulder, CO: Westview Press. 2014. Retrieved from: https://spyinggame.me/2012/06/02/u-s-intelligence-community/ What sort of conclusion did Kent Pekel come to in his discussion of integrity and ethics at the CIA? What are his recommendations? Pekel offers a clear picture of the competing patterns and priorities that exist side by side in the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA). These are not fundamentally different from the integrity challenges at most businesses or corporations, large or small. The focus on success, easily interpreted as 'at all costs,' gave optimal positioning to the success of the mission and the value of the information to be gathered. It is not easy to find an upside to failing but Pekel noted that no one at the CIA systematically made the case for the importance of learning from failures, which would lead to new successes: "When people fear they will be blamed for anything short of an optimal outcome, pressure is created to do whatever it takes to achieve that outcome, including cutting ethical corners and covering up mistakes." The most disturbing of the revelations Pekel illustrated was the fact that many in the CIA believed that promotions were determined by successful ops and the "numbers game" and with that kind of cultural environs, it was difficult to talk about ethical considerations in terms that might really matter to individual agents pursuing careers, many with family obligations. To complicate the matter, Pekel was told over and over again that there was no downside to ethics violations, including many times being caught in the act. Self-preservation and agency image often kept the most egregious violations under wraps, contributing further to the culture of wining at all costs. Pekel's most noteworthy recommendations included 1) The need for the CIA to develop and earnestly incorporate its own platform of ethics education instead of relying on outside consultants; 2) The ethics platform developed should be dynamic and evolutionary and incorporate and promote individual as well as corporate ethics; 3) The ethics culture in the Agency should be reworked to see clarity and commitment to ethical actions as an issue of self-interest and not simple legal compliance; 4) All departments of the Agency should emphasize ethics as a corporate matter and motivate agents and leaders to discuss the ideals that should drive the Agency. Under what circumstances would war be a "just" war? The law allows one to act justifiably in defense of self or defense of others. Would war also be allowed in defense of others? The Just War concept includes: War as a last resort only waged by a legitimate authority to redress major wrongs and fought only with strong possibilities of success. Wars must bring about peace with proportional violence to injury by weapons' capacities that distinguish combatants and non (Apus, Week 5, n.d.). The United States is in a much different situation than the enemy they fight in the Global War on Terrorism (GWOT) due to their status as a superpower. The U.S. is held to the highest ethical and moral standard because of this status, and their conduct in war is proportionally examined by the rest of the world. Considering the above, a war is only just if it is fought for a reason that is justified and that carries sufficient moral weight. The country that wishes to use military force must demonstrate that their cause to do so is just. The main just cause is to put right a wrong. Sometimes a war fought to prevent a wrong from happening may be considered a just war. In modern times wars to defend the innocent are increasingly regarded as just; which fits the idea of some religious beliefs, that it is better to defend an innocent than to defend oneself. Pre-emptive strikes attacking the enemy to prevent an anticipated attack by them may no longer be acceptable by UN members, since the Charter says that short of actual attack, "all Members shall settle their international disputes by peaceful means" (Article 2:3), but the UN Council has proven itself willing to listen and entertain just cause arguments outside the Charter itself. The basic standard for just war, like so much else in the modern world, is changing directly because of the dissolution of global boundaries and increased access internationally. As the balance of powers throughout the globe change, re-emerge and resurrect themselves, surely the definition of just war will change, also. UN Charter. Full Text. Retrieved from: http://www.un.org/en/sections/un-charter/un-charter-full-text/

Related Downloads
Explore
Post your homework questions and get free online help from our incredible volunteers
  985 People Browsing
 114 Signed Up Today
Your Opinion
Which industry do you think artificial intelligence (AI) will impact the most?
Votes: 308

Previous poll results: Where do you get your textbooks?