GEOG 882
Geographic Foundations of Geospatial Intelligence

5.6 Ethical and Moral Issues in Intelligence

PrintPrint

Required Reading

Read Lowenthal's Chapter 13: "Ethical and Moral Issues in Intelligence" in Intelligence: From Secrets to Policy.

As you read, do some critical thinking and ask yourself:

  • Some people (many of them in academia and not a few at Penn State) have serious issues with the morality of conducting secret intelligence activities and covert actions. Why would some citizens have problems with the conduct of the US intelligence community? As you consider this, reread the Penn State news release from 2007. Does the press release in any way relate to the discussion of ethics and "good" decision making? What does it tell you about the concerns of the Penn State faculty that had to approve the program?
  • Lowenthal addresses the following general moral questions:
    • Secrecy
    • War and Peace
    • Ends versus Means
    • The Nature of the Opponent
    • National Interest
    • Changes in Ethics and Morals
  • Consider what other general moral questions a different author with a different background might have asked, or how they might have addressed these issues differently. What are specific issues for the GEOINT professional and community for each of them? Are the issues the same for the CIA, NSA, and NGA, or do different issues arise?
  • GEOINT professionals seldom deal directly with HUMINT and the related activities of covert action, assassination, and rendition and torture. Yet, GEOINT activities might well support or enable such activities. How do you feel about this personally, and what are the responsibilities, if any, of GEOINT professionals relative to these difficult issues?
  • How are the analysis issues similar or different for the GEOINT professional and community versus other elements of the intelligence community?
  • Do these ethical and moral issues apply to GEOINT professionals outside the national security intelligence community (e.g., the International Committee of the Red Cross ICRC, the United Nations, non-governmental organizations)?

Video: Revolution in Intelligence Affairs Future Strategic Environment (11:23)

Click here for a transcript of the Revolution in Intelligence Affairs Future Strategic Environment video.

Dr. Joseph Czika, Senior Program Officer, ICSB, NASEM: Welcome to the colloquium entitled revolution in Intelligence Affairs the Future Strategic Environment. My name is Joe Czika. I am a staff member of the Intelligence Community Studies Board of the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering and Medicine. This is the 15th colloquium in the partnership of the Academies with the Office of the Director of National Intelligence. You will notice that this is the third of a series of colloquia on the Revolution in Intelligence Affairs. I refer you to the ICSB website for information on the prior to colloquia and to access the videos of those presentations. Before introducing the representatives from the sponsoring organizations, I want to make a few administrative announcements. This is an unclassified meeting. This colloquium is being held as a virtual colloquium. As is our custom. This colloquium is being video recorded and the recordings will be available in the near future. Check the ICSB website for notice of their availability. Please note, at the bottom of your screen, or somewhere on your screen, is a feature that allows you to ask questions for our panel, both during the three individual panels and the grand panel at the end of the program. In those questions, please identify yourself and clearly state your question and whether it should be directed at any specific speaker or the entire panel.


You can submit those questions anytime during the colloquium. Also available to you is the colloquium program or agenda, complete with speaker biographical information. Lastly, I would like to thank Dr. Anthony Vinci for his invaluable support for this series of colloquial. To extend a welcome from the office of the Director of National Intelligence is Mr. Dan Flynn. He's the director of the Net assessments in the ODNI. In this position, he is responsible for developing forecasts and comparative assessments to identify emerging intelligence challenges and opportunities for U. S. Intelligence capabilities. Prior to his current assignment, Mr. Flynn was the Director of the Global Security Program for the National Intelligence Council's Strategic Futures Group. Prior to joining the NEC, Mr. Flynn served as the chairman of CIA's senior analytics service. Mr. Flynn is a distinguished graduate of the National War College, where he earned a master's degree in National Security Strategy. He also earned a BS. Degree in aerospace engineering from Boston University. Dan, thank you for your introduction and welcome.


Mr. Dan Flynn, Director, Office of IC Net Assessment, ODNI: Thank you, Joe, for that kind introduction. I want to thank the National Academy of Science and the IC Studies Board, as well as all our speakers today for supporting our event. To give everybody a little more context of why we're here. As Joe said, I'm from the Office of Director of National Intelligence, specifically the Policy and Capabilities Directorate, and it's the responsibility of our directorate to articulate a path forward for the intelligence community. And we do this also by investing in strategic bets to address enduring challenges as well as potential opportunities for the IC looking forward what they need to prepare for in the future. Before we can prepare for the future though we need to understand what that future is that we're preparing for. And that's the job of my team and ICNet assessments. To think about intelligence, environment ten to 20 years from now and identify those emerging challenges and opportunities for the IC to inform our senior leadership so they can make better decisions about what are the resources and investments we need to make as a community to be prepared for that future. Our role is similar to the Pentagon's office in that assessment that many of you may be familiar with that was set up by the late Andy Marshall back in the 1970s.


Dr. Joseph Czika: They looked at the future security environment to inform the senior DoD leadership on the changes that were occurring that the DoD needed to prepare for part of that work. They looked at the so called revolution in military affairs, which looked at was it possible to have technological innovation, organizational adaptation and doctrinal concept improvements to create revolutionary changes in military capabilities. Many now are suggesting that there isn't on the verge of a revolution intelligence affairs. And so, hence purpose of this colloquium. And as Joe mentioned, we've had a series of these. This is the third in the series. Our first was last April when we talked about technology drivers that might shape a revolution, intelligence affairs, things like artificial intelligence and machine learning and the explosion of information that we'll be seeing from the Internet of things and how that's going to change the conduct intelligence. Our second colloquial was in late June, which we talked about organizational implications of revolutionary intelligence affairs and how the IC might have to react to that. Today's colloquium is looking at drivers in the strategic environment and how that may shape the future as well as shape intelligence. The panels today will also discuss kind of looking back over the series, what are the key implications for the intelligence community going forward.


Mr. Dan Flynn: Now, many of you may be wondering why we're going outside the community to have these conversations. Well, history has shown that many organizations, often when they look within themselves, fail to see the revolutionary changes that are occurring on the outside. And so it's important that we speak with some people who have been thinking deeply about a lot of these issues. And luckily for us, we have a great panel series of panels of experts, many of whom I've had the privilege to work for or work with during my career. So, I'm really looking forward to what they come up with today and what insights they have for us. And I look forward to working with them again and engaging on this topic some more in the future. So, with that, my thanks to everyone and I'll hand it back to Joe. Thank you.


Dr. Joseph Czika: Thank you, Dan. Now to extend a welcome from the National Academies of Science, Engineering and Medicine is Dr. Scott Weidman. He's the deputy executive director for the Division on Engineering and Physical Sciences of the National Academy of Sciences. Prior to that, he served as the Director of the National Research Council's Board on Mathematical Sciences and analytics, and he has held many leadership positions in the NRC. He holds a doctorate and master's degree degrees from the University of Virginia and a bachelor's degree in Mathematics and Material Science from Northwestern University. Scott, thank you for your welcoming comments.


Dr. Scott Weidman, Deputy Director, DEPS, NASEM: Thank you, Joe. And thank you, Dan. As Joe said, I just want to offer a welcome to all of you for coming to this, especially if you haven't interacted with the National Academy of Sciences, Engineering and Medicine in the past. We are very energized to play a role as a kind of a matchmaker between the intelligence community and the broader world of science, engineering and medicine. We are not part of the government. We are a nonprofit that primarily serves to provide advice to the government. And we're a fairly large organization. We have at any given time, there's approximately 500 or 600 committees of experts serving pro bono to help plan activities, conduct studies, or oversee activities like this one. And we collectively put out about 200 reports a year. Most of those are public in the public domain, some fraction is classified and more limited. So, we cover a wide range of topics. And the main reason that this activity of our Intelligent Community Studies Board, which is the parent organization for this forum today, was set up to establish that connection between the IC and a broader science and technology communities. So, we're very interested in doing what we can to help.


Dr. Joseph Czika: We're very sensitive to the fact that, as Dan said, a lot of this could be done behind within the community itself in a more closed session. But there is a lot of benefit to reaching further, trying to see over the horizon, trying to understand different perspectives that can maybe forced all surprise. So, that's all i wanted to say. Welcome very much to all of you. We look forward to today's event and we look forward to a long connection between our communities. Thank you!


Dr. Joseph Czika: Thank you, Scott. As you're aware, we're departing from our normal practice of presenting individual speakers for today's colloquium. Rather than the usual five speakers speaking individually, we have great 12 experts along with our moderator talking to us via panel sessions. In each session, each panel member may open with a statement, no longer than about 10 minutes. When all panel members have completed their statements, the general discussion will be moderated by Anthony Vincy. At the conclusion of the third panel discussion, he will moderate a general discussion among all the panelists from all three sub-panels. You can submit your questions at any time using the smartsheet available on your screen.

We know from earlier readings that one of the mortal sins in the intelligence business is to politicize intelligence. Consider the perspective of a former CIA analyst in assessing the track record of a former Secretary of Defense (who you will recall controls about 80% of the intelligence assets on a daily basis, and is a major consumer of intelligence products).

War on the Rocks logo

Optional Reading

ON THE POLITICIZATION OF INTELLIGENCE

Tomes, Robert. "On the politicization of intelligence"; War on the Rocks, September 29, 2015

Optional Reading

The Politics of Intelligence and the Politicization of Intelligence: The American Experience (Hastedt, Glenn). 

Abstract:

The relationship between intelligence analysis and policy decisions is a contentious one with both policymakers and intelligence analysts frequently expressing frustration over its underlying dynamics and with each faulting the behavior of the other. This article examines one aspect of this relationship, the manner in which intelligence analysis can become politicized. Rather than view politicization as an aberration it is treated here as a normal feature of intelligence analysis. A typology of politicization organized around the concepts of hard and soft politicization is presented and illustrated with historical examples from the American experience with intelligence analysis.

Knowledge Check

Prepare for the quiz by answering the following questions.