The so-called “intelligence community” is not simply the people that work as public servants in the agencies and departments that perform what are considered to be “intelligence” functions in a given country. Intelligence work is for the most part an international undertaking, and more often than not involves agreements between countries—made by the Executive branches of the governments—than not. That is to say, intelligence work is more often an undertaking conducted between the governments of allied countries than between hostile countries, as the traditional notion would have it. In the final analysis, the "alliances" are between classes of officials that are empowered to exploit the system in multiple countries for personal and political ends.
Such alliances between countries based on a Constitution and democracy pose a direct threat to the constitutional order, because government agents (i.e., “state actors,” in legal terms) are not supposed to be covertly interfering in civil society. The Constitution first and foremost defines the relationship between the government and the people. In the USA, the system of checks and balances is intended to preserve that relationship by distributing authority in order to prevent the abuse of power by any co-equal branch of government.
Enough theoretical digression… I have posted links to papers on this topic before on the blog:
It has become apparent to me after living in Japan for nearly 20 years that the CIA and other countries “external” intelligence agencies have a problem of maintaining continuity in the alliances they try to establish, on the one hand, and in promoting globalization/internationalization, on the other. The latter is, of course, one objective of the so-called “intelligence operations” at present, the former has an even more nebulously indeterminate basis in reason, because the alliances that are being formed are alliances between classes of state actors, not normal citizens. In other words, you have a case where federal employees of one state are establishing secret relations with federal employees of another state, and seeking to perpetuate those relationships for their personal advantage, which is clothed in the name of “civil service,” and which take many occupational guises in the society where such an operative is active, often involving work that touches on preserves protected by the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution—because that is how you “win” the hearts and minds of the targeted citizenry...
But I digress...
In the lawsuit I named a number of hereditary scions to CIA et al. employee status, including the son of a former army buddy, as per the image posted below. Aside from the one-offs, as in the case of the sons of Charles Roche, John Einarsen, and their Australian cohort Jon Levy, there are larger family manifestations of the phenomenon, two of which I will introduce in subsequent posts (both of which were named in the last post), one connected to Switzerland, and one to the USA.