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:
http://scholarcommons.usf.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1317&context=jss
http://scholarcommons.usf.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1317&context=jss
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.
No comments:
Post a Comment