ABSTRACT
We saw in the last chapter how a number of key concepts may be utilised in the study of security intelligence. In this chapter we see how other concepts are equally crucial in explaining what security intelligence agencies actually do. Both sets of concepts are seen to be 'essentially contested' - those employed by security intelligence agencies as part of their mandate are no more capable of purely 'scientific' elucidation than are those employed by social scientists. The analysis in this chapter centres on national security, which provides the most general security intelligence mandate, and two more specific ones, subversion and terrorism. Espionage and sabotage are other specific mandates but they are not discussed here in detail because, apart from limitations of space, they are more likely to be defined in the criminal law and are subject to less 'contestation'. 1 The course of political battles over the definition of the core security intelligence mandate provides a good indicator of the relative strengths of the various political forces engaged in the (potential) control and oversight of the agencies concerned.
