ABSTRACT
Prior to 9/11 the open literature on intelligence was limited. Within that literature scant attention was paid to the question of the relationship between ethics and intelligence. However, more widespread and informed discussion about the ethics of intelligence became imperative in the context of the changed post-9/11 international security environment. This gave rise to a whole new lexicon involving ‘extraordinary rendition’, ‘black sites’, ‘waterboarding’, ‘mild non-injurious physical contact’, and so on, as US intelligence agencies and those of their allies were called upon to play frontline roles in the ‘war on terror’ while back in Washington, DC government lawyers went to work in order to render legally permissible that which is ethically wrong – kidnap, secret detention and torture in all but name (Cole 2009; Sands 2008). The ‘war on terror’ led to a succession of cases where US allies, including the United Kingdom, at the very least acquiesced in the US application of these more aggressive intelligence gathering techniques, whilst for other ‘war on terror’ allies, such as Pakistan and Morocco, the new norms emanating from the West allowed for the further loosening of an already permissive approach to the use of torture to acquire information in contexts where oversight or supervision of intelligence and security agencies is ineffective or non-existent. Hence, the question of intelligence ethics has assumed greater significance than ever before and has generated significant debate. This chapter seeks to make a contribution to this debate by discussing the relationship between ethics and intelligence. In doing so it focuses essentially on foreign intelligence, whilst recognising that ‘foreign’ and ‘domestic’ intelligence are increasingly artificial distinctions. It argues that there exists a fundamental tension between ethics and intelligence that is incapable of being fully resolved, although improved oversight at national levels offers a route via which the least acceptable aspects of ‘war on terror’ intelligence practice can be mitigated.
