CIA Secrecy, Ethics, and Government Oversight

Introduction: Secrecy and Scandal in Government Agencies

"Any agency which works in secret can behave in a scandalous manner, and the CIA is no exception to this rule." This paper analyzes that statement on two grounds: is it true that agencies which act in secret behave in a scandalous manner? And if so, is the CIA an exception to, or a demonstration of, this rule?

This paper argues, first, that all agencies throughout history and in whatever country, region, or empire — which act in secret — are inherently prone to dishonesty and unethical acts. Second, the CIA must act, to some degree, in secret with some of its operations. Finally, the paper argues that the CIA will always be prone to dishonesty and unethical actions, which requires more regular oversight.

First Hypothesis: Has Any Secret Agency Maintained High Ethical Standards?

All agencies throughout history and across nations are prone to act in a dishonest and unethical manner. The proof of this hypothesis rests on the null hypothesis: the author has been unable to find a government agency that acts in secret and that has not, over time, acted in an unethical manner. A second null hypothesis would be to find a spying operation that has operated in an ethical and honest manner over a long period, thereby disproving the original statement.

One can argue that any government agency requires power in order to be effective. Power comes through the purse — the ability to fund — through coercion — the ability to force — or through persuasion — the ability to convince. None of these methods is, in and of itself, inherently unethical. One can persuade, coerce, or bankroll activities in an open and above-board way. The Founding Fathers intended to create a system of public accountability and checks and balances such that administrators were not able to rule the citizenry in an unbridled way. The American Society for Public Administration's ethics statement includes three pillars: to serve the public interest, the law, and standards of personal and professional excellence (Lempert, 1997).

Whereas government agencies should be engaged in controlling negative consequences (such as crime and foreign attacks) or assuring improvements in the standards of living of the governed (from roads to schools), a good deal of the effort expended in public administration is directed at controlling public officials themselves:

"To a significant extent, the organization, rules, and energy of urban government are focused on surveilling and controlling officials rather than on the production of government outputs" (Anechiarico, 1994).

This is true not only in American government, but in governments around the world. Patronage, politicking, and pork have been an integral part of politically associated government agencies since the founding of America. Washington, Adams, and Jefferson complained of the "shameless corruption" in the appointments and administration of public agencies (Kurtz, 1957).

Is there any spying agency that has proven, over time, to maintain high ethical standards? One can argue that Mossad, the Israeli intelligence agency, had the most impeccable reputation for ethical behavior from the founding of Israel in 1947. Its earlier actions in the 1950s and 1960s concentrated on protecting the state of Israel from hostile surrounding powers and on retrieving Nazi war criminals, such as Adolf Eichmann, who had participated in or led atrocities during the Holocaust. One could characterize Mossad's kidnapping of Eichmann from Argentina as ethical, despite the subterfuge used against Eichmann and the then-dictatorial Argentinian government (Rosenbaum, 1993). From that comparatively virtuous period in the 1950s, however, Mossad's reputation has declined as it has engaged in torture and targeted killings of Palestinian terrorists (David, 2003).

Spying is inherently deceptive: the acts of lying, subterfuge, and deception can be necessary to coerce or fool others into betraying their country or fellow citizens. One can call such acts ethically justified, but even the most principled spying agency can lose sight of its founding goals over time. Mossad provides exactly this kind of cautionary example.

Second Hypothesis: Professionalism and the Erosion of Ethical Foundations

The Founding Fathers depended on the moral superiority of society as handed down directly from God to each citizen, and not through the intermediary of a king or other public official:

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness" (Jefferson, 1776).

Thus, according to the Declaration of Independence and the subsequent Bill of Rights in the Constitution, each citizen holds the inalienable right to dictate how they are governed. The ethical framework that was "self-evident" in the minds of the Founding Fathers was grounded in the Creator.

A creeping rationalism and rejection of these values has led to their replacement by "professionalism" — the assumption that governmental matters are too complex, too opaque, or too important to be overseen by ordinary citizens or their representatives. According to Guy Adams, "professionalism has assimilated ethics as a part of its ordinary definition," implying that the fundamental compact between the governed and those in government can be replaced by a creeping Mandarinization of modern government practice (Adams, 1993).

However, professionalism may be a necessary result of the growth of public agencies. Imposing a fixed moral set of precepts becomes increasingly difficult as society changes rapidly. According to Rokeach:

"If values were completely stable, individual and social change would be impossible. If values were completely unstable, continuity of human personality and society would be impossible. Any conception of human values, if it is to be fruitful, must be able to account for the enduring character of values as well as for their changing character" (Rokeach, 1972).

An appeal to the "universal values" of the Founding Fathers, or even to those values of particular religions, thus becomes difficult to apply over time as society, religion, and ethics shift in meaning.

Conclusion: Is the CIA Inherently Untrustworthy?

The initial statement examined in this paper is, in the opinion of the author, true. Any government agency, over a long period of time, will tend toward unethical behavior. This is true even of agencies such as Mossad, which had developed a nearly impeccable reputation for moral probity and correct conduct. The combination of money, power, and secrecy can corrupt over time in such a way that any agency may give in to unethical or dishonest behavior.

As this essay has shown, unethical behavior is not a modern phenomenon. The Founding Fathers were equally concerned about the powers of government appointees and devoted considerable effort to devising checks and balances and open lines of communication to ensure that such unethical conduct was kept to a minimum.

The contention that politics by innuendo, unethical conduct, and moral decay are somehow strictly modern phenomena is patently false. If anything, increased public scrutiny — made possible in part through new technologies — may make it more difficult for ethical abuses to persist undetected for long.

Adams, G. B. (1993). Ethics and the chimera of professionalism: The historical context of an oxymoronic relationship. The American Review of Public Administration, 117–139.

Anechiarico, F. (1994). Visions of corruption control and the evolution of American public administration. Journal of Public Administration, 465–473.

David, S. R. (2003). Israel's policy of targeted killing. Ethics & International Affairs, 111–123.

Ginsberg, B., & Shefter, M. (2002). Politics by other means: Politicians, prosecutors, and the press from Watergate to Whitewater. W. W. Norton.

Jefferson, T. (1776). Declaration of Independence.

Johnson, L. K. (1992). On drawing a bright line for covert operations. American Journal of International Law, 284–309.

Kurtz, S. (1957). The presidency of John Adams: The collapse of Federalism, 1795–1800. University of Pennsylvania Press.

Lempert, D. (1997). Holding accountable the powers that be: Protecting our integrity and the public we serve. Public Administration Review, 11–25.

Olmsted, K. S. (1996). Challenging the secret government: The post-Watergate investigations of the CIA and FBI. UNC Press.

Rokeach, M. (1972). The nature of human values. The Free Press.

Rosenbaum, A. S. (1993). Prosecuting Nazi criminals. Westview Press.