CI Final

Abstract

This thesis describes the need for an ethical standard in counterintelligence (CI) so as to facilitate collaboration among the various CI agencies and the private sector. It conducts an analysis of the formation of the counterintelligence program under Angleton, the use of CI within the Federal Bureau of Narcotics under Anslinger, and the use of CI in the Phoenix Program and the FBIs COINTELPRO. This analysis is used to highlight what went wrong with counterintelligence and how those problems can be prevented in the future. It uses a combination of conflict theory, structural functionalism and critical theory to explore the dimensions of counterintelligence from a comparative case study approach. The aim of this qualitative research is to provide an ethical framework that could be used to help the counterintelligence enterprise collaborate more effectively with the private sector in the future. The suggested ethical framework is one of virtue ethics, with character education becoming a part of agent training, and the development of a character-based culture rather than a Cold War-based culture being implemented in the CI community.

Introduction

Intelligence and counterintelligence operations have always been a part of the American Republic (Federation of American Scientists 1996). General Washington was aware of the threat of foreign espionage and the need to counter it (Wettering 2000, 165). The need to deceive those whose intention is to deceive ones nation is in fact an ancient one, identified by Sun Tzu thousands of years ago (Select Committee on Intelligence 1986). Practicing deception while remaining free from the corrupting influences of deceivers has proven to be a challenge, however (Valentine 2016, 45). The circumstances under which counterintelligence in the US was formerly developed and pursued in its infancy, childhood, and adolescence could be said to have predicted what that program would become in its adulthood. Abuses, errors and mistakes were so rampant that the CIAs counterintelligence program, run by James Jesus Angleton from inception in the 1950s to the 1970s, effectively had to be reconstructed by Colby, facing pressure from Congress and the public (Church Committee 1976, 171). The problem of ethics in counterintelligence was one that to this day has yet to be adequately answered. However, by understanding what counterintelligence was in the beginning, one may be better situated to understand what it is today and why its policies are what they are. By learning from the mistakes made in the past, a better foundation can be set in place for the future.

Both Angleton and the era in which the counterintelligence program was formerly organized shaped the nature of counterintelligence at a time when the nation itself was buckling under the stress of paranoia, anger, frustration and mistrust (Valetine 2016, 23; Wettering 2000, 165). To some degree, the nation has never recovered from the stresses of the post-war climate that birthed the counterintelligence program in America (Valentine 2016, 9). When Director Colby dismissed Angleton from his position as head of counterintelligence at the CIA, Colby inherited a Staff that was by that time a full-grown adult. Facing political, social, and economic pressures, the CIA was compelled to reorganize, and as the Church Committee reported, it was an end of an era in CIA counterintelligence (Church Committee 1976, 171). Yet, the consequences of that era remained. The structure that Angleton had created and the nature of counterintelligence itself had already come into being, much like Frankensteins monster. Victor Frankenstein rejected his own creation, but that did not mean the creation ceased to exist. In fact, the creation went on to destroy the creator.

Such an ominous analogy may be appropriate, at least according to Wettering (2000), the…

CI Final

Abstract

This thesis describes the need for an ethical standard in counterintelligence (CI) so as to facilitate collaboration among the various CI agencies and the private sector. It conducts an analysis of the formation of the counterintelligence program under Angleton, the use of CI within the Federal Bureau of Narcotics under Anslinger, and the use of CI in the Phoenix Program and the FBIs COINTELPRO. This analysis is used to highlight what went wrong with counterintelligence and how those problems can be prevented in the future. It uses a combination of conflict theory, structural functionalism and critical theory to explore the dimensions of counterintelligence from a comparative case study approach. The aim of this qualitative research is to provide an ethical framework that could be used to help the counterintelligence enterprise collaborate more effectiely with the private sector in the future. The suggested ethical framework is one of virtue ethics, with character education becoming a part of agent training, and the development of a character-based culture rather than a Cold War-based culture being implemented in the CI community.

Introduction

Intelligence and counterintelligence operations have always been a part of the American Republic (Federation of American Scientists 1996). General Washington was aware of the threat of foreign espionage and the need to counter it (Wettering 2000, 165). The need to deceive those whose intention is to deceive ones nation is in fact an ancient one, identified by Sun Tzu thousands of years ago (Select Committee on Intelligence 1986). Practicing deception while remaining free from the corrupting influences of deceivers has proven to be a challenge, however (Valentine 2016, 45). The circumstances under which counterintelligence in the US was formerly developed and pursued in its infancy, childhood, and adolescence could be said to have predicted what that program would become in its adulthood. Abuses, errors…

CI Final

Abstract

This thesis describes the need for an ethical standard in counterintelligence (CI) so as to facilitate collaboration among the various CI agencies and the private sector. It conducts an analysis of the formation of the counterintelligence program under Angleton, the use of CI within the Federal Bureau of Narcotics under Anslinger, and the use of CI in the Phoenix Program and the FBIs COINTELPRO. This analysis is used to highlight what went wrong with counterintelligence and how those problems can be prevented in the future. It uses a combination of conflict theory, structural functionalism and critical theory to explore the dimensions of counterintelligence from a comparative case study approach. The aim of this qualitative research is to provide an ethical framework that could be used to help the counterintelligence enterprise collaborate more effectively with the private sector in the future. The suggested ethical framework is one of virtue ethics, with character education becoming a part of agent training, and the development of a character-based culture rather than a Cold War-based culture being implemented in the CI community.

Introduction

Intelligence and counterintelligence operations have always been a part of the American Republic (Federation of American Scientists 1996). General Washington was aware of the threat of foreign espionage and the need to counter it (Wettering 2000, 165). The need to deceive those whose intention is to deceive ones nation is in fact an ancient one, identified by Sun Tzu thousands of years ago (Select Committee on Intelligence 1986). Practicing deception while remaining free from the corrupting influences of deceivers has proven to be a challenge, however (Valentine 2016, 45). The circumstances under which counterintelligence in the US was formerly developed and pursued in its infancy, childhood, and adolescence could be said to have predicted what that program would become in its adulthood. Abuses, errors and mistakes were so rampant that the CIAs counterintelligence program, run by James Jesus Angleton from inception in the 1950s to the 1970s, effectively had to be reconstructed by Colby, facing pressure from Congress and the public (Church Committee 1976, 171). The problem of ethics in counterintelligence was one that to this day has yet to be adequately answered. However, by understanding what counterintelligence was in the beginning, one may be better situated to understand what it is today and why its policies are what they are. By learning from the mistakes made in the past, a better foundation can be set in place for the future.

Both Angleton and the era in which the counterintelligence program was formerly organized shaped the nature of counterintelligence at a time when the nation itself was buckling under the stress of paranoia, anger, frustration and mistrust (Valetine 2016, 23; Wettering 2000, 165). To some degree, the nation has never recovered from the stresses of the post-war climate that birthed the counterintelligence program in America (Valentine 2016, 9). When Director Colby dismissed Angleton from his position as head of counterintelligence at the CIA, Colby inherited a Staff that was by that time a full-grown adult. Facing political, social, and economic pressures, the CIA was compelled to reorganize, and as the Church Committee reported, it was an end of an era in CIA counterintelligence (Church Committee 1976, 171). Yet, the consequences of that era remained. The structure that Angleton had created and the nature of counterintelligence itself had already come into being, much like Frankensteins monster. Victor Frankenstein rejected his own creation, but that did not mean the creation ceased to exist. In fact, the creation went on to destroy the creator.

Such an ominous analogy may be appropriate, at least according to Wettering (2000), the retired Central Intelligence Agency operations officer, who oversaw clandestine operations in Europe and Africa for more than three decades. Director Colby certainly felt as much in the 1970s, when it became apparent that the child the federal government had reared into adulthood was not exactly what the state had hoped for. The Church Committee noted that by 1976 the issues facing the counterintelligence program were how best to protect the United States, including the proper degree of compartmentation of CI information, methods of operation, approaches to security, research priorities, extent of liaison cooperation, and emphasis on deception activities (Church Committee 1976, 172). One dominant issue the Senate uncovered was the lack of cooperation among the various agencies on the counterintelligence front (Wettering 2000, 270). Tension between the CIA and the FBI had been high since the formers birth, and while the two agencies could boast of a collaborative spirit in the 1970s, the lack of any substantial counterintelligence office in the FBI meant that the bulk of the work was coordinated by the CIA.

William Evanina, director of the National Counterintelligence and Security Center, has gone so far as to warn that the challenge of counterintelligence is no longer one the government can address on its own, that the private sector must bear some of the burden and weight of protecting data and ensuring digital security in the face of snooping foreign actors (Nakashima 2020). An additional consideration put forward by Tromblay (2017) is that technology has developed rapidly in the last two decades alone, and the counterintelligence program has been slow to cross the generational divide between itself and the digital natives of the 21st century who have grown up using technology. In response to the rise of new, global technological advances, the counterintelligence program has appeared much like a member of an older generation attempting to catch up on what members of younger generations take for granted. Tromblay (2017) calls it the problem of counterintelligences reactionary orientationa characteristic of the program that was defined by the circumstancesof its birth. Moreover, with so much data now in the hands of private industry, there is an increased need for counterintelligence to work more closely with private industry. Intelligence operations have always included work within private industry, but in many cases this work was compromised by conflicts of interest (Valentine 2016, 40).

Research Question and Purpose

The research question is: How can the US counterintelligence enterprise support collaboration among the various USIC members and the private sector in an ethical and productive manner? To understand the issues and policies of counterintelligence today, it is worth examining identifying the mistakes and lessons that can be learned from the past when the counterintelligence program formally began under Angleton. The purpose of this study is to propose a standardized ethical framework for guiding the counterintelligence program as it works to collaborate with the private sector in the 21st century.

Research Design

A comparative case study approach is used in this research. The case study analysis focuses on three areas in particular, 1) the use of counterintelligence in the CIA under counterintelligence Chief James Jesus Angleton; 2) the conflation of counterintelligence without counterinsurgency in the FBIs COINTELPRO and the Phoenix Program, and 3) the use of counterintelligence by the Federal Bureau of Narcotics (FBN).

Because there is no standard ethical framework in counterintelligence, it presents a problem because of the risk of subjective or questionable morality seeping into counterintelligence activities (Valentine 2016). To understand the problem, this research design is appropriately qualitative, as the subject is exploratory in nature. The aim of the research is to explore by way of comparative case study analysis the counterintelligence program under James Jesus Angleton, CI in the Phoenix Program and the FBIs COINTELPRO, and CI in the FBN. Scholarly articles, Senate reports, memoirs, independent research, biographies, and analysis have served as the sources of information.

The purpose for this approach can best be understood in the light of Eriksons model of human development, which enables psychologists to understand the adult by examining the age-related conflicts that must be overcome before the child can proceed successfully to later stages of development (Shriner and Shriner 2014). By examining the early stages of counterintelligence under Ang....... examining the early days of the counterintelligence program as it grew through its infancy, childhood and adolescence stages of the post-war/Cold War era (Valentine 2016, 10). This study will explore how conflicts of interests and relationships and a lack of ethical standards led to problems in counterintelligence. The comparative case study approach is a robust one because it allows for triangulation of research. The appropriate model for this approach is that of George and Bennett (2004), which uses a structured-focused research design.

It is helpful to first define the concepts, theories and systems of ethics that will be discussed in this study.

Conflict Theory

Marxism is the root of conflict theory, but Ralf Dahrendorf promoted conflict theory by comparing it to structural functionalism and arguing that societies have two orientations or two faces (Ritzer and Stepinsky 2017,120). One face suggests cooperation, consensus and agreement; the other face suggests conflict between a class with power and a class without. Conflict between these two faces is what explains, according to this theory, the actions of individuals and institutions.

Counterintelligence

Bellaby (2012) defines counterintelligence as any action or activity that is knowingly designed and intended to encourage an audience of some sort to believe in something which is untrue (147). Typically, counterintelligence (CI) is associated with misleading or duping an adversary so as to prevent that adversary from gaining a crucial advantage over ones own position. CI is as important in the private sector as it is in the public sector today, as information has become a vital resource in the digital age.

Critical Theory

Critical theory stems from the post-Marxist view that the revolution predicted by Marx failed to occur because of cultural factors and institutions that prevented the class without power from fulfilling their Marxist mandate. This theory explores the reasons and ways the culture of those with power is used to prevent those without power from rising up to challenge those with power (Horkheimer 1972). The theory assumes that Marx was correct in predicting a worker uprising.

Duty Ethics

Kant put forward the concept of deontology, also known as duty ethics. The concept is that morality is determined by the extent to which one does ones duty of state (Messilbrook 2013). Duty can be dictated by an authority, and that is why counterintelligence has been described as a duty in the past (Pfaff and Tiel 2004). The line between duty to state and personal ambition, however, has been crossed innumerable times throughout the history of counterintelligence (Morley 2017; Valentine 2016). This makes deontology a complicated framework with serious limitations in terms of utility and application.

Ethical Egoism

Ethical egoism is the notion that the ends jusify the means and so long as one can identify a personal benefit to what one does, it can be morally justified. Essentially, it goes against the notion of Kants deontology by advocating subjective desire over external duty (ONeill 1989). However, Sheppard (2012) explains that the world of deception that runs through counterintelligence aligns with the general tenor of ethical egoism (19). Sheppards (2012) suggestion implies that an unhealthy subjective character animates the CI community.

Lockean Ethics

Lockes view was that liberty is the fundamental law of nature and that the state should preserve liberty insofar as it is able (Pettit 1997). Lockean ethics as a system does not exist other than in the advocacy of freedom for action. This is a problematic ethical framework because it can branch off in two directions at onceone way to utilitarianism in which liberty is curbed only by utility to the common good; the other way to ethical egoism in which the ends justify the means.

Structural Functionalism

Structural functionalism is a theory that explains social organization in terms of how relationships and institutions work together to bring stability and functionality to a community (Ritzer and Stepinsky 2017). Rather than identifying the problematic nature of these relationships and how oppression may figure into the equation, this theory identifies the positive aspects of these relationships. Its inverse theoretical approach could be called conflict theory.

Utilitarian Ethics

Utilitarianism defines the moral action as that which has the greatest common good (Carson 2010). However, it has no framework for defining the goodunlike in the system of virtue ethics, which associates the good with transcendental ideals that form a persons character as they are pursued in thought and action.

Virtue Ethics

Also known as character ethics, virtue ethics is not unique to the West but was embraced equally in the East for thousands of years. In the West, it dates back to Aristotle; in the East, to Confucius (Slingerland 2011). The basic idea of virtue ethics is that actions are deemed moral if they contribute to the cultivation and development of ones character. Character and reputation go together as individuals in society judge one another based on reputation, which serves as the indicator of the persons character. A state that has tarnished its reputation through bad faith interactions signals an untrustworthy character and thus risks exclusion from a larger network of international collaboration (Mattox 2002).

Chapter Outline

This thesis first provides a review of literature that focuses on four themes: the problematic nature of deception, the role of ethics in CI, the need for a framework for analyzing the work of CI in the past, and the lack of clarity and collaboration in the CI community. The third chapter discusses the methodology used for this research. The fourth chapter presents the findings and the fifth chapter discusses the findings.

Literature Review

The aim of this examination of the literature is to fill the wide gap that remains in counterintelligence research regarding an appropriate ethical standard that can guide and foster an ethical culture, as called for by Bellaby (2012) and Valentine (2016). The purpose of this review is to identify the lessons that have been learned and presented by researchers on this topic, and to identify an appropriate theoretical framework for assessing the way forward. The research question for this study is: How can the US counterintelligence enterprise support collaboration among the various USIC members and the private sector in an ethical and productive manner? The ultimate purpose of this study is to propose a standardized ethical framework for guiding the counterintelligence program as it works to collaborate with the private sector in the 21st century. Therefore, the themes this review examines are: 1) the problematic nature of deception in intelligence work; 2) the role of ethics in counterintelligence; 3) a framework for analyzing the past; and 4) the need for clarity and collaboration in counterintelligence efforts among the various agencies, organizations and actors.

The Problematic Nature of Deception

Deception is at the core of counterintelligence: yet, it is a problematic core because of the corruption associated with deception in ethical systems. Mattox (2002), for example, observed that the practice of deception is subject to limitations imposed by the demands of morality (4). Mattox (2002) makes the good point that intelligence professionals must act in good faith even with those who are their adversaries (4). Yet, this point is not supported by all researchers, including Cohen (2016), who argues that there are no moral limits on military deception. Mattox (2002) makes the better argument for numerous reasons: first, he supports his argument with a moral framework that is justifiable based on long-term results, which Mattox (2002) calls the limitation of long-term negative effects. When deception is used cautiously and morally, the adversary is more willing to accept it as a norm of state conflict; moreover, the adversary, who may become a state ally in the future, will not hold any ill-will on this account (Mattox 2002). But when moral limits are off, as Cohen (2016) suggests should be the case, there is no foundation for future trust. Cohens (2016) argument fails because it is based on a zero sum game approach to statecraft: Cohen (2016) does not anticipate the reality of the very real possibility of and need for collaboration and partnership with states that are adversaries toay but potential allies in the future. Cohen (2016) implicitly views the entire act of counterintelligence from the standpoint of ethical egoism, which is highly problematic both from a rational and ethical standpoint but also from a political standpoint (Lyons 1976). Part of the reason for Cohens (2016) problematic position is cultural: Cohen (2016) comes from a Jewish traditional of revolutionary behavior in which dominance is always the end goal (Jones 2008). Other cultures, both Western and Eastern, have tended to promote a position of statecraft that is in line with the doctrine of mutual beneficence put forward by Adam Smith in Wealth of Nations. Both Western and Eastern cultures developed the first and most fundamental ethical framework in virtue ethics, with Aristotle summarizing the framework in ancient Greece and Confucius summarizing the framework in ancient China thousands of years ago (Hursthouse 2016). Cohens (2016) position is not rooted in such a tradition but rather in the tradition of elitism that has tended to characterize some nations approaches to statecraft in the modern era.

Without imposing moral conditions on counterintelligence, the possibility of developing trusting relationships in the future is lost. Cohen (2016) has no answer to this because his view is colored by a zero sum game mentality, which is that all that matters is winning. Cohens (2016) view aligns well with the former motto of the Mossad, Thou shalt make war by way of deception, (Ostrovsky and Hoy 1991, 1). The fact that the Mossad abandoned this motto after other states expressed their displeasure with it proves the point that Mattox (2002) makes: states must be conscious of the moral limits of deception. The Mossad stepped back from their overt effrontery in terms of waving their no-limits-to-our-deception in the face of the world; but of course Israeli intelligence never stopped in terms of practice, which is why nations that support a multi-polar world, like Russia, Syria, Iran and China, are often at odds with Israeli aims (Kent 2019). Israel, like the US, is focused primarily on a zero sum game strategy (Kent 2019). Mattox (2002) at least approaches the issue of moral limits to deception from a practical, universal, political and diplomatic position that has utilitarian, deontological and even virtue ethics elements to it. The opposite position of Cohen (2016) can only be accepted from an ethical egoism point of view, and ethical egoism is the most relative and least effective ethical position, as pointed out by Lyons (1976).

Unfortunately, morality within the realm of modern counterintelligence is often the first casualty, as history shows (Valentine 2016). The official beginnings of counterintelligence under the leadership of James Jesus Angleton have illustrated the extent to which the art of deception can create problems within the intelligence community (Morley 2017, 69). Within this community itself there is no standard ethical framework applied, but there should be (Bailey and Galich 2012, 77). To make matters worse, in counterintelligence, there is even less emphasis on ethical cohesion, as Valentine (2016), Unkefer (2013), and Pfaff and Tiel (2004) point out. If there were a more unified, standardized moral framework applied throughout counterintelligence, it is likely that its history in the US would be less fraught with conflicts of interest, human failings, ulterior motives, problematic relationships, and questionable tactics. The reason such a framework has not been applied is that it is viewed as restrictive and inapplicable in the world of counterintelligence. In the American intelligence field, the position like that of Cohen (2016) has prevailed. This position is bad for counterintelligence because of the problems that arise. Valentine (2016) details these problems very well in his work on abuses within the CIA, FBN and FBI. Unkefers (2013) memoir of counterintelligence in the FBN supports Valentines claims and shows how dangerous and corrupting the lack of moral limits on deception can be. Their work provides ample support for moral limitations to deception. Yet, this support is slow in coming because opponents of such a view argue that the system works as is. Indeed, Unkefer (2013) admits as much, reluctantlybut he does also raise the question of whether the ends justify the means. It is a question that needs to be asked and that goes back to the issue of whether ethical egoism is a sufficient moral framework for counterintelligence. Valentine (2016) makes the best argument for why it is not: the damage to American ideals, Americas reputation, American diplomacy and politics, and American culture is too great.

Counterintelligence has often been linked with the idea of national security, yet as Nolan (1997) shows it is dangerous to think of counterintelligence as a security exercise because it is literally nothing of the sort. Writing from the standpoint of private industry, Nolan (1997) states explicitly that while security seeks to protect a firm's assets by a combination of policies, procedures and practices, counterintelligence, properly understood, aims to engage and neutralize a competitor's collection efforts through a variety of imaginative, flexible, and active measures (53). The point of concern, here, is not only the degree to which those imaginative, flexible, and active measures lead to the problems both for the agency and for the field it aims to serve (Nolan 1997, 53). There is also the matter of confusing counterintelligence with security, which is precisely what has happened in the past and is currently happening under the Trump Administration with its 2020-2022 National Counterintelligence Strategy. The fact that counterintelligence has been conflated with security is part of the problem: it has led to a kind of self-deception with the government. It is no secret that self-deception weakens ones ability to engage in counterintelligence effectively (Unkefer 2013), and even the ancient art of war practiced by Sun Tzu suggests as much. American policy on counterintelligence has not been developed with the important warning from Nolan (1997) in mind. Instead, it has been formulated with a view towards removing all moral limits and constraints on counterintelligence and recommitting itself to the pursuit of victory in the zero sum game policymakers wish to see the nation playing.

Deceptive Policy

It is helpful to consider how self-deceptive American policy has become to illustrate the important points that Nolan (1997), Mattox (2002) and Valentine (2016) make. For instance, the strategic objectives of the 2020-2022 National Counterintelligence Strategy of the United States (2020) are: 1) to protect the nations critical infrastructure, 2) reduce threats to supply chains, 3) counter the exploitation of the US economy, 4) defend American democracy against foreign influence, and 5) counter foreign intelligence cyber and technical operations (4). These objectives differ from the 2018-2022 National Counterintelligence and Security Center Strategic Plan. Under Director William R. Evanina, integration of CI and security activities was a top priority and theme of the 2018-2022 strategy, but the strategic goals were quite distinct: Goal 1 was to Advance our Knowledge of, and our Ability to Counter Foreign and other Threats and Incidents; Goal 2 was to Protect US Critical Infrastructure, Technologies, Facilities, Classified Networks, Sensitive Information, and Personnel; Goal 3 was to Advance our Counterintelligence and Security Mission and Optimize Enterprise Capabilities through Partnerships; Goal 4 was to Strengthen our Effectiveness through Stakeholder Engagement, Governance, and Advocacy; and Goal 5 was to Achieve our Mission through Organizational Excellence (National Counterintelligence and Security Center Strategy 2018-2020 2020, ii). The difference reveals the issue of mission creepthe gradual blurring of lines, blurring of objectives, expansion of meanings, and taking liberties with original mandates. It should be considered, after all, that the official responsibility of counterintelligence is to collect information and conduct activities to identify, deceive, exploit, disrupt, or protect against espionage, other intelligence activities, sabotage, or assassinations conducted for or on behalf of foreign powers, organizations, or persons or their agents, or international terrorist organizations (Nati