10 ms·

...I'd have hoped that people such as Stroud that worked for US intelligence would have a stronger moral compass than what the article describes. It seems like

by skh 8y ago

...I'd have hoped that people such as Stroud that worked for US intelligence would have a stronger moral compass than what the article describes. It seems like you are saying it is moral to work for a U.S. intelligence agency but not for a foreign government that targets human rights activists. U.S. intelligence agencies have targeted human rights activists for decades. U.S. intelligence agencies have engaged in torture, illegal kidnappings, drug trafficking, and a host of other immoral acts. If a person is comfortable working for an American intelligence agency and you are comfortable with people who do then I don't see how this situation is any worse. I'm surprised she had any moral compunction that an American citizen was involved.

secfirstmd 8y ago
Solid points you make. Though also, it might just my be inner cynicism reading this article having spent a long time working on security/human rights etc, but it sort of feel reading between the lines that the so-called "moral compunction" of many of the former US intel people was actually more of a "legal compunction" ("Oh crap, I've ignored things I've seen because I am getting paid a huge wedge of tax free money but now the the FBI are sniffing around it's time to grow a conscience and get ahead of this.")
- skh 8y ago
  That is an interesting take. I'd not have thought of "legal compunction". I like the phrase and will borrow it without attribution!
  - secfirstmd 8y ago
    I just want to tell you both good luck. We're all counting on you.
- BorRagnarok 8y ago
  Exactly. Psychopaths have no morals, they only feign them when necessary.
fossuser 8y ago
The nature of the government matters. The US is a representative democracy that has rule of law. This is not denying the bad behavior of intelligence agencies in the past. Supporting the ideals of the west (representative democracy, independent court system, individual (minority/women's) rights, freedom of the press, freedom of speech, etc.) require organizations like this to exist. This doesn't mean they shouldn't be held to a high standard (they should), but that good people should work with them and that it's critical good people do so the standard is high. The UAE is a religious dictatorship with pretty much none of these things, supporting their intelligence agencies (particularly when they're targeting political activists that they deem a threat) is worse and not morally equivalent. This is likely why they painted it as entirely for defense against terrorism to most of the contractors. I find it pretty disturbing that this person, knowing about the offensive targeting (particularly of political activists), only finds this morally concerning when it involves the surveillance of Americans.
- skh 8y ago
  The nature of the government matters. The style of government matters not to me when it comes to moral culpability. Catholic priests murdered in Central America with the approval of the U.S. government did not care that we have a representative government. Since it doesn't matter to the victims of our torture, murdering, raping, and pillaging it doesn't seem germane to me. Indeed, that we are a representative democracy only causes me to be depressed further as the blame partly resides with me and my fellow countrymen since we elected the leaders of these monsters. In the UAE at least the average citizen has less culpability since they have no say in their government.
  - fossuser 8y ago
    Those things are still terrible and wrong (we're in agreement about that). The difference in our argument is that I think it's important for good people to be involved in their government in order to support these western ideals and work to do the right thing. It may be morally pure to just avoid the complex issues, but other than feeling good and maybe virtue signaling it doesn't actually help. Given the true need for security and organizations like this I think it's important for good people to be involved in this work. We have agency and a responsibility to make things better. I think this argument changes when the foundational core is different (religious dictatorship) because the high level goals are not the same - you're immediately operating under a bad moral starting point when the law itself is bad and the government is not a representative democracy. Your original point was: > "If a person is comfortable working for an American intelligence agency and you are comfortable with people who do then I don't see how this situation is any worse." I'm arguing it's both a lot worse and that there are good reasons for a moral person to work with western intelligence agencies.

by skh 8y ago

secfirstmd 8y ago

Solid points you make. Though also, it might just my be inner cynicism reading this article having spent a long time working on security/human rights etc, but it sort of feel reading between the lines that the so-called "moral compunction" of many of the former US intel people was actually more of a "legal compunction" ("Oh crap, I've ignored things I've seen because I am getting paid a huge wedge of tax free money but now the the FBI are sniffing around it's time to grow a conscience and get ahead of this.")

skh 8y ago
That is an interesting take. I'd not have thought of "legal compunction". I like the phrase and will borrow it without attribution!
- secfirstmd 8y ago
  I just want to tell you both good luck. We're all counting on you.
BorRagnarok 8y ago
Exactly. Psychopaths have no morals, they only feign them when necessary.

fossuser 8y ago

The nature of the government matters. The US is a representative democracy that has rule of law. This is not denying the bad behavior of intelligence agencies in the past. Supporting the ideals of the west (representative democracy, independent court system, individual (minority/women's) rights, freedom of the press, freedom of speech, etc.) require organizations like this to exist. This doesn't mean they shouldn't be held to a high standard (they should), but that good people should work with them and that it's critical good people do so the standard is high. The UAE is a religious dictatorship with pretty much none of these things, supporting their intelligence agencies (particularly when they're targeting political activists that they deem a threat) is worse and not morally equivalent. This is likely why they painted it as entirely for defense against terrorism to most of the contractors. I find it pretty disturbing that this person, knowing about the offensive targeting (particularly of political activists), only finds this morally concerning when it involves the surveillance of Americans.

skh 8y ago
The nature of the government matters. The style of government matters not to me when it comes to moral culpability. Catholic priests murdered in Central America with the approval of the U.S. government did not care that we have a representative government. Since it doesn't matter to the victims of our torture, murdering, raping, and pillaging it doesn't seem germane to me. Indeed, that we are a representative democracy only causes me to be depressed further as the blame partly resides with me and my fellow countrymen since we elected the leaders of these monsters. In the UAE at least the average citizen has less culpability since they have no say in their government.
- fossuser 8y ago
  Those things are still terrible and wrong (we're in agreement about that). The difference in our argument is that I think it's important for good people to be involved in their government in order to support these western ideals and work to do the right thing. It may be morally pure to just avoid the complex issues, but other than feeling good and maybe virtue signaling it doesn't actually help. Given the true need for security and organizations like this I think it's important for good people to be involved in this work. We have agency and a responsibility to make things better. I think this argument changes when the foundational core is different (religious dictatorship) because the high level goals are not the same - you're immediately operating under a bad moral starting point when the law itself is bad and the government is not a representative democracy. Your original point was: > "If a person is comfortable working for an American intelligence agency and you are comfortable with people who do then I don't see how this situation is any worse." I'm arguing it's both a lot worse and that there are good reasons for a moral person to work with western intelligence agencies.