We in the democratic world have elected governments that spend time, money and diplomatic effort implementing their policies. However we tolerate the CIA, ASIO and others using unscrupulous methods including assassinations to achieve their own agendas with no checks. These acts would be illegal in any civilian court and result in a prison sentence.

Iran has become the latest bad guy country because of its opposition to Israel, so most people will probably not believe the extract below. The Iranians' claim does seem very likely though doesn't it?

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2010 ... ion=justin

Previously there were failed attempts to poison Fidel Castro's cigar and such things when communist countries were the bad guys. There have been many others to.
But how can this turning a blind eye be ethical?

It always amuses me when one side calls the other 'evil'... we're all just as bad as each other...

I have just read "Confessions of a Spy" The real story of Aldrich Ames by Pete Earley.

In summary, Ames worked for the CIA for many many years, he was their KGB expert. After many years he became a double agent working for the KGB. He provided information that resulted in the execution of 20 or so double agents within the KGB, who were working really for the CIA. Usually these Russian people loved their country but despised the KGB and the authoritarian Government. When they were exposed often their families were also hurt, usually they lost their employment were ostracised by their neighbours etc.

Ames justified this after the fact, by saying that all the CIA and western intelligence gathered had consistently shown that America outclassed the Russians in arms, technology, commerce, production, living standards etc. but despite this advice, the western powers still increased their expenditure on arms, defence, the various secret services etc and did so for their political aims and not for America in general.

Is it better for the career of a politician to have the local people concerned about a dangerous and powerful enemy, rather than worrying about some local issue?

Many people disagreed with what Ames stated, some understood but few believed his actions were ethical. He was paid some millions of $US by the KGB as well I might add.

Anyway, when I read this book I had to suspend and ethical evaluation of what any person and any organisation was doing as their general approach was that each individual justified their own actions by saying that their own action justified their own means. Really, the whole concept of spies is unethical I think ...

There was also a little about SALT II and Kissinger ... the book questions was his loyalty to his Russian associates greater than that to his president? Is that ethical?

This book is definitely about Dirty deeds done in secret. and strapping a bomb to a motorcycle can be believed today, twenty years ago or in 2020.

Christine,

Surely you draw a longbow when you accuse ASIO of assassinations, the odd few character assassinations perhaps but they are an internal organization restricted to working within Australia. Perhaps you were thinking of ASIS?

arry, but we're not supposed to be. Democratic governments are supposed to be better than various other dictatorships and regimes, there are people in wars dying on our behalf to honour that cause.

I agree Airzone Espionage is unethical. I think anyone that's a double agent is totally dispicable.

Samuel, yes I think I did mean ASIS after reading up about it.

Any thoughts about the ethics of this latest case in Iran?

The CIA, ASIS and other so called secret service organisations clearly operate under a different set of ethics than what most of us use in our daily lives.

I wonder what my perspective would be if I was the Prime Minister of Australia and leant about the activities of various foreign and domestic powers that were trying to disrupt this country and cause harm. would I continue to support the operation of such secret organisations? Sadly, I suspect I would because if I didn't, I would have to believe what other countries and organisations told me without my own hopefully more independent research. It is interesting that I know of no incoming Prime Minister or President who has eliminated their inherited secret service organisation - does anyone know of such an instance?

The problem with this news article as I see it, and so many that are similar, is that it contains basically one fact; an Iranian nuclear scientist was killed by a bomb. Everything else is conjecture, or SPIN. Words used are ""I think the foreign intelligence agencies want to kill him in order to ...", "If the Iranian Government wanted ... not have assassinated in this way", "suggesting other (non-Western) forces may have been responsible", " Tehran's chief prosecutor implicated US and Israeli intelligence services.", " But pro-reform groups claim he had publicly supported the opposition movement in Iran, suggesting other forces may have been responsible." This article contains more statements implying that a "western" country was responsible, but it also contains one statement counter to this. On this basis, the article does not provide me with enough evidence to favour one over the other.

Do any of you recall the photoshopped photographs http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adnan_Hajj_photographs_controversy of Adnan Hajj? I also suspect similar things have been done by other intelligence agencies. These photoshopped images were used very effectively to turn much public opinion against Israel. It makes me very cynical about all such reports from all sides. Be careful, the media is used by all sides to manipulate opinion - and us.

There is no doubt that all secret service organisations as such have or still do murder when it is seen to help their cause. But I suspect, all of us would maintain a secret service organisation if we held the reins of power for our own country.

arry wrote:

It always amuses me when one side calls the other 'evil'... we're all just as bad as each other...

... this I believe.

War is essentially a selfish act. It is one nation fighting for its national interest with another nation that is fighting for its national interest. I guarantee in any war this is the case. Honour what cause? They are dying to defend their country's interests, just as the people who are fighting them are dying to defend their country's interests. We didn't invade Iraq or Afghanistan because we were a 'good democracy', we did it because our security was threatened and it was believed to be in our national interest to invade.

I agree that democracies should (and do) have a better record when it comes to human rights when compared with dictatorships, certainly.

And yes, our soldiers believe they are fighting because their way of life is better- but I bet you the enemy soldiers think exactly the same thing.

Well, we probably have this "different set of ethics than most of us use in our daily lives" to thank for the ongoing wars that afflict the human race. A pychiatrist or pychologist once described mental health as the state where a person's internal health is reflected exactly in the face they show to the world with no disguises.

Maybe eliminating these secret organisations should be on the agenda for peace talks like it is for nuclear weapons. Maybe it will be when, or if, the human race ever reaches maturity.