Abstract
There have been many arguments that secret intelligence is dangerous, hazardous to the health of a democratic society, but far fewer arguments that intelligence is an activity which requires secrecy. The arguments against secret intelligence fall into two main categories; that secrecy is harmful since it leads to, or protects, abuse of power, and secondly that it is immoral, contrary to democratic values. There is a possible third argument that secrecy is undesirable because it produces inefficiency or protects ineffectiveness. However, given that this argument is based on the premise that effective intelligence is necessary and desirable it is not likely to be expressed by critics of intelligence activities and so has been rarely found in the literature and will therefore not be considered here. However, this is not to say that such an argument cannot be made. Its absence here merely reflects its absence in the literature.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Preview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
Notes
S. Bok, Secrets (N.Y., Pantheon Books, 1974) p. 192.
The ‘rogue elephant’ claim is attributed to Senator Church but no acknowledged source exists for this statement. However this view underlies the book edited by Howard Frazier, Uncloaking the CIA (N.Y., The Free Press, 1978). The ‘old boy club’ accusation underlies much of the Labour Party discussion document entitled, Freedom and the Security Services (Mar. 1983).
Useful sources are — C. Andrew, ‘Government and Secret Services’, International Journal, 34 (1979); C. Andrew and D. Dilks (eds), The Missing Dimension (London: Macmillan, 1984); Report of the Tribunal of Inquiry into the Vassal Case (London: HMSO Cmnd 2009, 1963); Statement of the Findings of Privy Councillors on Security (London: HMSO, Cmnd 9715, 1955); Radcliffe Report on Security Procedures in the Public Service (London: HMSO, Cmnd 1681, 1961); and the Security Commission Reports — Cmnd 2722, 1965; Cmnd 3151, 1966; Cmnd 3365, 1967; Cmnd 5367, 1973; Cmnd 8876, 1983.
John Jay, Federalist Paper, no. LXIV (London: Everyman Edition, 1948) p. 329.
Senator Buchanan, Congressional Globe, 27th Congress, 2nd. Session, as quoted in H. M. Wriston, Executive Agents in American Foreign Relations (Johns Hopkins Press, 1929); reprinted in 1967 (Gloucester, Mass.: Peter Smith Publishers) p. 263.
H. Cummings and C. McFarland, Federal Justice (New York: Macmillan, 1937) ch. XVIII.
B. Schmidt, ‘The American Espionage Statutes and Publication of Defense Information’, in T. Franck and E. Weisband (eds), Secrecy and Foreign Policy (New York: Oxford University Press, 1974) pp. 184–6, and H. Edgar and B. Schmidt, ‘The Espionage Statutes’, 73, Columbia Law Review, 929 (1973).
For arguments along these lines, see N. Dorsen and S. Gillers (eds), None of Your Business — Government Secrecy in America (N.Y.: Penguin Books, 1975).
As reported in The Times, week beginning 16 July, and subsequently on 23, 26 and 27 July, and in the Sunday Times on the 29 July, 1984. The story began with the allegation by Peter Wright, a former MI5 officer, that Sir Roger Hollis was almost certainly a soviet agent. This allegation first surfaced, but without a source, in Chapman Pincher’s, Their Trade is Treachery (London: Sidgwick & Jackson, 1981).
C. Andrew, ‘The Mobilisation of British Intelligence for the Two World Wars’ in N. F. Dreisziger (ed.), Mobilisation for Total War (Ontario: Wilfred Laurier University Press, 1981) p. 92.
W. S. Hamer, The British Army — Civil-Military relations 1885–1905 (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1970) p. 59.
R. Allason, The Branch — a History of the Metropolitan Police Special Branch 1883–1983 (London: Secker & Warburg, 1983) ch. 1. It may be worthy of note that the author of this work is also the copyright holder of the books by ‘Nigel West’ on MI5 and MI6.
D. French, ‘Spy Fever in Britain, 1900–1915’. The Historical Journal, 21(2) (1978) p 358.
There are too many to list but examples are, R. Cline, op. cit.; M. Copeland, The Real Spy World (London, Weidenfeld & Nicolson 1974);
C. Meyer, Facing Reality (N.Y.: Harper & Row, 1980);
D. A. Philips, The Night Watch (N.Y.: Atheneum, 1977);
W. Colby, Honorable Men (N.Y.: Simon & Schuster, 1978);
T. Shackley, The Third Option (N.Y.: Reader’s Digest Press, 1981).
J. C. Masterman, The Double Cross System (Yale University Press, 1972).
F. W. Winterbotham: The Ultra Secret (London: Weidenfeld & Nicolson, 1974).
For a detailed exposition of this argument, see K. G. Robertson, Public Secrets (London: Macmillan, 1982; St. Martin’s Press, 1982) chs 3–5.
J. Bruce Lockhart, Secret Services and Democracy (London: RUSI Brassey’s Defence Yearbook, 1975/6) and Some Observations on the Intelligence Spectrum, Dept. of Economics, University of St Andrews, 1982.
F. H. Hinsley et al.: British Intelligence in the Second World War, vol. 1 (London: HMSO, 1976) and subsequent volumes.
This point is well discussed by R. Morgan: Domestic Intelligence (University of Texas Press, 1980) ch. 6.
These are discussed in R. Godson (ed.), Counter-Intelligence, vol. 3 of the series on Intelligence Requirements for the 1980s (New Brunswick, Transaction Books: 1980) ch. 9.
Literature which deals in part with the ‘leak’ include: I. Galnnor, ‘Government Secrecy — Exchanges, Intermediaries and Middlemen’, Public Administration Review, 35(1), 1975; F. E. Rourke, ‘Bureaucratic Secrecy and Its Constituents’, The Bureaucrat, 1 (Summer 1972); L. Sigal: Reporters and Officials — the Organisation and Politics of Newsmaking (Lexington Press, 1973);
J. Tunstall, The Westminster Lobby Correspondents — a Sociological Study of National Political Journalism (London: Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1970);
D. Wise, The Politics of Lying (N.Y.: Vintage Books, 1973);
M. Cockrell, P. Hennessy and D. Walker, Sources Close to the Prime Minister (London: Macmillan, 1984).
A point made by many authors but clearly stated by Daniel O. Graham: ‘Analysis and Estimates’ in Godson (ed.), Intelligence Requirements for the 1980s: Elements of Intelligence (New Brunswick: Transaction Books, 1979).
R. Cline, op. cit., pp. 125–7; J. Bamford, The Puzzle Palace (Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1982) esp. ch. 8.
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Copyright information
© 1987 Royal United Services Institute
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Robertson, K.G. (1987). The Politics of Secret Intelligence — British and American Attitudes. In: Robertson, K.G. (eds) British and American Approaches to Intelligence. RUSI Defence Studies. Palgrave Macmillan, London. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-349-08418-0_11
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-349-08418-0_11
Publisher Name: Palgrave Macmillan, London
Print ISBN: 978-1-349-08420-3
Online ISBN: 978-1-349-08418-0
eBook Packages: Palgrave Political & Intern. Studies CollectionPolitical Science and International Studies (R0)