Introduction
Background
The intelligence service’s role in the United States is to locate hotspots of possible threats to the country’s security and identify individuals with ill-will intentions toward the general operations of the US. Tragedies such as the 9/11 terrorist attack and the Anthrax scare of October 2001. The September 11 attack was terrorism associated with the Al-Qaida invasion of the US capital, destroying properties and causing massive life losses.[1] The attacks widened the analytic scope by raising the bar on security intelligence in the United States and ensuring that value-added procedures are scaled. The role of intelligence in the country is to seal loopholes of insecurity by informing key stakeholders on hotspots and individuals suspected of threatening the country’s peace. Insights on some of the relevant opportunities and threats to the country’s security standards are obtained through the intelligence units. Furthermore, the intelligence unit enhances the possible results of policies and effective regulations to cushion the country from the widespread impacts of terrorism.
The tragedies sharpened the country’s intelligence standards and reinforced integrity in handling security and counterterrorism attacks. The country’s disasters improved the adoption of a defined intelligence system, providing leadership standards during relationships with foreign officials. Nonetheless, the Intelligence office enhances counterintelligence and the probable course of security threats.[2] Ultimately, policing is defined, and progressive ideologies are harnessed through critical assessment of working standards in implementing advanced security standards. Information on official travelers is articulated through the country’s intelligence department, which keeps track of the streamlined foreign policing and ensures that lives are free from danger. Immigrants are guaranteed reliable information on the country’s security and communication policies.
Intrusive Privacy and Intelligence in a Democratic Society
A democratic society is characterized by an open socio-cultural practice involving individuals’ free spaces and cohesive relations regardless of issues such as race, religion, or gender. Intrusive privacy entails disruption and infringement on others’ security standards, reducing concerns and limiting the rate at which associations are harnessed.[3] One of the challenges is the ability to understand one’s limits when exercising rights and defining privacy standards. The challenge is based on individuals’ ignorance and negligence in securing themselves and keeping operations aligned to defined progressive working standards. Intrusive privacy establishes the need for incorporated intelligence to limit the effects of terrorist attacks. The privacy breach threatens the general growth of working norms in societies and hinders development since personal details are exposed to unauthorized individuals.[4] Limiting the growth of sustainable security standards in communities is associated with poorly executed working platforms that hinder stable privacy norms. Intrusive privacy limits the growth of democratic ideals based on the hidden operational base, limiting the growth of practical, functional models. Securing individuals’ rights is difficult when policies are misplaced in a democratic society.
Intrusive privacy is challenged by poor values, systems, and procedures aligned to retrogressive intelligence structuring. Most working practices in the country suffer from inclusivity, hindering comprehensive policing.[5] Thus, intelligence is limited, and its incorporation is reduced based on poorly defined value-addition processes. Acquiring intelligence in democratic societies is challenged by rising bureaucracy levels, which limit growth and lower stable working standards. Intrusive privacy is the backbone of thwarted intelligence in a democratic system since individuals’ rights are sidelined. The intelligence office is sound in relaying vital information on potential security threats and opportunities aligned with a peaceful, cohesive, and mutual working environment. Intrusive privacy is the backbone of a limited intelligence system in the country since it hinders progressive stakeholders’ negotiations.[6] The delivery structure is aligned with the growth of practical intelligence standards in the United States, shaping the conversation on reforms. The challenge of incorporating individuals’ ideas into a consistent and defined operational structure is the backbone of achieving streamlined intelligence in a democratic society.
Addressing the Fine Line between Personal Privacy and National Security
Difficulties faced by intelligence personnel and civilians
Intelligence personnel and civilians play a crucial role in security issues. In the United States, the intelligence community at large has been instrumental in self-scrutiny and improvements, collaborations among various people and organizations, as well as execution of plans, procedures, and policies that facilitates intelligence functions.[7] Nonetheless, the striking balance between intrusive privacy and the acquisition of intelligence has been a nightmare following the dilemma on national security and personal privacy. Such challenges to intelligence can thus be classified into four major groups: technological, organizational, political, and financial.
To begin with, intelligence personnel and civilians face technological difficulties. As Aloyo suggests, technological difficulties act as the cornerstone of most intelligence issues that are either related or are a result of technological advancement.[8] The expansion of social media, cybersecurity, and the extensive use of meta-data are the key technological advancements that have had a great impact on intelligence issues. Taking an example, the extensive use of metadata has been effective not only in improving intelligence hypotheses and simultaneous analysis of massive amounts of data but also instrumental in the analysis of general trends or anomalies.[9] In that regard, the use of metadata has proved to work as a double-edged sword. As metadata proves an essential tool in boosting intelligence analysis of a country, it poses greater harm to a country as well. The use of metadata can be destructive to a country in various contexts. According to Bailey, such developed countries like the United States find it hard to fully support the policymaking system.[10] The problem arises based on the lack of authority of any single country to control the meta-data. Therefore, meta-data can be used by other antagonist countries to reduce the capacity of the intelligence organization of a country.
Secondly, the current financial crisis poses more problems for intelligence personnel and civilians. One of the most important areas of financial intelligence is countering terrorist financing.[11] Most terrorists indeed need more finance to plan and execute attacks. Therefore, countering such terrorist financing is key for counterterrorism intelligence. However, the expansive use of cryptocurrencies has been a stumbling block for most countries’ intelligence organizations, as terrorist groups use such currencies to finance their activities. Finally, the current organizational challenges to intelligence should not be ignored. Such issues as hierarchy, compartmentalization, and competition have posed more difficult moments for intelligence personnel and civilians.
Impact of Advanced Technologies and Increasing Cybercrimes
Technological advancement has a greater impact on personal privacy and National security. It is revealed that most insecurity issues arise from technology-related operations.[12] If not, then such problems are a result of technological advancements. First, the increase in social media has had more impact on national security and personal privacy. In the last decade, there has been a drastic change in the social media use. Such social media platforms such as WhatsApp, Facebook, Twitter, and Instagram, among others, have had active close to a billion active users. Simply put, about forty-five percent of the total population in the entire globe has become ardent consumers of social media services. This heavy consumption of social media services has a greater impact on national security in several ways. For example, the impact on the decision-making process, the use of encrypted messaging applications, and the use of non-state actors.
The use of social media platforms by non-state actors has had a major impact on most countries’ security issues. Through social media platforms, militia groups deliver their messages. Terror attacks often target a larger audience in administering their attacks.[13] Therefore, social media gives such groups a better platform to reach a broader audience. Through such platforms, most individuals get lured into joining such groups. Of late, terrorist groups have used social media platforms to upload terrorist content, such as instructions for executing various attacks.[14] Such plans are succinctly planned and executed with cognizant of the government agencies who may be on look online too. Additionally, the recruitment of more members has been realized through social media. Such terrorist organizations like Boko-Haran, and Al-Qaeda, among others, have greatly reaped from social media platforms through recruitment and propaganda.
In addition to the expansive use of social media, encrypted messaging applications have had a major impact on security issues. Such applications like WeChat and WhatsApp, among other encrypted messaging applications, have proved to allow secrecy in their very nature. As a result, terrorists have found a loophole in such applications. Terrorists communicate, organize and conduct their attacks without any leakage of a single piece of information to the general public.[15] The method has been effectively used to an extent where the national intelligence services fail to realize such plans. For instance, the ISIS-linked Afghan refugee, Riaz Khan, was able to execute his plans and ended up injuring four people without the prior knowledge of any intelligence officers. On the other hand, the use of meta-data poses more harm to the intelligence organizations. Militia organizations, through the use of meta-data, can hire tech-savvy individuals who can eventually find vulnerable targets and conduct more attacks.[16] Again, the private sector can use this technological method to create competition, thus posing more risk for state security organizations.
Also, technological advancement translates to increased cybersecurity issues. According to Aloyo, cybercrime issues pose an impact on national security in two major ways: cyber intelligence issues and anonymity.[17] To protect a country against non-state or traditional threats, a state must consider cybersecurity. However, the anonymous nature of the cyber domain poses a greater impact on security organizations. Most terrorists with apt knowledge of cyber intelligence find it possible to execute their operations through various pseudo accounts as well as anonymous ways, which makes the intelligence organizations hard time to detect such plans and disrupt them beforehand. It is, therefore, important to note that the increased technology has negatively impacted the security sector of most countries through increased cybercrime, especially through phishing.
The need to Find a Balance between Personal Privacy and National Security
Personal privacy is essential, especially when it comes to safeguarding personal information. However, national security needs to be considered with the aim of protecting such personal information from any harm.[18] As such, national security needs access to such private information, which consequently creates a conflict about privacy rights. Therefore, there strikes the force to balance personal privacy and national security. The technological advancement has indeed created more controversy in ensuring a complete balance of privacy and national security. However, there is a greater need for the balance. Such balance can be achieved in various ways.
First, there is a need for a risk-based approach. To balance individual privacy and national security, the government should consider accessing personal data in the event of clear and present danger.[19] The concerned government body should thus take relevant steps that minimize the impact on privacy, like encrypting data while collecting the necessary data. In so doing, an individual will feel comfortable as far as privacy rights are concerned.
Also, creating a stronger independent oversight body can help balance national security and personal privacy. The oversight body should be made solely responsible for taking into account how the government uses personal data and whether such involvements are in compliance with the law.[20] Moreover, such a body should be cognizant in investigating any complaints brought forth by individuals whose privacy could have been violated in one way or another.
Lastly, building trust between the people and the government proves effective. As Diderichsen argues, when the government is transparent in its data collection operations, people will comply and have their data scrutinized without any problem.[21] Most importantly, we should be cognizant that individual privacy rights and national security rights are not mutually exclusive. Therefore, it is imperative to protect both parties through a balanced and thoughtful approach.
Applications of the Just Intelligence Theory
Collaborative efforts in protecting the population from modern crimes
In most countries, the criminal justice system tends to be a very important component in the proper operations of the country. The system has a myriad activity that paints out its complex and multifaceted nature. In the system, there exists the public agencies, nonprofit and private organizations, and the community at large. The wide array of partnerships involved in the system makes it handle various issues on the well-being of the general public.[22] Therefore, to realize its goal, the criminal justice system, in conjunction with the National Security Council, requires communication and collaboration from all and sundry. Effective collaboration between the criminal body can thus be a beneficial measure in protecting people from modern crimes.
Coalition-type of partnership proved effective in community policing and crime prevention. According to Quinlan, curtailing high crime rates, domestic violence, and substance abuse, among other immoral practices, an organizational partnership should link the local community organizations, police agencies, and the community at large in identifying their problems.[23] Such a partnership can come up with a plan not only to identify but also to prioritize the social problems as well as devise possible solutions. For instance, partnerships may bring together various religious representatives, church, synagogue, mosque leadership, police, and community representatives in an attempt to preside over a case on community violence and drug abuse. In so doing, the victims involved can be advised accordingly, thus restraining them from such acts.
Also, substance abuse response coalitions, including professionals, local religious communities as well as behavioral health treatment providers, may collaborate to sensitize the general public to the dangers of drug abuse. Most crimes arise from such influence of drug abuse.[24] Drug abuse often leads to brain impairment and hallucinations that may result in criminal activities like abuse, rape cases, robbery, fraud, or even drug trafficking. As such, sensitizing such individuals through s collaborative approach may instill some sense in them and thus make them desist from such crimes.
Also, community partnerships in criminal justice can help reduce modern crimes through rehabilitation. Through a cooperative approach, most victims of criminal acts may be taken to various correctional facilities.[25] In such places, the victims are counseled, offered various insights, and even trained on various skills that may make them self-employed. In that regard, meaningful collaborative approaches across diverse sectors greatly influence the behavior of many people.[26] To maximize on reduction of crime issues across borders, from minor theft to homicide, countries and communities should develop partnerships, thus, effective and efficient prevention of violence and criminal activities.
The role of all-source information gathering and analysis in crime prevention
The crime prevention approach is a procedural and systematic concept that embodies information collection, evaluation, collation, integration, analysis, and finally, interpretation of the collected information. According to Williams, this systematic process is very effective as it creates room for informed decisions about a crime, thereby leading to fair judgment and justice for all parties involved.[27] Again, the process can be described as a professional process whereby qualitative and quantitative techniques are used in analyzing valuable data for police agencies and the community at large. The process thus has to encompass analysis of criminals and the crime involved, any disorder, crime victim’s quality of life, among other evaluation operations. Such prerequisite information is essential in several ways.
First, the all-source information gathering and analysis in crime prevention is primarily meant to assist the operations of the police department. As Gendron suggests, effective operations in the police department, like criminal investigations, persecution, apprehension, and crime analysis report, must be availed.[28] Also, the police department requires such reports for patrol activities, problem-solving, crime reduction, and prevention strategies, as well as the evaluation and accountability of police operations. Such operations are instrumental in the following ways, solving criminal investigations. The analyzed information is mostly used in developing various intelligence products that assist investigators in detecting, responding, and also preventing such terrorism and criminal activities. To arrive at that, the analytical personnel must thus initiate inquiries and search for the relevant information, thereby acting as the point of contact for any information that may be required for prosecution. Increasing the ability to prosecute more offenders. In analyzing criminal reports, there are various charts, tables, graphics summary tables, and maps that prove essential during the grand trial.[29] Such factual information acts as good evidence during presentations in a court of law.
Again, the information helps the agency mission and chief executive in getting the relevant information and intelligence. Through maximized use of the analytical report, the chief executive prepares departmental reports to check on the gaps and further minimize any loopholes in the department. More importantly, the reports on criminal acts are used to proactively inform on the crime trends. Law enforcement officers get acquainted with the crime trends after interacting with the analytical reports. As such, they stand a better chance to ascertain threats and risk assessments which results in the development of proactive intelligence products. Further, the information on the crime trends leads to the necessary adjustments to intervene and prevent any more threats.
Just-war Intelligence Theory as a Framework for Morally Justifiable Intelligence Operations
Just war-intelligence theory provides a framework for morally justifiable intelligence operations as it attempts to give a better guide for most countries in situations of conflict. The theory proposes that despite the war being an indecent act, less so with the right conduct makes war appropriate and justifiable.[30] A person may opt to defend himself against aggression from a third party. In doing so, one may consider adopting resistance to stand for what is right through defense. The theory is thus morally justifiable, especially to the defenseless group who, according to the theory, must stand up and defend their rights and freedom.
Just-war intelligence theory reinforces international conventions and norms that support the legalist paradigm. According to Williams, the legalist paradigm affirms that every nation has a moral right to self-determination and sovereignty.[31] This paradigm thus outlines the freedom that any state has over the imposition of another state’s will. The theory explains that national aggression usually be justified under a certain framework, preserving autonomy as opposed to the coercion approach. In other words, the assertion here is mainly on the legitimate authority. It is thus the mandate of the duly constituted public body to wage war.
Additionally, the just cause of the war must be considered before going to war. A state should have a genuine reason for engaging in a war. However, such reasons should not be merely based on recapturing things or, worse still, punishing individuals who have wronged in one way or another. In other words, the theory champions innocent lives, which must be protected in the event of imminent danger. Again, a state must have a just cause for the termination of the war. As Quinlan argues, termination of war is only allowed under the conditions where there are indications of the rights violated.[32] For example, the aggressor must be willing to negotiate the terms of surrendering, having agreed on such modes of compensation, apologies, rehabilitation, and perhaps war crime trials. Moreover, the theory gives room for a state to withdraw from any form of warfare when it is apparent that any just goals of the war are unattainable. In that manner, the Just-war intelligence theory gives a better framework for morally justifiable intelligence operations that may be ideal for all countries across the globe.
Ethical Principles for the National Security Intelligence System
Significance of Integrating Ethical Principles and Practices
Stewardship is one of the ethical principles associated with the United States Intelligence Unit, ensuring that the country is promptly informed on the opportunities for keeping citizens safe. The principle defines progressive intelligence structuring as raising the bar on the sustainable growth of productive security features and keeping track of modest functional systems.[33] Ethics are integral to raising the bar on intelligence in the country and ensuring that plans are comprehensive and effectively articulated. The country’s intelligence provides progressive stewardship based on its diversity and professionalism in the craft. Furthermore, excellence in delivering quality services and keeping track of stakeholders’ push for reforms enhances decent artistry and informs due diligence. Progressive ideologies and working norms are articulated through holistic and defined artistry.[34] Articulate policing is based on ensuring reputable operations aligned with ethics and standardization. The country’s intelligence units are characterized by their ability to inform individuals of the prevailing risks, locate threats, and advise on progressive opportunities to fight insecurity. Normative principles ensure that ethics and professional principles are incorporated in the push for reforms and sustainable working standards.
Transparency, Accountability, and Oversight
Values at the intelligence unit in the country include a transparent working structure and a system that is characterized by accountability for keeping track of modest norms and efficient working procedures. Accountability and transparency at the central units are enhanced through internal audits that eliminate the possibility of fraud and flawed working standards.[35] Human resource audits weed out an uncouth, incompetent, inexperienced task force, limiting redundancy and mediocrity while discharging security operations. Raising working standards and keeping track of defined ethics and professional codes are attained through a flawless delivery structure that keeps track of ethics in operations. Oversight is achieved through work reviews, trend analyses, and performance contracts aligned with delivering quality work standards. Furthermore, oversight improves direct information on key stakeholders, individuals, and places threatening the peace and tranquility of the United States.[36] Oversight is the backbone of accurate awareness of the probable course of potential threats and opportunities aligned to creating sober and defined delivery of precise security standards. Intelligence is articulated through the direct assessment of rates at which it informs stakeholders on the underlying issues associated with the country’s security.
Upholding Constitutional Rights and Legal Procedures
Legislation is the backbone of the articulate operations of the intelligence service units in the country’s bid to secure its citizens and align with the global push for an upgrade in human security standards. The oversight ensures that intelligence standards and functions comply with federal and State laws in dispensing operations and working within the threshold.[37] Nonetheless, the unit’s policies, measures, and operational systems operate under executive orders and civil liberties under the US Person Privacy Protection Act. The intelligence unit management is defined under Homeland Security legal procedures, and the Office of the Attorney General raises the bar in delivering quality operations. The Central Intelligence Agency is based on the legal provisions keeping track of holistic working structures and ensuring cohesion during policy structuring. Furthermore, the enacted Central Intelligence Agency Act of 1949 provides the accurate administration of progressive standards to secure the country. Nonetheless, Section 102 of The National Security Act reinforces defined intelligence values, keeping track of modest and articulate oversight roles and ensuring a transparent and accountable delivery platform. The laws align with the unit’s objective problem-solving and accurate reasoning, aligned with defined values towards efficiency and proficient norms.
The Case Study: The Implementation of the Just-War Intelligence Theory
Examination of the Specific Law Agency
Gathering security information, analysis of a defined regulatory platform, and data synthesis are enhanced through the legal frameworks aligned with the Central Intelligence Unit. The Central Intelligence Bureau operates under the 1949 Act and Section 102 of the Natural Security Act.[38] A complementary operational base raises the conversation on working procedures aligned with securing the country and keeping it free from terrorism. Besides, the Central Intelligence Act of 1949 is independent since it improves the defined art with security policies and procedures devoid of federal law interference. The independence offers the Act autonomy and shapes the direct involvement of working standards aligned to reforms and standardized working procedures in keeping the country safe. The Act aligned to the National Security Act ensures that the citizenry’s security demands and expectations are met towards building suitable socio-economic systems. The legal framework is holistic, comprehensive, and incorporative in raising the bar on efficient working standards and defined policing.[39] The Just-war intelligence theory is aligned with the legal entity giving power to war fronts within the military expeditions, justifying the need for societal rifts among individuals. Just-war theoretical design informs stakeholders on the need to define social tendencies and raise the bar on sustainable growth among individuals.
Balancing Personal Privacy and National Security
Personal privacy is attained through individuals’ initiatives that best reflect their character, information definition, and relaying of accurate messages. National security is a holistic and comprehensive analysis of the citizenry’s safety through progressive policies, laws, and measures toward reform.[40] Under the Personal Data Protection Act, an individual’s personal information is safe from interference and leakage to unauthorized personnel. The legal provision ensures that individuals’ right to access information is free from attack by system viruses. National security is a holistic operation that needs cohesive stakeholder engagement, raising the bar on analyzing issues such as terrorism.[41] Norms for defining National security operations are attained by reinforcing applicable policies and keeping track of effective and streamlined procedures. The balance is based on a critical assessment of working standards, strengthening ethical artistry to keep residents safe from insecurity. Raising the bar on sustainable value-added procedures is based on articulate and consistent policing. National security is enhanced by ensuring comprehensive policy structuring to level the playing field for reforms. The balance between national security and personal privacy informs individuals on the need to encourage efficient craft aligned with transformed value-added procedures in societies.
Conclusion
Stewardship is one of the significant ethical values that inform the national intelligence unit on progressive values in humanity, defining professionalism in delivering quality security standards. Nonetheless, the literature shows the need to set up robust intelligence platforms through cohesive and integrated policy structuring. Policing is the backbone of the unit through stakeholders’ cohesion and reliable value-added systems. Ensuring sanity and procuring the best security operations inform stakeholders of relevant opportunities and proactive measures to curb the rising effects of terrorism. An integrated regulatory framework shapes the need for due diligence in building the right policies. Normative principles and defined procedures ensure that stewardship is fully enhanced in delivering and securing services within the country. The ethics of the intelligence unit define Central Agencies based on their legislative platform, keeping track of functional delivery systems and encouraging defined delivery procedures. Through the existing laws, stewardship is the basis of an integrated delivery structure and intelligence’s good artistry. Oversight, accountability, and transparency are central to raising the bar on functional and ethical procedures.
Tragedies the country has undergone shape the conversation on defined intelligence policy assessment, hence the critical evaluation of the theoretical design in procuring the best principles. The just-war intelligence theory justifies war fronts’ nature, origin, and outcome by keeping track of sustainable security standards. Moreover, the view is defined through the Central Intelligence Act of 1949 coupled with Section 102 of the National Security Legislative Program, raising the bar on operational policies. The just-war theory generates the proper delivery procedure for keeping track of modest policy standards that harness ethics and procure the best professional working codes. Furthermore, the idea advances values and incorporates justifiable standards and progressive norms aligned with ethics and professional delivery codes. The country’s tragedies have impacted the intelligence growth defined through accurate operational systems that keep track of sound operating principles. The just-war theory is the backbone of an incorporated value-addition process for keeping track and shaping the conversation on sustainable systems aligned to defined delivery standards.
Personal privacy is the basis of responsible system operations to avoid misplacing sensitive individuals’ data. Furthermore, personal data is safe from leakage and unauthorized accessibility, reinforcing individuals’ accurate information management and maintenance. National security creates the general progress of ideological policies aligned with functional and defined working norms. The security pledge keeps the country safe and free from inconsistent security policies. Guidelines are based on articulate and consistent engagement, raising the bar on systems and effective procedures aligned to effectively delivering corporate services. National security is based on critically assessing people’s needs and privacy, keeping standards high, and raising the bar on sustainable delivery procedures. National security is based on incorporated value-added standards that keep track of functional systems and defined working principles. Personal privacy is an element of national security characterized by individuals’ capacity to thrive in societies free from terrorism and loss of information. Surveillance ensures that personal data and people’s freedom of association are enhanced.
Bibliography
Alghamdi, Mohammed I. “Digital forensics in cyber security—recent trends, threats, and opportunities.” Cybersecurity Threats with New Perspectives (2021).
Aloyo, Eamon. “Just war theory and the last of last resort.” Ethics & International Affairs 29, no. 2 (2015): 187-201.
Bailey, Christopher E. “The Moral-Ethical Domain and the Intelligence Practitioner.” American Intelligence Journal 33, no. 1 (2016): 49-58.
Davidovic, Jovana. “Should the changing character of war affect our theories of war?.” Ethical Theory and moral practice 19 (2016): 603-618.
Diderichsen, Adam, and Kira Vrist Rønn. “Intelligence by consent: on the inadequacy of Just War Theory as a framework for intelligence ethics.” Intelligence and National Security 32, no. 4 (2017): 479-493.
Gendron, Angela. “Just war, just intelligence: An ethical framework for foreign espionage.” International Journal of Intelligence and Counterintelligence 18, no. 3 (2005): 398-434.
Hossain, Md Sazzad. “Social media and terrorism: threats and challenges to the modern era.” South Asian Survey 22, no. 2 (2015): 136-155.
Lazar, Seth. “War. Website: Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.” (2016). https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/war/.
Mills, Jon L., and Kelsey Harclerode. “Privacy, mass intrusion, and the modern data breach.” Fla. L. Rev. 69 (2017): 771.
Parsons, Graham. “The Incoherence of Walzer’s Just War Theory.” Social Theory and Practice 38, no. 4 (2012): 663-688.
Pattison, James. “The case for the nonideal morality of war: Beyond revisionism versus traditionalism in just war theory.” Political Theory 46, no. 2 (2018): 242-268.
Quinlan, Michael. “Just intelligence: Prolegomena to an ethical theory.” Intelligence and National Security 22, no. 1 (2007): 1-13.
Ravich, Timothy M. “Airline passenger profiling systems after 9/11: Personal privacy versus national security.” (2005).
Toner, Christopher. “The logical structure of just war theory.” The Journal of Ethics 14 (2010): 81-102.
Williams Jr, Robert E., and Dan Caldwell. “Jus post bellum: Just war theory and the principles of just peace.” International studies perspectives 7, no. 4 (2006): 309-320.
[1] Parsons, Graham. “The Incoherence of Walzer’s Just War Theory.” Social Theory and Practice 38, no. 4 (2012): 663-688.
[2] Diderichsen, Adam, and Kira Vrist Rønn. “Intelligence by consent: on the inadequacy of Just War Theory as a framework for intelligence ethics.” Intelligence and National Security 32, no. 4 (2017): 479-493.
[3] Ravich, Timothy M. “Airline passenger profiling systems after 9/11: Personal privacy versus national security.” (2005).
[4] Quinlan, Michael. “Just intelligence: Prolegomena to an ethical theory.” Intelligence and National Security 22, no. 1 (2007): 1-13.
[5] Quinlan, 2
[6] Mills, Jon L., and Kelsey Harclerode. “Privacy, mass intrusion, and the modern data breach.” Fla. L. Rev. 69 (2017): 771.
[7] Aloyo, Eamon. “Just war theory and the last of last resort.” Ethics & International Affairs 29, no. 2 (2015): 187-201.
[8] Aloyo, 187.
[9] Alghamdi, Mohammed I. “Digital forensics in cyber security—recent trends, threats, and opportunities.” Cybersecurity Threats with New Perspectives (2021).
[10] Bailey, Christopher E. “The Moral-Ethical Domain and the Intelligence Practitioner.” American Intelligence Journal 33, no. 1 (2016): 49-58.
[11] Davidovic, Jovana. “Should the changing character of war affect our theories of war?.” Ethical Theory and moral practice 19 (2016): 603-618.
[12] Diderichsen et al. “Intelligence by consent: on the inadequacy of Just War Theory as a framework for intelligence ethics.” 479.
[13] Bailey, “The Moral-Ethical Domain and the Intelligence Practitioner.” 51.
[14] Hossain, Md Sazzad. “Social media and terrorism: threats and challenges to the modern era.” South Asian Survey 22, no. 2 (2015): 136-155.
[15] Aloyo, “Just war theory and the last of last resort.” 187.
[16] Quinlan. “Just intelligence: Prolegomena to an ethical theory.” 10.
[17] Aloyo, “Just war theory and the last of last resort.” 189.
[18] Williams Jr, Robert E., and Dan Caldwell. “Jus post bellum: Just war theory and the principles of just peace.” International studies perspectives 7, no. 4 (2006): 309-320.
[19] Williams, 309.
[20] Davidovic. “Should the changing character of war affect our theories of war?.” 603.
[21] Diderichsen et al. “Intelligence by consent: on the inadequacy of Just War Theory as a framework for intelligence ethics.” 480.
[22] Pattison, James. “The case for the nonideal morality of war: Beyond revisionism versus traditionalism in just war theory.” Political Theory 46, no. 2 (2018): 242-268.
[23] Quinlan. “Just intelligence: Prolegomena to an ethical theory.”9.
[24] Quinlan, 13.
[25] Gendron, Angela. “Just war, just intelligence: An ethical framework for foreign espionage.” International Journal of Intelligence and Counterintelligence 18, no. 3 (2005): 398-434.
[26] Lazar, Seth. “War. Website: Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.” (2016). https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/war/.
[27] Williams Jr et al. “Jus post bellum: Just war theory and the principles of just peace.” 311.
[28] Gendron. “Just war, just intelligence: An ethical framework for foreign espionage.” 398.
[29] Gendron,432.
[30] Pattison, James. “The case for the nonideal morality of war: Beyond revisionism versus traditionalism in just war theory.” 242.
[31] Williams Jr, et al. “Jus post bellum: Just war theory and the principles of just peace.” 315.
[32] Quinlan. “Just intelligence: Prolegomena to an ethical theory.” 10.
[33] Davidovic, Jovana. “Should the changing character of war affect our theories of war?.” 604.
[34] Toner, Christopher. “The logical structure of just war theory.” The Journal of Ethics 14 (2010): 81-102.
[35] Aloyo, Eamon. “Just war theory and the last of last resort.” 200.
[36] Davidovic. “Should the changing character of war affect our theories of war?.” 605.
[37] Diderichsen et al. “Intelligence by consent: on the inadequacy of Just War Theory as a framework for intelligence ethics.” 480.
[38] Parsons. “The Incoherence of Walzer’s Just War Theory.” 688.
[39] Diderichsen et al. “Intelligence by consent: on the inadequacy of Just War Theory as a framework for intelligence ethics.” 480.
[40] Gendron. “Just war, just intelligence: An ethical framework for foreign espionage.” 431.
[41] Parsons. “The Incoherence of Walzer’s Just War Theory.” 667.
write