Fair Play: A Critical Review Series

Yesterday, per Devi’s suggestion, I started reading Fair Play by James Olson, a book on the moral and ethical issues surrounding intelligence gathering.

While I will offer a comprehensive review of the entire book when I am finished, I think that the book asks some interesting questions that deserve individual attention and analysis. The book is set up as a series of scenarios where the reader has to decide whether the act is morally justified, and then contains responses from people in various fields analyzing the situation. As the book suggests that the reader “reach his or her own conclusion- yea or nay- after each scenario, before reading the opinions of the commentators,” and “try to respond instinctively as you would if you were a senior policy maker or intelligence officer and had to approve or disprove the operation,” I’ve decided to blog my initial reactions before continuing reading, then see if my mind changes when I listen to the arguments. I would also like to hear your thoughts!

**Disclaimer** The few (of many) scenarios I choose to blog about are the property of the author, James Olson, and are entirely fictional. The analysis I present, however, is entirely my own, and does not represent the author’s point of view. For more background information and analysis, please read the book!

Scenario 1:

“Rolando Montemayor is a Cuban Direccion General de Inteligencia (DGI) officer under cover as a second secretary at the Cuban mission to the United Nations in New York. He previously served in the Cuban embassy in Madrid, Spain, where the CIA successfully ran a double agent operation against him. The double agent, a young Spanish Communist journalist, reported to his CIA case officer that he strongly suspected that Montemayor was homosexual.

When Montemayor moves to New York, the CIA passes its information on him to the FBI. The FBI and CIA agree to conduct a joint operation against Montemayor in New York in an effort to recruit him as a penetration of the DGI. The FBI surveillance of Montemayor indicates that he frequents gay bars in New York and engages in promiscuous homosexual sex. Using telephone taps and infrared photography, the FBI acquires incontrovertible evidence of Montemayor’s homosexual activities. Homosexuality is grounds for dismissal from the DGI, and Montemayor has carefully concealed his sexual orientation from his family, friends, and colleagues.

Would it be morally acceptable for the CIA and FBI to attempt to recruit Montemayor by blackmailing him on the basis of his homosexuality?” (46)

I have to say that in my initial reaction about a million thoughts ran through my head at once. The first was that in the United States both blackmail and discrimination based on sexual orientation are illegal, for good reason, and that because Montemayor did not pose an immediate threat or we had reason to believe he held vital information there really was no justification (if there ever is) for breaking the law. My second thought was that, as a spy, he knew exactly what he was getting into and how compromising (in his CHOSEN occupation) homosexual behavior was, and yet he chose to recklessly (and very conspicuously at that) engage in it anyway. I’m not saying that Cuban sexual discrimination is right, I’m just saying that if you are Cuban, and homosexual, why would you get involved in as dangerous, politically charged and secretive an occupation as espionage? I mean seriously. You had it comin’. Don’t hate the player, player, hate the game.

My third reaction, however, and the one I’m sticking with, was that the whole operation seemed pointless. You are effectively blackmailing a spy into becoming a double agent, which to me does not seem to make good intelligence, given the particular nature of double agents and the sensitivity and skill they require. Threatening to out someone does not a good agent make; they lack the loyalty or any sort of positive incentive to cooperate. Instead, use the information to your advantage- find your man a boyfriend in New York (or even a gay undercover agent; after all, they aren’t illegal in the United States, and Cuba wouldn’t see it coming!) and use HIS sexy wiles to elicit the needed incentives for double agency. Voila! A much more legal, and solid, operation.

Thoughts?

Post to Twitter Post to Delicious Post to Digg Post to Facebook Post to StumbleUpon

About The Author

Bethany

Other posts byBethany

Author's web sitehttp://www.bengfort.com

13

01 2010

1 Comments Add Yours ↓

The upper is the most recent comment

  1. Ben
    1

    You know its funny, in tons of literature that I’ve had the experience of reading it comes up that field agents love to discover marks with “sexually deviant” behavior because they are instantly targets for use as information gathering sources because of the blackmail potential. I always just thought this was a throw back to cold-war era spy trade, McCarthyism, etc.

    However, I have applied for several intelligence and government jobs, including the military, FBI, etc, and I just realized that on all of those applications forms they ask a question that takes this form or similar: “Do you have any felonies or misdemeanors, political affiliations or homosexual relationships in your past that may lead you to be compromised or blackmailed?”

    I always answered no to that question, without really thinking about it- because I am none of those things. They are asking precisely what you say they shouldn’t be asking! I guess in the back of my head, I figured a homosexual answering that question who was ‘out’ wouldn’t have relationships that would allow them to be compromised or blackmailed because they wouldn’t be a coercive pivot for them- never once did I consider that it might affect their ability to be hired. (If you are wondering what kind of sexual relationship would be a coercive pivot for me, it would be an adulterous relationship- similar to the majority of senators and governors- but they don’t ask if you’re a cheater!)

    The fact is, my impression of the intelligence community is a white boys club without very much diversity. I presume to get in that club would mean that you bind yourself to the goal of the club: gathering information- and therefore the use blackmail of any sort, including blackmailing based on homosexual behavior is valuable if it can get you assets. You don’t have to trust your assets- you don’t have to even like them, but what they give you- information – is the lifeblood of that club, and to stay in that club, you have to use these tools. The problem is that everyone can be blackmailed.

    And if everyone can be blackmailed, how can the Intelligence Oversight Committee oversee anyone in that club? How can we prevent them from using tools like torture or illegal activities just to get that lifeblood? Information is a commodity that rots quickly, even on the vine, and because of that it is more powerful and seductive than money, sex, power, or any of the other things we generally think of as reasons to fight or kill. So yeah, if you play in the club, no matter what, you’ll be blackmailed, so who cares what the reason is for that blackmail?



Your Comment