Ex-Spy Runs His Own Private C.I.A.
nytimes.com
nytimes.com
The end of the video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SNgCyDsvi84#t=2m20s
Reminds me that I can't handle the truth: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8hGvQtumNAY#t=1m36s
Sounds like the government is now outsourcing paying for private intelligence and security services as well as the work. I can see why 'small government' people would like this but from the oversight and human rights perspectives it seems like a really bad idea.
Well, it's not like the government has a very good track record wrt human rights either.
1. said entrepreneur is likely to be from a similar background, eg having served in the same agency, and thus being exposed to the same culture, and from this might very well be a bit desensitized to human rights abuses.
2. a cheaper, but also more ethical, solution isn't necessarily available. An organization with fewer morals has more tools available to it, such as nonempty death threats, which ultimately lower costs. A cheaper solution has to cut somewhere else to compete.
3. sometimes an organization cannot completely keep tabs on employees, especially an intelligence organization.
Simply put, this is the wishful thinking wherein the thinker believes that the private sector will correct for any nastiness and then creates a fantasy to support this belief in the specific case being discussed.
Merely having a bunch of money in way qualifies you to bid for a large military contract.
Most if not absolutely all of the staff of private military contracting firms are ex-military of some sort. So you basically start out, for good or ill, with the ethos of the military and the baggage of the military. The only question is what kind of supervision will you give to more-or-less-the-same-guys. That's it. So the whole privatization theory is essentially a "let's do it faster with less supervision" equation. There's no way human rights enters into that equation.
Now let's consider the best case: these companies compete with each other for government contracts, which the people award. This type of system would compel the companies to maintain high levels of transparency, especially with the SEC and IRS now taking interest.
The reason the government is so inefficient is because they don't have any external auditing agencies. The SEC and the IRS, for example, will never put the CIA or FBI through the same rigorous audits that they would put private companies through.
Classified private companies today have pretty much carte blanche in similar fashion to the CIA or FBI.
A friend of mine was unable to resolve a labor dispute with his classified employer because he could only sue them using a lawyer with clearance (and then his manager coerced him into signing a termination agreement... using a baseball bat! Again, try and sue?)
This was not a small, fly-by-night operation either but one of the largest government contractors.
So what issues do you see? Oh right: the over-arching theme of corruption. However, I addressed that in my initial post; the only way we can get to a point where government efficiency is no longer questioned is by eliminating corruption.
I think one way to reduce corruption is to decrease the government's size, but that of course leads to situations like those we presently face. There will always be corrupt politicians who award contracts to their friends in return for some sort of illegal remuneration, but I think by reducing the number of politicians/government employees with the power to make those decisions, we will lower the amount of corruption present.
or the guys who were pimping Afghan teenage boys to warlords?
yeah, that worked well.
Any questions of classified operations is completely irrelevant; of course you won't be able to load profiles of all spies à la tv shows like '24'.
Owner of intelligence-agency-for-hire is "determined to remain a player." President/government has a different take on things and attempts to shut down the agency. Agency plants WMDs on American soil in order to distract country and guarantee relevance.
Wait. That was a season of 24.
Oh well. In actuality I'm surprised at myself for being surprised that such outfits exist.
People genuinely put the interests of their country first and they get hung out to dry after the next election cycle. So the people who survive do what risk-averse bureaucracies always do: nothing.
The "intelligence community" is a community - whether a given actor is in or out of government does not seem as important as whether they in the community.
Secrecy grants it's possessors the ability to act very informally.
Actually, the New York Times could have gone back to older dispatches and evaluated whether the bazaar-based predictions came true, or were otherwise accurate.
The danger of using such information is much of it is not true, greatly exaggerated, subjective, etc., but is nevertheless being taken seriously by some military, diplomatic and intelligence staff and helping drive strategy and tactics on the ground. This potentially creates even more problems, misunderstandings, and mistrust and can even lead to unnecessary death and destruction.
Bounty Hunter? Mercenary? Vigilante? Somehow, none of those labels really seem to fit quite right. Is this sort of thing something new?