Ethics will not solve all problems or make decisions easy, but should help reduce the number of bad decisions that might be regretted later.

Could such a code be devised that would truly be useful? In October 2005, six IC employees and two corporate employees met to discuss this issue. By the end of the day we had decided devising a code was possible and that it would be well worth the effort.

The intelligence organizations of concern to us typically report to nation-states that have differing legal structures, cultures, and value systems. We restricted our attention to the U.S. intelligence community, which functions as an agent of the U.S government, a government designed to be responsive to its citizens and their values. Differing contexts would lead to differing ethics codes.

We agreed on several points:

The code should be aspirational, ˲ not proscriptive. That is, it should outline behaviors to aspire to and not get into specific details of do’s and don’ts.

It should not be viewed as regula- ˲ tion or law, but as guidelines for making difficult decisions.

It should be a set of short, easily ˲ understood sentences (for example, the Ten Commandments are not verbose).

The statements must address at ˲ least the issues of lawfulness, transparency, accountability, truthfulness, examining consequences of planned actions, and protection of innocent

We explored
other ethics codes
(including medical,
legal, security, and
military) as models,
which helped us
structure our code.

individuals.

It should be unclassified and ex- ˲ plicitly made available to the public.

An unclassified code has many benefits. It keeps the code from being too detailed or focused on arcane intelligence matters such as sources and methods. It might also offer some protection against public outrage when classified actions become publicly known (and at times they will). If the citizenry accepted the published code language and the exposed action is in line with the public language, it could help citizens understand the rationale for the action and lessen adverse reactions or possibly offer an opportunity to further refine the language (and constraints on future actions) to be more in line with national values that may change over time.

Also, being public may actually give

the ethics code more “teeth” because employees will know that not just their bosses could be sitting in judgment on their actions. This fact might encourage junior employees to resist (however gently) bosses who might be ordering questionable actions, as well as reducing the number of times such bosses might be tempted to order such actions.

We knew the task of crafting actionable language of value would be difficult; we attempted a draft as an exercise to judge the difficulty. We explored other ethics codes (including medical, legal, security, and military) as models, which helped us structure our code. We started from fundamental principles. Our oath as federal employees to support the U.S. Constitution was a key factor and helped prioritize other allegiances we had, such as to bosses, organizations, and fellow citizens. For example, we decided the required oath-of-office we all take to support the U.S. Constitution also requires us to first serve our fellow citizens—since the Constitution’s first words are: “We the People of the United States, in order to…”.

We concluded that writing a code was possible, but not necessarily easy. We expanded the effort in December 2006 to a closed, invitation-only Internet discussion group of approximately 50 people (approximately one-third with substantial IC experience, one-third professional ethicists, and one-third other). As expected, the ensuing discussion was difficult work—

Draft: U.S. Intelligence Community
“Mission Ethics” Projects

preamble:

intelligence work may present exceptional or unusual ethical dilemmas beyond those of ordinary life. ethical thinking and review should be a part of our day to day efforts; it can protect our nation’s and our agency’s integrity, improve the chances of mission success, protect us from the consequences of bad choices, and preserve our alliances. therefore, we adhere to the following standards of professional ethics and behavior:

First, do no harm to U.s. citi- ˲
zens or their rights under the
constitution.
We uphold the constitution ˲
and the Rule of law; we are
constrained by both the spirit
and the letter of the laws of the
United states.
We will comply with all inter- ˲
national human rights agree-
ments that our nation has rati-
fied.
We will insist on clarification ˲
of ambiguities that arise be-
tween directives or law and the
principles of this code. We will

protect those within our institu-
tions who call reasonable atten-
tion to wrongdoing.
expediency is not an excuse ˲
for misconduct.
We are accountable for our ˲
decisions and actions. We sup-
port timely, rigorous processes
that fix accountability to the re-
sponsible person.
statements we make to our ˲
clients, colleagues, overseers
and the U.s. public will be true,
and structured not to unneces-
sarily mislead or conceal.
We will resolve difficult ethi- ˲

cal choices in favor of constitu-
tional requirements, the truth,
and our fellow citizens.
We will address the potential ˲
consequences of our actions in
advance, especially the conse-
quences of failure, discovery,
and unintended or collateral
consequences of success.
We will not impose unneces- ˲
sary risk on innocents.
Although we may work in se- ˲
crecy, we will work so that when
our efforts become known, our
fellow citizens will be proud of
us and of our efforts.