American Spies located on foreign soil: interventionist or not?

[charrob]

Sorry if this question is naive, but am curious how far nonintervention (as defined by libertarians) goes. Would having spies who are physically located in other countries for intelligence gathering in those countries be considered having an 'interventionist' foreign policy by the libertarian definition?

[oyarde]

Sorry if this question is naive, but am curious how far nonintervention (as defined by libertarians) goes. Would having spies who are physically located in other countries for intelligence gathering in those countries be considered having an 'interventionist' foreign policy by the libertarian definition?

I would suggest that having the information would be good . Interfering in the societies of others would be what to get away from . Knowing what is going on , there is nothing wrong with .

[raistlinkishtar]

I would apply the prime directive they use on Star Trek.

[Zippyjuan]

I would suggest that having the information would be good . Interfering in the societies of others would be what to get away from . Knowing what is going on , there is nothing wrong with .

Spies from other countries in the US would be OK then too.

[Vessol]

If we were a non-interventionalist nation, what would other nations have to spy on us for?

[GreenLP]

Sorry if this question is naive, but am curious how far nonintervention (as defined by libertarians) goes. Would having spies who are physically located in other countries for intelligence gathering in those countries be considered having an 'interventionist' foreign policy by the libertarian definition?

Not saying I know, but I'd say having paid government spies in foreign countries is not a non-interventionist policy.

If the US minded it's own business and has a strong defense to protect our borders (which we totally have), I don't see the need for spies.

Spies are like snitches in my book.

[Matt Collins]

I would apply the prime directive they use on Star Trek.

I tend to agree with this.

Listening and keeping one's neighbors and enemies close is a good thing. Running subversive covert ops which does nothing but create global contempt for us is NOT.

[jmdrake]

There is a libertarian / non-interventionist alternative to the traditional "spy". It's called "open source intelligence".

http://www.oss.net/



Wikileaks is an example of open source intelligence.

[jmdrake]

I tend to agree with this.

Listening and keeping one's neighbors and enemies close is a good thing. Running subversive covert ops which does nothing but create global contempt for us is NOT.

Sure. But there are two problems with these "secret agencies". One is that because they are secret there is little to no oversight for preventing "subversive covert ops". The second is they sometimes distort the intelligence for political reasons. Take the WMD intel. Many people outside the government new it was BS. I certainly knew. But the defenders of the administration kept saying "The have access to secret information that we don't know anything about. We have to trust them." Nonsense. Any information gathered should be publicly disseminated so that it can be fact checked and verified. Oh redact all of the "sources and methods" (well the sources anyway. If the "method" is waterboarding the public needs to know that too.) But the intelligence itself should not be secret. After all our tax dollars paid for it.

[HOLLYWOOD]

WHatever country a spy is from doesn't matter... just remember that if the spies weren't backed by the establishment state of their respective countries... they would be labeled Terrorists.