The great thing about this agreement is that there is a common face to it and is apparently diplomatic and open addressing on alien nations1. But there is as well a dark and covert side and although they allegedly are not appropriated to operate domestically, they do act domestically through the big private institutions - enforcing the policies of the UN Organizations. Understanding that explains how UN policies are interconnected and enforced in the United States.
From the start of this nation history, there have been two sects - Internationalists and Nationalists. The Nationalists were our Founders. The Internationalists were the Tories - oppositions of independence. Traditionally, the military have been accountable for interior security and homeland defense. The National Security Act of 1947 regrouped the leadership of the armed forces following Second World War, validating a Defense Department (DOD) with a Secretary of Defense (SECDEF) that content directly to the Commander-in-Chief. As we now acknowledge, the NSC was not arranging a great job aligning all the facets of Office of Homeland Security2.
For instance, border security was addressed in a split way by a number of agencies. Intelligence was not being effectively shared. To start with, from ethical point of view, the National Security Act of 1947is an act that governs all partaking office with origins and roots from the US governance. Taking the account that United nation is excluded from the provision of United states intelligence information is unethical on account that the organization has rights as far as the laws is of concern. The organization has been of help in identification of individuals disputes and always alerted the States on any prevailing measures needs to be taken just on time.
2. How would you define "morally intolerable" and "morally acceptable" from an intelligence operation perspective concerning national security? Is torture of terrorists or enemy