The US should not share intelligence with the UN

Homeland Security
Name
Institution
The US should not share intelligence with the UN
It is essential to share intelligence among many countries through collaboration. However, intergovernmental organizations have a distinctly defined role to play in security efforts. The United Nations (UN) is an intergovernmental organization made up of 195 sovereign states whose mission is international peacekeeping and security, boost cooperative ties between nations, and resolve conflicts. The UN can only accomplish this through transparency and impartially inseminating its duties with the help of the rule of law. The UN plays a key role in enhancing peace in countries with nefarious leaderships or stratocracies in which services are controlled by barbaric leaders. The United Nations does not have a duty of law enforcement or military aid in a nation’s conflict. However, the UN must share pertinent information with all the component countries in which they deal with issues together.
A major obstacle of sharing information between the US and the UN is for the UN to not imply a partiality towards a member or a group of nations. Within the UN itself, the use of the word intelligence is controversial, hence inclination towards using the term ‘Information’ (Richelson, 2015). Besides, the United States is in no place to engage the UN in secrecy as it will end up compromising the loyalty of the other countries. Sharing classified information or intelligence will make the US play a condescending role in other sovereign countries of the world. Consequently, these actions would push the US to indulge in frictions that do not affect them directly. Moreover, the UN does not deal with intelligence as preferred by the other major powers. The UN has also been marred by accusations of engagement in clandestine exercises such as perversion and fraud which may imperil the US attempts to execute the right action regarding the concerned information at the right time.
What is ‘morally intolerable’ and ‘morally acceptable’ from an intelligence perspective?
Something can be regarded as morally intolerable if it violates the values of dignity as stipulated and observed across religions whereas a morally accepted action is an activity or operation which enhances the fundamentals of human rights impartially, despite an individual’s social, religious, economic, and political background. The torture of terrorists is more like the death penalty. An individual who decides to violate a myriad of human rights has already accepted their fate, as they know the consequences of their activities. On the other hand, a terrorist may be acting under duress; hence, giving them the benefit of doubt is critical. A key purpose of the interrogation is to retrieve key information on matters of national security. Under normal circumstances, the consequentialists hold that interrogation sessions intend to produce the desired information. Sometimes, the direct approach fails to acquire the needed information, making torture a morally adequate means if it becomes a success. In the deontological outlook, certain actions or operations are morally intolerable notwithstanding the outcome, even if for instance, many lives would be saved...