美國國家安全暨情報機制之改革與國會監督(2001-2010)

文化大學機構典藏 CCUR > 社會科學院 > 國家發展與與中國大陸研究所碩博士班 > 博碩士論文 > Item 987654321/20465

請使用永久網址來引用或連結此文件: https://irlib.pccu.edu.tw/handle/987654321/20465

題名:	美國國家安全暨情報機制之改革與國會監督(2001-2010)
作者:	姚祖德
貢獻者:	中山學術研究所
關鍵詞:	國家安全會議情報機構國會監督國家情報總監國土安全防衛新制度主義國家安全戰略恐怖主義情報與反情報
日期:	2010
上傳時間:	2011-11-28 13:35:09 (UTC+8)
摘要:	世界上任何一個國家為本身安全考量，必定有其情報機制的設置。意即情報工作攸關國家的興衰存亡，對國家生存發展、科技進步、國際政治地位，以及在軍事領域中扮演的角色，皆具重要影響。但權力與腐敗相伴共生，一個複雜龐大的國安暨情報機制，若無國會監督與法律規範制約其自行運用情報活動，蒐集影響人民權利之資訊，勢將漸進衝擊國家政策正常運作。故對情報組織的適法性和執行工作之正當性實施監督，及情報人員的道德觀等問題探微，益顯重要。按情報改革須求取制度平衡、兼顧國家權力與人民權益的互利；戰略，乃治國安邦之道，支撐國家利益的基礎；戰略思維，總是從國家利益中獲得思想的原動力。故國家利益，乃戰略最高準則；而戰略決策規劃，亦屬制度建立範疇。基此，觀察一個國家的情報機構與制度，即可驗證該國的政治體制是否民主。誠然，凡一國的國安暨情報機構，對其組織不斷精實強化，結構持續進行改革調整，並適時適度將重大政策對外宣傳說明，乃走向透明化與接受監督的必要措施。而法令乃建立機制的準則，機制必須遵行制度運行。故制度的良窳必會影響情報人員在執行（Implementation）任務時的行為。換言之，制度是組織不可或缺的要件，而情報體系實施組織調適與任務整合，勢為一項長期的改革進程，必須各機構建立互信，始能日久見效；而整體戰略決策規劃，就是建立各機制間互信的基礎。故本文在以新制度論觀點析述時，亦顧及美國在不同階段的國家安全戰略運用，並關注建立制度的重要。回顧美國情報機構預劃的改革與組織調整方案，皆係因應各個時代的國家安全任務需求，所做出的務實檢討建議策略。從911事件後，美國政府能迅速整合其情報機構的各項關鍵議題，並在第一時間優先完成正確的因應措施，即為明證。檢視美國當前國安會的任務，具有情報統合、危機處理、政策制訂、協調建議、完成決策、及監督執行等功能，實為國家安全政策之核心機制；惟總統具裁決權。至於情報機構概分為政府和軍事兩個系統，計有中央情報局、國防情報局和聯邦調查局等16個情報機構，堪稱世上歷史最悠久、建制最龐雜的優良情報體系。不過，按美國憲法規範，其安全政策機制向採聯盟制的分權精神布局；在情報制度改革思維上，亦有分歧而無定性的現象；常顧全發揮情報效能，卻將反情報作為遺漏。尤其，各級情報組織，皆潛存其自身工作文化，官僚派系爭利嚴重，難能相互合作無間。然而，情報組織乃國家的耳目，具協助政府政策中樞制定完善決策之功能，為一項實存的必要工作。故精進其機制，勢需因時因事制宜，並審時度勢推進。按美國情報體系的組織架構，係依1947年《國家安全法》設置；1978年1月24日，卡特總統要求重新對原中央情報主任的權限調整規範；參議院亦通過《1978年國家情報重組改革法》（National Intelligence Recorgnization and Reform Act of 1978），提議以「國家情報總監」（Director of National Intelligence,DNI）替代原中央情報主任的職務。至1992年2月5日，美國增修《國家安全法》時，即增列「國家情報總監」一職，律定須負責對總統提呈有關情報工作、情蒐分析及情報組織活動等意見；且中情局受其管制。嗣後，每隔5年對情報組織的結構進行檢討，並由前中央情報主任（DCI）負責，以避免組織行為（organizational behavior）僵化，造成既有功能失常。據此，美國政府對情報改革早有規劃，就中央情報主任兼任中情局局長的缺點亦極深入；足證設置國家情報總監絕非911事件後始有構想：只是它催化與激勵美政府優先完成實踐情報改革的重要因素。換言之，美國政府對其國安暨情報機制的評核早已重視，並有預劃改革政策。故在遭受重大襲擊事件後，仍能平靜穩定的處理危機，妥善反應災後處理能力，並迅速修正其情報機構之處理程序與情資研析等缺失；此絕非世界其他國家，所能承受者，殊值學習仿效。美國中情局前局長譚納(George J. Tenet)曾說，「情報機構間的對立，工作範圍的重覆和相互缺乏合作的問題，乃難保證聯合行動成功的關鍵因素」。但情報機構的職能多所重疊，亦具有相互競爭、功能互補，及若干程度的制衡效果；對各項工作實施相互隔離、嚴採守密和限制的措施，更為一種反情報的良性制度。據此，情報機構最大的期望，乃在其執行的秘密長久不被揭露於眾。事實上，情報的功能，完全取決於它能對決策者的協助程度，至於運用效果，實與情報體系無關；但無法產情或產生失誤的資訊，必然是整個情報體系的責任。此即美國歷任總統向極重視國安暨情報機制的發展，並對各機構負責人妥慎布局的道理。審視911事件發生的過程，已可論證出新制度強調「制度的良窳是重要的」；「制度是邏輯的起點，分析理論的基石」；以及「人們難以個人的偏好為基礎，不靠制度來進行互動」的道理。是故，美國政府暨參眾兩院為能掌握情報機關的監督權，皆普遍在各法案中增列相關的規範加以律定；在國家安全與國防情報機構間，亦創造相互信賴而合理有效的資訊共享環境。檢證美國情報體系在執行類似兩伊戰爭和阿富汗的戰爭中，有關本身之國家安全政策，自有不得公開的「機密任務交賦」與必須「依法執行使命」的衝突矛盾情形。故促使情報機構的決策與活動，能符合程序合法與目的正當；再經監督機制審查和責任追究管控，明確規範國家情報職權，並適度予以透明化，始得避免情報「政治化」，以獲取人民的信賴與支持。歸納美國國會監督國安暨情報機構的目的，旨在對其政策目標實現的程度，與官僚體系達成政策計畫的效能和績效做檢驗；以免各機構因「報酬率」不足，交易成本過高，而形成功能向內捲曲的態勢，難以相互支援合作，積極開展工作。另從美國憲法實存的「穩定性、制度性和決定性」等循環特質觀察，總統和國會間實具有相互依賴和競合的關係。回顧美國自開國以來，迄今至少已歷經1812年未能掌握英軍入侵華府的情報，1941年未能有效處理日本偷襲珍珠港的密電情報，以及2001年的911事件等三次重大情報失誤。雖經持續推進情報改革、相關立法活動，及組織調整與重建；但仍難肯定新的情報機制，能否有效掌握下一個無可預期的戰爭或危機預警？！因為，單就恐怖主義滋生與泛濫的原因言，美國各種政策的矛盾與決策尖銳化或畸形化，已是恐怖主義形成的根源和主因。小布希總統曾強調：「自由民主，乃是美國重大利益與領導力的根源。以軍事力量推動中東民主化，更是反恐作戰之一環」。但這樣的演變與發展，勢必引起世界各國認為，將與「美國形成一種或至少是暫時性的帝國式（empire）結合架構之疑慮」。基本上，美國的外交與安全政策，自柯林頓總統起，業在不自覺的環境中，從半孤立主義（semi-isolationism）逐漸步入干預主義（Interventionism）。美國情報機構的反恐政策，亦從911事件發生前，以政策協調、任務分工和組織合作等途徑，改為911事件後，調整成運用契機加速進行改革，突破工作困境，著手積極怯除各機構間長期存有的本位主義心態，並依《2002年國土安全法》，建立事權統一的國土安全部（DHS）新機制與管理架構。亦即將整體的戰略思維，朝向以具備能力為基礎的先發制人作為改變，且對原本尚稱完備的全般情報機制著手大力改革。按新制度主義論述的基礎與核心關懷，乃是「奠定在一套人學上，從人如何成為人？或做為理性的存在者，或做為歷史或社會的存在者出發，去談論制度為何物？甚至，是人或個體如何與制度互動的關係」。霍布斯與洛克兩位哲人，皆假定在特定歷史和社會主義環境中，「強者的行為，會反映出自然的偏好及人類的特徵」。但盧梭認為，「行為和偏好不是一回事。行為，是社會及其規則和制度的產物；法律和風俗，塑造出人們的偏好，並使權力和特權得以制度化」。從美國情報機構的失誤或洩密案例，可明察情報與反情報工作結合運用的重要。而情報監督，必須遵行「權責相符，不制（掣）肘、不失序」的原則行之。且從情報的功能、活動角色與監督的相互關係等環節，全般檢討其意涵與途徑，始符實效。故本文探討的焦點即在制度影響人的行為，與研究情報工作的建制議題。就當今情報工作的效能與道德觀啟迪言，一位身處國安暨情報機構的領導人或執行者，必須懷有廣闊的胸襟、戰略的視野、卓越的才能、忠貞的思想、及高尚的品德。尤其，不應存有「只想吹熄別人的火，來凸顯自己的光采」；必須尊重其他機構的優良傳統，組織文化行為，相互容忍差異，共同研訂國家層級的情報工作願景；並確立「以終為始」的正向工作目標與戰略方針，積極培育優秀幹部，期站在同一戰略高度上，共同參與分析對自己國家安全與利益所造成的危害，以全力廓清之。其次，情報機構亦須有健全的組織、優秀的團隊，及完備的制度；並隨客觀環境變化，在制度結構上，持續實施穩健前瞻的規模改革，始有可能因應下一個無預警的突發事件與危機處理。何況從歷史角度觀察，美國情報機構除負責執行國家安全事務外，尚兼負對全球情勢的掌握，扮演著國際領導者的角色。因此，其情報工作能否依法行政？執行力是否超強逾越或過弱無能？對國際糾紛和國內事務是否產生隕越不公，及影響危害人民權利的情事？皆賴國會有效的監督。他山之石可以攻錯，發掘良方正策據以參考，乃是本文之宗旨。未來若能與美國相關機構官員或幕僚，進行面對面的交談與採訪，並充實強化本文相關原始資料，則內涵必然更加精準。 Intelligence mechanism is essential for every country as intelligence operations are vital to national security, national development, technology research, international political standing, and military operations. However, power and corruption often co-exist. Intelligence activities by a powerful national security mechanism without proper oversight and legal regulations could violate people’s rights and cause unfavorable criticism. It is necessary for every state to reform intelligence organizations by imposing certain regulations and examining intelligence officials’ ethic values. Balanced institutions, government authority, and people’s rights should all be considered when conducting intelligence reform. A country should first set up a sound mechanism under which national strategy is formulated to serve the needs of national interests. A country’s intelligence mechanism can also reveal its level of democratization. A democracy should constantly examine its intelligence organizations, put them under proper oversight, make the institution transparent, and make major policies known to the public. Laws and regulations are the foundation for government mechanisms, and government officials are supposed to perform their duties based on those mechanisms. Therefore, the design of intelligence institutions could guide the way intelligence activities are performed. Any agency needs a set of customized institution while intelligence reform is a continuous task which requires the efforts of all relevant organizations. This essay focuses on the US’s national security strategy thinking in various periods and the importance of security institution from the viewpoint of the New Institutionalism theory. The US Intelligence Community (IC) has repeatedly raised reform proposals to better cope with changing mission requirements in the past decades. One good example is the government being able to streamline intelligence agencies and take quick measures to respond to various contingencies after the September 11 attacks. The US National Security Council, a central place of coordination for national security policy, is responsible for intelligence integration, crisis management, policy making, coordination, policy implementation, and oversight, with the president having the final decisions. The IC falls into two parts, civil and military. It is the world’s most complicated and best-structured security system, and is composed of sixteen agencies, including the CIA, FBI, and DIA. The US Constitution implies each agency as an independent entity, so no single reform plan is suitable for all agencies. A common problem within most agencies is that they stress more on better performance but less on internal counter-intelligence measures in their individual reform plans. Furthermore, it is hard to persuade each agency to increase inter-agency coordination at the expense of its own interests. They should work closely together to serve as the eyes and ears of the government, and assist in policy making. Their reform is a necessary task and should be carried out with adaption and foresight. The creation of the IC dates back to the National Security Act of 1947. In 1978 President Jimmy Carter ordered changed authority of the Director of Central Intelligence. The Senate passed National Intelligence Reorganization and Reform Act of 1978, proposing replacing the post of Director of the Central Intelligence with Director of National Intelligence. In February 1992 the position of DNI was officially created based on the amended National Security Act, stipulating that DNI is tasked to report intelligence performance, analysis, and activities to the president with CIA under his supervision. The DCI is responsible to review intelligences agencies every five years and make necessary changes to keep them flexible. Intelligence reform has long been on the US leadership’s agenda, and the issue that DCI also served as Director of the CIA was frequently discussed. The idea of adding the post of DNI had merged long before the September 11, and that post is an important element to prompt intelligence reform. In other words, the US leadership has taken this matter seriously for quite a long time. There are times when major incidents strike, the US authorities are able to handle them in an organized fashion, and rapidly recognize and correct the problems in intelligence procedures. No other country in the world has such a high adaptability. The former CIA director George J. Tenet said, discord among intelligence agencies, overlapping missions, and poor coordination are the main reasons for failure of inter-agency operations. However, overlapping missions create necessary complement, checks and balances, and competition. All intelligence organizations wish to keep their clandestine activities a secret, so compartmentation, and strict information security are crucial for counter intelligence purposes. The value of intelligence depends on how much it can help decision making. Intelligence agencies are held responsible for failure to collect and produce critical intelligence, but not for how it is used by their consumers. It is evident that all the US presidents have attached importance to the IC’s functions and the choice of its leadership. The September 11 attacks confirm the New Institutionalim’s claim that the institution rather than the leaders of organizations guides the way people get their jobs done. Therefore, the US presidents and the House and Senate have from time to time imposed new rules and regulations on the IC in order to increase oversight, coordination, and information sharing. It is extremely difficult to ask intelligence operators to execute all their clandestine missions without violating any social or legal norms. Transparent policies, lawful intelligence operations, clearly-defined authority, and proper oversight are the keys to win public approval. The ultimate purpose of congressional oversight is to evaluate CI’s performance and to increase efficiency. There have been several major intelligence failures throughout the US history, including the 1812 British army invasion of Washington, the 1941 attack on Pearl Harbor, and the September 11attacks. It is uncertain that the new mechanism can help predict the next war or crisis, despite continued reform and reorganization. The US’s unjust foreign policies may be the fundamental cause of international terrorism. President George Push pointed out, freedom and democracy are the US’s major interests and the core of leading power. To democratize the Middle East with military power is a part of the war on terror. Such a statement has worried many countries as they are forced to join the US to form an interim empire. The US foreign and security policies have been steadily moving from semi-isolationism to interventionism since Clinton administration. The US intelligence agencies are also shifting its operational thinking from coordination, division of responsibility, and inter-agency cooperation before September 11 to eliminating inter-agency stove pipe and speeding up reform after the incident. The Department of Homeland Security is established accordingly, based on the Homeland Security Act of 2002. This new system calls for dramatic adjustment to the already well-structured security mechanism and aims to prevent terrorist attacks. The New Institutionalism which some of my rationales are based upon discusses the characters of an institution, how an institution is created, how it affects people, and how certain leaders’ behaviors alter the institution. The US intelligence failure and security breach outline the importance of combining intelligence and counter-intelligence efforts. The oversight should entitle each agency to adequate authority and responsibility without setting unnecessary restrictions that would reduce performance. The oversight should also examine the connections among the CI’s functions, intelligence activities, and the purpose of the oversight. This essay probes into how an institution affects people and what a sound intelligence institution should be like. Vision, ability, ethic, and patriotism are the required qualifications for security leaders to accomplish their duties. They should respect other agency’s different traditions and should not elevate themselves by debasing others when managing national security affairs. Long-sighted policies, coordinated efforts, sound institutions, adaptive measures are all keys to ensuring successful reform and tackling future challenges. The US intelligence agencies are not only responsible for safeguarding domestic security, but also analyzing global situations for formulating foreign policies. Are all the intelligence operations conducted by the IC lawfully, adequately, unfairly to certain domestic groups or foreign countries? Do they violate people’s rights? The congressional oversight provides the solutions. The purpose of this essay is to offer the right lessons learned from past experiences. The author welcomes any insight by US security officials, hoping their contributions can make this essay more objective and informative.
顯示於類別:	[國家發展與與中國大陸研究所碩博士班] 博碩士論文

文件中的檔案:

檔案	描述	大小	格式	瀏覽次數
index.html		0Kb	HTML	679	檢視/開啟

在CCUR中所有的資料項目都受到原著作權保護.

資料載入中.....