The Future Is Queer: New Developments in Intelligence Activity

  • Mary ManjikianEmail author


This chapter argues that US foreign policy has been and will continue to be “queer” due to tensions between diplomacy, military, and intelligence as well as between the presidency, the legislature, and intelligence. The “wall of separation” which is purported to exist between the intelligence community and other players like the presidency, the State Department, and the military is in fact an illusion or a construct, rather than reality. Furthermore, we suggest that this wall will continue to further erode, as new technologies and forces of globalization inevitably lead to a blurring between official and unofficial (or covert) foreign policy, as well as the ability to hide state activities, through new types of transparency and surveillance.


Surveillance Intelligence exceptionalism Accountability Drone UAV Assassination 


  1. Andreas, Peter, and Richard Price. 2011. From War Fighting to Crime Fighting: Transforming the American National Security State. International Studies Review 3 (3): 31–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Brewster, Thomas. 2018. These Ex-Spies are Harvesting Facebook Photos for a Massive Facial Recognition Database. Forbes, April 16. Available at Accessed 1 Aug 2019.
  3. Clotworthy, Orrin. 1962. Some Far-Out Thoughts on Computers. Studies in Intelligence 6 (4). Available at Accessed 1 Aug 2019.
  4. Denning, Dorothy. 2012. Stuxnet: What has Changed. Future Internet 4: 672–687.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Drake, Ingrid. 2010. Pogo Supports Eshoo Amendment for Better Oversight of the Intelligence Community. POGO Blog, March 17. Available at Accessed 1 Aug 2019.
  6. Goodman, Marc. 2015. Future Crimes. New York: Doubleday.Google Scholar
  7. Hayden, Michael. 2016. Playing to the Edge: American Intelligence in an Age of Terror. New York: Penguin.Google Scholar
  8. Hill, Stephen, and Randall Beger. 2009. A Paramilitary Policing Juggernauts. Social Justice 36 (1): 25–40.Google Scholar
  9. Krahmann, Elke. 2013. The United States, PMSCs and the State Monopoly on Violence: Leading the Way Towards Norm Change. Security Dialogue 44 (1): 53–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Lord, Jonathan. 2015. Undercover Under Threat: Cover Identity, Clandestine Activity and Covert Action in the Digital Age. International Journal of Intelligence and Counterintelligence 28 (4): 666–681.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Macak, Kubo. 2017. From Cyber Norms to Cyber Rule: Re-engaging States as Law Makers. Leiden Journal of International Law 30: 877–899.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Manget, Frederic. 2015. Intelligence and the Rise of Judicial Accountability. In Intelligence: The Secret World of Spies, ed. Loch K. Johnson and J.J. Wirtz, 386–400. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  13. Mchangama, Jacob, and Hin-Yan Liu. 2018. The Welfare State Is Committing Suicide by AI. Foreign Policy, December 25. Available at Accessed 8 Aug 2019.
  14. Osnos, Edward. 2018. Can Mark Zuckerberg Fix Facebook Before It Breaks Democracy? The New Yorker, September 17. Available at Accessed 2 Aug 2019.
  15. Perkins, Chris, and Martin Dodge. 2009. Satellite Imagery and the Spectacle of Secret Spaces. Geoforum 40: 546–560.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Roto, David, Danielle Hicks, and Bernard Martin. 2015. What Is an Emerging Technology? Research Policy 44 (10): 1827–1843.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Spencer, Shaun. 2002. Reasonable Expectations and the Erosion of Privacy. San Diego Law Review 39 (3): 843–916.Google Scholar
  18. Thompson, Dennis. 1999. Democratic Secrecy. Political Science Quarterly 114 (2): 181–193.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Waltzman, Rand. 2019. Information Warfare Requires Personalized Weaponry. The Cyber Edge, January 1. Available at Accessed 1 Aug 2019.
  20. Weber, Cynthia. 2016a. Queer and/or International Relations . . . or Not? International Studies Quarterly Blog. Available at Accessed 8 Aug 2019.
  21. ———. 2016b. Queer Intellectual Curiosity as International Relations Method: Developing Queer International Relations Theoretical and Methodological Frameworks. International Studies Quarterly 60 (1): 11–23.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Regent UniversityVirginia BeachUSA

Personalised recommendations