The two cases differ significantly in terms of the threat to national security and the repercussions of the accused actions. After reviewing the factors encompassing the Prouty and Montes cases information is handled with operational security in mind and uncertainty to accomplish the intent and goal of the counterintelligence (CI) objective.1 Further, to accomplish the CI objective, information is separated in two categories of credible intelligence, that has been analyzed thoroughly and information that is secondary information. For example, media, local news, or information provided for gain.2
Additionally, information from Prouty’s case steams from supporting documents, revealing that she was not a Hezbollah agent nor collaborated with Foreign Intelligence Services (FIS) or radical organizations.3 …show more content…
Researching information irrelevant to Hezbollah caused suspicion amongst the intelligence community. While searching her family background who reside in Lebanon created concern for the intelligence community. Finally, Prouty was not found guilty of espionage.6 However, in the manner Prouty gained citizenship and access to classified information remained a counterintelligence concern. As a failed state, Lebanon did not have a system in place to accurately and legally provide official documentation to travelers.
Lastly, unlike Prouty case, Montes case was completely different. Montes assumed an active roll in establishing a relationship with foreign intelligence services and conducting espionage on their behalf.7 Moreover, Montes action cause great danger to the United States National Security.8 As a result, Montes espionage activities caused the lives of American intelligence professionals and an increase in counterintelligence operations.9 Overall, Montez a Cuban spy committed fraud, espionage, and covert action against the United States, hindering national security to the United