Alleged Russian Spy Ring Exposed In US 279
Several readers sent in the story of an alleged Russian spy ring busted yesterday by the FBI after a decade-long investigation. The FBI says that Moscow trained and planted long-term "moles" in the US in order to infiltrate the upper echelons of US government and business circles and pass back intelligence to the Russians. Twelve people have been charged; ten were arrested in the US (one is at large) and one in Cyprus. Wired and the New York Post have colorful coverage. Wired's leans on the tradecraft and discusses steganography, while the Post favors the femme fatale angle (alleged spy Anna Chapman). The Russian Foreign Ministry said that the US actions were unfounded and pursued "unseemly" goals. One of many choice quotes from copious coverage: "They couldn't have been spies. Look what she did with the hydrangeas." From the WSJ report: "Officials said no secrets were compromised or revealed in the alleged plot, and the spy operation seems to have yielded little of value given some of the elaborate methods deployed. None of the 11 charged by US prosecutors was accused of accessing any classified or sensitive US government information."
Leakety, leakety leak . . . (Score:4, Insightful)
I would expect that we get some wonderful counterespionage out of Russia itself nowadays.
It seems pretty wasteful for Russia to spend so much money on such an elaborate operation when it could be destroyed by one disaffected Russian official who dreams of a CIA payoff.
Madness!
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Who cares? Let them spy. What are they going to learn?
Re:Leakety, leakety leak . . . (Score:5, Insightful)
I think a lot of the reason behind secrecy is to shroud what we don't have as capabilities. If other countries knew about our failings in pervasive monitoring and command, control, coordination, and communications, and sharks with lasers on their heads or the ability to educate youths and keep old decrepit folks happy and sane, then they'd just have to assume we were awesome at all of those things.
But until then, we can charge admission for the illusion!
Re: (Score:2)
Indeed, secrecy is not about hiding how powerful you are, but how weak you are.
You can even use it to such an advantage that you screw the other country up - look at the cold war, USSR put so much into out-building the US with regard to nukes that they didn't even realise the US had a fraction of the nuclear weapons that were being claimed.
I'd say this spy ring was actually more interested in business, seeing as how the Russians are now trying to move from being a purely resource backed country to an econom
Re: (Score:2)
Two things:
A. Should be 'FTFM', unless you refer to yourself as 'you' and B. 'on spy' is a more obscure sex position. So the former question is still accurate.
Re: (Score:2)
I would expect that we get some wonderful counterespionage out of Russia itself nowadays.
In Russia... no, no, I just can't do it. Russian intelligence is enough of a joke without resorting to cliches.
Did they? (Score:4, Interesting)
If they didn't 'see/steal/copy' anything, was anything actually spied upon?
The mens rea was the attempt, but if there is no actus rea did they really break the law?
Re:Did they? (Score:5, Insightful)
They were acting as "agents of Russia" which is against the law in itself since they aren't registered. Why the FBI chose to arrest them now is the mystery because the FBI knew for over a decade.
Re:Did they? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Did they? (Score:4, Interesting)
Then, that sounds like Eric Holder needs to have words with Obama, rather than letting Mueller have his agents go and arrest people. If Mueller isn't going to play by the rules of the new administration, or if Holder is going to use his position as Attny General to try and affect foreign policy, then we have bigger issues than some half-assed russian "spy" network. It's not as if there isn't pretty short chain of command from the FBI to the President.
Re: (Score:2)
This is all very weird.
Re:Did they? (Score:5, Interesting)
If you believe the FBI, one of the targets under investigation realized that she was compromised. The FBI had become aggressive and had an undercover agent contact her because they pretty much knew how the Russians operated with this woman. I would expect that the FBI was trying to set up a sting operation so they can finally bag these spies for espionage. Unfortunately, they gave away the game. The woman bought a Verizon cell phone under a fake name, threw away the charger, and started to make calls. The FBI realized that she was trying to make an anonymous call (which doesn't work if you're already under constant surveillance) then decided to arrest everyone before they fled. One guy ran away but ten were caught.
Re:Did they? (Score:4, Interesting)
I think I heard them say on Channel 4's news this evening that one or more was going to leave the country, so the FBI acted.
They also mentioned that even though "spying" is being bandied about, none of them have been charged with espionage.
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe the FBI preferred to watch them closely for more information while they did their thing.
Tradecraft 101 (Score:5, Insightful)
Part of the spy game is not letting on that you know what is going on. By letting them conduct operations in against non-critical assets, you get to see how they operate, who they work with, and who they answer to. You can unravel their network to watch and catch other agents. You can set them up to pass false information. You can collect vast amounts of incriminating evidence to use to force them to become double agents. You can find out what they think you are doing and what they are worried about, and use that to play on their fears.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The FBI got too arrogant when playing the one spy, she realized she was burned, and attempted to warn the others. They then had to grab everyone. And they still missed someone.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
The thing is, there's usually something happening every few months between the US and any nation it has trouble with. Publicise a problem with North Korea one month, everyone guesses it relates to missle testing. Wait a month, and it must have something to do with them holding some hikers who supposedly strayed across the border. Wait one more and it has something to do with them arguing with Japan, or South Korea, or China. Either the government never goes public at all, or it goes public when something is
Re:Did they? (Score:4, Informative)
Why the FBI chose to arrest them now is the mystery because the FBI knew for over a decade.
It's no mystery, it's all right there in the criminal complaint [nytimes.com], if you read it with attention to dates. It's got nothing to do with global politics and everything to do with the details of the case.
The FBI had been monitoring one of the spy couples since January 2000 (Lazaro and Pelaez). Over the years, this gradually expanded to include five couples plus Metsos, their money man. It's not clear that all these individuals are linked, but many are. Their every daily move was watched, their houses were bugged 24/7, for years.
Three days ago (June 26), the FBI decided to go beyond passive monitoring, and engineer a meet-up between an undercover FBI agent posing as a Russian operative, and one of the spy couples (Chapman and Semenko). The undercover FBI agent knew the right code phrases, but asked Chapman what I'd consider too many nosy questions. They set up a meeting for the next day, but Chapman was apparently suspicious. An hour later, Chapman bought a disposable cell phone to use as a "burner", and apparently made a call to check on the agent. She apparently figured out her cover was blown, since she didn't make the meeting the next day.
At this point, the FBI must have realized the jig was up, and they'd better close the net on the whole spy ring now before they could react.
Re:Did they? (Score:4, Insightful)
If I got to another country as an 'Agent of America' - aka one of its citizens
Citizen != "Agent of country X". We know we have Russian intelligence agents here in the US ... they work at their embassy and consulate locations, and they register with us.
wouldn't I just get deported back to the US?
If you were suspected/arrested/tried/convicted of spying on a foreign country, you might well be imprisoned.
Seems to me deportation and no-fly listing would be sufficient.
More likely it seems like they are US Citizens who have nothing to do with Russia, and they did/saw/know something the government no longer wants floating out there, so they are being taken prisoner as 'spies' to make sure they STFU.
I think your tinfoil hat is showing. It remains to be seen what happens at trial, but apparently they were engaging in encrypted communication with their handlers (which were decoded), and they were filmed making contact and exchanging items with their handlers.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Did they? (Score:5, Informative)
They aren't being charged under the typical set of espionage laws (Title 18, 792-798) which cover gathering or disclosing information on defense installations or plans and disclosing classified information. Rather they are being charged with 'Conspiracy to Act as Unregistered Agents of a Foreign Government' (Title 18, 951) which is much broader and covers many otherwise non-criminal activities if performed at the behest of a foreign power.
In addition there are charges unrelated to actual performance of espionage including falsifying passports and other identity documentation, money laundering, and conspiracy to defraud the US.
Over all the complaint has a wealth of specific details that make it very clear that there was intent to commit espionage and commision of crimes in furtherance of that. We still file criminal charges against individuals who have been stopped in the attempt to commit a crime even if they did not succeed to do so, though the charges may be slightly reduced (ie no murder charges if bombing is prevented, but still charged for the bombing).
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Just read as:
"Nice set of undeclared spies you have there.
It would be a shame if something bad happened to it."
Re: (Score:2)
Murder vs Attempted Murder
Both people are attempting to do exactly the same thing. One is just fucking stupider than the other. So at murder if you are a fucking idiot that fails we will treat you better.
I just think that is some dumb ass shit is all.
Re:Did they? (Score:5, Interesting)
As much as it seems foolish there is legitimate reasoning behind it.
(1) Penalty proportional to the harm done. If you fail to commit a crime the harm done to the victim and/or society is greatly reduced, thus since the US 'justice' system is largely built on retribution (rather than rehabilitation) there is less to take out on the criminal.
(2) It encourages going through with a crime when faced with discovery. If you are faced with an identical penalty whether you succeed or not, there is no motivation to back down if confronted by police (ie kill your target vs surrender) because there will be no lessened punishment. It is similar to the argument used for why making forcible child-rape a capital crime is counter productive (the penalty for killing the kid after is the same so why risk them being able to identify you if caught).
(3) Easier to prove. Despite the fact that the law does not allow for it, it remains much easier to get convictions for offences with lesser penalties. If the penalties were normalized than the standard of evidence required for something like attempted murder would correspondingly rise. *Note: This is probably a good thing, but would fundamentally alter the judicial system.*
Yes (Score:2)
Same way as it is illegal to try and murder someone, but fail. It isn't the same crime, or the same punishment, but it is still illegal.
So actually giving classified secrets to a foreign power is a very serious crime. It is the kind of thing that can earn life in prison, or even death if it is done during war time. Working as an agent for a foreign government and trying to get classified data is also illegal, though less so.
Re: (Score:2)
Here [justice.gov] is the official document detailing what they did, and what they're being charged with. A very interesting read, though be warned, you'll feel like laughing out loud at times.
Re: (Score:2)
Reading the reports it doesn't seem like they accomplished anything of substance. One foolish guy working on bunker buster bombs talked too much and I'm sure he's got his resume polished up by now. It seems the strongest case against them is for money laundering and tax evasion will probably be thrown in as well.
Typical (Score:4, Insightful)
"Officials said no secrets were compromised or revealed in the alleged plot, and the spy operation seems to have yielded little of value given some of the elaborate methods deployed. None of the 11 charged by US prosecutors was accused of accessing any classified or sensitive US government information."
This is typical of Russian intelligence activity. The book The Sword and the Shield: Mitrokhin Archive details most of the Soviet operations up until the mid 80s. This sounds like more of the same techniques: Attempting to attract young, impressionable, college-educated people to their cause and then trying to guide them into positions where they can gain intel. Unfortunately, the Russians still do not really understand american culture and so they find it difficult to penetrate deeply into any establishment domestically.
Historically, their most successful intelligence gathering operations were either through signals intelligence or from defectors who wanted monentary compensation. Their recruiting efforts have been laughably under-planned. This is just another example. Their resources would be better spent in open source intelligence to identify vulnerable individuals who could be blackmailed than attempting to sway them on idealistic grounds. Communism just isn't that sexy. Sadly for them, I don't think they have the resources anymore to do much more than the French -- industrial espionage is as far as they get too. But at least the French make money on their intelligence operations...
Re:Typical (Score:4, Informative)
Russia is no longer a communist state.
Re: (Score:2)
That true, and also important. But needs amplification:
When The Sword and the Shield was written, the conflict between the two superpowers was perceived by most people as a struggle between ideologies: socialism versus the free market, utopianism versus pragmatism, etc. Not entirely true, but it gave Soviet operatives many opportunities to convince disaffected or idealistic people that they were the good guys.
Nowadays, the conflict between the surviving superpower and the heirs of the late USSR is mostly ec
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
This is correct, the Russians always have bad luck with Russian agents placed in the West, but did really good with politically sympathetic people in power or greedy ones looking for the money.
Re: (Score:2)
Communism just isn't that sexy.
I think that I could be persuaded otherwise [nypost.com]...
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Typical (Score:5, Informative)
Yeah, the Ruskis are laughable at penetrating US institutions!
Signed, Your BFFs,
Aldrich Ames [wikipedia.org] and
Robert Hanssen [wikipedia.org].
Re:Typical (Score:5, Insightful)
Yeah, the Ruskis are laughable at penetrating US institutions!
Wiki quotes:
"By 1985, Aldrich was heavily in debt. He owed money because of the divorce, and Maria was spending freely. After exceeding his credit limit on different credit cards, Aldrich considered robbing a bank. Realising he had no experience in performing such a caper, he instead decided to pursue the less hazardous option of selling information to the Soviets."
"Hanssen never indicated any political or ideological motive for his activities, telling the FBI after he was caught that his only motivation was the money." ... Rather proves my point: They both approached the KGB, not the other way around.
Re:Typical (Score:5, Insightful)
From your OP:
Yet the Russians ended up with moles in the CIA and FBI who were placed highly enough to accomplish shamefully *epic* damage to the US. Knock them for style points all you want, but dangling the $$ just plain worked. We got our @sses handed to us.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Yet the Russians ended up with moles in the CIA and FBI who were placed highly enough to accomplish shamefully *epic* damage to the US. Knock them for style points all you want, but dangling the $$ just plain worked. We got our @sses handed to us.
Hardly a systemic problem on our part. We've recruited quite a bit more spies than they have, quite a few for idealistic motives or dissatisfaction with their government. They come despite the low pay, dangerous extractions, etc., because frankly the US is a good place to live. We don't pay people who turn coat a lot of money, but what we offer them is a chance to start fresh, anonymously, on a big slab of rock that has the best economy and chance for personal wealth and success anywhere in the world.
In sho
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Communism just isn't that sexy.
I think you meant to say: Putin just isn't that sexy anymore. Our previous President may have had a huge man-crush on him, but now I think it's fair to say former President George W. Bush is totally over Putin, and has moved on to bigger and better things.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
I still don't think those in power understand American motivations. America is driven by a complex mix of money, corporations, special interests, corruption, etc., but at the core is the optimistic attitude of individual freedom, and a genuine belief that the government we see is in control.
Russia never seems to act like they believe that. It's like they are always trying to figure out which politicians are the corrupt ones making the significant decisions; kind of like an international shell game of "Where
Lobbying VS Spying (Score:2, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
News at 11 - countries spy on each other! (Score:2)
Shocking! you mean countries spy on each other in this day and age? Expect Russia to expel a few US "aides to diplomats", US to make lots of unhappy noises, and the whole thing to die down again. Heads of respective intelligence agencies nod at each other at the next major summit and agree to go back to business as normal.
I can imagine a phone has gone off in Moscow: "hi Ivan, it's Bob here from Washington. Sorry about that, the new president needed to see a bit of action. You expel a few of our small guys,
Re: (Score:2)
The last thing Russia needs right now is to flex its muscle and strain relations with the USA which have been improving since the end of the cold war.
That's precisely what Russia has been doing pretty much since Putin came to power. A strong anti-US, anti-NATO stance, at least in material targeted at internal consumption within the country (government-backed mass media etc), is a big part of his populist "patriotic" platform.
In any case, compared to major foreign policy splits, such as over Kosovo in 1999, over Iraq in 2003, and over South Ossetia in 2008, the usual row over espionage is minor and routine.
And now the bad news (Score:3, Interesting)
Spy? (Score:5, Insightful)
New job posting! Live in the USA. Get an absurdly high salary. Hobnob with politicians. Raise hydrangeas. Provide nearly useless tidbits of information. Pick your job title from the following list:
1) Journalist
2) Spy
3) Lobbyist
4) Politician running for office
5) Lawyer
6) Wealthy old money parasite
7) Failed CEO of HP/Compaq, Microsoft, Enron or any Hedge fund.
8) Oprah (or generic talk show host)
Its a scam (Score:2)
This is just to get free press for a new movie.
What secrets do spies hope to obtain? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Hidden secrets. Mysterious secrets. Enigmatic secrets.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Oh, but of course. See, what the Russian spies REALLY wanted, and almost got, are outlined in secret documents in the Pentagon which I will describe here...
Hey... wait a second! Damn you, mykos, but you are a clever one... almost got me that time.
Re:What secrets do spies hope to obtain? (Score:5, Insightful)
Hardly in the upper echelons but based on the security briefings I've received the answer is tiny, insignificant bits and pieces that you would tell anyone in passing but which can be put together to see the bigger picture. Of course, this was during a briefing about how important it was to keep secret things secret so that might be an exageration to instil a sense that the little things are important but the techniques they warned against backed up their statements. Engineers in particular are apparently susceptible to minor insults against a project they are working on. They will jump to devend it even if it means leaking non-trivial details.
As an example:
Spy - "I heard that the Air Force's new radios can't even do X"
Engineer - "What!? of course it can do X, we can even do X with Y and Z!"
Where X, Y, and Z are small details that are never the less classified information.
Re: (Score:2)
So... I shouldn't have bragged about how the subject of my experiments into human psychic abilities had been visited by key members of parliament?
Re: (Score:2)
Actually, I have it from a reliable source that they're very interested in the most extreme potential consequences of the obesity epidemic. Specifically, as manifested in your mom. :-P
Re: (Score:2)
Well, if you read the recently published official complaint [justice.gov], SVR gave one of the agents the following order:
in its January 2010 messages, the SVR also instructed MURPHY to buy certain computer equipment using "all necessary precausions [sic]: no preliminary order, pay cash, destroy receipts, etc.," and to bring that computer equipment to Center.
and it was carried out:
A database of sales maintained by the Computer Store reflected that, earlier that day, an individual who identified himself as "David Hiller"
Sex Sells (Score:5, Funny)
She looks like a spy. (Score:5, Funny)
Too good looking and too smart.
Any woman who looks like that and who has a masters degree in economics is almost certainly a spy. No ordinary woman looks that good and is that smart.
Re: (Score:2)
Somebody better lock up Winnie Cooper [wikipedia.org] before she steals all our secrets then. (Not to mention a host of other beautiful women who just happen to be highly educated).
Re: (Score:2)
Somebody better lock up Winnie Cooper [wikipedia.org] before she steals all our secrets then. (Not to mention a host of other beautiful women who just happen to be highly educated).
There aren't very many of them. Also the spy woman was over the top, she ran her own business too. How many models are smart and run successful businesses? If it's less than 1% of the people you've met then when you meet one thats probably the spy.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, you could argue that most actresses essentially run their own business, they have assistants to a greater or lesser extent but in the end they are selling a product. Everyone always assumes that actresses are stupid, the reality is that while they are doubtlessly attractive, even if they're in the top .01% of women that still leaves an awful lot of competition. Look at Pamela Anderson, how much money has she made over the years selling what basically amounts to her personality and appearance? That
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Well, you could argue that most actresses essentially run their own business, they have assistants to a greater or lesser extent but in the end they are selling a product. Everyone always assumes that actresses are stupid, the reality is that while they are doubtlessly attractive, even if they're in the top .01% of women that still leaves an awful lot of competition. Look at Pamela Anderson, how much money has she made over the years selling what basically amounts to her personality and appearance? That does in fact take a kind of intelligence, maybe different from a PHD in economics kind of intelligence, but certainly still intelligence.
Anyone that hot, that smart and that successful is automatically suspect. Most successful actresses may very well be spies, but the same could be said about most successful actors. They do fit the profile.
Re: (Score:2)
Ah, but apart from acting skills it's not so much intelligence that's required in the movie/theatre world, it's social skills. And I'm not talking about solid regular social skills but the ability to stab your competitors in the back while they do the same to you and still come out of it smiling and acting like friends. Brown-nosing is a big part of it as well. Really, it's not intelligence, you need to have strong social skills coupled with "management personality" (meaning: willing to climb to the top by
Re:She looks like a spy. (Score:5, Funny)
Have you invented a time travel device that allows you to post from 1955?
Re: (Score:2)
And here are the photos everyone is looking for. [businessinsider.com]
Yes, I'd definitely say she's hot.
-
Re: (Score:2)
Too hot and too smart to be real.
hydrangeas (Score:2)
Why now for the lightweight ??? (Score:3, Interesting)
Normally western counterespionage groups are very reluctant to charge anyone because the trials will leak their methods to their adversaries.
So the FBI would only bring charges this fluffy for some other reason. What are we being distracted from?
Russia 0 - Wikileaks 1 (Score:3, Interesting)
intelligence value (Score:2)
Just because it's not secret doesn't mean it's not valuable and just because it's not valuable doesn't mean it's not secret.
In Soviet Russia (Score:2)
Holy hell, I think we got a true 'soviet russia' this time!
"intelligenct"??? (Score:5, Funny)
to infiltrate the upper echelons of US government and business circles and pass back intelligence to the Russians
If they're looking for intelligence, the past couple of decades of US government and business decisions should be enough to convince anyone with a few ounces of brain that that's not the place to look for it.
just google "US Government Secrets" (Score:4, Funny)
The team who took them down? (Score:2)
Steganography? (Score:2)
You've got to be kidding me. Haven't these folks heard of PGP? Or are they just determined to act out a bad spy novel?
Re:Steganography? (Score:5, Insightful)
Cryptography is for people don't want others to learn their secrets.
Steganography is for people who don't want others to know there *is* a secret.
You know you think like a spy if (Score:2)
Have you ever:
- tasted more than one sausage at the sample counter, but didn't buy any?
- sampled a grape at the supermarket?
- picked up a penny at the fountain?
- walked out of a coffee shop with a newspaper that you weren't sure was free?
- accidentally kept something in your shopping cart, but didn't bother to return it?
- borrowed the fire ax from downtown to chop down a tree in your yard?
- kept shopping carts in your garage?
- got a refund for your doctor's co-pay via medical supplies?
- wrote a check to the
Re:finish this (Score:4, Funny)
Make that 10 bullets, I'll take care of Anna, she's been very naughty.
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
During the Cold War, some spies were being tossed. A reporter asked "What is your name?"
"No name ... just KGB number."
Espionage has fallen on hard times, they are on their last Oleg.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Sadly, 99% of America would probably still agree with you.
Re:finish this (Score:5, Interesting)
Ok, here's the things about "enemy combatants" in several forms, from Taliban militants to German soldiers. When you capture someone on the field of war, you hold them until the war is over. You don't try them for "conspiracy to kill Americans," "conspiracy to commit terrorism," or any of that other bullshit. Why? Because killing opponents on the battle field isn't a crime. Conducting military operations isn't a crime. It's not even any more morally wrong than war is in general, because that's what war is. Thus, I am not for trying taliban militants, al qaeda operatives, or anyone else we capture in Afghanistan or Iraq. Hold them until the war is over. The only problem is, the "war on terrorism" will never be over. However, when we are done fighting in Iraq, everyone captured in Iraq should be released, and when we're done fighting in Afghanistan, then everyone captured in Afghanistan should be released.
Anecdote: in the mid 1960s, my mom's parents decided to have some work done to their house, including re-doing the chimney and fireplace. The man hired to do the job was a German immigrant. He and my grandfather got to talking and discovered they had been in the same battle, on the same day, during WWII, but on opposing sides. They ended up going through a couple of bottles of scotch and crying together for a few hours. I know it's a cliche that young soldiers who come face to face with the enemy always think how 'in another life, they could have been friends,' but in this case an American and a German who had been trying to kill each other a few years earlier in part of the Ardens offensive really did come together. I have a number of friends from Palestine, Syria, Lebanon, and other countries in the area. They're all perfectly fine people, and it really bothers me when people who can't even pronounce "terrorist" accuse all middle-easterners and/or Muslims of being one.
Back on topic, the Russians aren't even being charged with espionage, but with acting as agents of a foreign government without proper registration. This is a normal, criminal matter that NGO-types can often run afoul of if they don't fill out the proper documents. I wouldn't be surprised if it ended up getting worked out by the State department. But these 10 people are hardly Julius and Ethel Rosenberg.
Re: (Score:2)
Also, we are definitely not at war with Russia, so these people, as per your definition, deserve a trial.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, these people deserve a trial and I said as much. But there shouldn't be "due process" beyond "sit your ass here until the war is over" for people we scoop up on the battle field.
Re: (Score:2)
When you capture someone on the field of war, you hold them until the war is over [snip] when we're done fighting in Afghanistan, then everyone captured in Afghanistan should be released
Where this falls down is when the 'home country' doesn't want them back. When WW2 ended and the US released the German and Italian POWs, they went back home to Germany and Italy and wherever. Problem with the "War on Terrorism" "soldiers" is they're stateless. Afghanistan doesn't want them, Pakistan doesn't want them. T
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Possible problem identified: V doesn't know about X since his/her organization is highly compartmentalized and V only knows about his/her little part of the organization.
Second possible problem: Torture has been anticipated and V has a "cover story" for such an occasion (perhaps a clever lie about X which makes sense and which when investigated by T will seem like it's true).
Third possible problem: Torture has been anticipated and V has been trained not to give up information.
Fourth possible problem: Tortur
Re:finish this (Score:5, Insightful)
... : O.k., we'll be back in a few days. If you are telling the truth, we'll set you free. If you are not, the torture continues. ...
Repeat until
a. V is dead.
b. V gives credible information
On problem, torture isn't conducive to rational decision making. You want the torture to stop NOW, and you also probably would find an immediate (if temporary) break to be just as good as a permanent one. Also if the country who has you is of the torturing type, I doubt you trust them to actually set you free, since no country with torture really has much honor.
Re: (Score:2)
You and many others make the mistake that the damage is not limited to one individual that is killed or mentally/physically injured.
Torture also destroys cooperation with allies. US tortured in Iraq. Thousands of people are mentally and physically damaged. But many Iraqis that might have become allies and help the US build up the country were driven away. "Taxi to the Dark Side" is a good documentation about this.
Making friends is far more effective in getting information, and torture has been shown numerou
Re: (Score:2)
Repeat until
a. V is dead.
b. V gives credible information
Ah, but the key word there is "credible".
See, in the real world, it is extremely rare that the information you are trying to obtain is something concrete and easily verifiable. Usually it's just pieces and clues that can take months to follow up on and even then it won't be clear if the info was wrong or just stale.
Like this case. Okay, you torture the "alleged" spies to find out who their handlers were, and what information they transfered. They sa
Re: (Score:2)
Repeat until
a. V is dead.
b. V gives credible information
Either V dies (most likely) or V makes a lucky guess (it can happen - during questioning, an innocent person may pick up enough clues, along with what they have seen but didn't recognize as suspicious before, to figure things out.)
So if V lives, he or she "MUST have been guilty" even though they weren't.
Re: (Score:2)
Plus if "V" makes that lucky guess on one question, all the other BS is presumed to be at least a little believable. V tells you the name of a contact, "it must also be the truth", so even when you check out that guy and it just isn't possible, you're never completely sure he's clean. maybe you should torture him too, only what if that's what the Ruskies want?
V says the Ruskies are spending millions on psychic research, now you gotta spend tens of millions on trying to find loyal Ameri
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Nothing to see here (Score:5, Funny)
Wikipedia?
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Moose and Squirrel?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
One day is not really 'a few days'.
Re: (Score:2)
The FSU is flooded with the US spies. All these NGOs, Peace Corps, Human Rights Groups, etc. But they will not be expeled as they pay people good salaries and hardly do any damage.
Much worse is when people are without jobs and without an income. Such people are even more dangerous.
Now when a lot of people in the USA are without jobs does it make sense to take away this too? Production moved overseas, so what people have to do?
Huh? LOL your post made no sense.
Re: (Score:2)
Or a great investment that costs only $108 per share.
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)