I have only two thoughts on the deal that has sent ten
Russian spies back to their homeland, in exchange for four people who were, as
the Times puts it, "deemed to be
spies" in Russia.
First, some people wonder why the United States didn't get more upset
about this, and why the Obama administration didn't allow the incident to
derail its long-term effort to "reset" relations with Moscow. The simple answer is: because we
are undoubtedly doing the same thing, albeit probably in different ways. I doubt we've sent U.S. citizens
to Russia as long-term moles (though anything's possible), but I have
no doubt whatsoever that we are engaged in all sort of espionage efforts there (and in plenty of other countries too). To pitch the diplomatic equivalent of a hissy fit over
something that we are doing ourselves would be asinine. And as Reagan administration official Richard
Burt pointed out, the United States and the Soviet Union ratified numerous agreement at the height of the Cold War, even though we were spying on each
other like crazy and trying to bring about the other side's collapse (we
succeeded, they failed).
Second, it is remarkable how quickly the whole business was
resolved. The two governments did
the deal, the Russian spies plead guilty, and the handoff was made. Turns out its much better to be spying
for Russia than to be detained as a suspected terrorist. If that happens, you could end up being
held without trial for eight years, with
the U.S. government bending over backwards to find some way to keep you in
custody, even when there was mounting evidence that you were innocent. Keep that latter point in mind
the next time you decide to visit Yemen, or when somebody brags about our deep commitment
to the "rule of law" and the importance of habeas corpus.
Read More
(11)
HIDE COMMENTS LOGIN OR REGISTER REPORT ABUSE