I was quite suprised by the vitriol spewed in a recent Pit thread about Robert Hanssen, sentenced to the rest of his life in jail. I was, and am, of the opinion that spying should be punished only as a formality, and that it has a number of beneficial side-effects.
So here’s the Great Debate: should spying carry a less hefty punishment?
Let’s look at what spying does
It levels the playing field. The transmission to Russia through Canada of the atomic bomb made the concept of mutually-assured destruction possible, which is often acknowledged as the one principle that has prevented an atomic holocaust in the last fifty year.
It opens government operations to scrutiny, maybe not public scrutiny, but any scrutiny is good. Russian defectors gave the US a glimpse of the terror that was Stalin’s rule. The recent news that Cuba may be developing biological weapons may well have come from Cuban defectors or operatives on the spot.
Hi, Opal!
It supports the notion that national governments are not the be all and end all of society, and acknowledges that other countries could be negatively affected by the hush-hush goings-on of our own.
Ideally, those who would leak classified information would do so to newspapers and journals that regularly publish leaked material, instead of to a government that will probably keep the details just as secret. Nonetheless, I’m of the opinion that any leak is good.
Should spying carry a punishment at all? Well, yes, if only to make content those who believe a government is inherently worthy of total fidelity. Leaking information that can immediately result in someone’s death, or non-governmental persons constructing a weapon of mass destruction should also be considerably punished. However, spying should not automatically carry life in prison.
Robert Hanssen was in an extraordinary position of trust in the US Government, and he betrayed that trust. This wasn’t just any schmoe, this was a counter-intelligence agent for the FBI with access to the most sensitive of documents. He got what he deserved.
UnuMondo, your position appears to be that spying is ethical, so it shouldn’t be punished. Even assuming that’s true (I don’t think it is, but anyway), so what?
The issue isn’t ethics, it’s interests. A spy harms the interests of the country spied upon. So the spy gets punished.
Or it tips the scales in favor of your enemy. There was a family of spies in the United States Navy that sold vital secrets that would have endangered the United States should a hot war ever started. As for making a level playing field. Do you really think it was a good idea for a murderous SOB like Stalin to be on a level playing field with Truman?
**
Soviet actions were already open to scrutiny by the United States. And don’t go confusing defectors with spies since they aren’t always the same thing. A ballet dancer defecting from Russia isn’t a spy. A North Korean MIG pilot landing in Japan isn’t a spy either though I suppose he’d be guilty of treason.
**
So it would be a good to leak information that puts the crews of our Naval ships at risk? It would be good to leak the exact abilities of our weapons so our enemies knew how to get around them? It would be good to tell the enemy exactly where our troops are where they will be moving?
Well I don’t think spying automatically carries a life sentence. Does it?
UnoMondo: The underlying assumption of your statement is that all countries are morally the same, and that they are all equally as unlikely as the U.S. to instigate an attack. This is patently false. There are bad actors in the world. There are countries that would use any advantage they could against the United States.
Your claim that giving atomic secrets to the Soviets helped keep the peace doesn’t make any sense, unless you believe that the United States would have attacked the Soviet Union had the Soviets not developed the bomb. I think that’s a pretty tough claim to make.
Anyway, the punishment for spying is party a reflection of the amount of damage it can do to your country, but it’s also a reflection of the size of deterrent needed to stop spying.
Consider Robert Hanssen. He was paid millions of dollars for what he did. With that kind of incentive to spy, the punishment has to be severe or you’d have hundreds of people with mortgages and debt looking at the cost/benefit tradeoff and deciding to sell out their country.
Eh?!? I’d say that this is a highly contentious position to take. Well actually maybe that is exactly why we might want the playing field to be level. Ever hear of MAD? It kept us nice, safe and cosy for about 45 years of cold war.
Great idea. We have knives so we’d better make sure our enemies have them as well. You don’t need MAD to survive when you’re the only guy with the knife. I sure the Soviet Union would have learned how to make nukes in a matter of years. That doesn’t excuse giving them the means to make them early. Those who did certainly deserved to be executed.
Apologies in advance for the hijack - if it is one!
I love this. Did you ever think that perhaps people in Russia, or China, or Iraq, or anywhere else having a different ideology to the US wouldn’t think exactly the same??
Also:
The first assumes that democracy is unfallible. Do you really think that this is true?
Spies, however much we despise our own, must play an important role as we all use them. Intelligence and counter-intelligence are big industries. I agree that it’s a little hypocritical to punish people because they work for the ‘wrong side’ - it’s also, of course, a matter of national security that spying (for the opposition) is discouraged.
Because without the deterrent of MAD, the US would have gaily used nuclear weapons in any large-scale conflict, which would have led to the deaths of numerous civilians because atomic bombs have wide yields and many Soviet military installations were in heavily populated areas. Remember, McArthur wanted to use the bomb on North Korea nearly as soon as the US got involved, thank God Truman stopped him. Without MAD, it would have been easier for the US to use nuclear weapons whenever it wanted to quickly settle a score.
Funny thing about theorizing about alternate history is that at best you can make an educated guess. On the flip side perhaps the leverage of being the only power with nuclear arms could have stymied Soviet actions in eastern Europe and Asia. Maybe.
**
Just two things. It doesn’t matter what MacArthur wanted to do with the A-Bomb because Truman was the one who controlled it. Also MacArthur did not want to use nukes as soon as the US got involved in Korea. He didn’t want to use them until about a million Chinese troops poured across the border in an unprovoked attack.
Marc
*Yes unprovoked, the “Reluctant Dragon” theory is bunk.
We don’t even need to look to alternative history here. There were two instances of direct confrontation with the Soviet Union before the USSR got the Bomb, and in neither case did the U.S. nuke them.
The first was Stalin’s reneging on his promise to allow free and fair elections in Eastern Europe. The second (and much more dangerous) was the Berlin Blockade.
UnuMondo, your assertion moves beyond incorrect into offensive.
Both sides of this argument are way out. Anyone that claims america was very likely to use the bomb is wrong, although do remember that there were moments when it was being weighed in the bowl.
On the other side it is far from true to say that the Eastern block were any closer.
I think the argument hinges on the fact that you never know. And to state that the world would have been a safer place if only one, any one nation would have had the bomb is presumptuous in as much as that it assumes knowledge of what would have been and what will be. That is just simply downright silly.
MAD was perhaps no good idea, but somehow it seems to have worked. If you ask me I’m happy that the US has the bomb these days with Pakistan and India the way they are. With a little knowledge of history I have mixed feelings about that there was some kind of balance back in the day of the harsh words of 1961. We came damned close that time and who knows who was about to pull the trigger first. Neither the Joint Chiefs nor the Red Army command were exactly level headed if you might remember. Thanks to the eminent leaders and some fast footed behind the doors diplomacy on both sides the Soviets were the ones to blink first, it could have been otherwise. You could argue that it would never have happened if not the USSR had the bomb, well do if you can give us a Cite that is. Do we know what would the US have been like?
Let’s be fair and not pretend that we know the ‘what ifs’, shall we?
Pakistan publicly tested an a-bomb a few months after India did - about 2 years ago. India probably has more and more sophisticated bombs, but Pakistan is actually somewhat ahead of India in missile technology.
Pakistan publicly tested an a-bomb a few months after India did - about 2 years ago. India probably has more and more sophisticated bombs, but Pakistan is actually somewhat ahead of India in missile technology.
MGibson: I don’t think China was reluctant, but I also don’t think the were entirely unprovoked. The Yalu border was sensitive and in October of 1950 Zhou Enlai ( China’s foreign minister at the time ) delivered a pretty unambiguous warning ( theculmination of several ) via India that China would intervene in Korea if U.S. troops crossed the 38th parallel, but not if ROK forces did so alone. Truman and Acheson apparently thought it was a bluff and allowed MacArthur’s invasion to go ahead. Even after Chinese preparations became clear, MacArthur poo-poo’ed the idea that they would intervene and instead proceeded with his plan of attack that Omar Bradley later said would have been laughed out of the classroom at the army’s Command and General Staff School. The rest, unfortunately, is history.
Oh and the initial attack was by 300,00 Chinese troops ( vs. 247,000 UN/US/ROK who were, however, badly positioned, idiotically dispersed, and pretty tired ).
MGibson: I don’t think China was reluctant, but I also don’t think the were entirely unprovoked. The Yalu border was sensitive and in October of 1950 Zhou Enlai ( China’s foreign minister at the time ) delivered a pretty unambiguous warning ( theculmination of several ) via India that China would intervene in Korea if U.S. troops crossed the 38th parallel, but not if ROK forces did so alone. Truman and Acheson apparently thought it was a bluff and allowed MacArthur’s invasion to go ahead. Even after Chinese preparations became clear, MacArthur poo-poo’ed the idea that they would intervene and instead proceeded with his plan of attack that Omar Bradley later said would have been laughed out of the classroom at the army’s Command and General Staff School. The rest, unfortunately, is history.
Oh and the initial attack was by 300,00 Chinese troops ( vs. 247,000 UN/US/ROK who were, however, badly positioned, idiotically dispersed, and pretty tired ).
I’d say that this is a highly contentious position to take. Well actually maybe that is exactly why we might want the playing field to be level. Ever hear of MAD? It kept us nice, safe and cosy for about 45 years of cold war.
( vs. 247,000 UN/US/ROK who were, however, badly positioned, idiotically dispersed, and pretty tired ).