4 ms·

China has done precisely that: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/may/16/canadians-detained-in-china-charged-with-espionage https://www.theguardian.com/wor

China has done precisely that: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/may/16/canadians-detained-in-china-charged-with-espionage https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/may/16/canadians-deta...

ShorsHammer 7y ago
Somewhat tangential: Do you think there are no spies operating in China whom are known to the current government? Why would China choose some random Westerners over known intel assets while knowing full well the case will appear so prominently on the world stage? Tourism makes up 10% of their economy. Nations tolerate this stuff and are well aware of who is who, it's how it is. Kicking out a known operative means another unknown will replace them. Better the enemy you know and such. There's a recent video from the CIA on the lengths they go to disguise embassy-tasked folk and how they get them out into the _world_. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JASUsVY5YJ8 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JASUsVY5YJ8
- some_random 7y ago
  They just execute the spies. https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/20/world/asia/china-cia-spies-espionage.html https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/20/world/asia/china-cia-spie...
  - close04 7y ago
    Do we know what other countries do in such cases? The US has consistently addressed possible terrorists with black sites or drone strikes (executions). So is it beyond the realm of possibility that at least parts of undercover spy networks are dealt with in similar ways? And is there any expectation that a newspaper would be able to exercise the right to free speech and report on this given that a gag order is enough to prevent any such attempts under the threat of prison time (possibly in one of those black sites)? Countries (especially superpowers) have been known to remove any semblance of due process, freedom, and security in the name of... freedom and security. [0] [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patriot_Act https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patriot_Act P.S. I expect downvotes for my comment. I don't expect any will be accompanied by any attempts at a counter-argument. And my comment is not about whatabboutism, just that you can't single out someone unless they are actually singular in their actions.
    - roywiggins 7y ago
      You may recall the Russian "Illegals." They were exchanged. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Illegals_Program https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Illegals_Program Also the "Cuban Five", who either served a prison sentence or were exchanged. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cuban_Five https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cuban_Five You may be surprised to hear it, but the FBI (who runs internal counterespionage in the US) operates rather differently from China. I suppose the FBI could be organizing hits on American citizens suspected of spying for China, but on the whole it seems like one of the least likely abuses. The CIA gets up to all sorts of things abroad, but running a kidnap/murder program inside the country is not particularly the FBI's style.
      - close04 7y ago
        All sides use some of the captured spies for exchanges, it's good business. And I'm sure all of them also kill some to send a message, also good business sometimes (in this case 18-20 killed or imprisoned). My point wasn't to single out one agency - FBI, CIA, etc. Is your honest belief that no foreign spies were executed on US soil, or no spy networks were dismantled like this? "Combatants" (in quotes because the meaning tended to change over time) that take no issues with killing (collateral victims included), torturing, holding people for decades with no due process, or even something as plain and legal as the death penalty for crimes committed by their own citizens, etc. will draw the line at executing a foreign spy that ostensibly deserves it according to most countries' laws and rules of engagement? Why would spies be treated any better than any enemy or even the citizens? There's no point in singling out one country for something like this unless you're specifically looking to deceive yourself straight up the moral high ground. In this "business" expect things that are lowest of the low on any moral scale. From all sides.
        roywiggins 7y ago
        China has a whole gulag archipelago for disappearing and executing dissidents and undesirables. The US doesn't have the infrastructure. The CIA had to spin up a whole set of foreign black sites for its rendition/torture program. I could see Hoover's FBI doing something like this, but it would probably have come out by now if they had. Killing your own citizens who spy for foreign countries to send a message doesn't work that well unless you're willing to let it get out that you did it. If nobody knows, then it's not a disincentive! And your adversaries will just recruit more- after all, they're not the ones running the risk, it's your citizens, who don't even know about your new targeted murder program. Quietly disposing of the Rosenbergs instead of putting them on trial might have been easier, but unlike in authoritarian regimes the US wouldn't be able to do anything but keep it a deep dark secret, and the propaganda value and deterrent effect would be wasted. Killing an entire ring of foreign spies who could be swapped is also stupid, since it means your spies won't be held and maybe swapped, they'll be killed. Have foreign spies ended up dead on American soil due to US government action, sure maybe, but the FBI or whoever deciding to round up and shoot everyone in a spy ring, nah.
  - Nasrudith 7y ago
    I thought those were jusr their catspaws and the norm for spying was far more sociopathically aristocratic - the official spies have if not holding diplomatic immunity have some sort of official connection. Executing them is technically legally perscribed but simply not done in practice - instead being kept for prisoner exchanges. Their networks of local contacts who do the actual work may not even get the benefit of a third world kangaroo court trial.
    - roywiggins 7y ago
      The handlers usually do have diplomatic cover. The sources don't, they're local people with access to valuable information. "Catspaws" is not quite right. The people who got rounded up in China were CIA sources.
DocTomoe 7y ago
In all fairness, one of these guys organizes trips to North Korea. It's not like they were making themselves inconspicuous.

China has done precisely that: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/may/16/canadians-detained-in-china-charged-with-espionage https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/may/16/canadians-deta...

ShorsHammer 7y ago

Somewhat tangential: Do you think there are no spies operating in China whom are known to the current government? Why would China choose some random Westerners over known intel assets while knowing full well the case will appear so prominently on the world stage? Tourism makes up 10% of their economy. Nations tolerate this stuff and are well aware of who is who, it's how it is. Kicking out a known operative means another unknown will replace them. Better the enemy you know and such. There's a recent video from the CIA on the lengths they go to disguise embassy-tasked folk and how they get them out into the _world_. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JASUsVY5YJ8 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JASUsVY5YJ8

some_random 7y ago
They just execute the spies. https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/20/world/asia/china-cia-spies-espionage.html https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/20/world/asia/china-cia-spie...
- close04 7y ago
  Do we know what other countries do in such cases? The US has consistently addressed possible terrorists with black sites or drone strikes (executions). So is it beyond the realm of possibility that at least parts of undercover spy networks are dealt with in similar ways? And is there any expectation that a newspaper would be able to exercise the right to free speech and report on this given that a gag order is enough to prevent any such attempts under the threat of prison time (possibly in one of those black sites)? Countries (especially superpowers) have been known to remove any semblance of due process, freedom, and security in the name of... freedom and security. [0] [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patriot_Act https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patriot_Act P.S. I expect downvotes for my comment. I don't expect any will be accompanied by any attempts at a counter-argument. And my comment is not about whatabboutism, just that you can't single out someone unless they are actually singular in their actions.
  - roywiggins 7y ago
    You may recall the Russian "Illegals." They were exchanged. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Illegals_Program https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Illegals_Program Also the "Cuban Five", who either served a prison sentence or were exchanged. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cuban_Five https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cuban_Five You may be surprised to hear it, but the FBI (who runs internal counterespionage in the US) operates rather differently from China. I suppose the FBI could be organizing hits on American citizens suspected of spying for China, but on the whole it seems like one of the least likely abuses. The CIA gets up to all sorts of things abroad, but running a kidnap/murder program inside the country is not particularly the FBI's style.
    - close04 7y ago
      All sides use some of the captured spies for exchanges, it's good business. And I'm sure all of them also kill some to send a message, also good business sometimes (in this case 18-20 killed or imprisoned). My point wasn't to single out one agency - FBI, CIA, etc. Is your honest belief that no foreign spies were executed on US soil, or no spy networks were dismantled like this? "Combatants" (in quotes because the meaning tended to change over time) that take no issues with killing (collateral victims included), torturing, holding people for decades with no due process, or even something as plain and legal as the death penalty for crimes committed by their own citizens, etc. will draw the line at executing a foreign spy that ostensibly deserves it according to most countries' laws and rules of engagement? Why would spies be treated any better than any enemy or even the citizens? There's no point in singling out one country for something like this unless you're specifically looking to deceive yourself straight up the moral high ground. In this "business" expect things that are lowest of the low on any moral scale. From all sides.
      - roywiggins 7y ago
        China has a whole gulag archipelago for disappearing and executing dissidents and undesirables. The US doesn't have the infrastructure. The CIA had to spin up a whole set of foreign black sites for its rendition/torture program. I could see Hoover's FBI doing something like this, but it would probably have come out by now if they had. Killing your own citizens who spy for foreign countries to send a message doesn't work that well unless you're willing to let it get out that you did it. If nobody knows, then it's not a disincentive! And your adversaries will just recruit more- after all, they're not the ones running the risk, it's your citizens, who don't even know about your new targeted murder program. Quietly disposing of the Rosenbergs instead of putting them on trial might have been easier, but unlike in authoritarian regimes the US wouldn't be able to do anything but keep it a deep dark secret, and the propaganda value and deterrent effect would be wasted. Killing an entire ring of foreign spies who could be swapped is also stupid, since it means your spies won't be held and maybe swapped, they'll be killed. Have foreign spies ended up dead on American soil due to US government action, sure maybe, but the FBI or whoever deciding to round up and shoot everyone in a spy ring, nah.
- Nasrudith 7y ago
  I thought those were jusr their catspaws and the norm for spying was far more sociopathically aristocratic - the official spies have if not holding diplomatic immunity have some sort of official connection. Executing them is technically legally perscribed but simply not done in practice - instead being kept for prisoner exchanges. Their networks of local contacts who do the actual work may not even get the benefit of a third world kangaroo court trial.
  - roywiggins 7y ago
    The handlers usually do have diplomatic cover. The sources don't, they're local people with access to valuable information. "Catspaws" is not quite right. The people who got rounded up in China were CIA sources.

DocTomoe 7y ago

In all fairness, one of these guys organizes trips to North Korea. It's not like they were making themselves inconspicuous.