Flash: isn't that a good way to get double f*cked by the spy?
The plea agreements usually carry clauses that invalidate the agreement if the spy does not cooperate.
Also, I thought those trials could be done with a gag order to keep info secret.
Secret from the public, to protect classified information. Not secret from the government or the prosecutors.
And, doesn't any decent intelligence agency insulate themselves through several layers from the traitor to prevent a double agent?
There are a variety of ways that foreign intelligence agents protect and insulate themsleves from capture or exposure. But a lot of those means are technical and rely on technique, like dead drops and emails. Relying on people, especially several, can greatly increase an agents risk to exposure. I believe that was how the Rosenburgs got caught. Plus, many first rate agencies still rely on people who are under official cover, embassy personnel who have diplomatic immunity. Most of the time spycraft is very simple, why add complexity to an already complicated situation? KISS.
I appreciate your perspective but you haven't convinced me 100%. Also, can't forensics pretty much figure out what info was given out?
I have access to reams of data in my current job. Unless they monitor a spy from the beginning or were able to compromise the opposing agency, you have to assume everything the guy dealt with was compromised. That is a lot of data, input from the spy then becomes very important. One disadvantage is that US intel agencies share a lot of data with a lot of people, in intelligence. Meaning, I have access to a lot of stuff that is not really necessary for my job. That makes the US and some of our allies more vunerable to compromising a large mount of data, but it makes my every day job
a lot easier, and makes our intelligence agencies
a lot more effective. It is a double edged sword but one that I am more than willing to live with. It is part of a cost of a free society. I know of several examples in Vietnam where vital information was withheld from US aviators that could have saved their lives. It was stuff that everyone assumed we were doing anyways but some still played 'I have a secret'. There are some hard decisions that have to be made like that sometimes, think Churchill and Coventry, but we had gone overboard for years.
Don't think we give spys an easy ride though, some of the tactics the government uses against these guys are downright mean, though certainly justified. Cooperate and the options are a lot better for a spy, just a long jail sentence becomes an incentive for these guys.
Once the spy is caught, I feel like he holds very few cards anymore.
They do, to a degree. Stroke their ego a little and you will be suprised what some will give up. Spy: "Look at how brilliant I was, I fooled you for so long!" FBI Agent: "Man, you are right! We had no idea that you were doing this, you really pulled the wool over our eyes on this one. Even when we suspected it might be someone in your office you were able to deflect our suspicions of you. Wow, how did you do all of that?" The art of interrogation, it is a beautiful thing sometimes......
But anyways, whether or not it is better to make a deal to get more information (or get played twice) is only part of the issue. Even if our nation was better served by executing the spy, I doubt most people in the country would support that.
I have no problem, and I believe most Americans feel the same, with executing a spy who has cost American lives, especially in wartime. Sometimes we have to make the hard decision and let that person live....
cough....Walker.....
cough....but that is a decision that I trust the prosecutors to make.
