Gun-control groups fear top activist was NRA spy

[A4sForever]

[FONT=Verdana,Sans-serif]Gun-control groups fear top activist was NRA spy

:icon_lol::icon_lol::icon_lol::icon_lol::icon_lol::icon_lol::icon_lol::icon_lol::icon_lol::icon_lol:


[/FONT]

 

[scoolbubba]

badass. i love it.

 

[NozeMan]

NRA, don't underestimate a well funded, highly motivated group!

 

[squorch2]

... regardless of their paranoia-inflected actions.

 

[raptor10]

Awesome if true!

 

[Flash]

A bit overboard, don't you think? Do they really fear these groups that much to spend money on a 'spy'? And one fo teh officials had a point, almost everything they do is ublic and 'above board', so where is the gain? What would you all think if this happened to the NRA, I don't think the reaction would be so humorous to some NRA supporters. Not very ethical at all.

 

[Pugs]

A bit overboard, don't you think?

No.

And one of the officials had a point, almost everything they do is public and 'above board', so where is the gain?

Surely you don't believe that do you? You've been around enough to know that nothing is completely above board in the public policy and special interest arena. They (and by that I mean either side of the aisle) will do anything and I mean anything to get an agenda moved forward.

 

[Flash]

No.

Not surprising.

Surely you don't believe that do you? You've been around enough to know that nothing is completely above board in the public policy and special interest arena. They (and by that I mean either side of the aisle) will do anything and I mean anything to get an agenda moved forward.

Anything? They would not do 'anything', you know that as well as I.

Their agenda is public and so are their efforts. As a matter of fact, the reason that this 'spy' probably can't be charged with a crime is because all the activities she participated in, including board meetings, were open to the public. If they had been private/privileged then from what I have read she possibly could be charged, nto sure on the specifics.

So where was the gain for the NRA? Learning publicly available info probably was not worth the cost. But, I guess if the NRA wants to waste their money.

Still unethical. I am not aware of any other reputable advocacy organization that would do/has done something like this.

 

[raptor10]

If she ha been on retainer with the NRA as long as they say she has, then obviously someone thinks her intel was useful.

 

[Pugs]

Anything? They would not do 'anything', you know that as well as I.

Their agenda is public and so are their efforts. As a matter of fact, the reason that this 'spy' probably can't be charged with a crime is because all the activities she participated in, including board meetings, were open to the public. If they had been private/privileged then from what I have read she possibly could be charged, nto sure on the specifics.

So where was the gain for the NRA? Learning publicly available info probably was not worth the cost. But, I guess if the NRA wants to waste their money.

Still unethical. I am not aware of any other reputable advocacy organization that would do/has done something like this.

Unethical is a very wide path. Did she attempt derail the goals and aims of the organization or did she just provide information to another organization. As you point out if and I mean if. they are truly above board with their agenda and organization and she did not try and derail it then there is no ethical lapse in my opinion. YMMV

Flash, you remind of many with a liberal bent (and I won't go as far as calling you a liberal as I know that people with our accesses cannot ever buy into that agenda when you see the source material) but you have a very optimistic view of how internal US and NGO operations accomplish their mission. Yes, when I said anything, it is a bit over the top, but what they will do, including outright lies and manipulation is on the table and used all the time.

 

[Flash]

If she ha been on retainer with the NRA as long as they say she has, then obviously someone thinks her intel was useful.

You would be surprised. The mere fact that they had placed a mole in their rivals' organizations would probably be an ego boost enough to some to continue the activity even if little useful information was gained. That type of thing happens in the real world too.

Unethical is a very wide path. Did she attempt derail the goals and aims of the organization or did she just provide information to another organization. As you point out if and I mean if. they are truly above board with their agenda and organization and she did not try and derail it then there is no ethical lapse in my opinion. YMMV

Using a mole who misrepresents herself to gain information on groups opposed to you, that in itself I think is unethical. Sorry if I have standards.

Flash, you remind of many with a liberal bent (and I won't go as far as calling you a liberal as I know that people with our accesses cannot ever buy into that agenda when you see the source material) but you have a very optimistic view of how internal US and NGO operations accomplish their mission. Yes, when I said anything, it is a bit over the top, but what they will do, including outright lies and manipulation is on the table and used all the time.

Thanks, I am not.

I don't have a 'unicorns and rainbows' view of NGO's and advocacy groups, I am fully aware of what many are capable of. I have a dim view of any group that I think takes unethical, illegal or or grossly inappropriate actions to further their cause. There are many groups on both the right and the left that do those kinds of activities.

But to go as far as utilizing a tool that is more the provenance of government security services is going too far. I think your support of the NRA is clouding your view in this particular instance, I imagine the reaction would be drastically different if it had been an anti-gun group infiltrating the NRA. I would take a similarly dim view of that as well.

 

[feddoc]

You have standards....have you spoken out when gun control advocates have lied?

 

[Flash]

You have standards....have you spoken out when gun control advocates have lied?

And how many times have you spoken out when the NRA has lied?

Apples and oranges anyways, there is a huge difference between putting out PR statements that skew the facts and making a multi-year investment in emplacing a mole in a rival organization. I am certain even you can see the difference.

 

[Pugs]

I think your support of the NRA is clouding your view in this particular instance, I imagine the reaction would be drastically different if it had been an anti-gun group infiltrating the NRA. I would take a similarly dim view of that as well.

You might be surprised to find I'm not even a member of the NRA at this time. I am member of GOA and multiple other conservation organizations though.

 

[NozeMan]

Also, keep in mind that nothing is "proven" according to the above article. The woman is linked to multiple groups in the article and also works for a firm that is used by the NRA. Maybe they used her, and maybe not.