Traitors Confess to Spying for Cuba

[HH-60H]

They were arrested over the summer and confessed to spying for Cuba today. I'm glad the confession saved the government time and money AND the dirt bag still got a life sentence.

http://www.miamiherald.com/news/americas/cuba/story/1344839.html

 

[xj220]

Glad they caught them, as well. I'm surprised they didn't receive harsher punishments, I'm wondering if the damage wasn't as bad.

 

[HH-60H]

Glad they caught them, as well. I'm surprised they didn't receive harsher punishments, I'm wondering if the damage wasn't as bad.

Other than the death sentence, what's harsher than a life sentence? He accepted that in a plea bargin so his wife would only get 7 years.

 

[m26]

Other than the death sentence, what's harsher than a life sentence? He accepted that in a plea bargin so his wife would only get 7 years.

She's not getting off that easy. Seven years is quite a bit when you're 71!

edit: I assume. The septuagenarian Air Warriors might disagree...

 

[Cleonard19]

Other than the death sentence, what's harsher than a life sentence? He accepted that in a plea bargin so his wife would only get 7 years.

He's not deserving of a life sentence. He got the lightest punishment prescribable by law. The punishment for treason is either life without the possibility of parole, or death.

There's a damned good reason treason is the ONLY crime specifically outlined in the Constitution.

 

[HH-60H]

He's not deserving of a life sentence. The punishment for being convicted of treasonous acts against The United States of America is death. He got off light, if you choose to follow the letter of the law. Sadly, we tend to take the PC route these days instead...

There is a crime called treason, he was not convicted of that crime. It's defined in the Constitution, you should read it sometime.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article_Three_of_the_United_States_Constitution#Section_3:_Treason

 

[m26]

He's not deserving of a life sentence. The punishment for being convicted of treasonous acts against The United States of America is death. He got off light, if you choose to follow the letter of the law. Sadly, we tend to take the PC route these days instead...

That's not the law, and I'm sick of everyone labeling everything PC that doesn't conform to some nonexistent past standard of hardline behavior.

Do you really think they gave the Cubans the nuclear launch codes? Treason is punishable by death, yes, but it needn't be. As xj220 suggested, I really doubt they accomplished much.

 

[nittany03]

I find it interesting how many people these days are so quick to say "he committed treason against Amurrica! He needs shootin!" without realizing that the reason why the Constitution explicitly spells out the requirements is to make it HARD to convict.

Treason is the crime by which a monarch executes any and all who piss him or her off, and tends to have a very slippery definition in an autocratic society. In addition, the bit about "cruel and unusual punishment" wasn't added because murderers might have to be stuck with a needle multiple times, but because people in the old country could be hanged, drawn, and quartered.

 

[Cleonard19]

That's not the law, and I'm sick of everyone labeling everything PC that doesn't conform to some nonexistent past standard of hardline behavior.

Do you really think they gave the Cubans the nuclear launch codes? Treason is punishable by death, yes, but it needn't be. As xj220 suggested, I really doubt they accomplished much.

You quoted me just before I fixed my statement. And my PC comment was more pointed at this countries propensity for lighter sentences for the elderly in general.

I find it interesting how many people these days are so quick to say "he committed treason against Amurrica! He needs shootin!" without realizing that the reason why the Constitution explicitly spells out the requirements is to make it HARD to convict.

.....

Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.

Seems pretty cut and Dry to me. And how is spying NOT "giving them aid?" That wording is intentionally vague so as to include many different forms of aids to Enemies.

There is a crime called treason, he was not convicted of that crime.

I would argue that by extension, a confession to Spying for an Enemy Nation is also a confession to committing the act of treason.

 

[MPH]

Seems pretty cut and Dry to me. And how is spying NOT "giving them aid?" That wording is intentionally vague so as to include many different forms of aids to Enemies.

I would argue that by extension, a confession to Spying for an Enemy Nation is also a confession to committing the act of treason.

I'm not a constitutional scholar, but I'd guess that the argument would be that while we may not have friendly relations with Cuba, they aren't actively at war with us.

If someone was spying for France for instance, would we convict them of treason? If we didn't wouldn't that mean we declared France an enemy of the United States?

Please correct me if I'm wrong.

 

[Flash]

As I have said before on this board there is a very good reason that most spy cases are pled out by the defendants and why the government is eager to do so. Getting spies to tell us what they gave away and how they did it is very valuable and critical in getting an accurate damage assessment. The government hangs a lot over their head, offering lesser sentences for spouses who are involved and threatening to seize everything they own if they were paid seem to be pretty common. With the information that we often gain from convicted spies we can not only gain a more accurate damage assessment but the government can try and implement fixes that the spies and their handlers may have exploited. Think of it like a mishap investigation, there is good reason to make sure those results and everything said in them are protected, in the long run it is much more valuable knowing what happened than hanging someone.

In case anyone cared, these two were pretty unusual for modern-day spies in this country. First, they did it for ideological reasons and second, they were moles. The husband specifically joined State's intel agency at the behest of Cuban intelligence. Off the top of my head there has only been one other spy (maybe two, but the other was an idiot) in the US recently who did it for ideology and no other moles that I can think of in recent times. Something you see in spy novels often but not so much in real life, though in fiction the spy usually isn't an idiot who fails to hide his real ideology.

 

[Pugs]

In case anyone cared, these two were pretty unusual for modern-day spies in this country. First, they did it for ideological reasons and second, they were moles. Off the top of my head there has only been one other spy (maybe two, but the other was an idiot) in the US recently who did it for ideology and no other moles that I can think of in recent times.

Indeed the modern spy is usually much more motivated by money or ego than ideology but I think to ascribe a spy's motives as purely one or the other is a bit simplistic.

The other that are almost certainly greater idealistic than financial or ego are the spies for Isreal. Pollard, Ben-ami Kadish and Yosef Amit.

As far as punishment, it is often much better to get them to plea as that also avoids the issues of dealing with declassification of evidence in open court.

 

[xj220]

I've always been curious how they handle classified material in court. Do they have to declassify it, or let certain people in and clear them?

 

[nittany03]

Seems pretty cut and Dry to me. And how is spying NOT "giving them aid?" That wording is intentionally vague so as to include many different forms of aids to Enemies.

Yes, but it's the confession or "testimony to an overt act" part which makes it hard. The Founding Fathers were trying to avoid the old beat-him-until-he-confesses trick or holding a kangaroo court to convict a dissident of treason. The Crown could be nasty that way, back in the day.

I would argue that by extension, a confession to Spying for an Enemy Nation is also a confession to committing the act of treason.

Good point.

 

[NavAir42]

Yes, but it's the confession or "testimony to an overt act" part which makes it hard. The Founding Fathers were trying to avoid the old beat-him-until-he-confesses trick or holding a kangaroo court to convict a dissident of treason. The Crown could be nasty that way, back in the day.

Good point.

Oh come on, the beat-until-he-confesses trick works. You'd just better hope what he's confessing to is actually the crime he may or may not have committed.