+- The Lurker Lounge Forums (https://www.lurkerlounge.com/forums)
+-- Forum: The Lurker Lounge (https://www.lurkerlounge.com/forums/forum-4.html)
+--- Forum: The Lounge (https://www.lurkerlounge.com/forums/forum-12.html)
+--- Thread: All Just Part of the Job? (/thread-12319.html)
All Just Part of the Job? - Taem - 06-29-2010
Do you think these Russian spies were told to "live together" to act like a typical married couple, and over time ended up having children because they started to have feelings for one another, or do you think they were told to have children together to establish a more believable back-story? Pretty disturbing stuff if the latter.
What do you think will happen to the children of these Russian spies? Technically, are they American if they they were born in the US and both of their parents were her illegally? Will the US keep them, or give them to the terrible Russian orphanages? All tragic situations, I'm sure. The parents should have taken this into consideration before having children and living the life of a spy, unless their government "made them" do it.
On the surface, what the news media's have let out does not seem too damaging (State Department Downplays Damage of Russian Spy Case), but they don't explain what tipped the FBI off into investigating these individuals in the first place. It must not have been good. Seems pretty risky to be running this cat-and-mouse game with Russia and the US so close to finally becoming "friends" again. I mean, something like this could be considered an act of war, especially if the data stolen was sensitive or classified. Well, I hope it does not damage US-Russia relations too much. I'm sure every country has their spies, even the US; it's all rather you get caught or not, or better yet, if they payoff is potentially better than the risk of getting caught, which in this case, seems like it wasn't.
RE: All Just Part of the Job? - Ashock - 06-29-2010
(06-29-2010, 11:17 PM)MEAT Wrote: Do you think these Russian spies were told to "live together" to act like a typical married couple, and over time ended up having children because they started to have feelings for one another, or do you think they were told to have children together to establish a more believable back-story? Pretty disturbing stuff if the latter.
What do you think will happen to the children of these Russian spies? Technically, are they American if they they were born in the US and both of their parents were her illegally? Will the US keep them, or give them to the terrible Russian orphanages? All tragic situations, I'm sure. The parents should have taken this into consideration before having children and living the life of a spy, unless their government "made them" do it.
On the surface, what the news media's have let out does not seem too damaging (State Department Downplays Damage of Russian Spy Case), but they don't explain what tipped the FBI off into investigating these individuals in the first place. It must not have been good. Seems pretty risky to be running this cat-and-mouse game with Russia and the US so close to finally becoming "friends" again. I mean, something like this could be considered an act of war, especially if the data stolen was sensitive or classified. Well, I hope it does not damage US-Russia relations too much. I'm sure every country has their spies, even the US; it's all rather you get caught or not, or better yet, if they payoff is potentially better than the risk of getting caught, which in this case, seems like it wasn't.
When you are a russian spy, you are a spy first and a parent second. Whether you want it or not.
Or else.
Just in case you think I'm kidding, don't.
RE: All Just Part of the Job? - --Pete - 06-30-2010
Hi,
(06-29-2010, 11:17 PM)MEAT Wrote: Do you think these Russian spies were told to "live together" to act like a typical married couple, and over time ended up having children because they started to have feelings for one another, or do you think they were told to have children together to establish a more believable back-story? Pretty disturbing stuff if the latter.
What difference does it make? True love conquers all?
Quote:What do you think will happen to the children of these Russian spies?
Depends. If their parents are found not guilty, they go on as before. If they're found guilty and simply deported, the kids will probably go with. If the parents get jail time, the kids will either go to a friend or relative who has some claim to them, or they will 'go into the system'.
Quote:Technically, are they American if they they were born in the US and both of their parents were her illegally?
Yes.
Quote:The parents should have taken this into consideration before having children and living the life of a spy,
Cops have kids. As do firefighters, soldiers, sailors, skydivers, mountain climbers, and commuters on the LA freeways. So what? Is it your opinion that only work at home CPAs should have kids? Life is dangerous, it has almost a 100% fatality rate.
Quote:On the surface, what the news media's have let out does not seem too damaging, but they don't explain what tipped the FBI off into investigating these individuals in the first place.
The news media hasn't said squat. Probably because that's as much as they know. No indication of what, if anything, has been compromised. And none of the people rounded up seem to be in a position to get much of anything beyond (possibly) cocktail gossip.
If you're going to talk about the news today, I think this is much more interesting. The Supremes have inched one step closer to clarifying the Second Amendment. And in a direction I approve of. However, they ducked the real issue, once again.
--Pete
RE: All Just Part of the Job? - Taem - 06-30-2010
(06-30-2010, 12:29 AM)--Pete Wrote: Hi,
(06-29-2010, 11:17 PM)MEAT Wrote: Do you think these Russian spies were told to "live together" to act like a typical married couple, and over time ended up having children because they started to have feelings for one another, or do you think they were told to have children together to establish a more believable back-story? Pretty disturbing stuff if the latter.
What difference does it make? True love conquers all?
Quote:The parents should have taken this into consideration before having children and living the life of a spy,
Cops have kids. As do firefighters, soldiers, sailors, skydivers, mountain climbers, and commuters on the LA freeways. So what? Is it your opinion that only work at home CPAs should have kids? Life is dangerous, it has almost a 100% fatality rate.
None of those professions you mentioned "force" you to bear children as a cover for your real occupation. I find the human right implications of this story disturbing to say the least, thus my pondering.
(06-30-2010, 12:29 AM)--Pete Wrote: Hi,
If you're going to talk about the news today, I think this is much more interesting. The Supremes have inched one step closer to clarifying the Second Amendment. And in a direction I approve of. However, they ducked the real issue, once again.
--Pete
Interesting read. I'm all in favor of more rights for the citizens and less stricter government mandates, so long as it keeps the people best interest at heart, be that freedom or restriction. In this case, I think everybody should be allowed to own a handgun for recreational use and self defense, plain and simple, however from reading that article, I get the impression this may only be the tip of the iceberg on public opinion.
RE: All Just Part of the Job? - --Pete - 06-30-2010
Hi,
(06-30-2010, 12:55 AM)MEAT Wrote: I get the impression this may only be the tip of the iceberg on public opinion.
Most definitely. "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." Is the Militia the reason or a reason for the people to have the right to bear arms? Had the writers left off the first 13 words, the meaning would be clear. As it is, it is ambiguous.
I believe, from the historical evidence and from similar statements in many of the state constitutions, that the purpose was to allow the citizenry to be armed. If that belief is correct, then all the restrictions on weapons are unconstitutional, including registrations, waiting periods, etc. After all, it does not say, " . . . shall not be banned." It says, " . . . shall not be infringed." a somewhat stronger statement.
It is poorly written, not just because it is ambivalent, but because it is (I think) too general. "Arms". Not "firearms", not "guns and pistols and knives and hatchets", not "personal arms" but "Arms". Even at the time it was written, Arms referred to cannon, mortars, rockets, in addition to individual arms. Nowadays it covers a lot more.
So far, the Supremes have dodged the issue of how that sentence is to be parsed. This decision simply reiterates something that has long been held, namely that the states do not have the right to do something expressively forbidden at the federal constitutional level. As I said, it is a good decision in my opinion. And that is independent of one's opinion about the right to bear arms. It is a good decision because it reaffirms that the federal constitution is the supreme law of the land.
I would like to see a decision that pushed the point further. One that denied the right to bear arms except while in the military, or one that took all restrictions (" . . . shall not be infringed") away from owning and bearing arms. Either way it would cause a constitutional crisis and, I suspect, two new amendments would be proposed. One effectively banning private weapons and one allowing them without the byzantine laws and regulations now in force.
I'd vote for the second, but if the sheep win with the first, then the shearing they (or their descendants) get will be well earned and deserved.
--Pete
RE: All Just Part of the Job? - Hammerskjold - 06-30-2010
I'm still getting only at best, a vague and generic detail on what kind of secrets they're trying to spy on. (Industrial? Financial? Nuclear? The secret of the Caramilk Bar?)
Obvious security and legal matter aside bla bla etc, (still under investigation, security issues...) if they want to infiltrate and try to make connections with the highest levels of the US government, it seems to me nowadays being a pseudo celebrity might actually be a better way than playing cold war spy games.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/worldnews/article-1231081/White-House-Gatecrashers-Michaele-Tareq-Salahi-crash-Obamas-White-House-party-post-pictures-Facebook-embarrassing-security-scare.html
RE: All Just Part of the Job? - ShadowHM - 06-30-2010
Comment removed: I should know better than to enter a conversation just as I am leaving for an (internet-free) vacation.
RE: All Just Part of the Job? - kandrathe - 06-30-2010
(06-30-2010, 12:29 AM)--Pete Wrote: If you're going to talk about the news today, I think this is much more interesting. The Supremes have inched one step closer to clarifying the Second Amendment. And in a direction I approve of. However, they ducked the real issue, once again.It is interesting. I find myself torn. While on the one hand, I applaud the affirmation of the 2nd amendment, on the other, it might be seen as an affirmation of Federal power over the States. It wasn't really until the Warren court of the 1960's that the Bill of Rights was incorporated into due process. We tend to focus on the parts of incorporation that are good, such as extending the bill of rights, we forget about the times when the Federalists have over extended their powers, such as various Sedition Acts (most recently "Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act of 2007" which died in the Senate).
RE: All Just Part of the Job? - Lissa - 06-30-2010
(06-30-2010, 12:29 AM)--Pete Wrote:Quote:What do you think will happen to the children of these Russian spies?
Depends. If their parents are found not guilty, they go on as before. If they're found guilty and simply deported, the kids will probably go with. If the parents get jail time, the kids will either go to a friend or relative who has some claim to them, or they will 'go into the system'.
What happens with the kids is actually very convoluted. Case in point, a wealthy Mexican couple moved to Arizona some years back on a temporary visa and the wife ended up having one child during said visa stay so she and her husband were allowed to stay because the child was born in the US. They later had another child as well. When both children were around 10 and 8, the parents ended up being convicted of hiring illegals as staff and didn't report them as illegals. The parents were deported after being found guilty, but the children were allowed to remain within the US. I do not know if the children eventually went with their parents or not, but a similar situation could arise in this case where the parents are deported, but the kids are allowed to stay (and even if the parents are found not guilty of being spies, they could potentially be deported due to being here illegally).
RE: All Just Part of the Job? - kandrathe - 06-30-2010
(06-30-2010, 07:23 AM)Hammerskjold Wrote: I'm still getting only at best, a vague and generic detail on what kind of secrets they're trying to spy on. (Industrial? Financial? Nuclear? The secret of the Caramilk Bar?)It appears they were trying to get connected in the "in crowd" of Washington. But, weren't limiting themselves to merely politics. As quoted from the decrypted message in the complaint filed in court, "You were sent to USA for long-term service trip. Your education, bank accounts, car, house etc. - all these serve one goal: fulfill your main mission, i.e. to search and develop ties in policymaking circles in US and send intels [intelligence reports] to C[enter]."
The above Criminal Complaints From the Justice Department reads like a spy novel. As for children, it would depend on whether the parents are convicted and go to prison, but, being that any minor children are probably citizens, they would become wards of their residence States and enter the foster parent / adoption programs. Just as any citizen couple who ended up doing many years in prison might, and they may be "traded" back to Russia if they have relatives that ask for them.
RE: All Just Part of the Job? - Hammerskjold - 06-30-2010
(06-30-2010, 05:50 PM)kandrathe Wrote: As quoted from the decrypted message in the complaint filed in court, "You were sent to USA for long-term service trip. Your education, bank accounts, car, house etc. - all these serve one goal: fulfill your main mission, i.e. to search and develop ties in policymaking circles in US and send intels [intelligence reports] to C[enter]."
Yeah, that's still pretty generic to me. I mean I can see that as an Office Depot business card template for a spy. Or the intro of a cover letter to apply for a international spy position. (Not international super-spy just yet, though Anna Chapman does have major potentials in the looks department. So sue me, I'm a red blooded male.)
Not saying I'm convinced 100% that these folks are not spies or they are. Just sayin that the facts so far from what I've seen, are pretty thin. Again that's probably because it's all still under investigation.
I mean maybe it's just me, but I can also easily imagine this scenario.
I'm a spy, my boss just told me I'm considered for a mission. This mission entails me getting out of post Soviet Russia and into the US, for some vague and generic goal that is hard to quantify, and they're going to foot the bill for me to blend in as an American.
That includes bank accounts, cars, education, petty cash for arranging cake filled office birthday parties those capitalist pigs love to throw. Oh and it's possibly a long term trip. Hmmm...Yes Kommissar! I'm your spy, Hamburger Baseball, Capitalist Mickey Mouse Manifest Destiny!
If it is proven that these folks are spies, I gotta say. The Evil Empire schemes used to be more...edgy and sexy and worthy of Bond Villainy. This one seems to be more in the vein of Dr. Strangelove absurd funny.
Blofeld they ain't. - --Pete - 07-01-2010
Hi,
(06-30-2010, 11:54 PM)Hammerskjold Wrote: If it is proven that these folks are spies, I gotta say. The Evil Empire schemes used to be more...edgy and sexy and worthy of Bond Villainy. This one seems to be more in the vein of Dr. Strangelove absurd funny.
Well put. Perhaps we'll eventually find out that these spies actually did spy. From what has been released, so far, except for their illegal status, they seem to be guilty of playing Get Smart. Poorly.
--Pete
RE: Blofeld they ain't. - kandrathe - 07-01-2010
(07-01-2010, 12:28 AM)--Pete Wrote: Well put. Perhaps we'll eventually find out that these spies actually did spy. From what has been released, so far, except for their illegal status, they seem to be guilty of playing Get Smart. Poorly.If they didn't get anything, then this is about the only case I've ever heard of where we weren't completely raped before we caught them.
RE: Blofeld they ain't. - kandrathe - 07-01-2010
(07-01-2010, 12:28 AM)--Pete Wrote: From what has been released, so far, except for their illegal status, they seem to be guilty of playing Get Smart. Poorly.From what has been reported it appears that the FBI pounced before damage was done, but they are accused of 1) acting on behalf of a foreign government without US permission (spy, agent), 2) money laundering (smuggling), 3) tax evasion, 4) forged documentation, 5) conspiracy to commit espionage.
Many of the above charges are worthy of lengthy prison terms alone. Proving actual espionage, without disclosing the content of was secrets were compromised is difficult. Obviously information was passed, as has been documented in detail, but the contents have not been disclosed. I would interpret this being that the US knows what was passed, the US wants the Russians to know that they know what was passed, and that the US does not want to disclose what they passed to the general public.
My bet is that Metsos escapes through Turkey by using forged papers and altering his identity, and we never get the 11th one. Bail for accused foreign agents? What will they think of next? Pardons for serial killers?
RE: All Just Part of the Job? - Rhydderch Hael - 07-02-2010
(06-30-2010, 11:54 PM)Hammerskjold Wrote:"...to search and develop ties..." doesn't sound like actual 'spy' work do me, but rather they are/were to serve as bloodhounds or bait for potential intel sources. You know: dig in gently, find someone remotely sympathetic, get something big and dirty on them, and then lure them into the world via a more professional handler.(06-30-2010, 05:50 PM)kandrathe Wrote: As quoted from the decrypted message in the complaint filed in court, "You were sent to USA for long-term service trip. Your education, bank accounts, car, house etc. - all these serve one goal: fulfill your main mission, i.e. to search and develop ties in policymaking circles in US and send intels [intelligence reports] to C[enter]."
Yeah, that's still pretty generic to me. I mean I can see that as an Office Depot business card template for a spy. Or the intro of a cover letter to apply for a international spy position.
And, once the handler is in the game, these folks may act as the intermediaries between the handler and the source, insulating the handler and providing yet another corner-of-the-street through which to lose any potential counterintelligence effort.
These folks may not have been dyed-in-the-wool masters of cloak and dagger, but the folks they worked with/for may very well be.
RE: All Just Part of the Job? - Hammerskjold - 07-02-2010
(07-02-2010, 02:14 AM)Rhydderch Hael Wrote: These folks may not have been dyed-in-the-wool masters of cloak and dagger, but the folks they worked with/for may very well be.
See something like that would make more sense. Maybe I'm old school, but I was kinda surprised when I read that Anna Chapman had a facebook page with some scrumptious pics.
I don't really see most spy-ish types updating their facebook profiles. (Granted the opposite might work, a modern day MataHari who hides in the spotlight so to speak. But I'd rather not contemplate that horrible scenario, because that could mean the possibilities that the cast of 'Jersey Shore' are actually an elite team of spies out to infiltrate the highest levels of super secrets.)
But most of the headlines I've read so far doesn't sell the story as they're just intermediaries or disposable layer\distraction wielded by the real cloak and daggers. It's selling it as they are the actual spies.
Then again maybe I'm just still adjusting to the new normal, considering a 4 star American General who is not unversed in black ops, gives an interview to Rollingstone. And closer to my own backyard, this:
http://backofthebook.ca/2010/06/23/will-richard-fadden-be-mcchrystaled/3350/
I mean what's next, James Bond tweeting to the world:
'omg just saw scrmnga sprfluos 3rd niples, eeeeeeeew
still looking for access key to the death beam sttlite cntrol.
ps. hiding in the nook of vilain scret island, keep info on dwnlow ok
kthxbai.'