REAL WORLD EVENT DISCUSSIONS

Do spies and informants deserve privacy ?

POSTED BY: FREMDFIRMA
UPDATED: Friday, April 11, 2008 17:36
SHORT URL:
VIEWED: 1253
PAGE 1 of 1

Friday, April 11, 2008 6:09 AM

FREMDFIRMA


Story.

Do Stasi spies deserve privacy too?
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/foreign/harrydequetteville/april08/stasi-
spies.htm


I say no, by maliciously violating that of others, denying it to them and also abusing their own against their fellow citizens, they have forever lost that right, if you ask me.

Discuss.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, April 11, 2008 7:16 AM

HERO


Quote:

Originally posted by Fremdfirma:
Do Stasi spies deserve privacy too?
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/foreign/harrydequetteville/april08/stasi-
spies.htm


I say no, by maliciously violating that of others, denying it to them and also abusing their own against their fellow citizens, they have forever lost that right, if you ask me.


If they don't have privacy then they are not very good spies. I'd suggest that by definition they MUST have privacy. Otherwise they're not really spies...

I understand your reasoning. You hate the war, the President, and everything in between.

But the fact is to do as you request would put innocent people in danger and make your nation more vulnerable to all sorts of attacks.

Edited to add: I note for the record that your ability to cast away the privacy rights of others makes you guilty of the same excess and abuse you claim they use against you.

H

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, April 11, 2008 8:55 AM

DAVESHAYNE


Quote:

Originally posted by Hero:
But the fact is to do as you request would put innocent people in danger and make your nation more vulnerable to all sorts of attacks.



You, ah, do know who the Stasi were don't you?

David

'Geeks can't admit that anything worthwhile was invented before 1981. Soon, "making cocoa" will be called "milk hacking."' - Lore Sjoberg

I has myspace - http://www.myspace.com/daveshayneforpresident

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, April 11, 2008 9:17 AM

WASHNWEAR


Quote:

Originally posted by Fremdfirma:
Story.

Do Stasi spies deserve privacy too?
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/foreign/harrydequetteville/april08/stasi-
spies.htm


I say no, by maliciously violating that of others, denying it to them and also abusing their own against their fellow citizens, they have forever lost that right, if you ask me.

Discuss.



Okay - 'bout time I stuck my nose out and see if it gets hit with a rolled-up newspaper.

Firstly, Hero-san...

Quote:

If they don't have privacy then they are not very good spies. I'd suggest that by definition they MUST have privacy. Otherwise they're not really spies...
I understand your reasoning. You hate the war, the President, and everything in between.
But the fact is to do as you request would put innocent people in danger and make your nation more vulnerable to all sorts of attacks.
Edited to add: I note for the record that your ability to cast away the privacy rights of others makes you guilty of the same excess and abuse you claim they use against you.



...not entirely sure you read Frem's original post, much less the article at the end of the provided link.

Now to bust my own self - I had no idea who or what the Stasi were/are 'til about 30 minutes ago...which means I made a hurried stop by Ye Olde Wiki (and Frem's article) and am thus still under-and perhaps mis-informed. Anyway...

You ask, Frem - or I should say, the article asks - if they deserve privacy. Morally I would say that they deserve about as much privacy as they are able to hold onto without outside (court/governmental) assistance. Once that's blown, they might be well-advised to make sure their travel papers are in order.

But then I ask myself, what if a particular ex-Stasi spy has been living a crap existence for years, riddled with guilt and remorse for the deeds he/she committed and the lives damaged or ruined...would change it if he/she could, but... Well, is that Stasi any more or less deserving than any other?

BTW, my mind keeps wanting to draw parallels between this thread's topic and Valerie Plame...but I'm not sure there are any parallels beside the very general "spies with blown covers" angle.

But this I do know - Ms. Plame is clearly deserving of privacy (and bubble baths) 'cause she's SO GORRAM HOT!

Okay, my fellow BCs - edify me!



It was all moral dilemma-y when we got here!

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, April 11, 2008 9:22 AM

WASHNWEAR


Quote:

Originally posted by daveshayne:
Quote:

Originally posted by Hero:
But the fact is to do as you request would put innocent people in danger and make your nation more vulnerable to all sorts of attacks.



You, ah, do know who the Stasi were don't you?

David



Yes - the Stasi might be further well-dadvised in this case to seek other counsel...

It was all ipse dixit and amigo curio when we got here!

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, April 11, 2008 9:39 AM

HERO


Quote:

Originally posted by daveshayne:
You, ah, do know who the Stasi were don't you?


Yes I do. But like any good lawyer I look at the precedent. Will people in the State security business, such as the CIA, put forth all necessary and proper effort if they fear their actions will be scrutinized in an unfair and public forum a decade or two later?

Also there is still a sense of division between the members of the former East German state and the rest of the country. Blanket pardons for the vast majority of the people has always been the best solution for situations like this. Sure, you can prosecute a select few, particularly high ranking leaders in particularly agregious cases.

This is not a case of one nation (or alliance) imposing its will upon a defeated foe and making them pay the cost of defeat with trials for crimes against humanity (such as we had after WW2). This is more akin to the end of a Civil War and should be treated as a matter of civil reconciliation rather then punishing an entire segment of the population.

H

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, April 11, 2008 9:50 AM

DAVESHAYNE


Quote:

Originally posted by Hero:
Quote:

Originally posted by daveshayne:
You, ah, do know who the Stasi were don't you?


Yes I do. But like any good lawyer I look at the precedent. Will people in the State security business, such as the CIA, put forth all necessary and proper effort if they fear their actions will be scrutinized in an unfair and public forum a decade or two later?



The servants of the people should always and in every way be subject to the scrutiny of those they serve. Anything less is directly injurious to liberty.

David

'Geeks can't admit that anything worthwhile was invented before 1981. Soon, "making cocoa" will be called "milk hacking."' - Lore Sjoberg

I has myspace - http://www.myspace.com/daveshayneforpresident

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, April 11, 2008 11:05 AM

FREMDFIRMA


Quote:

Will people in the State security business, such as the CIA, put forth all necessary and proper effort if they fear their actions will be scrutinized in an unfair and public forum a decade or two later?

I do believe they would.

Of course, that begs a definition of necessary and proper effort - harrassing, spying on, and even murdering the very people they were created to protect comes to mind as, yanno, not exactly a necessary or proper effort, nor is destabilising foreign regimes which never seems to fail at biting us on the ass 10,15, even 30 years later.

Nor would I call that scrutiny unfair since they deliberately conceal their actions from the people, thus depriving them utterly of even the ability to vote their interests in the matter, subverting the very concept of democracy, and often that secrecy is enacted for the express purpose of acting *against* the expressed wishes of the populace, thus subverting it further.

Think about it, if it had come to an open vote, do you really thing the american people would have voted in approval of COINTELPRO or NORTHWOODS ?

Of course not, thus they had to be snuck into policy under the guise of stealth, thus mocking the entire supposed foundations of our government.

But that isn't really the issue I wanted to address.

Look, to me, someone who informed on, spied on, and sold out his fellow countrymen to an oppressive regime deserves naught more than a short drop and a sudden stop - for without that kind of collaboration, an oppressive regime under which such as Stazi operated, CAN NOT FUNCTION.

Without informants and collaborators, the very fingers of an iron fists control, they lose the power to intimidate and retaliate individually, rather than by blanket degrees, and certainly have trouble enforcing them.

And historically, such collaborators and informants are given very short shrift, if not executed or even outright lynched - the perp in question should be thankful enough for his life, given how many of his countrymen probably lost theirs indirectly through his informing.

Something to think about while our "Department of Homeland Security" is establishing such things here.

Informants are a step removed from an oppressive regimes triggermen, but ONLY one.

-Frem

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, April 11, 2008 1:30 PM

FLETCH2


Spying and informing was also extremely widespread. Think on the figures from the article. One in one hundred places an informant inside everyone's monkey sphere and it gave the Stazi a level of fine public control unheard of at the time. Their counter espionage practice was considered the best in the world during the sixties and seventies. Without that extensive network of informants that level of civil control would have been impossible.

I see only one problem with naming them and that's the natural right of any person to face their accuser. A note in a file can't be held up to cross examination and the details listed may not have any outside collaboration. There has been at least one case where a corrupt official "manufactured" informants and pocketed bribes and payoffs for "information." Imagine the wreck your life would become if he chose your name as one of his snitches?

How do you fix your reputation if having a file makes you automatically guilty?


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, April 11, 2008 5:36 PM

INVICTUS12


the stasi are clever morons, i say no.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

YOUR OPTIONS

NEW POSTS TODAY

USERPOST DATE

OTHER TOPICS

DISCUSSIONS
Elections; 2024
Fri, April 19, 2024 10:01 - 2274 posts
BREAKING NEWS: Taylor Swift has a lot of ex-boyfriends
Fri, April 19, 2024 09:18 - 1 posts
Russia Invades Ukraine. Again
Fri, April 19, 2024 08:45 - 6266 posts
This is what baseball bats are for, not to mention you're the one in a car...
Thu, April 18, 2024 23:38 - 1 posts
I'm surprised there's not an inflation thread yet
Thu, April 18, 2024 23:20 - 742 posts
FACTS
Thu, April 18, 2024 19:48 - 548 posts
Biden's a winner, Trumps a loser. Hey Jack, I Was Right
Thu, April 18, 2024 18:38 - 148 posts
QAnons' representatives here
Thu, April 18, 2024 17:58 - 777 posts
In the garden, and RAIN!!! (2)
Thu, April 18, 2024 16:51 - 3530 posts
Why does THUGR shit up the board by bumping his pointless threads?
Thu, April 18, 2024 12:38 - 9 posts
human actions, global climate change, global human solutions
Thu, April 18, 2024 10:21 - 834 posts
Russian losses in Ukraine
Wed, April 17, 2024 23:58 - 1005 posts

FFF.NET SOCIAL