Good Spy, Bad Spy

Longtime CIA officer Frank Anderson writes today that we should continue to deny clemency to Jonathan Pollard, who was convicted of spying for Israel and sentenced to life in prison two decades ago:

The Pollard clemency pleas are partly based on the close relationship between Israel and the United States. Under this theory, spying for Israel was not serious because it was on behalf of an ally and a friendly government, rather than an enemy of America.

….The essential point is that any nation that steals American defense or intelligence secrets does serious damage to our nation. It might be our friend in many other important ways. In this, it is the enemy. Pollard’s crime would not be less heinous had he committed it on behalf of Canada or Ireland. His betrayal would not be more serious had he acted for Russia or North Korea.

I basically agree with Anderson. In fact, I’d go a step further: spying for a friendly power ought to be punished at least as severely than spying for an enemy. This offends our natural instincts, bit it also makes sense. After all, there are already enormous cultural and conventional reasons that prevent most people from spying for national enemies. I mean, what are the odds that someone in the CIA actually wants to spy for Iran or North Korea?

But friends? It’s pretty easy to convince yourself that maybe you should spy for, say, Israel or South Korea. After all, they’re allies. And they’re in dangerous parts of the world. But precisely because the incentives against spying break down a bit against friendly countries, the legal incentives need to step up. Everyone in the CIA or the military needs to know that if they pass secrets to friendly countries, they’ll be treated at least as harshly as if they’d passed them to enemies.

Unfortunately, this reasoning applies to guys like Bradley Manning too. If he’s convicted of handing classified documents to WikiLeaks, he should be treated pretty harshly.1 It needs to be clear that even — maybe especially — if you think you’re acting altruistically, you’re still going to get hammered. That’s too bad for Manning, for whom I feel at least a bit of sympathy, but it’s hard to see any way around it.

1This ought to go without saying, but apparently it still needs to be said: he should be sentenced harshly if he’s convicted. He hasn’t been yet.

One More Thing

And it's a big one. Mother Jones is launching a new Corruption Project to do deep, time-intensive reporting on the corruption that is both the cause and result of the crisis in our democracy.

The more we thought about how Mother Jones can have the most impact right now, the more we realized that so many stories come down to corruption: People with wealth and power putting their interests first—and often getting away with it.

Our goal is to understand how we got here and how we might get out. We're aiming to create a reporting position dedicated to uncovering corruption, build a team, and let them investigate for a year—publishing our stories in a concerted window: a special issue of our magazine, video and podcast series, and a dedicated online portal so they don't get lost in the daily deluge of headlines and breaking news.

We want to go all in, and we've got seed funding to get started—but we're looking to raise $500,000 in donations this spring so we can go even bigger. You can read about why we think this project is what the moment demands and what we hope to accomplish—and if you like how it sounds, please help us go big with a tax-deductible donation today.

We Recommend

Latest

Sign up for our newsletters

Subscribe and we'll send Mother Jones straight to your inbox.

Get our award-winning magazine

Save big on a full year of investigations, ideas, and insights.

Subscribe

Support our journalism

Help Mother Jones' reporters dig deep with a tax-deductible donation.

Donate