Unmasking of elderly U.S. spies shows there’s no age limit on getting busted
The United States has busted some spies lately who are old enough to qualify for retirement benefits.
U.S. prosecutors recently announced a guilty plea from Alexander Yuk Ching Ma, a septuagenarian former Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) employee who admitted to passing defence information to China.
That came a few months after Victor Manuel Rocha — a 73-year-old former U.S. ambassador — admitted to having acted as a long-term secret agent for Cuba.
Both cases involved elder baby boomers revealed to have done covert work for foreign powers years earlier.
Detecting hostile spies is a tricky business and can be a years-long process. But these cases — and others that came before them — demonstrate that in America, there’s no age limit on being held accountable for spying.
“There’s no statute of limitations for espionage,” confirms Pete Lapp, a retired FBI agent whose book Queen of Cuba details the investigation into Ana Belén Montes, a defence analyst who spied for Havana for over 17 years.
A long surveillance
Ma worked for the CIA during the 1980s, but it was his post-agency life that caught authorities’ attention.
Prosecutors say that back in 2001, Ma and an older relative — a fellow former CIA employee who has since died — accepted $50,000 US in cash for passing classified defence information to Chinese intelligence contacts.
Ma later sought a job with the FBI to “give himself access to U.S. government information,” according to the criminal complaint filed against him. But prosecutors say he was allowed to be hired there so he could be watched. For unstated reasons, he wasn’t arrested until 2020.
Ma, who is in his early 70s and lives in Honolulu, appears set to serve a 10-year sentence under a proposed plea deal.
The U.S. Attorney’s Office in the District of Hawaii didn’t respond to an email inquiry about how age may factor into Ma’s sentencing. But Justice Department officials previously signalled their determination to vigorously pursue any such cases, even if transgressions occurred long ago.
“Let it be known that anyone who violates a position of trust to betray the United States will face justice, no matter how many years it takes to bring their crimes to light,” Alan E. Kohler Jr., a senior FBI counterintelligence official, said at the time of Ma’s arrest.
Aging spies behind bars
Just three per cent of America’s federal prison population is 65 or older, according to U.S. Federal Bureau of Prison statistics.
These include some caught-and-convicted spies, now among them being Rocha, who is starting a 15-year sentence.
Walter Kendall Myers, 87, is serving a life sentence for offences relating to spying for Cuba. The former U.S. State Department official has spent the majority of his retirement years behind bars, after being arrested in 2009.
In February 1994, Aldrich Ames, a veteran Central Intelligence Agency officer was arrested and charged with spying for the Soviet Union and Russia. Here’s a look at what CBC viewers heard from reporter David Halton, on Prime Time News, after the story broke.
There are also other spies growing old in U.S. prisons — octogenarian Aldrich Ames, for one — who were caught at younger ages, but who are spending their golden years imprisoned.
Kevin Patrick Mallory, a 67-year-old former CIA spy, is serving a 20-year sentence for passing secrets to China. He’d faced a life sentence, but a federal judge deemed that too harsh.
How identities can become known
Jack Barsky spent a decade spying for the Soviet Union, starting in the 1970s. He later cut ties with that life, but the former KGB agent has stayed in the U.S., where he lives today.
He sees three main ways a spy’s activities might be discovered.
One scenario is that a person turns themselves in.
Another possibility is betrayal, which Barsky knows well: In 1992, a KGB archivist named Vasili Nikitich Mitrokhin defected to the West, bringing volumes of information that included details about Barsky’s existence.
A third possibility is what Barsky says amounts to a carelessness that emerges with time, which could expose long-serving spies to a risk of being identified.
“The longer somebody operates in this field, the more [there is] a tendency to get sloppy,” said Barsky, who admits that even he eventually cut corners on some of the time-consuming tradecraft involved with sending messages back to Moscow.
Rocha seems to have considered similar risks up until his arrest. According to court documents, he told an undercover FBI agent that “the only thing that can put what we have done in danger … is someone’s betrayal.”
Lapp, the former FBI spy catcher, sees a characteristic that Rocha and many other spies share — a naiveté that they won’t get caught.
“I think you could argue committing espionage is pretty naive,” said Lapp, noting participants in these crimes are either ignoring or minimizing the consequences of what they are doing.
In terms of how they typically get discovered, Lapp said there’s a saying that explains it: “Spies catch spies.”
Leaving the past behind
Across the pond, Britain has seen some headline-making spy scandals over the years — including one involving a retired secretary nearly 25 years ago.
In September 1999, Melita Norwood, an 87-year-old pensioner and communist sympathizer, was publicly revealed to have spied for the Soviets for 40 years.
“I thought perhaps what I had access to might be useful in helping Russia to keep abreast of Britain, America and Germany,” she told reporters when the news broke. “In general, I do not agree with spying against one’s country.”
Norwood was not prosecuted, in a controversial decision that drew criticism.
Her outing as a spy came as a result of the same trove of information that Mitrokhin — the KGB archivist whose disclosures led to Barsky’s detection by U.S. authorities — brought to the West.
Barsky, for his part, co-operated with American authorities, who approached him a few years after the Mitrokhin disclosures.
But Barksy admits that “if I had not been betrayed by that archivist, I probably wouldn’t be talking to you today.”
Published at Sat, 01 Jun 2024 08:00:00 +0000
Trump verdict unleashes perilous new intensity in American politics
Latent forces in American politics are being unleashed by the historic criminal conviction of Donald Trump.
They range from the mundane to the menacing to the malevolent.
Right-wing anger over the guilty verdict has unspooled an appetite for political combat — a metaphorical one that researchers of political violence fear could turn literal.
First, the mundane. At least one of the reactions is rooted firmly in the most mainstream of American political traditions: cash donations.
The Republican Party claimed to have smashed its one-day fundraising record, jamming its servers and prompting Democrats to urge counter-donations from their own supporters.
It quickly shifted beyond that. Initially after the verdict, Sen. Marco Rubio had urged Republicans to respond with donations, posting on X, formerly Twitter: “Don’t just get angry about this travesty, get even!”
Anger on the right demanded more. A day later, by late Friday, the senator and vice-presidential hopeful had assumed a more confrontational posture.
He called President Joe Biden “demented,” posting on social media about fighting fire with fire and, most significantly, laying out a strategy for legislative revenge.
Forget fundraising. Some want revenge
Eight Republican senators, including Rubio, signed a letter pledging to block Biden’s judicial and other appointments — and also block new federal spending.
That pledge might not matter much until that list of Republican signatories grows closer to 40, which would truly mean a blockade in the U.S. Senate.
Yet the pressure will grow for others to sign. Trump approvingly posted Rubio’s Senate initiative on his own social media website.
Donald Trump Jr. is fanning the flames of retaliation. The ex-president’s son commented approvingly about others’ calls for revenge, including one right-wing writer’s comparison of politics to war without bullets.
In response to talk of prosecuting Democrats in red states and other such threats, Trump Jr. added his own posts on social media, like: “I 100% endorse this message!”
One Republican-led committee in Washington has already demanded that members of the New York prosecution team appear to testify before the House of Representatives.
The big fear: violence
But these are non-violent tactics. These aren’t what experts on political violence fear most. Not on a day when there were online attempts to identify and threaten the Manhattan jurors who convicted Trump; not in an era of skyrocketing threats against judges and politicians; or when several lawmakers told the news website Axios they feared unrest.
What worries Robert Pape most is that his longtime field of study might find new relevance in his own native country, the United States.
An internationally respected, frequently cited scholar on political violence, Pape is director of the Chicago Project on Security and Threats, at the University of Chicago.
The National’s Ian Hanomansing asks former Manhattan assistant district attorney Jeremy Saland and former U.S. federal court judge Shira A. Scheindlin to break down what could come next for Donald Trump after his 34 felony convictions.
After the attack on the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021, he began researching how many people might be willing to use violence to make Trump president again, conducting repeated surveys as part of his research.
He found eight per cent of the U.S. respondents in 2021 agreed that the use of force is justified to restore Trump to the White House.
That’s 21 million people — and a slight majority, Pape said, own guns. The number steadily dropped over the next two years, then, last year, suddenly shot back up again to 17 million.
That sudden jump happened after Trump faced his first federal criminal charges, he said. And that’s what worried him when he learned Thursday about the conviction. “Sobering” is how Pape described his response in an interview with CBC News.
“The word I would use is ‘sobering.’ We’re heading into an extremely tumultuous period. It was already going to be tumultuous. But we are now certainly heading into a highly tumultuous period.”
Pape said violent threats to democracy are a real risk this year, and they could flare up intermittently, into and beyond the Nov. 5 presidential election.
A leading driver of political violence, he said, is a loss of faith in political and judicial systems. For Trump supporters specifically, he said, a second driver is their fealty to him.
This criminal conviction, Pape said, will stoke both those conditions.
An analogy he uses for a dangerous political environment is that of kindling — it’s already there, lying around. It then needs a match to light it ablaze, he said; likely a public event, like a convention, or an election or, on Jan. 6, 2021, the certification of the presidential election.
Pape has explained in the past that he does not fear an actual civil war in the U.S. What he fears are intermittent acts of violence, like Northern Ireland experienced decades ago.
“We are already a divided country,” he said Friday. “This [court] decision is likely to galvanize and radicalize Trump’s supporters…. And we have months to go before we get to the election. The anger, the radicalization, the pro-insurrectionist movement could well grow.”
Pape’s fears are echoed by a colleague, Harvard University’s Juliette Kayyem, a security professor who served in the Obama administration and has expressed fear that Trump’s July 11 sentencing hearing could be the sort of burning match that Pape talks about.
CBC chief correspondent Adrienne Arsenault talks to David Frum about why he thinks Donald Trump’s conviction should have been linked to his role in the Capitol riots instead of hush-money and what it means for democracy in the U.S.
Divergent opinions
To be clear, complaints about the verdict are by no means relegated to these political fringes. The case has drawn drastically divergent opinions, with legal observers debating whether it should be overturned on appeal.
These critics include a former prosecutor and CNN analyst who calls Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg a friend and onetime colleague.
In a piece for New York Magazine, that analyst, Elie Honig, argued that Bragg’s team twisted the definition of state law against falsifying business records, contorting it a club that was used to beat Trump.
“Both of these things can be true at once: The jury did its job, and this case was an ill-conceived, unjustified mess,” he wrote.
Trump has also complained about the judge’s instructions during the trial, arguing he should have recused himself, given his daughter’s paid work for the Democratic Party and his own tiny past donation to Biden.
On Friday, the current president of the United States urged everyone to tone it down.
‘Fight fire with fire’
In his first public reaction to the verdict, Biden heralded the near-250-year-old U.S. justice system and celebrated the principle that no one is above the law.
He credited the 12 jurors for doing their best to judge Trump, after having heard weeks of evidence, and he said Trump now has every right to appeal.
That doesn’t mean he can trash the justice system, Biden added.
“It’s reckless, it’s dangerous, it’s irresponsible for anyone to say this was rigged just because they don’t like the verdict,” the president said.
“The justice system should be respected — we should never allow anyone to tear it down.”
This is what prompted Rubio to call Biden “a demented man propped up by wicked and deranged people willing to destroy our country to remain in power.”
The Republican senator, reportedly being considered as Trump’s running mate, concluded that same social media post with two emojis: “It’s time to fight 🔥with 🔥.”
Published at Mon, 15 Apr 2024 09:35:06 +0000