US spies arrested abroad vs. spies arrested in the US

  • News
  • Thread starter Count Iblis
  • Start date
In summary: It seems to me that there is a very clear double standard being applied in this case: foreigners who commit crimes in other countries are typically treated with a great deal more leniency than those who commit crimes in our own.
  • #1
Count Iblis
1,863
8
US "spies" arrested abroad vs. "spies" arrested in the US

We had the Roxana Saberi in Iran. She was freed because even the Iranians recognized that she did not have a fair trial. She was allowed to go home. Now, in the US we have the case of the Cuban five:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cuban_Five

On 27 May 2005, the United Nations Commission on Human Rights adopted a report by its Working Group on Arbitrary Detention stating its opinions on the facts and circumstances of the case and calling upon the US government to remedy the situation.[17] Among the report's criticisms of the trial and sentences, section 29 states:

"29. The Working Group notes that it arises from the facts and circumstances in which the trial took place and from the nature of the charges and the harsh sentences handed down to the accused that the trial did not take place in the climate of objectivity and impartiality that is required in order to conform to the standards of a fair trial as defined in article 14 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, to which the United States of America is a party."

Amnesty International has criticized the US treatment of the Cuban Five as human rights violations, as the wives of René Gonzáles and Gerardo Hernández have not been allowed visas to visit their imprisoned husbands.



The latest news is that an appeal on a very procedural ground has been denied:

http://www.reuters.com/article/domesticNews/idUSTRE55E3VD20090615

So, it looks to me that the US is treating these people like Iran or North Korea was/is treating the US "spies", except that in the latter case, you at least have a reasonable chance of getting released. In the US case, the fact that the original trial happened "according to the rules", an appeal (in the sense of a re-examination of the facts of the case) is impossible.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2


Clicking though through the Wiki link I came across this UN document:
Letter dated 29 October 2001 from the Permanent Representativeof Cuba to the United Nations addressed to the Secretary-General

I have the honour to transmit herewith a summary prepared by the National Assembly of People’s Power of the Republic of Cuba concerning the principal terrorist actions against Cuba during the period 1990-2000 (see annex). I should be grateful if you would arrange for this letter and its annex to be circulated as a document of the General Assembly, under the item “Measures to eliminate international terrorism”, and of the Security Council.

Accept, Sir, the assurances of my highest consideration.

(Signed) Bruno Rodríguez Parrilla
Ambassador
Permanent Representative

http://www.un.org/documents/ga/docs/56/a56521.pdf" [Broken]
Considering the serious nature of the changes, I am very curious to know what our government has done since then to address them. Not that I would attempt to absolve spies, but these people having been tried in the heart of the same Cuban expatriate community they were convicted of spying on seems rather absurd.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #3


Count Iblis said:
She was freed because even the Iranians recognized that she did not have a fair trial.

Given the events unfolding in Iran, I'm thinking that an appeal to fairness had no weight at all. I would look to more pragmatic reasons for granting her appeal and release.
 
  • #4
A bunch of UK plane-spotters went to Greece to photograph military aircraft, on a military airbase, noting down all the serial numbers, types etc and were arrested as spies.
Usual outcry about foreigners treating Englishmen, demand to send gunboats, invade Greece. Charges eventually dropped because of diplomatic pressure. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/1697862.stm

Greek tourist takes a photograph on the London Underground, and is arrested, because a women complained her kid was in one of the pictures - won't someone think of the children.
http://www.legalbanter.co.uk/uk-legal-legal-issues-uk/54810-photographer-held-london.html
 
  • #5


Count Iblis said:
So, it looks to me that the US is treating these people like Iran or North Korea was/is treating the US "spies", except that in the latter case, you at least have a reasonable chance of getting released. In the US case, the fact that the original trial happened "according to the rules", an appeal (in the sense of a re-examination of the facts of the case) is impossible.
Those are some pretty steep charges you are levying against the US, there, without any justification that I can see.

In the case of the reporter arrested in Iran, it is expedient to say that she was released because she didn't have a fair trial - you'd never expect the Iranians to acknowledge that the entire incident was a farce. We have no basis for any belief that she was actually a spy: it appears this is just another case of a belligerent government harassing reporters.

The Cuban Five on the other hand, were, Cuban spies. There isn't any reasonable debate to be had about that. Whether they could have beaten prosecution for their crimes if they were tried in a different venue is an interesting question, but it is hard to argue that justice wasn't served in convicting them. They should consider themselves lucky that they weren't executed.

In addition, the differences in fairness themselves, between the two cases, are as wide as an ocean. Whether the trial of the Cuban five was unfair due to the venue (a pretty weak violation, imo), the entire trial of Saberi was a sham, happening too fast and leaving her unable to defend herself. It has all the hallmarks of a manufactured stunt by the Iranian government.

You are drawing up a parallel that couldn't be further from a reality.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Likes WWGD
  • #6
mgb_phys said:
Greek tourist takes a photograph on the London Underground, and is arrested, because a women complained her kid was in one of the pictures - won't someone think of the children.
http://www.legalbanter.co.uk/uk-legal-legal-issues-uk/54810-photographer-held-london.html
Being a long-time photographer, she should know better than to take pictures of other people's kids without permission.
 
  • #7


russ_watters said:
Being a long-time photographer, she should know better than to take pictures of other people's kids without permission.
He was taking pictures of the tube station, I don't think he intended to photograph the kid.
It has become a bit of a mass-hysteria in Britain - parents aren't allowed to take cameras to school soccer games, but the schools must all have CCTV - all to protect the children.
 
  • #8


Yea, I would have to agree with russ watters. The Cuban Five were lucky to to be caught in America where they got to put their case forward in an impartial court. The case against them was pretty solid and included charges of attempting to infiltrate US Southern Command headquarters.

Roxana Saberi's trial was a pure sham; it was filled with hardline clerics who managed to elicit a confession from her before the trial even started through threats and torture.
 
  • #9


It is understandable that a mother would become suspicious of what she perceives as a lone man taking pictures of her kid. With all the cases of children being kidnapped and pedophiles around, what can you expect? It is unfortunate but part of human nature I guess.
 
  • #10


If you read the information about this case, it is clear that there was a terror organization operating from Florida that the US did not act against. Then the Cuban Agents did infiltrate in there which is technically "spying". There was not a shred of evidence that these agents were involved in any harmful activities, yet they were convicted of very serious charges like first degree murder and "infiltrating US Southern Command headquarters", which was simply ridiculous.

Saberi also violated Iranian law about the way she handled certain documents. But at least the Iranians (perhaps under pressure from the US) were flexible and decided that whatever she did was not a big deal.

Unfortunately, the US is unable to make the same determination and will stick to the fact that the convictions were procedurally correct (despite being utterly ridiculous).
 
  • #11


mgb_phys said:
He was taking pictures of the tube station, I don't think he intended to photograph the kid.
It has become a bit of a mass-hysteria in Britain - parents aren't allowed to take cameras to school soccer games, but the schools must all have CCTV - all to protect the children.
I don't know that it's a mass hysteria issue here, but I was walking in Philadelphia once last year and a Japanese tourist went to take a picture of a day care's multi-stroller (like 6 babies in a train) and the woman pushing it stopped her.

For a soccer game, if your own kids are in it, I can't see how there can be anything wrong with it.
 
  • #12


Count Iblis said:
If you read the information about this case, it is clear that there was a terror organization operating from Florida that the US did not act against. Then the Cuban Agents did infiltrate in there which is technically "spying". There was not a shred of evidence that these agents were involved in any harmful activities, yet they were convicted of very serious charges like first degree murder and "infiltrating US Southern Command headquarters", which was simply ridiculous.
I don't know how far I'm supposed to go to prove your claims, but the wiki you linked and the US state department (?) website on the Cuban Five read nothing at all like what you describe:
http://www.america.gov/st/pubs-english/2008/June/20070712120209atlahtnevel0.7962915.html

At face value, the charges and evidence look pretty straightforward to me.

Do you have any credible sources that could substantiate your claims about the lack of evidence? I think you'll need to get specific about the evidence that there was being faked, because clearly there was a lot of evidence. This was your basic, classic, spy-novel type espionage.

Heck, it even says they didn't deny what they were, so heavy the evidence against them was: they only tried to deflect the charges by saying they were acting to fight terrorism against Cuba - a claim, that even if true, by the way, is still espionage.
Saberi also violated Iranian law about the way she handled certain documents.
Agreed, but that's not espionage.
But at least the Iranians (perhaps under pressure from the US) were flexible and decided that whatever she did was not a big deal.
Flexible? No, it was more likely all part of some preorchestrated stunt. At best, they picked up on a real crime and then salivated on the opportunity to ramrod an American through a sham trial to poke a finger in our eye. Nothing about that case looks legitimate.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #13


Certain documents? Out of the question, there is no way that a foreign journalist could handle sensitive documents having only been in the country for a short time. More likely she was trying to defy her handler by presenting a balanced view of the country.

And I guess you group all the Cuban exile groups as terror organisations do you? How convenient! Not a shred of evidence, a confident statement indeed. The intelligence agents were wiretapped by the FBI, their case was presented in court and in public. I don't know about you but I think all those tapes being held by the FBI, documents and letters etc are all evidence.
 
  • #14


math_04 said:
And I guess you group all the Cuban exile groups as terror organisations do you?
He only said "http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2008/01/14/cuba/" [Broken]".
math_04 said:
Not a shred of evidence, a confident statement indeed. The intelligence agents were wiretapped by the FBI, their case was presented in court and in public. I don't know about you but I think all those tapes being held by the FBI, documents and letters etc are all evidence.
He didn't dispute the fact that the were spying, but said "not a shred of evidence that these agents were involved in any harmful activities", which at least I am not in a position to contest. While I know the court found them guilty of first degree murder, considering their trial heart of the same Cuban expatriate community they were convicted of spying on, I can't reasonably argue that justice was served in doing so.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #15


I am commenting on the fact that just because a group is exiled, it does not necessarily mean they are a terrorist organization. If the Cuban government think they are, show the evidence and pursue it through the United Nations, Interpol etc without sending intelligence agents to another country.

Well, most of the jury were cautiously selected and again, as long as the evidence is presented in detail and the case is pursued fairly which it was, I see no reason to blame a million different factors that could have favored one side or the other.
 
  • #16


kyleb said:
He didn't dispute the fact that the were spying, but said "not a shred of evidence that these agents were involved in any harmful activities", which at least I am not in a position to contest. While I know the court found them guilty of first degree murder, considering their trial heart of the same Cuban expatriate community they were convicted of spying on, I can't reasonably argue that justice was served in doing so.
I guess, then, he'd have to define what he means by "harmful activities", since it seems to me that everything they were convicted of is a harmful activity, otherwise the activities wouldn't be illegal. But you're right - CI didn't object to the idea that they were spying. So I guess that means he doesn't consider spying to be inherrently harmful? That's not a hair I think needs splitting. Spying is a crime, punishable by death. Period. If there is no objection to the charge of spying, then there is nothing to argue about.

In any case, to the specific charge of murder - according to the link I provided, it wasn't murder, but conspiracy to commit murder. And the evidence there is also pretty straightforward: intercepted communications about the attack.

Regardless, none of this bears any resemblance to the case of Roxana Saberi.
 
Last edited:
  • #17


kyleb said:
He only said "http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2008/01/14/cuba/" [Broken]".
If we were to assume, for the sake of argument that everything said about Alpha 66 in that link is true and further assume for the sake of argument that the Cuban 5 did nothing else besides act against Alpha 66, it would still be espionage! Their chosen defense was the propaganda technique misdirection and they lost because misdirection is not a valid (though admittedly sometimes it works) legal defense for their crimes.

So this is just an irrelevant diversion, along the same lines as their failed trial defense.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #18


I think the double life sentence for one as opposed to the much milder sentences of the others were due to the murder charge and the military base infiltration charge. Both of which are problematic. If you take a hard line view that spying activities can justifiably lead to the death penalty, then surely one also has to take a milder view about the shooting down of the planes by Cuba.

Even if one argues that what Cuba did was wrong because it happened in international waters, the fact that intelligence about the flights to Cuba were given in itself would not make one complicit in any "murder" by any reasonable standard.

In this respect the case is similar to the Saberi case. You take some event that strictly speaking is illegal or it is a somewhat more serious charge that reasonably can lead to, say, ten years prison sentence. But then you blame the people for other events for which they were not responsible at all by any reasonable standard of "responsibility".

That verdict is then only motivated because you have an enemy that you view as a "big Satan". Any action that has helped that "great Satan" in any way, makes you liable for other bad things that this "great Satan" has done.

I can give another example of "Iranian style justice" in Florida in a case having to do with Cuba, see here:

http://www.accessmylibrary.com/coms2/summary_0286-22427001_ITM


In her case, Martinez asked for compensation for damages she suffered from having unwittingly married the alleged spy, who subsequently returned to Cuba. She also claimed that because Roque was acting as an agent of Cuba during their marriage, their sexual relations constituted rape, for which the Cuban government was responsible.

In 2001, Judge Alan Postman ordered the Cuban government to pay Martinez US$27 million after agreeing with her contention that she suffered emotional damage because of the marriage (see NotiCen, 2001-03-29).


So, the Cuban government was convicted of "rape". The fact that a plane was hijacked did not lead to any criminal charges.
 
  • #19


russ_watters said:
I guess, then, he'd have to define what he means by "harmful activities", since it seems to me that everything they were convicted of is a harmful activity, otherwise the activities wouldn't be illegal. But you're right - CI didn't object to the idea that they were spying. So I guess that means he doesn't consider spying to be inherrently harmful? That's not a hair I think needs splitting.
It is http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/02/us/politics/02aipac.html" [Broken]:
Moreover, he ruled that the government could prevail only if it met a high standard; he said prosecutors would have to demonstrate that Mr. Rosen and Mr. Weissman knew that their distribution of the information would harm United States national security.
In that case, they were actually passing classified information.
russ_watters said:
Spying is a crime, punishable by death. Period. If there is no objection to the charge of spying, then there is nothing to argue about.
This issue is that of the fairness of the trial, from http://www.reuters.com/article/domes...55E3VD20090615" [Broken]:
The U.S. Supreme Court declined on Monday to hear an appeal by five convicted Cuban spies who argued their trial should have been moved from Miami, the heart of the Cuban American community, because of a biased jury pool.
How do you figure one could rightly expect an unbiased jury at the heart of the same Cuban American community which hosts http://www.un.org/documents/ga/docs/56/a56521.pdf" [Broken]?
russ_watters said:
In any case, to the specific charge of murder - according to the link I provided, it wasn't murder, but conspiracy to commit murder. And the evidence there is also pretty straightforward: intercepted communications about the attack.
I saw there was communications about the staying off the flights, but what have you seen intercepted about the attack itself?
russ_watters said:
Regardless, none of this bears any resemblance to the case of Roxana Saberi.
I suppose, as she was actually charged with possessing classified information.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #20


Count Iblis said:
I think the double life sentence for one as opposed to the much milder sentences of the others were due to the murder charge and the military base infiltration charge. Both of which are problematic. If you take a hard line view that spying activities can justifiably lead to the death penalty, then surely one also has to take a milder view about the shooting down of the planes by Cuba.

Even if one argues that what Cuba did was wrong because it happened in international waters, the fact that intelligence about the flights to Cuba were given in itself would not make one complicit in any "murder" by any reasonable standard.
None of that has any relevance to this case. I feel the need to distill this to simple logic for you, so I'll say it again and diagram it this time. We can discard all of those ancillary charges if you want and it still doesn't change the one key, undisputed fact: (we'll call it Fact 1)

The Cuban Five were spies.

You can argue the pros and cons of related ancillary charges to you're blue in the face (and I have no desire to do that), but it won't change that simple, straightforward, uncontested fact.

Now how does this relate to Roxana Saberi? We'll call this Fact 2:

Roxana Saberi was not a spy.

Because of the stark difference between Fact 1 and Fact 2, there is no easy way to compare the two cases. But you've tried anyway. Here's how your logic works:

Factual premise A: The Cuban 5 were arrested, tried and convicted, but questions exist about the fairness of their trials.
Factual premise B: Roxana Saberi was arrested, tried and convicted, but questions exist about the fairness of her trial.
Factual result C: Roxanne Saberi was released, at least in part, due to the issue of fairness in her arrest, trial, and conviction.
Deduced conclusion D: The Cuban 5 should be released due to the issue of fairness with her trial.

The logic seems simple and straightforward:
A=B
C=D
B yielded D
Therefore A should yield C

The problem is that A and B have been so oversimplified as to be completely meaningless for a comparison. In particular, Fact 1 and Fact 2 need to be included in A and B, after which it is easy to see that they are not so similar.

In addion, this general issue of "fairness" is one that exists in any trial and every good defense attorney should raise it as part of the defense. But as it turns out, it's irrelevant anyway: as a matter of law, in order to even be granted a new trial, a defense attorney must not only prove that the trial was unfair (procedural or other errors were made), but also that the actual outcome of the case was wrong.
A convenient test for whether a petition is likely to succeed on the grounds of error is confirming that (1) a mistake was indeed made (2) an objection to that mistake was presented by counsel and (3) that mistake negatively affected the defendant’s trial.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal

Since the fact that the Cuban Five were spies was undisputed, there could be no possible grounds for granting an appeal of that charge, making the arguments about fairness irrelevant.
In this respect the case is similar to the Saberi case. You take some event that strictly speaking is illegal or it is a somewhat more serious charge that reasonably can lead to, say, ten years prison sentence. But then you blame the people for other events for which they were not responsible at all by any reasonable standard of "responsibility".
No one in this thread (or in the media, that I've seen) is blaming the Iranians for what Saberi did. There is no blame misdirection going on from that side. Only you and the other defenders of the Cuban 5 are doing that. Sorry, you can't create your own two-sided logical fallacy. The other side has to participate in it.

I'll not respond to the other irrelevancies at the end, there, except to point out that you put the word "rape" in quotes, yet it doesn't appear in the article, nor was the government "convicted" of anything. Be careful with your misinformation.

It really almost seems to me like this was just a convenient way to jump into a random USA bash. So little has been said about the Saberi case: you're focusing most of your effort on lambasting the US for what you perceive was done wrong with the Cuban Five.
 
Last edited:
  • #21


kyleb said:
It is http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/02/us/politics/02aipac.html" [Broken]:

In that case, they were actually passing classified information.
No...that's not the same hair at all. Those guys weren't spies, they were reporters! That made proving espionage much more difficult. In fact, that makes it a lot closer to the Saberi case than the Cuban Five case. With the obvious difference, of course, that the US justice system recognized the weakness of the case and the prosecuters dropped it, whereas in the Saberia case, they ramrodded it through and only after the mishandling was pointed out did they release her.
This issue is that of the fairness of the trial...
You are incorrect. Fairness alone is not enough to grant a new trial. There must be a reason (ie, from the evidence of the case) to believe that the wrong outcom occurred. Since we know, as an undisputed fact, that the Cuban Fiver were spies, that criteria could not possibly be met.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #22


russ_watters said:
Deduced conclusion D: The Cuban 5 should be released due to the issue of fairness with her trial.
Count Iblis's comment doesn't necessarly suggest they should be released, but rather simply contrasts Saberi's release with their inablity to even get an appeal.
russ_watters said:
Since the fact that the Cuban Five were spies was undisputed, there could be no possible grounds for granting an appeal of that charge, making the arguments about fairness irrelevant.
Surely you realize that they were convicted of more than simply being spies, conspiracy to commit murder being one I've asked to you substantiate your claims about. Again, I saw there was communications about the staying off the flights, but what have you seen intercepted about the attack itself?
russ_watters said:
I'll not respond to the other irrelevancies at the end, there, except to point out that you put the word "rape" in quotes, yet it doesn't appear in the article...
Right here:
She also claimed that because Roque was acting as an agent of Cuba during their marriage, their sexual relations constituted rape, for which the Cuban government was responsible.
russ_watters said:
...nor was the government "convicted" of anything.
He was referring to the next line:
In 2001, Judge Alan Postman ordered the Cuban government to pay Martinez US$27 million after agreeing with her contention that she suffered emotional damage because of the marriage (see NotiCen, 2001-03-29).
 
  • #23


russ_watters said:
No...that's not the same hair at all.
What "hair" were you referring to other than that of harm?

russ_watters said:
Those guys weren't spies, they were reporters! That made proving espionage much more difficult. In fact, that makes it a lot closer to the Saberi case than the Cuban Five case. With the obvious difference, of course, that the US justice system recognized the weakness of the case and the prosecuters dropped it, whereas in the Saberia case, they ramrodded it through and only after the mishandling was pointed out did they release her.
Not to go off topic, but for the record; those guys weren't reporters, they were lobbyist passing classified information to a foreign government, and the prosecution dropped the case because "Government policy makers indicated they were clearly uncomfortable with senior officials’ testifying in open court over policy deliberations", as mentioned in the article I linked above.
 
  • #24


How do you figure one could rightly expect an unbiased jury at the heart of the same Cuban American community which hosts groups accused of terrorism against Cuba?

How did you come to the conclusion that the jury is unbiased? Have you talked to them? Have you checked their records? Just because there is a significant Cuban American community does not mean a court of law cannot operate properly.

In this respect the case is similar to the Saberi case. You take some event that strictly speaking is illegal or it is a somewhat more serious charge that reasonably can lead to, say, ten years prison sentence. But then you blame the people for other events for which they were not responsible at all by any reasonable standard of "responsibility".

There was no 'case' against Saberi, there was not even a trial. They tortured a confession out of her and then put her in a court which sentenced her pretty quickly without any real evidence. She never had any sensitive documents and she was arrested purely for attempting to defy authorities in Tehran.

I don't understand any of the logic the people against the sentencing put forward. The evidence presented was probably thorough as the wiretaps and documents were in large numbers. The FBI had been monitoring them for a while. How do you know they were harmless? Do you have access to those wiretap files? Were you there in court when the evidence was presented? Do you think the jury would just put them in jail for annoying some Cuban exiles?
 
  • #25


math_04 said:
How did you come to the conclusion that the jury is unbiased? Have you talked to them? Have you checked their records? Just because there is a significant Cuban American community does not mean a court of law cannot operate properly.
I don't claim to know if the jury was biased or not, but I have explained why I suspect it likely was. Am I to take it you have no interest in addressing the facts I presented?
 
  • #26


In my opinion, a better comparison would be between Roxana Saberi's case and that of Sami Haaj. Both are journalists, both were charged with espionage. The difference is that one had a trial, appealed and was set free after a few months, the other was kidnapped, imprisoned for about 7 years without trial, and wasn't given any access to courts or due legal processing.
 
  • #27


kyleb said:
How do you figure one could rightly expect an unbiased jury at the heart of the same Cuban American community which hosts http://www.un.org/documents/ga/docs/56/a56521.pdf" [Broken]?

Have you ever been on a high-profile jury panel? The lawyers go through hundreds of potential jurors before selecting an actual jury, and the defense attorney can dismiss an indefinite number. The final jury in this case included no Cuban-Americans.

The more legitimate concern over the location is that the prevailing anti-Castro sentiment might sway the jury, whether they were personally unbiased or not, but even that is specious.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #28
Okay, so people have been quick to point out the differences in two cases, whilst all but one avoided answering mgb_phys's post, the one respondent mearly stated one should know better than to photograph other people's children.

mgb_phys said:
A bunch of UK plane-spotters went to Greece to photograph military aircraft, on a military airbase, noting down all the serial numbers, types etc and were arrested as spies.
Usual outcry about foreigners treating Englishmen, demand to send gunboats, invade Greece. Charges eventually dropped because of diplomatic pressure. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/1697862.stm

Greek tourist takes a photograph on the London Underground, and is arrested, because a women complained her kid was in one of the pictures - won't someone think of the children.
http://www.legalbanter.co.uk/uk-legal-legal-issues-uk/54810-photographer-held-london.html



Aside from that, what if you look at it this from a hypothetical situation..

Suppose one of the US spies has been captured overseas whilst breaking that nations laws, do you think that they should be released while a spy from another country captured inside US soil breaking US laws shouldn't? and if so, do you not consider these pretty poor double standards?
 
  • #29


loseyourname said:
The more legitimate concern over the location is that the prevailing anti-Castro sentiment might sway the jury, whether they were personally unbiased or not, but even that is specious.
That is my consern. Is that not the reason trials are moved to different localities, the Rodney King beating trial being a notable example?
 

What is the difference between US spies arrested abroad and spies arrested in the US?

The main difference between US spies arrested abroad and spies arrested in the US is their location at the time of arrest. US spies arrested abroad are individuals who were caught conducting espionage activities while outside of the United States. On the other hand, spies arrested in the US are individuals who were caught conducting espionage activities within the borders of the United States.

How are US spies who are arrested abroad handled by the US government?

When US spies are arrested abroad, they are typically handled through diplomatic channels. This means that the US government will work with the government of the country where the spy was arrested to negotiate their release or to secure their transfer back to the United States for prosecution.

What happens to spies who are arrested in the US?

Spies who are arrested in the US are typically prosecuted in federal court for espionage or related charges. They may also face additional charges if they are found to have violated other laws while conducting their spying activities.

Are US spies arrested abroad treated differently than spies arrested in the US?

In terms of their legal rights and the consequences they may face, US spies arrested abroad and spies arrested in the US are generally treated the same. However, the circumstances of their arrest and the involvement of other governments may impact the specifics of their case.

What is the punishment for being a US spy arrested abroad or in the US?

The punishment for being a US spy arrested abroad or in the US can vary depending on the severity of the espionage activities and any additional charges. In general, convicted spies can face lengthy prison sentences and fines. In some cases, they may also face the death penalty.

Similar threads

  • General Discussion
3
Replies
75
Views
10K
Replies
20
Views
3K
  • Art, Music, History, and Linguistics
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • General Discussion
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • General Discussion
Replies
19
Views
3K
Replies
17
Views
6K
  • General Discussion
2
Replies
40
Views
9K
  • General Discussion
2
Replies
65
Views
8K
  • General Discussion
Replies
5
Views
2K
Back
Top