Court to Hear Arguments of CIA Spies

[Rose Siding]

Espionage is not a sentimental business. Just ask John and Jane Doe, a pseudonymous married couple who agreed to betray their Soviet-bloc homeland during the Cold War in return for what they thought was a promise from the CIA of a new home in the United States and a lifetime income.

The Does say they did their part, performing perilous clandestine work for U.S. intelligence overseas. And at first, they say, the CIA came through for them, placing them in Seattle under new identities and finding John Doe a job at a local bank, supplemented initially by a cash stipend.

But, in 1997, the bank merged and Doe was downsized. Aging, unemployed and out of money, he went back to the CIA and asked it to resume payments. After the agency refused, citing "budget constraints," the Does sued, demanding that the CIA pay up -- or at least give them a fair hearing.
...
But the mere existence of the case is unwelcome news for the CIA, because it reopens an issue that has plagued the agency for years: accusations that the CIA entices spies and defectors with sweet offers of cash and comfort, then puts them back out in the cold once they are no longer useful.

It is a complaint that the agency has struggled to overcome and that it can ill afford to confront publicly at a time when human intelligence sources within terrorist networks are at a premium.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A61694-2005Jan9.html

[The Backlash Cometh]

1. This is really a hilarious article. The moral of this story:

If you're going to be a stoolie for the CIA, demand a Golden Parachute.

[struggle4progress]

2. In the final analysis, nobody trusts traitors. eom

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

3. These people are really stupid.

This is coming to bite them in the ass next time they try to entice a Venezuelan or whatever to betray their country. Even if you had no morals, would you?