Ex-CIA Officer Suspected of Compromising Chinese Informants Is Arrested

I've spent a good deal of my life traveling away from US borders, and I'm far from pleased about the current direction of the US - and I've never been what you'd consider patriotic or nationalistic. Nonetheless, I somehow have a very different feeling towards the US than I do to any of the countries I've visited - even ones where I could now obtain citizenship if I so desired.

I think country forms a bond much like family. And much like with family, many of us never even recognize that bond until you're far removed from it. By contrast, I've very much enjoyed my travels but I hold no allegiance to any of these countries - even ones I've resided in for years. I can't really explain it, since I never thought I'd feel this way. I suppose what I'm getting at is that you can't really judge, or predict, people until you've walked a decade in their shoes.

Thing 1 was an object with no gun powder in it and it exploded. Thing 2: similar story.

This is a logical error related to the difference between the converse and the contrapositive. There may be a relationship where A implies a greater likelihood of B. Finding various examples of Not_A where B occurs can be rhetorically effective but it isn't sound reasoning to argue that show A does not imply a greater likelihood of B.

And I respect the ideology of once some someone is a citizen, they should have full rights. Though ideology and practicality do not always meet efficiently and in something like this I feel practicality is needed.

So circling back for clarity, my point was I suspect (note, saying I suspect not know) there is higher risk of a naturalised citizen harbouring loyalty to their origin country and/or being more easily manipulated via family ties etc. This would vary by country and circumstance so is not black and white but in this situation where you know Chinese agents are very active, I find it amazing, for right or wrong, an agency would take that chance. And with hindsight, this is a very correct view.

Displaying pride for one's roots is by no means an indication that one would reject the values of one's new home. Cross-pollination of ideas is what makes progress happen. That applies just as much to someone moving from California to New Jersey as it applies to immigration. Personally, I think a full-on "leave behind your old self" approach doesn't yield the most benefits for either the individual or society as a whole, unless your origin country is indeed an unequivocal shithole.

>Twenty-two years ago, in a refreshingly clear-sighted article for Foreign Affairs, Harvard’s Samuel P. Huntington noted that the theme of "America’s decline" had in fact been a constant in American culture and politics since at least the late 1950s. It had come, he wrote, in several distinct waves: in reaction to the Soviet Union’s launch of Sputnik; to the Vietnam War; to the oil shock of 1973; to Soviet aggression in the late 1970s; and to the general unease that accompanied the end of the Cold War. Since Huntington wrote, we can add at least two more waves: in reaction to 9/11, and to the current "Great Recession."….

>What the long history of American "declinism" — as opposed to America’s actual possible decline — suggests is that these anxieties have an existence of their own that is quite distinct from the actual geopolitical position of our country; that they arise as much from something deeply rooted in the collective psyche of our chattering classes as from sober political and economic analyses.

>For whatever reason, it is clear that for more than half a century, many of America’s leading commentators have had a powerful impulse consistently to see the United States as a weak, "bred out" basket case that will fall to stronger rivals as inevitably as Rome fell to the barbarians, or France to Henry V at Agincourt.

[1] https://newrepublic.com/article/78216/america-in-decline-tho...

As analogy, you can accuse others stealing when yourself can stand on a moral ground of not stealing.

Or you can steal but then don't accuse others. That's fine because you don't see stealing is a crime based on your value. "great game" is as active as ever, every body is doing this.

But if you accuse others stealing while happily admit you steal all the time and in very large scale, then there will be surprise, not for every body but for some body.

"you" means anybody, could be "me", "s/he". No offense

1. http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-us-intervention-foreign-...

On the other hand, CIA has a reputation of sabotage in history. Not against China in last couple of decades though.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2381 Whoever, owing allegiance to the United States, levies war against them or adheres to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort within the United States or elsewhere, is guilty of treason and shall suffer death, or shall be imprisoned not less than five years and fined...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qian_Xuesen

USSR/Russia was more often ideologically motivated people (and very small amounts of money). Israeli spying in the US has been "for the benefit of Israel" (and possibly tacitly supported by some of all of USG, potentially somewhat officially). Chinese spying seems to be largely of the "loyalty" form. A lot of it is pure commercial or military technology from commercial entities.

All things being equal, someone with minimal foreign relations is going to be a better security risk for USG than someone with extensive relationships with foreign entities. For intelligence aimed at a foreign country, it's obviously an asset to have a lot of interconnectedness with that country, so it's a balancing act; you'd probably be willing to take that risk for a case officer but probably less so for a support staff. For positions where technical skill is required and in short supply, it may be worth that risk too; you'd have to look at the totality of the situation.

Since China has such an active intelligence program focused on the US, it's a greater risk than, say, Germany or the UK.