quote: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 was involved in a merger, 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.
Tomorrow the Does' case reaches the Supreme Court, in an oral argument that could have been scripted by John le Carre.
In legal terms, the issue in Tenet v. Doe, No. 03-1395, is whether a secret deal to spy for the United States creates legal rights that a CIA recruit can enforce in court, as the Does say -- or constitutes a shadowy pact that may never be acknowledged, much less haggled over before a judge, as the CIA says.
Posted by Choobak (Member # 7083) on :
Spy is not a good place...
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
That's pretty pathetic that the CIA can't help these people out.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
As if we needed any more credibility problems. Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Very interesting case, Adam. I hope to see the agreement up on Smoking Gun soon. I've always been curious about it.
Very similar evidentiary issues.
Posted by Lupus (Member # 6516) on :
I am surprised that people ever turn on their country...it has never paid well. Spy agencies depend heavily on idiology, since they surely are not going to pay people what it would take to get a loyal person to betray their country. The CIA is not as stingy as the KGB was, but that is not saying much.
Posted by Choobak (Member # 7083) on :
Church of Scientology is considered as a dangerous secte in France, after many case of swindle (i hope it's the good word) and others problem.
I think to know that is different in the USA, But Would you explain me the exact situation, please ?
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
In the U.S., contributions to religious organizations are exempt from income taxes. That means if I earn $10,000 and give $1,000 to a church, I only pay taxes on $9,000 of income. However, these have to be gifts - you are not exempt from taxes paid to religious organizations in exchange for goods or services.
The IRS had a long-running feud with the Church of Scientology over whether it was a religion or not, and hence, whether its members could deduct contributions. The end of this feud was a secret agreement. Apparantly, part of this agreement allowed members to deduct fees paid for counselling sessions.
A Jewish father is trying to deduct money paid for his children's religious education, arguning that it is the same as the counseling sessions in Scientology and therefore should be deductible.
Dagonee
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
Well, I tried to read that settlement paper, but it was in heavy legalese and it is late.
Would someone here please paraphrase it for me?
The small parts I understood sounded like bullsh't to me.....
[ January 11, 2005, 02:51 AM: Message edited by: Kwea ]
Posted by Choobak (Member # 7083) on :
Ok, Dagonee. I understand why Church of Scientology be rich and why somebody give money to them.
But I don't explain another point of justice attack against them. In France, This secte welcome his new members by a questionning more and more based on the psychology. The aim of this is to known the psychological default of the new member.
After this first phase, This secte make a pressure on the member by touch in his defaults to force him to isolate and never meet again his familly. The aim is to prevent he was protected by a member of his familly and was mentally restore by him. (I hope you understand what i mean.)
The third phase is the punctionning of money and using the member to get other new members.
So my question is : What hapened in the USA ? It is the same fact, or it is different ? What is your opinion about ?
Posted by Danzig avoiding landmarks (Member # 6792) on :
I believe the detractors of Scientology. Say what you like about any (well, any I can think of) other religion, they are acting in good faith. Scientology does not.
Added question : What do you think about Hollywood Star who prospect and "commercialize" this secte like Tom Cruise or John Travolta ?
And to add my post : several lawsuit was won by people who are against this secte.
Posted by Sid Meier (Member # 6965) on :
Scientology sounds like some kind of scam. Don't get me wrong I love his books and I enjoyed BF Earth the movie but forming a religion based on that just goes to far.
Posted by Choobak (Member # 7083) on :
Some kind of what ? Sorry, i don't know the word you use here. Can somebody explain me ?
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
You like the movie of BF Earth?!
You're halfway brainwashed already
To be fair, I should point out that brainwashing, at least as popularly conceived in relation to a cult, does not occur. As far as people have been able to tell, people join cults for reasons of rational choice (in the economic sense; not necessarily that they made a rational choice, but that they went about making the choice in a conscious, "rational" manner).
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
"Scam" = a fraudulent scheme.
Like someone trying to sell the Eiffel Tower when they don't own it (which has happened at least once).
Posted by Choobak (Member # 7083) on :
thanks Dagonee. and Good example ! Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
and Good example ! ![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[ROFL]](graemlins/rofl.gif)