,
4 tweets,
2 min read
Read on Twitter
I think this piece raises a bunch of valid concerns, but I stumbled over the third paragraph where @RichLowry wonders what it could even mean to be an “unwitting asset” of a foreign intelligence service. nationalreview.com/2019/01/when-d…
@RichLowry This is… not some weird or novel concept. It would, indeed, be dangerous to dub anyone with Russophilic policy views an “unwitting asset”… but many, many actual intelligence assets are unwitting.
There is, in general, no reason exploiting a person in a useful position requires informing that person who they’re really working for. Usually it’s easier not to do so. You tell them they’re working for whomever they’ll have least qualms about thinking they’re working for.
(If we want to be pedantic, an “agent” of a foreign power would necessarily be witting; an “asset” need not be.)
