my uncle served as a career officer in the Candian Armed Forces, starting as a tank commander in korea but proceeding, on account of his many decorations to military intelligence and then economic intelligence. i have thought, where is the logic in this matter of hiring snakes for espionage? i've heard commentators, guests, and journalists all say the intelligence services have to hire snakes, criminals etc. to find the 'rat' terrorists in their holes... i would like them to prove that a man of integrity and honesty actually cannot do a better role as a spy...he's more trustworthy isn't he? and isn't trust crucial to success? its like their saying you can hire the wicked and not expect to get burned...didn't they hire bin laden at first...did that do any good?...haven't they hired good men who were the most effective in infiltrating organized crime...good fbi officers who were risking their very lives as well as their marriages and families? and they unveiled the whole inside of the mafia...whom can you trust to believe, an honest spy or a liar? where is the logic that hiring a wicked man will advance your cause or help you better reach your objective? were the death squads in el salvador advancing u.s. goals more effectively than scotland yard?...come off it, and get it straight before we repeat the same mistakes we did with bin laden - all over again! shane mattison
