Timeless Issues of Ethics, Law, and Espionage in The Cold War Era

In the review I did about the Bridge of Spies, which can be found here [http://cliffsmovietalk.blogspot.com/2016/01/review-for-bridges-of-spies-film-about.html], it was mentioned that this film covered timeless topics of legal and ethical importance.  In this post, we will be examining a couple of those elements.

In the film, a Soviet spy is arrested in the United States on charges of espionage.  One of the legal issues is whether or not the Soviet spy is entitled to due process of law provided to American citizens in accordance with the 5th and 14th amendments of the Bill of Rights.  At the time the 5th amendment was ratified, it only entitled American citizens accused of federal crimes due process of law.  It was not until the ratification of the 14th amendment that American citizens accused of crimes by the individual states were entitled to due process of law.  Due process of law is a complicated area of law; however, it essentially means one cannot be deprived of their life, liberty, or property without certain procedures taking place beforehand like a trial, etc.   Since espionage is considered a crime against the entire United States, the Soviet spy's case is being held in federal court.  The question, then, is whether or not the spy should be granted due process of law protections even though he is not an American citizen.

Allow us to consider a couple different ways in which one could answer the question above.  One could answer "Yes," the Soviet spy is entitled to the due process protections granted by the United States constitution.  The obvious response to this is to argue that since the spy is not an American citizen, he should not be awarded any protections that an American citizen would have.  The spy was working with the enemy i.e. the Soviet Union.  So, why should America grant an enemy due process protections?  At this point, the one who answered "Yes" might veer from the legal issue at hand and invoke an quasi legal-ethical question instead.  Doesn't the American Declaration of Independence say in the first sentence of the second paragraph "all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life liberty and the pursuit of happiness."  No where in the declaration does it say "only American citizens are entitled to certain unalienable rights." Does the Soviet spy fall under the category of "all men?" If so, then he is entitled the due process protections enumerated in the 5th and 14th amendments.  If not, then one who argues this must provide either why the spy does not fall under "all men" or offer another explanation.  Are we justified to pick and choose which sentences in which documents the American style of government were formed to fit our current needs and agendas ignoring other parts that may contradict us?

Now consider if somebody answered "No," the spy is not entitled to due process of law protections because the harm done to the spy denying him these protections is outweighed by the benefit to the American society and way of life as a whole.  It really comes down, on this account, to a cost/benefit analysis.  The implicit assumption here being that the spy falls under the "all men" clause of the Declaration of Independence.  Thus, perhaps implying he is eligible for due process protection, but does not qualify on other ethical grounds.

One may also invoke the principle of retribution.  The spy, by virtue of him being a spy, is evil unto itself and deserves no protection.  In other words, espionage of this magnitude is in itself reprehensible and deserving of no due process protections regardless of the American values placed on all men being created equal and possessing certain unalienable rights; espionage exempts one from these protections. How far does a civilization, especially one that places a high premium on freedom, equality, individuality, choice, etc like that of the U.S., deviate from its promulgated principles in order to sooth the anxious nerves of its citizens?   Also, where is the line, if there is one, drawn marking a distinction between legal and ethical issues, or are the synonyms for the same concept?

Although the questions and issues discussed here apply to a certain historical period and to a particular incident i.e. the Cold War, they were not shelved along with the history books. These issues are alive today as all societies struggle to figure out how to preserve their ways of life.  This is why Bridge of Spies is such a good movie, it reminds us that these issues are timeless and seemingly infinitely complex.

Do you think the spy should get due process protections or not?  Let us know below.