Gun-control groups fear top activist was NRA spy

[Friday on my mind]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080806/ap_on_re_us/nra_mole;_ylt=AkOLnskQsiKsrAQSdKxPUstI2ocA


PHILADELPHIA - A gun-control activist who championed the cause for more than a decade and served on the boards of two anti-violence groups is suspected of working as a paid spy for the National Rifle Association, and now those organizations are expelling her and sweeping their offices for bugs.

The suggestion that Mary Lou McFate was a double agent is contained in a deposition filed as part of a contract dispute involving a security firm. The muckraking magazine Mother Jones, in a story last week, was the first to report on McFate's alleged dual identity.

The NRA refused to comment to the magazine and did not respond to calls Tuesday from The Associated Press. Nor did McFate.

The 62-year-old former flight attendant and sex counselor from Sarasota, Fla., is not new to the world of informants.

She infiltrated an animal-rights group in the late 1980s at the request of U.S. Surgical, and befriended an activist who was later convicted in a pipe bomb attack against the medical-supply business, U.S. Surgical acknowledged in news reports at the time. U.S. Surgical had come under fire for using dogs for research and training."

"I feel flattered that the NRA would feel that they would have to infiltrate Ceasefire of PA. Obviously, they're hearing our footsteps," said Phil Goldsmith, the group's president. "Frankly, I think it's a waste of their money. We don't deal in state secrets."

 

[Member2019]

Wouldn't surprise me ...

This is not uncommon for private organizations. The fact that this person has a history of being involved with investigations into other private organizations makes it very likely true.

As long as they did not install recording devices and do other things that are illegal, then it's difficult to make any claims other than ethical ones. Ethics can always be debated, but we're talking private on private, not government on private.

As long as actions are not illegal, that's the difference. Some cross the line, are committing crimes, and are only caught by private investigations. That's why professionals are required, to ensure such investigations are not violating any laws. Ethics are more debatable.

Even more hypocritical are those who complain about private investigations and infiltration, but are guilty of doing it themselves. Many animal rights activists are notorious for this, and are often caught "red handed." Many times the investigation by the other party is started because of the illegal actions that are believed to be going on.

So if this is true, I'm curious what actions prompted the NRA to do this. In the case of biomedical firms, I've noted a number of infiltrations done after it's very probable an organization has been tied to criminal acts. So what would drive the NRA to this?

That's the question.

 

[D-rock]

Normally tactics like that wouldn't be acceptable, but when somebody is fighting for all they got to try and keep a constitutional/human right from disappearing I can, quite frankly, sympathize with them.

 

[Will E Worm]

Really, a spy for the NRA?

I'll tell you the truth....the NRA is not on our side. :hatsoff:

 

[jasonk282]

Really, a spy for the NRA?

I'll tell you the truth....the NRA is not on our side. :hatsoff:

and what side would that be?

 

[Member2019]

Normally tactics like that wouldn't be acceptable, but when somebody is fighting for all they got to try and keep a constitutional/human right from disappearing I can, quite frankly, sympathize with them.

But it does not excuse it.

It's one thing to infiltrate and breach ethics.
It's another to actually do something illegal.

If the NRA has done something unethical, that's one thing. As the pharmacutical companies have found out, it's required with some violent animal rights activists.

But if the NRA did something illegal, that is still illegal. They mentioned they were sweeping for bugs. I haven't heard of any found, so it's likely they are just trying to find something that would be illegal, but have come up empty.

People also forget the NRA is a completely privately funded organization. So they don't come under many laws governing private organizations that take such funds. However, you could label them a lobbyist organization, and there are those laws as well.

One of the reasons why ACORN is so heavily criticized is that they are heavily funded by the government. And they regularly break their own rules with regards to their processes and actions that are required for such an organization. That's why people really don't like ACORN (and it goes beyond the voter fraud and lack of accountability), even non-Republicans like myself (who wish the Republicans would stay focused on the real issues with ACORN, not the same crap they hit over and over).

Again, if the NRA broke the law, we'll find out in a lawsuit. But at this point, it just seems to be typical ethical issues. Private investigations and investigators, by their very nature, are often very unethical.

But forgetting all that, I'm curious what drove the NRA to this point? What justification did they have? If they did not, then they have a lot to answer for.

E.g., like the drug companies with animal rights activists, it has led to the arrest and prosecution of animal rights activists. And animal rights activists have done the same, and actually stolen materials and other things that are only "unethical" in the context of the discovery.

Also remember that sometimes these things aren't remotely illegal. Hell, as a Democrat correspondent even pointed out to me early during the Clinton administration, Nixon was into trouble because of the cover-up and lying about what he knew. He was afraid the same would come about Clinton, because Clinton was not forward on many of his issues (little did we know it would come down to an intern, and not the business aspects, well away from illegal corporate activities of associates, but not the Clintons themselves, and unrelated SEC inquiries).

If we didn't have private investigations, and made them illegal, then US media itself would be shut down. That's why things are allowed, as long as certain rules are followed, depending on the private nature and actions. But if they were bugging the offices, then that would be very much illegal. But I'm not jumping to conclusions, sometimes people just say things publicly to demonize another party (while they have a legitimate concern to check for sure).

Human intelligence is not illegal. Unethical, yes. But not illegal. It all depends on the actual actions. The NRA has to walk a fine line and decide if it's even worth it. So what was worth it here? That's my question, followed by if it was illegal.

 

[STDiva]

and what side would that be?

Nobody knows.

 

[Mauser98k]

Really, a spy for the NRA?

I'll tell you the truth....the NRA is not on our side. :hatsoff:

they help me keep possession of my firearms. i consider them to be on my side.

 

[Kingfisher]

Radicals and Conspiracys are what made this country, so why should it be any different now.

 

[D-rock]

But it does not excuse it.

Sometimes if what you are fighting is morally and ethically right and necessary it does excuse it. This isn't just some industrial espionage or the right to name a bride somewhere. This is a fundamental right at stake.

Harritet Tubman did something that was illegal, not just potentially illegal, it was illegal. I'm not going to start looking down on her. What's right isn't always legal and what's legal isn't always right.