Spying for the U.S. Doesn't Pay

Tenet et al. v. Doe et ux.

At least we American's are consistent. Continuing a track record that includes notorious negotiations/contracts with native Americans and even its own war veterans, the U.S. government once again has decided to disregard its obligations. The CIA paid money to this couple in exchange for spying. Apparently, the couple had some good stuff because the CIA/U.S. promised to pay them for the rest of their lives.

So one day the guy is running short on money because he lost his job (merger casualty), and decides to see if he can get those payments back since there was an agreement with regard to salary vs amount of CIA contribution. Oh let's not forget the CIA put restrictions on the types of employment he's allowed to hold.

The CIA apprently said in a letter that the money wasn't available anymore, and that the money already paid was sufficient for the services rendered, paraphrasing. The CIA also knows that there is no obligation to pay anymore thanks to an old, but still very good law, case following the conclusion of the Civil War. Basically, that case said that contracts the government makes with a spy are not reviewable because the essence of the contract is secret and public policy forbids hearing a trial where secret squirrel stuff would inevitably be disclosed.

I might be wrong here, but I think the plaintiffs were saying that a trial on the contractual merits would not inevitably disclose secrets, in simple form. But come on, secrets are the essence of this contract, national secrets, secrets so secret that it precluded a written contract and inticed the CIA enough to verbally agree to lifetime payments!

So of course the Court isn't going to touch this with a ten-foot pole. Scalia even says "frivolous" because of the total lack of a cause of action. If this was a boxing match, the Court just KO'd the 9th Circuit and bit off their ear. I mean, it's like the Court is mad and is bonking the 9th Circuit and firmly pointing to what should be obvious.

Chief Justice Rehnquist delivered the opinion, that says a lot about his character considering his health issue and recouperation... or maybe it's indicative of how much fun it is to be Chief Justice.