'Expelling Diplomats' Explained

The media has headlined the expulsion of 35 Russian diplomats from the US and the closing of a 'compound' - which was a resort owned by the Russian government at which these full-time diplomats and their families spent time during vacations.

What has not received any attention at all as far as I have been able to see, in any of the media reports, is what such expulsion is all about.

The word 'conflate' has been doing the rounds a lot since George Galloway tore strips off the US Senate - IN that Senate where as a member of British Parliament he defended himself - for 'traducing his name' and 'conflating' his various human rights and journalistic efforts around the world with some malignant motivation, without 'the slightest shred of evidence.'

A New York socialite with Anton Fedyashin, the head of Mosfilm,
and multiple award-winning film-maker Karen Shakhnazarov

Here, with the matter of the expelling of diplomats, we have an excellent example of what has become all too common - in that the media has 'conflated' 'spies' with 'diplomats;' or, as in this case Russian diplomats. Apparently, in the common public mind, it is all too easy to say 'Russian' and this immediately makes the link to the Soviet era Cold War of 'Russian spies' of popular myth, entertainment legend, and also at times, fact.

So let's quickly summarize the way it really is:

You know this part, but anyway... diplomats are granted, by mutual legal agreement - by treaty - as well as International Obligation via United Nations' agreements, legal immunity from prosecution in the countries they are working. If it becomes the case where a government believes the individual is say for instance, so individually or characteristically problematic as to pose a danger - for instance, they have become aberrant, done something heinous which could not be explained as merely not having a good enough understanding of local custom and laws - then they can or will be 'expelled.' But that simply means a new diplomat returns to take that individual's place.

People who are actual spies - do not have any kind of immunity from prosecution. And spying is an illegal activity. Spying means taking information that is privileged or belongs to someone else and using it for your own advantage in an illegal way. Breaking patents is a kind of commercial operation that often relies on commercial espionage. Certainly there is also active damaging of State infrastructure or other valuable assets - these kinds of 'spies' are operative agents. Pejoratively, within the CIA, they are sometimes called 'operators' and this can also mean someone who is doing something that 'fucks something up!' Which is not necessarily always an intention!

It is simply not a fact - as the media want to imply - that the US government has said the Russian diplomats were spies.

Amy Pascal, on the right, head of Sony during' the Sony
email hackings - you will recall that. Wasn't done by the Russians.

The tradition is this: where a government thinks there are spies operating, not simply researching in a benign way, but for some reason, maybe they are not certain who these are but are sure they are there - THEN, they expel diplomats to give the signal to that foreign government that IF they caught their spies these people would NOT HAVE LEGAL COVER OF IMMUNITY FROM ARREST AND PROSECUTION.

That is what the whole thing means.

It's not that the diplomats were spies. That would be one of the most ridiculous and illogical things to say. If the diplomats were spies you could stop their activities because you knew who they were, where they were, and where they were working from. You could track every single they were doing. It's ridiculous.

So why is the media saying it? There are only two answers - one, that the media is totally incompetent and ignorant and stupid, or two, that they are saying it on purpose to fool you about something.