The Washington Times - June 30, 2010, 01:10AM

Two of the eleven alleged agents of Moscow’s SVR intelligence service, living in Montclair New Jersey, apparently complained to their bosses at the Moscow Centre that they wanted to buy a house, so they could “do as the Romans do,” reports the Telegraph:(emphasis is mine)

There was certainly friction in the suspects’ relationships with their handlers, often over technical problems with their laptop computers and special covert software, supplied by Moscow and their principal means of communication.

“I’m happy I’m not your handler,” said Christopher Metsos, an alleged Russian spy and go-between, to Mr. Murphy bluntly after listening to him complain about the quality of the spy equipment he had received, say prosecutors.

On another occasion, two of the accused allegedly met for a long chat in a Brooklyn café, griping about their Moscow-supplied computers.

“They don’t understand what we go through over here,” one observed bitterly.

Their bosses – known in communications as C, for Moscow Centre – also had their own reservations, particularly a growing concern that some of their spies were becoming a little too embedded in their new home.

The Murphys faced a tough battle when they tried to buy a house, complaining in a coded message that “we are under the impression that C views our ownership of the house as a deviation from the original purpose of our mission here”.

Rather, they countered, it was a “natural progression” of their stay “plus ‘to do as the Romans do ‘ in a society that values home ownership”.

SEE RELATED:


How incredibly rich is it, that two alleged Russian spies enjoyed the individual freedoms of the United States, and apparently tried to undermine the country too? However, at the same time, they are reportedly begging their Russian bosses for property rights. Talk about chutzpah.

This case is just beginning to unravel, and it is easy to chuckle at the circumstance above, but do not forget, how many times have we heard politicians in the United States say home ownership is a “right”?  

Such a concept is really just saying that the American taxpayer should pay for homes that are not affordable to others—not so funny now, huh?