Slashdot Mirror


Counterterrorism Agents Were Told They Could Suspend the Law

politkal writes "According to the FBI's internal inquiry on counterterrorism training, the FBI taught agents that the Bureau 'has the ability to bend or suspend the law to impinge on the freedoms of others;' that agents should 'never attempt to shake hands with an Asian;' that Arabs were 'prone to outbursts' of a 'Jekyll & Hyde' nature." Even better: "That review, now complete, did not result in a single disciplinary action for any instructor. Nor did it mandate the retraining of any FBI agent exposed to what the Bureau concedes was inappropriate material. Nor did it look at any intelligence reports that might have been influenced by the training."

47 of 369 comments (clear)

  1. "did not result in a single disciplinary action" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Seems about right. Business as usual.

    Carry on.

  2. Re:"did not result in a single disciplinary action by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

    agents should 'never attempt to shake hands with an Asia

    Christ. The racism I can cope with, but the sheer incompetence... how can these people have jobs?

  3. FBI by girlintraining · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The FBI has been a corrupt investigative agency since the 1960s when they would send their own agents into groups of protesters to start a fight in order to justify moving the police in to arrest and remove the "violent" protesters. They were called provokateurs, and in large demonstrations back then, activists were taught to surround them and then quickly beat the f*ck out of them and leave them in a puddle of their own blood, vomit, and broken bones.

    These days, with cameras everywhere, they have to rely on other tactics, but they're just as dirty. It is no surprise the FBI trains agents to worry about the law later -- the law is sufficiently complex right now that it can be interpreted to allow just about anything. We're now shipping US citizens who have never been convicted of any crime, nor left the country, to jails in other countries where we torture them in ways that the Geneva convention bans as war crimes; We simply redefined the legal definition of war. The US has not fought a war in 30 years, under the existing definition.

    The FBI, homeland security, and other agencies get away with this kind of abuse of its citizens because nobody stands up and fights back. Imagine how different things would be if that guy who decided to mace those students who were sitting, in a peaceful protest, was suddenly mobbed and reduced to a bloody pulp. In most countries, this is how police brutality is dealt with: The citizens literally mob the guy and sometimes police die as a result... and this is how the balance of power is maintained.

    It is a radical position to take, but our founding fathers were right: The right to bear arms is meant to ensure that when you, as a citizen, see abuse of power, you grab your gun and blow the guy away. Mind you, I don't advocate violence except as an option of last resort... but if a friend, family member, or fellow protester is being beaten or about to be "disappeared" for excercising their lawful and constitutionally granted rights.... the Founding fathers were quite clear on what you should do: Stop them, by any means necessary. I don't know whether you should, or whether I would, but... it was the method used to secure our freedom from Britain and ensure civil liberties for almost 150 years so it is worth thinking about at least.

    --
    #fuckbeta #iamslashdot #dicemustdie
    1. Re:FBI by girlintraining · · Score: 5, Insightful

      P.S. Yes, I'm posting this in the clear, under an alias that could probably be easily traced to my real life identity. I honestly don't give a damn. If you're some government agent reading this and want to add me to another watch list, go for it... I don't mind. I have only one request: Add my name to the very top, and place underneath the title, A Proud American . And then ask yourself if you can, in good conscience, sign your name the same.

      --
      #fuckbeta #iamslashdot #dicemustdie
    2. Re:FBI by doston · · Score: 5, Funny

      The FBI has been a corrupt investigative agency since the 1960s

      Really, the 1960s? How about since the 1940s, when the FBI under J. Edgar Hoover was running around investigating people for being homosexuals or communists, and blatantly violating due process? It has been said that, had this been known at the time, we would have called it "Hooverism" rather than "McCarthyism."

      Hoover just wanted the list of homosexuals so he could find out who'd pull up his pretty little dress and boink his fat ass. The list was really more like a menu.

    3. Re:FBI by girlintraining · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Wow, Internet Tough Guy advocates shooting at law enforcement

      I advocate defending yourself from unlawful violations of your civil liberty, which can (and historically usually does) lead to violence. I do not advocate suicide. Violence is the last thing to try, not the first!

      Those men have families too -- they're not going to unload their gun on a crowd of people with the will and determination to fight back if attacked when they are outnumbered 10 to 1 or more. They aren't suicidal either. A show of force and solidarity is a better deterrent than a truck load of guns... Liberty has historically been paid for in blood. It is is maintained by the willingness to pay for it. It's how we avoided a nuclear holocaust when the USSR still existed: Mutually Assured Destruction was the most successful peace policy the modern world has seen.

      I'll do what civilized people do - get the courts involved.

      There is nothing dignified about dying, or being beaten, arrested, and/or tortured, much less at the hands of a corrupt authority. Civilized people try to avoid those things -- but civilized people also understand that sometimes the individual must be sacrificed for the greater good. If that means standing in front of a tank, so be it. We send our men and women overseas to fight for our freedoms every day, and they have the same attitude; They do everything possible to avoid violence, but if the enemy is intent upon it, then by god we give it to them. That's what patriotism is; It's not standing by your government, it's standing by your country -- it's about the people.

      --
      #fuckbeta #iamslashdot #dicemustdie
    4. Re:FBI by girlintraining · · Score: 5, Informative

      A judge recently ruled, in a cop abuse case, that the victim had every right to shoot the cop, since the victim's life was in mortal danger. And the judge would have found the victim "not guilty" by reason of self-defense.

      Well, the judge was actually the US Supreme Court, and the summary of that decision is basically "We can't ask people to go against human nature, and when someone threatens another's life, that person has every right to fight back because that's instinctual and primal -- no law can stand against that." Exact quote follows...

      The law has grown, and even if historical mistakes have contributed to its growth, it has tended in the direction of rules consistent with human nature. Many respectable writers agree that, if a man reasonably believes that he is in immediate danger of death or grievous bodily harm from his assailant, he may stand his ground, and that, if he kills him, he has not exceeded the bounds of lawful self-defense. That has been the decision of this Court. . . . Detached reflection cannot be demanded in the presence of an uplifted knife. Therefore in this Court, at least, it is not a condition of immunity that one in that situation should pause to consider whether a reasonable man might not think it possible to fly with safety or to disable his assailant rather than to kill him.
      J Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr., in Brown v United States, 256 US 335, 343 (1921).

      --
      #fuckbeta #iamslashdot #dicemustdie
    5. Re:FBI by Quiet_Desperation · · Score: 5, Funny

      The press corpse

      (squints)

      Not sure if clever or typo.

    6. Re:FBI by idontgno · · Score: 3, Insightful

      YAAAY! Conspiracy poker!

      "I see your agent provocateur theory, and raise you one shadowy globalist Illuminatus directing from behind the scenes."

      --
      Welcome to the Panopticon. Used to be a prison, now it's your home.
  4. Again with the 99% by lucm · · Score: 4, Funny

    From the article:
    > Of the approximately 160,000 pages of training material reviewed, less than one percent contained factually inaccurate or imprecise information or used stereotypes

    I say: let's occupy Quantico!

    --
    lucm, indeed.
  5. There are no repercussions, across the board by revscat · · Score: 4, Insightful

    One of the primary reasons that the United States continues its descent into this strange dystopian corporate/security fascist state is because there are, almost without exception, no criminal or political repercussions for acts which are outside the realm of social norms. Black youths can be gunned down, drones can fly unrestricted, SWAT teams can invade and kill completely innocent people, bankers can steal/defraud trillions of dollars, whistleblowers are thrown in jail without trial for years, American citizens are executed at the sole and extra-judicial behest of the President, MPAA/RIAA-friendly treaties are negotiated in secret...

    And on and on and on.

    There are no repercussions for the actors in any of these cases. Here, the FBI says they can suspend the law because, well, who's going to stop them? Congress? Hardly. The President? Incredibly unlikely. The FBI, and most of the national security apparatus, is wholly safe from suffering any consequences to their actions, no matter how heinous they may be to the American public or the world at large.

    1. Re:There are no repercussions, across the board by NeutronCowboy · · Score: 5, Insightful

      And you know why there are no repercussions? Because a significant chunk of the population - look no further than Santorum supporters - believe that Trayvon had it coming, drones will make us safer (from unsafe things - the details are never specified), SWAT teams killing some retired woman is a fair price to pay for getting tough on drugs, bankers are better people than blue-collar workers, and whistleblowers are a threat to National Security.

      We are the problem. We, the collective of the American Voter, are the reason why these types of transgressions keep happening, and are being condoned by the government we elect.

      You might think that you are in the majority with your opinion, but if you are, it is a very slim majority. Slim enough that many politicians, and bureaucrats answerable to politicians, don't care about you or others like you.

      Welcome to Democracy. We get the government we deserve.

      --
      Those who can, do. Those who can't, sue.
    2. Re:There are no repercussions, across the board by v1 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      the "silent majority" is too silent. none of this will change until the "silent majority" turns into the "pissed off majority"

      --
      I work for the Department of Redundancy Department.
    3. Re:There are no repercussions, across the board by Quiet_Desperation · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Pissed off majority will then go and vote established Party lines. Um, yay?

    4. Re:There are no repercussions, across the board by harl · · Score: 4, Insightful

      As long as even the poor are happy and literally fat what incentive to the citizens have to change anything?

      --
      I find being offended by me offensive.
    5. Re:There are no repercussions, across the board by Grishnakh · · Score: 4, Interesting

      The solution is fairly simple, though I'm not clear on all the details. The solution is for the USA to collapse and break apart. Just like parts of the USSR were much better off after its collapse, so it will be with the USA. (The west coast, with all its tech industry and better education, will do much better on its own without the rest of the country dragging it down, for instance.) Large countries simply don't work with democratically-elected governments, only small ones do.

      So voting for Santorum might just be the best solution here, to bring about collapse more quickly.

    6. Re:There are no repercussions, across the board by Kjella · · Score: 5, Insightful

      On a personal level, it's often much easier to get around the problem than trying to change the whole system. For example here in Norway there's some real silly restrictions on when you can only buy beer in the store like until 8 PM on weekdays, 6 PM on Saturday and not at all on Sunday. It probably goes as far back as prohibition, we had one too. Can I be arsed to campaign against it? Nah, I'll just buy enough beer that I have some around if we suddenly at 7 PM on a Saturday find out we're gathering for beers anyway and so does the other 75% of the population that drinks alcohol even though if we were arsed to do something about it we have a huge majority. It doesn't help that there's one party on the left (socialists) and one on the center/right (Christians) that with about 5% of the votes each want to keep it this way.

      The Roman who called it "Bread and circuses" had this figured out 2000 years ago. As long as people a job that puts food on the table and entertainment, you're pretty much good. A lot of the big noble revolutions in history were to the man in the street about money. "No taxation without representation" leading to the Boston Tea Party, that's things that hit people in the wallet. Say all you want about the Declaration of Independence and the Bill of Rights, but I doubt the average farmer cared - except maybe he didn't have to quarter any soldiers. Hitler came to power on top of massive unemployment. Gandhi knew attacking the Salt Tax was something everyone could get behind. Don't think a major part of the Civil Rights movement was equal jobs and equal pay as white people. The fall of the Soviet Union was most of all an economic collapse.

      If the "silent majority" is getting pissed, it's got to be because they think the government is making them really poor or really miserable. Can most Americans say they feel the clammy hands of government on them? No. You don't see them anymore, you don't feel them. There's cameras and car registration readers and the NSA bugging everyone's phone calls but there no physical stalker to creep you out, like in the old East Bloc where large parts of the population were snitches. The bank bailout that hit people's wallet, now that makes people angry. Maybe not armed revolution angry, but at least occupy wall street angry. Personally I'm rather surprised Europe hasn't had more civil unrest than they have, with countries like Spain at 23% unemployment and rising. That's a lot of people with no bread and you don't enjoy the circus on an empty stomach.

      --
      Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
  6. Re:"did not result in a single disciplinary action by venom85 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Because they work for the government? I wish there was a better explanation, but that's pretty much it.

  7. Re:"did not result in a single disciplinary action by Sir_Sri · · Score: 4, Interesting

    they probably don't, or at least not the same job or training contracts.

    It might have been so farcically stupid that people in the training rightly realized it was asinine and didn't actually do anything from it either, hence the lack of a need for retraining.

    Inevitably in life you will go to a training session where the person doing the teaching clearly has no clue what they're talking about, and sometimes it's easier to just write it off as a wasted venture than to try and argue the point or get a refund. This happens in technical training as much as social, business, security, safety or any other kind of training and I somehow doubt this is the first time the FBI has got a bad deal training people on something.

    It depends how long ago all of this was, and what has happened since, but a lot of times you can't get your money back, since the person is out of business, or it would cost more in lawyer fees to recoup it.

    And, sadly, there are racists in the US. The sooner you get used to dealing with that the better off you'll be. They're everywhere, even if there aren't a lot of them, you should have enough brains to know to ignore them. It's not like the FBI is training 5 year olds on racial profiling, these are adults who should have the brains to realize when information they're getting is batshit crazy, and the ones who think it's the greatest thing ever were racists already. By the time they get to the FBI they're long past the point of being able to influence their biases (or lack thereof) about people from a training session.

  8. Wikileaks watches the watchers by betterunixthanunix · · Score: 5, Funny

    Who watches the watchers? Wikileaks, and that is why the US government has been working so hard to discredit them, attack their leaders, and to shut them down.

    --
    Palm trees and 8
  9. Re:"did not result in a single disciplinary action by jhoegl · · Score: 3, Informative

    Obviously you do not work in or have significant experience in the private sector.

  10. Re:Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? by sideslash · · Score: 5, Funny

    "Who watches the watchmen?"

    As I recall it was kind of a flop in the box office; so relatively few people.

  11. Re:So, in other words... by Isaac-1 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    This is probably not going to be popular, and may cost me Karma, but the reality of the world is there are cultural differences between people from region to region, trying to be PC about everything even to the point of using the term PC does not work in the real world. Training agents about the tendancies of one culture or anoher is not racism. If it was done right or wrong at this time I do not know.

  12. Re:"did not result in a single disciplinary action by cpu6502 · · Score: 5, Interesting

    They were recently scolded by a Judge, for trying to imprison a group of supposed "terrorists" who were really just a rifle club:

    "The prosecution is not free to roam at large â" to shift its theory of criminality so as to take advantage of each passing vicissitude of the trial,â Judge Victoria Roberts said. âoeIf the government now admits that the plan alleged in Count 1 of the indictment (seditious conspiracy) did not exist, then defendants must be acquitted," Roberts wrote in her 28-page ruling. "The governmentâ(TM)s case is built largely of circumstantial evidence. While this evidence could certainly lead a rational fact finder to conclude that âsomething fishyâ(TM) was going on, it does not prove beyond a reasonable doubt that defendants reached a concrete agreement to forcibly oppose the U.S. government."

    http://www.infowars.com/hutaree-acquitted-in-federal-terrorism-case/

    --
    My AC stalker: " I personally agree with your posts most of the time, but that won't keep me from modding you troll"
  13. Re:"did not result in a single disciplinary action by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 5, Funny

    agents should 'never attempt to shake hands with an Asia

    Christ. The racism I can cope with, but the sheer incompetence... how can these people have jobs?

    What racism? That's just cultural sensitivity. Everybody knows you don't shake hands with the Asians, you bow to them. And serve green tea, not black tea. Gee, in Africa, you would shake your spear instead of shaking hands, for example.

    --
    Ezekiel 23:20
  14. Re:"did not result in a single disciplinary action by Jawnn · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Sorry, but "batshit crazy" ideas should never have reached the level of teaching doctrine. It did, and that is completely inexcusable because it demonstrates, at best, an ineffective review process for the publication of that doctrine, and at worst, a frightening level of incompetence or outright malice throughout the institution. This is absolutely not the work of a few "bad apples".

  15. Video evidence will be useless in a decade by Barbara,+not+Barbie · · Score: 5, Insightful

    These days, with cameras everywhere

    Within 10 years all video evidence will be useless, for the simple reason that anyone will be able to render any sort of video. Want a video of the Prez free-basing with hookers? No problem. Want a video of the prosecutor and the judge having sex with a dead donkey? No problem.

    Eventually, the standard of proof will fall back to "if you don't have at least 2 witnesses, forget it."

    --
    Let's call it what it is, Anti-Social Media.
  16. Re:"did not result in a single disciplinary action by number17 · · Score: 4, Funny

    The group "Asians" include a heck of a lot of cultures and countries. The only two that will typically bow are Koreans and Japanese. Good luck getting somebody from China to bow. Its like thinking all Canadians live in igloos.

  17. Congress did not intent for this by Skapare · · Score: 3, Insightful

    ... since Congress could have put exceptions in the law for them, but did not.

    --
    now we need to go OSS in diesel cars
  18. Re:"did not result in a single disciplinary action by iamhassi · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Obviously you do not work in or have significant experience in the private sector.

    Private sector is.... wait for it..... private. If a private company tells their 5 employees not to shake hands with Asians, that's on them.

    But when the government does it? That's when there's a problem.

    --
    my karma will be here long after I'm gone
  19. Re:"did not result in a single disciplinary action by forkfail · · Score: 5, Funny

    Instead of a bonus driven board of directors?

    Obviously, you've never had a serious medical condition.

    --
    Check your premises.
  20. Re:"did not result in a single disciplinary action by SJHillman · · Score: 5, Funny

    Maybe "shake hands" is a euphemism for "get involved in a land war"?

  21. Re:"did not result in a single disciplinary action by Sarten-X · · Score: 4, Informative

    Not so much with the shaking spear, but I did get in trouble when I tried to shake hands in Ghana. As both I and the person I met were carrying luggage in our right hands, I extended my left. The left hand is often used in lieu of toilet paper, so that's an insult. The man understood my mistake, and explained it to me, but I was much more aware of my left hand for the next few months.

    --
    You do not have a moral or legal right to do absolutely anything you want.
  22. Re:"did not result in a single disciplinary action by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Or the shaking hands things is just a cultural etiquette thing. My company has similar things in its overseas travel guide.

    But, no, let's just assume racism because it's easier to rage than think.

  23. Having visited the middle east by OzPeter · · Score: 5, Insightful

    After visiting Egypt, Jordan and Syria I came away with the feeling that the people I met there would literally give you the shirt off their backs if you needed it, but if you crossed them then it would be bad news.

    While on my travels I got invited into many strangers homes and offered uncalled for but extremely gracious hospitality.

    Yet at least one time, while in a hostel in Syria I seemed to be the instigator of a huge yelling outburst from a Syrian because he offered me a cup of tea and I absentmindedly waved him off because I was busy writing in my diary. Yes, it was my fault. I admit that I did not follow his social norms and I regret doing it, but the reaction was extreme. And while that may be one specific example after all my travels I came away feeling that this was not out of the ordinary.

    So while I have no idea of the extent of the FBI training, I can understand the J&H comment - although probably would disagree with how the material was presented.

    --
    I am Slashdot. Are you Slashdot as well?
    1. Re:Having visited the middle east by lcam · · Score: 3, Interesting

      I found your comments to be very very interesting. I wish I had mod points left even though you don't need them.

      The fact is, if more people looked after each other, we would not be busy with our own self-interests but making sure that the interests of everyone around us was looked after. Since capitalism sort of insinuates we should look after ourselves before our brothers we end up more isolated in a way.

      Furthermore, the ideals you share do put a new light on extremism. Specifically extremism in the middle east, what we call terrorists may very well have been people who are willing to give their lives to a system of ideals defending their "friends" in any way possible, including at the price of their lives, because those ideals have become corrupted by violence, hate and misdirection.

      Thanks for an inspirational posting.

  24. How is that relevant? by F69631 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The parent a few level up said that they can get away with incompetence because they work for the government and thus implied that government accepts incompetence and private sector doesn't. The GP answered "There are just as incompetent people on private sector". Now you're derailing it with "Sure, but it doesn't matter, because it's the private sector".

    Sure, I (think I) understand the point: If someone wastes their own money, it's less important than if they waste taxpayer money. However, when someone says that "Government accepts competence, private sector doesn't" they're more or less implying "If we let private sector take care of things, they'll be done better than when we let the government take care of them". When someone refutes by saying that private sector is just as competent, they're implying that transferring stuff to private sector might not do any good because there are always incompetent people, no matter what the organization is.

    After that, saying what you just said seems to be completely irrelevant.

    1. Re:How is that relevant? by venom85 · · Score: 3, Interesting

      I never implied that the private sector doesn't accept incompetence. I stated that the government allows it in mass quantities. I do work in the private sector and see incompetence routinely. However, there's a huge difference between what happens in a private company and what happens in government. When incompetence is allowed in a private company, the company suffers. Sometimes, depending on the type of incompetence, the customers suffer by having to pay higher prices for inferior products (see things like the content holders and providers like Comcast). When incompetence is allowed in the government, however, it comes with the business end of a gun, so to speak. It can, and often does, result in a loss of basic freedoms, jail time, or worse. There's a huge, huge difference there.

      Also, don't forget that many, if not most, of the problems you see in the private world are the result of government actions. For instance, going back to the content industry, a lack of competition and other factors created by FCC regulations (among many, many other laws) are a large reason prices are so high and options are so few. I can't say with certainty that the industry would be perfect without government involvement, but I have yet to find anyone who thinks that it'd be anywhere near this bad if the industry was left to its own devices.

  25. The Lucifer effect... by YurB · · Score: 4, Interesting

    When studying my country's history and the bloody things done by the NKVD (and it's predecessors) I was always having this question: "How could that happen?". I simply couldn't believe so many people could simply serve Stalin and do all the violent things in such big scale (millions of victims.) The violence often highly exceeded what was required by the order. But then I found something close to an explanation of that by Philip Zimbardo in a TED talk. He argues that structures where people have a uniform, orders, hierarchy, power over others (like in this case when one can even cross the law's edges), and racism, seem to provide the grounds for violent behaior.

  26. Re:So, in other words... by harl · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Bowing is not common in Asia. It is common in a couple countries in Asia. Across Asia it is very uncommon though.

    If we're going to teach cultural differences then let's at least be accurate about them.

    --
    I find being offended by me offensive.
  27. Re:"did not result in a single disciplinary action by Firehed · · Score: 3, Funny

    Well I, for one, am much more of other people's left hands now.

    --
    How are sites slashdotted when nobody reads TFAs?
  28. Re:So, in other words... by tsotha · · Score: 5, Insightful

    You can't know based on a few sentences taken out of context, and neither can any of the people who are huffing indignantly.

  29. Re:What can I do? by Hatta · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Nothing. There is nothing you can do. We are totally and utterly fucked and there's nothing anyone can do about it. We're not getting out of this hole without another Civil War.

    --
    Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
  30. Re:"did not result in a single disciplinary action by KhabaLox · · Score: 4, Funny

    Or that all Americans are obese gun fanatics.

    Oh wait.

    --
    Ceci n'est pas un sig.
  31. Re:"did not result in a single disciplinary action by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

    I do so love my fat gun. Thank you Fleshlight (Made in the USA!). Any of you Iglooians up for some Chatroulette?

  32. Re:"did not result in a single disciplinary action by microbox · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The point is that the private sector is full of incompetence too, and that bears out my experience. In fact, I found that government offices were more tightly run, with an eye on the bottom line. The private sector, however, seems to focus on making sales, and that is were most of the effort (and excellent) goes. Actually getting real work done can be ludicrous.

    --

    Like all pain, suffering is a signal that something isn't right
  33. Re:"did not result in a single disciplinary action by Trogre · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Perhaps that's a cultural thing. The article also mentions not staring at Asians (which I understand, since eye-contact means very different things in different cultures).

    And did you really want to approach an Arab woman before approaching a male first?

    This isn't racism, people, these are rules of thumb that look like they're attempting to help you establish relations, trust, whatever.

    The rage thing I'm really not sure about. I have seen that effect in several people of Arab descent but have no idea how pervasive it is compared with other groups.

    --
    "Nine times out of ten, starting a fire is not the best way to solve the problem." - my wife