Counterterrorism Agents Were Told They Could Suspend the Law

[ElNono]

"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 (http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2012/03/fbi-bend-suspend-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."

[Winehole23]

"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."The law is for little people, not for our wise and benevolent masters.

[LnGrrrR]

Who are the retards providing and coming up with this training?

[GSH]

I made a quick attempt to find the source documents, but other than the PowerPoint slide that talks about bending or suspending the law, I couldn't locate them. (Might, after taking more time.)

I worry about taking things out of context, and turning them into something they didn't really mean. The part about suspending the law really bothers me. But the other couple of references may not be what they seem.

I don't understand the bit about not shaking hands with Asians. Was it a nod to other customs, suggesting that you should not assume that everyone shakes hands the way we do? I just find it hard to believe that anyone was suggesting that shaking hands with Asians was dirty or something. That's sort of what the article is insinuating.

And the comments about more frequent outbursts by people from the Middle East? Having lived there, I can tell you that big, loud arguments with people waving hands and screaming at each other are definitely much more commonplace than they are here. And when they happen here, people take it a lot more seriously. Again, it's part of both cultures. Was the intent of that comment to tell agents not to immediately get defensive, or expect actual violence, if someone they are questioning seems to "blow up" (by our standards)?

I don't know what the actual training programs were trying to accomplish. But if I were training agents to question people from around the world, I might tell them things like, "Don't take it personally if some people refuse to shake hands", and "Don't freak out if someone from the Middle East starts screaming or even shaking their fist at you". When I don't know, I like to get more facts before deciding the worst.

[Winehole23]

let us know when you get them

[GSH]

let us know when you get them

Why? Facts don't change your opinions on anything.

[ElNono]

The FBI acknowledged the training materials were improper and corrected them. Apparently there was no misunderstanding as far as the non-appropiatedness of the materials and what they were teaching.

[GSH]

The FBI acknowledged the training materials were improper and corrected them. Apparently there was no misunderstanding as far as the non-appropiatedness of the materials and what they were teaching.

That could be as simple as bad phrasing, and not the intent or even content.

Look, Nono, you are one of the people who make reasoned arguments. I respect your position on things, even when I disagree. And I don't necessarily disagree on this. But let me ask you this. Do you really believe that there is someone in the FBI who put out a memo with the intent of telling people that it is somehow bad to shake hands with an Asian?

I remember when I was a little kid, there were still people who wouldn't shake hands with a black person, as if their hands were dirty or something. I honestly don't know anybody who still behaves that way. I'm sure that some of the remaining KKK members, or someone from a skinhead group might be that foul. But someone doing training in the FBI?

All I was saying that I think the article was trying to make it sound like something sinister. Both of those things may well have been an attempt to be PC, gone wrong. And, like I said, the bit about it being "improper" might have been (and I think probably was) just an agreement that the phrasing was bad. And I would disagree with the article's insinuation that heads should roll, if that is the case.


And BTW - I don't see any justification, ever, for the comments about "bending or suspending the law". It sounds like an offshoot of that whole Patriot Act hysteria.

Maybe, MAYBE, in a hypothetical situation where they somehow KNOW that there is a WMD planted in a city, and they somehow KNOW that a suspect knows where it is hidden. But you don't put bullshit hypothetical CSI scenarios in your training material. That part is wrong. That part should result in someone being dismissed. Not reprimanded. If they don't understand that they have to follow the law of the land, they don't need to be in the FBI.

[ElNono]

That could be as simple as bad phrasing, and not the intent or even content.

You don't think there's anything wrong with a senator having to contact the FBI in order for them to asses the information that's being taught to agents?

LE is held to a higher standard because they yield greater power. I find appalling that they were being told they could be above the law.

[GSH]

You don't think there's anything wrong with a senator having to contact the FBI in order for them to asses the information that's being taught to agents?

LE is held to a higher standard because they yield greater power. I find appalling that they were being told they could be above the law.


I don't think there's anything wrong with it. Congressional oversight - isn't that part of the job? If it were never needed, it wouldn't be. I wish things weren't politicized the way they are. But that's the nature of politicians.

All I am saying is that poor phrasing, if that's what it is, doesn't rise to the level of being punished or fired.

And I already said that the bit about suspending the law is reprehensible, no matter what. I added that part right after I posted, so maybe you didn't see the edit. Somebody need to be gone over that one.

The comment about not shaking hands with Asians. Do you really believe that there was any bad intent there? Because it's one of the three items that feature prominently in the article. It looks to me like it's there to be inflammatory, and it's almost certainly used out of context.

[z0sa]

The law is for little people, not for our wise and benevolent masters.

:lol

.........



:depressed

[ElNono]

I don't think there's anything wrong with it. Congressional oversight - isn't that part of the job? If it were never needed, it wouldn't be. I wish things weren't politicized the way they are. But that's the nature of politicians.

All I am saying is that poor phrasing, if that's what it is, doesn't rise to the level of being punished or fired.

And I already said that the bit about suspending the law is reprehensible, no matter what. I added that part right after I posted, so maybe you didn't see the edit. Somebody need to be gone over that one.

The comment about not shaking hands with Asians. Do you really believe that there was any bad intent there? Because it's one of the three items that feature prominently in the article. It looks to me like it's there to be inflammatory, and it's almost certainly used out of context.

- "mainstream American Muslims are likely to be terrorist sympathizers"
- "Islam is a highly violent radical religion"
- "Arabic mind is swayed more by ideas than fact"

You think those things are just "poor phrasing" and the issue is just "politicized"?

[Winehole23]

Why? Facts don't change your opinions on anything.you'd be wrong about that. are you making an excuse for not finding out for yourself?

[lefty]

that Arabs were 'prone to outbursts' of a 'Jekyll & Hyde' nature."


True

[GSH]

- "mainstream American Muslims are likely to be terrorist sympathizers"
- "Islam is a highly violent radical religion"
- "Arabic mind is swayed more by ideas than fact"

You think those things are just "poor phrasing" and the issue is just "politicized"?




No. Absolutely not. I said that I couldn't find the source documents. If they say that, specifically, there's no excuse. I would just want to be sure that isn't someone's paraphrasing of what was in the documents. That happens, too.

If they really said those things directly, it's shocking and wrong.

C'mon, Nono. You know me better than that. Of course I don't agree with those things. I don't even know anyone who would agree with those things. Maybe a few fringe fanatics, but not anyone I associate with. Is it really that easy to believe that the whole FBI is populated by fringe fanatics? If you know anything about their recruiting, that would be pretty difficult to accomplish.

There are too many reductionists, here and lots of other places. If you find those comments shocking, and I find them shocking, don't you at least question whether there might be more to the story? Like - is this something that was used a long time ago (they say the memo was undated), that someone dredged out of the archives? And if it's not being used today, why the retro-active investigation now?

[GSH]

you'd be wrong about that. are you making an excuse for not finding out for yourself?

I tried. I'll make another effort. What about you?

[Winehole23]

waiting to see how much you care

[lefty]

" Americans are fat and watch TV "
" Canadians play hockey, have missing teeth, drink maple syrup beer all day long and are all RCMPmen "

[ElNono]

No. Absolutely not. I said that I couldn't find the source documents. If they say that, specifically, there's no excuse. I would just want to be sure that isn't someone's paraphrasing of what was in the documents. That happens, too.

If they really said those things directly, it's shocking and wrong.

C'mon, Nono. You know me better than that. Of course I don't agree with those things. I don't even know anyone who would agree with those things. Maybe a few fringe fanatics, but not anyone I associate with. Is it really that easy to believe that the whole FBI is populated by fringe fanatics? If you know anything about their recruiting, that would be pretty difficult to accomplish.

There are too many reductionists, here and lots of other places. If you find those comments shocking, and I find them shocking, don't you at least question whether there might be more to the story? Like - is this something that was used a long time ago (they say the memo was undated), that someone dredged out of the archives? And if it's not being used today, why the retro-active investigation now?

Well, the FBI director agreed that such instruction hurt more than it helped, and proceeded to have the material revisited and corrected.

Neither you or I will ever see FBI training documents (obviously). But you can't tell me that whoever decided to include misinformation like that shouldn't be, at the very least, reprimanded. Or whoever was instructed under such directive should be made aware that such things are factually not true, and shouldn't act accordingly.

Well, I suppose you could tell me that. I just won't agree.

[GSH]

Well, the FBI director agreed that such instruction hurt more than it helped, and proceeded to have the material revisited and corrected.

Neither you or I will ever see FBI training documents (obviously). But you can't tell me that whoever decided to include misinformation like that shouldn't be, at the very least, reprimanded. Or whoever was instructed under such directive should be made aware that such things are factually not true, and shouldn't act accordingly.

Well, I suppose you could tell me that. I just won't agree.


Like I said, several times. If those statements weren't paraphrased, and were included in any official FBI documents, the person responsible should be made to go away. And, yes, the agency should make clear that those things were never the official position. (Or unofficial position.)

It seems like you want to believe that anyone who takes a more conservative position would automatically be in favor of these things? I think it's a no-brainer that the comments are unacceptable.

I don't know about seeing the documents. Lots of things come out of FOIA requests. They may bury these, due to "national security", since they involved counter-terrorism. But lots of things get out anyway.

[ElNono]

Like I said, several times. If those statements weren't paraphrased, and were included in any official FBI documents, the person responsible should be made to go away. And, yes, the agency should make clear that those things were never the official position. (Or unofficial position.)

Agree.


It seems like you want to believe that anyone who takes a more conservative position would automatically be in favor of these things? I think it's a no-brainer that the comments are unacceptable.

Where I said that? I merely pointed out that apparently everyone, including the FBI heads, were in agreement that such language has no place in agent training.

I certainly made clear that I disagreed with this being just an instance of "poor phrasing" or the issue being "politicized". Conservative or non-conservative positions has nothing to do with it.


I don't know about seeing the documents. Lots of things come out of FOIA requests. They may bury these, due to "national security", since they involved counter-terrorism. But lots of things get out anyway.

Not sure about availability. Seeing these included counterterrorism training, I suspect there are some national security implications that would preclude from full disclosure. But it's just a guess.