22 ms·
How the F.B.I. Can Detain, Render and Threaten Without Risk
- l3m0ndr0p 11y agoThe FBI is our version of the Gestapo of Nazi Germany.
- RankingMember 11y agoWow, Godwin's Law already.
- akiselev 11y agoHard to argue with the highest of Internet law but this is literally a paraphrase of President Truman's description of the FBI, found in the third paragraph of J. Edgar Hoover's Wikipedia page no less [1]. [1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/J._Edgar_Hoover https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/J._Edgar_Hoover
- gopowerranger 11y agoSo it's a good thing Truman put a stop to it before it got out of hand.
- AnimalMuppet 11y ago"Tending that direction" (the actual quote) isn't quite the same as "they are" (l3m0ndr0p's statement). That's not "literally a paraphrase", that's omitting something that makes a significant difference.
- yourepowerless 11y agoHoover died over 40 years ago, who knows what he would say about the FBI today given their new found love of torture, and the governments new policy of murdering anyone, including US citizens without meaningful due process. But do go on, trot out some stupid internet meme while the American government continued it's descent into the abyss.
- akiselev 11y agoYou're quite right, the language I used does not quite hold up in a literal interpretation. I was willing to take this shortcut primarily because I assumed that Truman's political capital limited his ability to attack the FBI's power as was dictated by the FBI's power over him and his supporters in Congress, whose support he would need to be effective as executive and commander in chief. This is tin foil hat circular reasoning but given the historical evidence for Hoover's abuse of power, I don't think it's much of a stretch
- deleted 11y ago[deleted]
- happyscrappy 11y agoYou do not need an elaborate plan, there is always some jackass willing to say stupid shit thinking he is edgy.
- vezzy-fnord 11y agoThe Geheime Staatspolizei were actually remarkably inefficient, relatively understaffed, highly bureaucratic and reactive over proactive. The FBI are significantly more competent, I'd assume.
- akiselev 11y agoJ. Edgar Hoover took power of the FBI's predecessor in the mid 1920s and was a contemporary of the Gestapo and early KGB so he probably learned a lot about how to do and what not to do as a secret police force.
- gopowerranger 11y agoSince you say Hoover took over the FBI's predecessor in the 1920s, and the KGB was not formed until 1954, and the Gestapo in 1933, you have a credibility problem.
- venomsnake 11y agoSo we are left with only Stazi?
- dccoolgai 11y agoAdvice from my father-in-law, who is a prominent attorney: "Never, ever talk to the FBI without a lawyer - even if you want to help them as a witness... because if they don't like the truth you're telling them, they can (and often do) say you lied to them which is a federal offense. If you have your attorney, they at least know there is a credible witness present who is keeping track of who said what."
- ams6110 11y agoThis is good advice for talking to any law enforcement really. They are not on your side if they are asking you questions.
- mox1 11y agoWell this is especially (aka more) important when talking to a "Federal Agent". This can be US Marshals, Secret Service, Fish and Wildlife management, DEA, etc. (if you find yourself in this situation ask the person if they are an "1811" job series). Lying to a federal agent is always an actual felony (18 U.S.C. SECTION 1001). Lying to a local police officer, state patrol is not always a crime (local, state laws).
- jsprogrammer 11y agoDon't lie? FBI would need to prove a lie anyway. Not the easiest thing. Edit: Some of these responses seem to be assuming "Don't lie" is the logical complement of "tell the truth". That is not the case. Anyway, "tell the truth" is not a real strategy. That is: the sentence is essentially meaningless. We already know that actual truth is impossible to capture.
- fweespeech 11y agoDefense lawyers aren't free.
- jsprogrammer 11y ago
- ck2 11y agoSame anti-constitutional way the TSA does every day? BTW the FBI has never, ever, found themselves in the wrong after shooting someone, apparently they are perfect, infallible human beings. Not for decades. Because trust them, only they investigate themselves.
- rayiner 11y agoSkip the article and just read the opinion: https://www.cadc.uscourts.gov/internet/opinions.nsf/E8CAF3B08FAA9E8185257EE7004E2D02/$file/14-5194.pdf https://www.cadc.uscourts.gov/internet/opinions.nsf/E8CAF3B0.... The case here decides a specific issue: whether a Bivens action for money damages is available when the government violates a Constitutional right of a U.S. citizen abroad in a terrorism investigation. Bivens is basically a last-ditch option where a tort cause of action is created when there is no other remedy for a Constitutional violation: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bivens_v._Six_Unknown_Named_Agents https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bivens_v._Six_Unknown_Named_Ag.... But because it's a totally judicially-created construct, the Supreme Court has warned caution in expanding it to new contexts. The opinion does not say that it is legal for the Government to do what Mr. Meshal alleges it did. The question is whether Mr. Meshal can get money from the Government for violating his rights.
- makomk 11y agoSo it's not legal, but there's nothing you can do to stop them? That doesn't offer much in the way of reassurance to the people being tortured at the request of the FBI.
- rayiner 11y agoIf you are being illegally detained, you can file for a writ of habeas corpus. In contrast, Bivens is about getting money damages if you suffered illegal detainment in the past. The scope of habeas corpus (which the Supreme Court has held does apply to U.S. citizens detained abroad) is broader than that of Bivens because the former is explicitly mentioned in the Constitution, and the latter is a relatively recent judge-made construct.
- dragonwriter 11y ago> If you are being illegally detained, you can file for a writ of habeas corpus. If you are being illegally detained, its not entirely unlikely you will also be illegally denied the opportunity to file for a writ of habeas corpus; if you are extremely lucky, someone who isn't being illegally deprived of their rights might figure out that you are being illegally detained and file for the writ on your behalf. But, you know, when the government's illegally detaining people, illegally denying them access to counsel, and illegally denying them access to the courts, they generally aren't also advertising the fact of that detention of those particular individuals so that other people can intervene to do something about it. The lack of effective after-the-fact accountability, both personal and institutional, for such violations is a serious problem which makes them more likely to be continued or repeated. The availability of the writ of habeas corpus to terminate the unlawful detention is obviously necessary, but nearly equally obviously insufficient.
- mtgx 11y agoAlthough I think this is still mostly a decades-old systemic issue, I think Obama has been a huge factor in making this problem worse. Every time there was an abuse, he has defended the crimes and the criminals, whether it was the FBI, CIA, or NSA. Bush administrations' crimes? - "We need to move forward" CIA torture - "We tortured some folks - but you don't actually expect me to punish anyone for doing it, do you?!" NSA - "There have been no abuses". Enough said. Even with the OPM hack, the largest government data breach in US' history, Obama has tried to push the story under the rug, so it doesn't make his administration look bad - or something. Obama got it wrong. You don't "move forward" by ignoring the problem. You move forward by admitting the problem exists and then punishing those responsible. The criminals in the government can't continue to have jobs or even keep their liberty as if nothing happened, while through their power, they have destroyed many lives.
- hackuser 11y agoIt bothers me too. However, I wonder if it's realistic to think a President will ever fight or hinder the national security or law enforcement establishment, especially publicly. Off the top of my head, I can't think of one who has (though they may change the rules, as Obama has), no matter what they say during campaigns. Loyalty is the #1 rule of any organization, and publicly turning on your own subordinates would appear exceptionally disloyal; look at the price De Blasio paid in NYC for mild criticism of law enforcement. The President has over a million people working for him/her in the executive branch; he/she is highly dependent on them to get anything done and done properly. Also, President's jealously guard their power and authority; they are unlikely to take steps to significantly reduce it. I suspect the only remedy will come from outside the executive branch, such as Congress or the judiciary. (Part of the reason the US has 3 co-equal branches of government is for situations like this one.)
- yourepowerless 11y agoSimply more proof that the laws have become illegitimate tools of power for the elite and corrupt. American is no longer a democracy in any meaningful sense of the word, but a tiered society of those inside the halls of power, given extraordinary and unaccountable powers to detain, torture, murder others and the meek who suffer such atrocities. It's laughable and sad anyone appeals to the court system for a remedy when they simply are a rubber stamp, but what do people expect when secret courts and NSLs abound? Voting won't help, legal redress won't help, what then can you do?
- Balgair 11y agoI know to what you allude, massed rebellion, but I really think that is not the answer. Look at the Tea Party for an example of how voting still works and really well. Eric Cantor, the former House Majority Leader, was 'sniped' in a primary vote: To quote from wikipedia: "In the June 10, 2014, Republican primary, despite internal campaign polls placing him 30 points ahead of his opponent[59] and his spending advantage (Cantor outspent his opponent 40 to 1),[60] Cantor lost to Tea Party candidate Dave Brat in a major upset, 44.5%–55.5%. This made him the first sitting House majority leader to lose a primary since the position was created in 1899.[61][62][63][64] His loss in the primary was described by the Los Angeles Times as "one of the greatest political upsets of modern times." (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eric_Cantor#2014_Republican_primary_and_resignation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eric_Cantor#2014_Republican_pr...). What more can be said? YOUR VOTE COUNTS! EDIT: Sorry to derail the comment thread on the article.
- chimeracoder 11y ago> Look at the Tea Party for an example of how voting still works and really well. Eric Cantor, the former House Majority Leader, was 'sniped' in a primary vote > What more can be said? YOUR VOTE COUNTS! Except... the Tea Party has failed rather miserably on most of their core objectives, particularly their single biggest one: repealing Obamacare. Over the last five years, we've had some legislation passed that the Tea Party was happy about, but most of it is right in line with the preexisting core Republican platform. The Tea Party candidates haven't done a great job of preserving their own careers - Sarah Palin is a no-name outside Republican circles at this point, Michelle Bachmann left Congress, and Rand Paul's best successes have been when he strays from the Tea Party line. They've done a good job of making noise so that people know their existence, and they've done a good job of making themselves a force within the Republican party, but arguably, they've worked against their own interests more than they've advanced their agenda by helping to decrease the relevance and/or power of the Republican party[0]. Much as I don't like Boehner, the fact that he had to step down is a symptom of the deepening problems that the Republican party has, not a symbol of the success of the Tea Party. The Tea Party makes for a great foil to the Democrats, which makes it easy for the Democrats to capitalize on a fear of the tea party in their own campaigns. The Tea Party cost the Republicans the Senate in 2010, and while they didn't cost the Republicans the House, I maintain that the Republicans succeeded despite the efforts of the Tea Party, not because of it[1]. [0] Look at how they cost the Republicans the senate race in Delaware and nearly lost Alaska as well, both of which were previously sure wins for the GOP. [1] Oh, let's not forget about Olympia Snowe, whose decision not to run for re-election was influenced by the threats of a primary challenge from the right. Snowe ended up being replaced by King, who caucuses with the Democrats.
- godgod 11y agoAmerica is now a naked police state.
- mercurialshark 11y agoThe author and title confuse the issue at hand. The subject, a US citizen, travelled abroad under his own free will. The Due Process Clause of the Constitution only applies domestically. Had the FBI detained him on US soil and rendered him to foreign entities, that would trigger due process scrutiny. Being that he was already in Somalia, the FBI can coordinate with host countries (and intelligence agencies) to interrogate individuals. Not only is the FBI not obligated to return him to the US, it's by no means obvious that they can forcibly extradite, even if they had wanted him returned to the US. Sure - they could request (as the State Department and FBI do all the time) - but that's a different issue. Disclaimer: I'm not saying it's good, just that the issues (and therefore the author's conclusions) are presented inaccurately.
- godgod 11y agoAn law school professor and former criminal defense attorney tells you why you should never agree to be interviewed by the police. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6wXkI4t7nuc https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6wXkI4t7nuc
- late2part 11y agoA number of years ago I did consulting work for a mid sized company. 2-5 years later, my employers's front office admin called me and said "2 Gentleman from 'Dog' are here to see you." I called these gentlemen from Dog, and found that they were from the DOJ, not Dog or D.O.G. And they were really from FBI but apparently DOJ sounds better. They started by asking me about the company, and they mis-stated the name, apparently intentionally. After listening to their questions, I said "Gentlemen, I will have my attorney call you, he will arrange everything." These magic words, they stopped asking questions. He setup a conference call some weeks later, and they interrogated me left and right and up and down. They kept mis-stating things that I had to correct, they kept inferring malice where none was. I had nothing to hide, but they were both ignorant and manipulative. After they harassed the company I'd done work for 3-6 months, costing the exec they were after something like $100k+ in legal fees, they sent a letter to the exec saying they were ending their investigation. Don't talk to the police. Ask them to put their questions in writing, hire an attorney, or just ignore them. I was polite, and they didn't attempt to force me to answer. Had I actually been at work that day (I was working from home) I would have come up and seen two cop-looking guys with guns and badges, I still feel I would have done the same thing, but it would have been harder. You can't watch this enough: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6wXkI4t7nuc https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6wXkI4t7nuc
- akashseo965 11y agoThanks for post this helpful post - Please visit for More information about - Top Packers and Movers in Bangalore @ http://www.dteller.in/packers-and-movers-bangalore/ http://www.dteller.in/packers-and-movers-bangalore/ Top Packers and Movers in Hyderabad @ http://www.dteller.in/packers-and-movers-hyderabad/ http://www.dteller.in/packers-and-movers-hyderabad/ Top Packers and Movers in Pune @ http://www.dteller.in/packers-and-movers-pune/ http://www.dteller.in/packers-and-movers-pune/ Top Packers and movers in Gurgaon @ http://www.dteller.in/packers-and-movers-gurgaon/ http://www.dteller.in/packers-and-movers-gurgaon/
- akashseo965 11y agoThanks for all your information, Website is very nice and informative content. Top Packers and Movers in Ghaziabad @ http://www.expert5th.in/packers-and-movers-ghaziabad/ http://www.expert5th.in/packers-and-movers-ghaziabad/ Top Packers and Movers in Noida @ http://www.expert5th.in/packers-and-movers-noida/ http://www.expert5th.in/packers-and-movers-noida/ Top Packers and Movers in Faridabad @ http://www.expert5th.in/packers-and-movers-faridabad/ http://www.expert5th.in/packers-and-movers-faridabad/ Top Packers and Movers in Thane @ http://www.expert5th.in/packers-and-movers-thane/ http://www.expert5th.in/packers-and-movers-thane/ Top Packers and Movers in Navi Mumbai @ http://www.expert5th.in/packers-and-movers-navimumbai/ http://www.expert5th.in/packers-and-movers-navimumbai/
- akashseo965 11y agoThis article is really fantastic and thanks for sharing the valuable post. Top Packers and Movers in Bangalore @ http://www.expert5th.in/packers-and-movers-bangalore/ http://www.expert5th.in/packers-and-movers-bangalore/ Top Packers and Movers in Delhi @ http://www.expert5th.in/packers-and-movers-delhi/ http://www.expert5th.in/packers-and-movers-delhi/ Top Packers and Movers in Gurgaon @ http://www.expert5th.in/packers-and-movers-gurgaon/ http://www.expert5th.in/packers-and-movers-gurgaon/
- akashseo965 11y agoThanks for post this helpful post - Please visit for More information about - Top Packers and Movers in Pune @ http://www.expert5th.in/packers-and-movers-pune/ http://www.expert5th.in/packers-and-movers-pune/ Top Packers and Movers in Hyderabad @ http://www.expert5th.in/packers-and-movers-hyderabad/ http://www.expert5th.in/packers-and-movers-hyderabad/ Top Packers and Movers in Mumbai http://www.expert5th.in/packers-and-movers-mumbai/ http://www.expert5th.in/packers-and-movers-mumbai/ Top Packers and Movers in Chennai @ http://www.expert5th.in/packers-and-movers-chennai/ http://www.expert5th.in/packers-and-movers-chennai/ Top Packers and Movers India @ http://www.expert5th.in/ http://www.expert5th.in/