For anyone who's not as politically connected as she is (say, if you're Martha Stewart, or - God help you - a mere mortal like any of us), this is a sure fire way to end up locked in a cage. ...and make no mistake: if you read the article carefully, it's clear that the one thing that kept her out of jail is the fact that she was heavily connected to DC elites and worked a campaign of back-channel pressure.
Never, ever, EVER answer police or FBI questions.
This is so important, my family and I watch it several times a year.
As far as I'm concerned, it should be taught in school, though that's so politically incorrect as to be unthinkable.
As are most of us, law enforcement are professionals who are rated on various metrics. The main metric is getting convictions. Guilt or innocence is not even a secondary concern.
I'm sure the NSA is (at this point) aware of this problem, and trying to make the collected data more context-aware. I wonder to what extent the content of just phone calls, texts, emails, and facebook posts can be used to learn small-group dynamics. (Like the fact that the people of E-7 in the story consider talks of a Pakistani coup to be normal idle dinner talk.)
The problem, though, is that it will always be in the context important to an algorithm. But we don't surveille or converse to serve algorithms (Facebook and Google notwithstanding). We do it to promote human needs.
The most important context is human context, and the best human context interpreter is humans. The fact that each individual human emphasizes different parts of a context is a feature, not a bug.
Suppose the US government database says the US drone program in Pakistan is classified top secret and she did not have official permission to speak about it. Except that everyone who is anyone knows about it. So the difference between how the US wants something to be classified and how secret it actually is allows FBI to say she talked about things without permission, when her bosses in State know she didn't tell anyone anything they didn't already know.
To me this whole SNAFU boils down to the two FBI agents assigned to the case not doing due diligence in their investigation.
The tl;dr is basically this: administrations before Obama definitely wanted to crack down on whistleblowers, but were limited in their ability to do so. The fact that whistleblowing related arrests/convictions have increased under Pres. Obama is largely due to the fact that we can track people and information much more thoroughly than was previously possible. In the past, you may know who had access to any one piece of information (that leaked) but you would be hard pressed to identify communication channels and specific, time-logged access, etc. Investigational tools have improved so more convictions happen.
This doesn't address the civil liberties expectations/promises of Pres. Obama, but it's one factor at play.
Pakistan is very much not like that. The intelligence agencies are extremely autonomous and unaccountable. It's a large country with underpopulated "bandit country" uplands (FATA) where all kinds of armed groups can hide. And there's substantial evidence that, while Pakistan has formally been a US ally since the Cold War, internal factions have been supporting the Taliban.
Now it appears that the US is replicating this structure, as factions within one intelligence agency start arresting members of another as a means of influencing foreign policy. The Hilary Clinton email controversy that everyone has now forgotten was another similar move; maybe it wasn't aimed so much at her personally, but an attack on the State Department?
(And of course now the FBI director's favoured candidate has won, and is conducting diplomacy in a manner that completely bypasses the State Department ...)
(Edit: this post seems to be bouncing up and down in the voting. Feel free to take the analysis with a pinch of salt, the general point is to be aware of the political actions of intelligence agencies.)
This was [US] news in 1973: https://ia802601.us.archive.org/12/items/pdfy-JnCrjsoqI22z8p...
It's well worth the read. In fact, possibly required reading. The author was retired military and directly involved.
As if that would be suspicious.
"Only my great uncle from Mexico." Not much further inquiry required.
"3 people from Tehran" Get their names and do a little investigation.
"No" Caught them in a lie, when you know they know 3 people from Tehran.
>> Two FBI agents approached her, their faces stony. “Do you know any foreigners?” they asked
Why do cops ask such questions? What is this investigative technique supposed to achieve? Make the suspect angry so they would be less careful in phrasing their answers? Let the suspect assume the investigator knows nothing so the suspect would think they can blatantly lie and the investigator would not realize? Something else?
I don't think there are any elicitation techniques the FBI has that she hasn't mastered, so why do that?
Like, "do you know any foreigners?" turns into "why didn't you disclose that telationship, did they pay you money?"
No matter what you say it opens up a new line of questioning for the investigators. That's why lawyers tell you to never talk to them, not even to try and clear things up.
For example - what do they mean by "know"? What you think it means can be very different from how the investigators interpret it. Do only close friends and associates count? How about that co-worker who sits three cubicles away from you, who you don't consider a friend but talk about football with a few times a week while waiting for the coffee machine? Or the barista at Starbucks who has seen you every morning for the past 3 years and 'knows' you well enough to ask how you family is doing?
And then - what do they consider a foreigner? Anyone who has born in a foreign country, even if they are a citizen? Or landed immigrants? Or only people who currently reside in foreign countries?
It would be easy for someone to believe they were honestly answering 'no' to the question without realizing their assumptions about what is being asked are incorrect.
I don't blame investigators for asking questions like this, but people should think very carefully about answering the questions without legal counsel. There's usually just too much ambiguity in most questions (even simple ones) to be able to comprehend all of the possible meanings and implications of every word. Relying on your ability to recall things on-the-spot while being questioned in a high-stress situation also seems like a bit of a lose-lose proposition.
It's typical for law enforcement to ask about your neighbors, but that doesn't mean having neighbors is incriminating, or that starting with "do you know your neighbors?" would be part of some underhanded interrogation tactic.
See Google search results.
Click on the link to the article from the search results.
Enjoy reading the article, sans paywall. (though you may get a nag screen still)
You're welcome. :)
I wish there was a service that I could sign up to and it would make all the paywalls go away.
https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/paywall-bypass/fnm...
Whoever does that will do pretty well for themselves.
For some reason, they don't paywall access through google, only direct links.
I think the interesting story is the change in culture at the State Department which has the effect of getting less human intelligence. I'm not sure if that's because they want to be cooped up in their embassies because they feel less safe meeting with people in certain host countries, or if security requirements are being imposed on them. Clearly in this case Raphel felt restricted and she had no problem, but I'm not sure other State Deparment employees feel the same.
Benghazi and the Camp Chapman attack [1] are pretty good reasons why they should be concerned about security.
Had this been investigated and resolved secretly, as per the rules, Raphel could have reapplied for her job after the FBI concluded there was no espionage case.
Pending further information, I suspect that it was someone in Raphel's camp who leaked those details. The best case situation for her was for this to be argued in the court of public opinion.
