Beta

Slashdot: News for Nerds

×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Counterterrorism Agents Were Told They Could Suspend the Law

Unknown Lamer posted about 2 years ago | from the it's-not-like-terrorists-are-people dept.

Government 369

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."

cancel ×

369 comments

"did not result in a single disciplinary action" (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39498381)

Seems about right. Business as usual.

Carry on.

Re:"did not result in a single disciplinary action (5, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39498401)

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?

Re:"did not result in a single disciplinary action (5, Insightful)

venom85 (1399525) | about 2 years ago | (#39498523)

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

Re:"did not result in a single disciplinary action (3, Informative)

jhoegl (638955) | about 2 years ago | (#39498665)

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

Re:"did not result in a single disciplinary action (5, Insightful)

iamhassi (659463) | about 2 years ago | (#39498975)

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.

How is that relevant? (4, Insightful)

F69631 (2421974) | about 2 years ago | (#39499169)

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.

Re:"did not result in a single disciplinary action (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39498791)

And yet people are willing to entrust their healthcare to "as the Secretary [of Health and Human Services] shall determine" and a 15-member panel of government-appointed bureaucrats [Section 3403 of the Obamacare law]

Re:"did not result in a single disciplinary action (5, Funny)

forkfail (228161) | about 2 years ago | (#39498989)

Instead of a bonus driven board of directors?

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

Re:"did not result in a single disciplinary action (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39499131)

Obviously, you're using the "No true Scotsman" ploy by using the qualifier "serious medical condition".

Re:"did not result in a single disciplinary action (2)

Sarten-X (1102295) | about 2 years ago | (#39499099)

Oh, is that the "revise broad plans to resolve budget problems as needed" panel [quinnscommentary.com] ?

I totally agree about the "Secretary shall determine" bit, though... I'd much rather my insurance coverage is determined by an MBA who measures success in dollars rather than a government official whose success is measured in lives, yep.

Re:"did not result in a single disciplinary action (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39499161)

As opposed to the bureaucrats inside of private health insurance companies whose decisions about the approval/denial of treatment is made purely for reasons of profit? Yeah, no one has ever been denied treatment and been harmed by private insurers. No, they are nothing but saints and angels.

Re:"did not result in a single disciplinary action (4, Interesting)

Sir_Sri (199544) | about 2 years ago | (#39498583)

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.

Re:"did not result in a single disciplinary action (1)

Barbara, not Barbie (721478) | about 2 years ago | (#39498815)

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.

Somehow I doubt it. There are enough regular cops, prosecutors, rent-a-cops, politicians, and company directors who think they can bend the law because they are "special."

Re:"did not result in a single disciplinary action (5, Insightful)

Jawnn (445279) | about 2 years ago | (#39498855)

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".

Re:"did not result in a single disciplinary action (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39498723)

I think you're reading this the wrong way. Asians usually do not shake hands, they bow.

Read it the other way around if you still don't understand. "Agents should never attempt to bow in front of an European."

Re:"did not result in a single disciplinary action (4, Funny)

number17 (952777) | about 2 years ago | (#39498935)

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.

Re:"did not result in a single disciplinary action (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39499107)

They don't?!?!

Next you'll be telling me they don't say "aboot" or "eh" all the time.

Re:"did not result in a single disciplinary action (5, Funny)

K. S. Kyosuke (729550) | about 2 years ago | (#39498819)

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.

Re:"did not result in a single disciplinary action (5, Funny)

SJHillman (1966756) | about 2 years ago | (#39498999)

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

Re:"did not result in a single disciplinary action (4, Informative)

Sarten-X (1102295) | about 2 years ago | (#39499009)

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.

Re:"did not result in a single disciplinary action (1)

dkleinsc (563838) | about 2 years ago | (#39499013)

The racism I can cope with

Spoken like somebody who appears at least to be in the racially privileged group, and doesn't have friends outside of that group. If you or somebody you knew well were vaguely Arab looking, the racism is not something you can cope with.

Also, there's an obvious Equal Protection problem.

Re:"did not result in a single disciplinary action (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39499075)

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.

Re:"did not result in a single disciplinary action (1)

zAPPzAPP (1207370) | about 2 years ago | (#39499031)

Can't be to careful when it comes to bird flu.

Re:"did not result in a single disciplinary action (5, Interesting)

cpu6502 (1960974) | about 2 years ago | (#39498713)

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/ [infowars.com]

Re:"did not result in a single disciplinary action (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39498805)

Of course they were acquitted. They are white christian men.

The bending the law is to nail the coloreds.

Re:"did not result in a single disciplinary action (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39498881)

You are just as racist as the ones you work against.

Re:"did not result in a single disciplinary action (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39498983)

I didn't know Al Sharpton visited /.

Welcome to the forum, your trolls and flames will be counter-trolled and counter-flamed in no discernable order.

Re:"did not result in a single disciplinary action (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39498793)

Not quite, business as usual for government problems that they can't stonewall shows a historical pattern of not simply ignoring the problem, but throwing more money, promotions and regulations at it. It isn't guaranteed, but it happens often enough to be called 'usual'. Incompetence and malice are both rewarded.

Good! (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39499065)

The idea that state actors should be subject to any law is stupid.

Disagree? You are obviously racist.

Hello again racism (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39498387)

Flame on.

So, in other words... (1)

MattC413 (248620) | about 2 years ago | (#39498395)

they were right?

Re:So, in other words... (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39498441)

Also, coming into contact with people who get worked up over stuff like this may cause you to get your period early.

Re:So, in other words... (0)

flyingfsck (986395) | about 2 years ago | (#39498471)

Exactly! I don't see any falsehoods in that training program.

Re:So, in other words... (2)

MattC413 (248620) | about 2 years ago | (#39498485)

Exactly! I don't see any falsehoods in that training program.

I was referring to the 'ability to bend or suspend the law'. After all, nothing has been done to correct that statement.

Re:So, in other words... (0, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39498941)

Exactly! I don't see any falsehoods in that training program.

I was referring to the 'ability to bend or suspend the law'. After all, nothing has been done to correct that statement.

You can't always work within the law against terrorists who in no way respect the law. If we always work within the law than terrorist attacks would happen more often than you might think. Use some common sense here.

Re:So, in other words... (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39499147)

As soon as you're justifying the ends with the means, you've already lost.

Re:So, in other words... (4, Insightful)

Isaac-1 (233099) | about 2 years ago | (#39498677)

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.

First Post! (0, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39498397)

Hey, I made first post. What? What do you mean you've changed the law to make first posts illegal? That's ridiculous! You can't - what, you can't arrest me for

Re:First Post! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39498689)

Loser.

FBI (5, Insightful)

girlintraining (1395911) | about 2 years ago | (#39498409)

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.

Re:FBI (1)

Hatta (162192) | about 2 years ago | (#39498513)

Hear, hear!

Re:FBI (0)

Moryath (553296) | about 2 years ago | (#39498739)

They do it today. Documented proof has been provided of the Kochs sending provocateurs into various OWS protests, as well as the protests against Scott Walker in WI.

Re:FBI (1)

cpu6502 (1960974) | about 2 years ago | (#39498903)

>>>Documented proof has been provided of the Kochs sending provocateurs

Link please.
Thanks.

Re:FBI (1, Interesting)

Moryath (553296) | about 2 years ago | (#39498969)

Re:FBI (2, Insightful)

cpu6502 (1960974) | about 2 years ago | (#39499089)

One case is not a pattern. Or even a line. It's just one person. (And you provided no connection from him to the Koch Brothers..... but there are tons of link from Occupy to the globalist Soros. He started the movement.)

Re:FBI (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39498565)

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:

But this is the USA. The better question is WHY DIDN'T SOMEONE POP A CAP IN HIS ASS?

WHY DIDN'T SOMEONE POP A CAP IN HIS ASS? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39498601)

To avoid having Gov Moonbeam declare martial law.

Re:FBI (1)

betterunixthanunix (980855) | about 2 years ago | (#39498577)

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."

Re:FBI (5, Funny)

doston (2372830) | about 2 years ago | (#39498907)

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.

Re:FBI (1)

lcam (848192) | about 2 years ago | (#39498991)

I wish I still had mod points. +1 here!

Re:FBI (0)

oldmac31310 (1845668) | about 2 years ago | (#39499027)

Of course Hoover was homosexual himself, so the self loathing hypocrisy he instilled in the agency is an integral part of its history.

Re:FBI (1, Interesting)

NeutronCowboy (896098) | about 2 years ago | (#39498589)

Wow, Internet Tough Guy advocates shooting at law enforcement. I'll wait for your example. No, really, after you. Please shoot the officers arresting your friend. I'll bring the popcorn. In the meantime, I'll do what civilized people do - get the courts involved.

Re:FBI (0)

tmosley (996283) | about 2 years ago | (#39498705)

Sorry, kid. No trials for terrorists like you.

Remember the four boxes? Three have been exhausted.

Re:FBI (2)

cpu6502 (1960974) | about 2 years ago | (#39498799)

>>>Wow, Internet Tough Guy advocates shooting at law enforcement. I'll wait for your example. No, really, after you

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.

Re:FBI (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39498957)

Please link sources, I'm interested.

Re:FBI (5, Informative)

girlintraining (1395911) | about 2 years ago | (#39499097)

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).

Re:FBI (1)

MyFirstNameIsPaul (1552283) | about 2 years ago | (#39498927)

A high school buddy of mine made good friends in college with a guy who went on to become a public defender. This guy worked hard, got good grades, went to a good school. He chose to be a public defender on principle and to get good experience for becoming a criminal defense attorney. He has said that his experience with the courts has shaken his confidence in the legal system, and this coming from a guy who has one of the highest acquittal rates in the history of that office. I also don't advocate violence, but I do recognize that there is some point when there is no other option. We're not quite there yet, but we're getting close [lewrockwell.com] .

Re:FBI (5, Interesting)

girlintraining (1395911) | about 2 years ago | (#39499057)

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.

Re:FBI (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39498611)

Excellent response! No one in their right mind would resort to violence, but when one is faced with violence it is often the only option to insure your freedom. Too few of us realize what is really happening around us. Right now we are at a tipping point and can still save our freedoms by voting for people who support our rights and freedoms, people who will hold government officials responsible for their actions.

Re:FBI (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39498619)

" 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."

We have already identified this potentiality and we are in the process of installing cameras everywhere, so that this "mob of citizens" can be correctly identified and delt with after the fact. And they will be delt with harshly.

Once you complain though you are marked as a (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39498679)

"terrorist" or "person of interest" or "enemy combatant" or some other new noun not explicitly defined in the books so that your rights are no longer valid and the gov't can do whatever they want under the false guise of security.

Re:FBI (5, Insightful)

girlintraining (1395911) | about 2 years ago | (#39498717)

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.

Re:FBI (1)

dkleinsc (563838) | about 2 years ago | (#39498847)

I'm surprised you don't mention the #1 tool in the arsenel of the FBI and other corrupt agencies: blackmail. There's some well-documented cases of the FBI doing just that to public figures (e.g. Martin Luther King), and there's probably more that didn't get made public.

The best part about blackmail is that unlike other techniques (like agent provacateurs), the only people that know about what's going on are people that desperately don't want the public to know what's going on. So, if, for instance, they had some dirt on a congressman on the committee that decides FBI funding, there's virtually no chance that the congressman will call a press conference and announce what the FBI is up to, because the FBI will simply release all the information about what the congressman is up to.

Video evidence will be useless in a decade (5, Insightful)

Barbara, not Barbie (721478) | about 2 years ago | (#39498885)

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."

Re:FBI (1)

lcam (848192) | about 2 years ago | (#39498963)

And, I liked the way Hannibal Lector handled the official from the Justice Department in the 2001 movie Hannibal.

Re:FBI (2)

cusco (717999) | about 2 years ago | (#39498965)

Still happens today. The press corpse follow the official conspiracy theory that the Oregon anarchists were to blame for starting the violence in the Seattle WTO protests, but their group was nowhere near the place. For that matter, pretty much every 'terrorist' arrest in the last decade has been after an FBI provocateur convinced someone to try to do something stupid.

Re:FBI (5, Funny)

Quiet_Desperation (858215) | about 2 years ago | (#39499113)

The press corpse

(squints)

Not sure if clever or typo.

Again with the 99% (4, Funny)

lucm (889690) | about 2 years ago | (#39498431)

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!

Re:Again with the 99% (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39498467)

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

Oh, well that's all right then.

Re:Again with the 99% (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39498477)

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!

That's the best they can do? Out of what they reviewed, they only managed to identify 1,600 pages containing factually inaccurate or imprecise information or using stereotypes? At the very minimum whoever is responsible for quality control has been grossly incompetent.

Re:Again with the 99% (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39499049)

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!

Good luck getting through Quantico MCB first.

the pope (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39498439)

it all makes sense once you realize that j edgar hoover was god and that the current fbi director is his pope

Re:the pope (1)

Quiet_Desperation (858215) | about 2 years ago | (#39499127)

Sssssh! That's the new ending DLC to Mass Effect 3! SPOLIERS!

Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? (1)

circletimessquare (444983) | about 2 years ago | (#39498463)

"Who watches the watchmen?"

The answer is apparently Donald Duck, Elmer Fudd, Archie Bunker, and the KKK

Wikileaks watches the watchers (5, Funny)

betterunixthanunix (980855) | about 2 years ago | (#39498659)

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.

Re:Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? (5, Funny)

sideslash (1865434) | about 2 years ago | (#39498667)

"Who watches the watchmen?"

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

Re:Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? (1)

circletimessquare (444983) | about 2 years ago | (#39498823)

John Carter of Mars watches the watchmen

There are no repercussions, across the board (4, Insightful)

revscat (35618) | about 2 years ago | (#39498491)

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.

Re:There are no repercussions, across the board (5, Insightful)

NeutronCowboy (896098) | about 2 years ago | (#39498645)

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.

Re:There are no repercussions, across the board (1)

msobkow (48369) | about 2 years ago | (#39498699)

The reason is the "silent majority" may disapprove, but they don't disapprove strongly enough to do anything about it. In fact, here's their likely response to your whole post:

STFU! The Simpsons are on...

Re:There are no repercussions, across the board (3, Insightful)

v1 (525388) | about 2 years ago | (#39498889)

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

Re:There are no repercussions, across the board (1)

lcam (848192) | about 2 years ago | (#39499025)

The definition of tacit acquiescence is agreement or approval through silence. Silent Majority is easily identified as a mass who approves and not disapproves. (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/acquiescence)

Re:There are no repercussions, across the board (1)

elucido (870205) | about 2 years ago | (#39498761)

The general population doesn't control the actions of agencies like the FBI. The FBI and agencies utilize the population for their own agenda or purposes or it targets them. They are fighting a war and nothing stands in their way of their objectives.

Re:There are no repercussions, across the board (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39498953)

...look no further than Santorum supporters...

We get the government we deserve.

Yes, you got Obama. I'd normally say "suckers!", but you're dragging the rest of world down with you (frankly your latest attempt at global economic meltdown by destroying your own currency is a bit worrying...).
(Maybe you should re-evaluate "your side" before judging "the other side" based on what "your side" says of them.)

Re:There are no repercussions, across the board (1)

triffid_98 (899609) | about 2 years ago | (#39499117)

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.

The last time I checked none of us voted on any of those decisions. We might have elected some of the people who later made them, but that's as far as it went.

...and yes, elderly white people (the 'majority' of people who vote) probably don't care about any of this, just don't even think about taking away their medicare or social security.

right (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39498529)

This is slashdot, anti-American anything is loved here. Oh no they spoke the truth about another race, oh lordy. Boo hoo.

middle-eastern arabs (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39498663)

ARE prone to have a "short fuse". there is nothing "racist" about anyone confirming this fact, nor the mere notion of mentioning it.

Re:middle-eastern arabs (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39498775)

Got a racist nigger on our hands here!

Re:middle-eastern arabs (1)

kimvette (919543) | about 2 years ago | (#39498937)

He might be okay though.

Question: is he holding iced tea and a bag of skittles?

If this is the best the FBI can do... (2, Insightful)

Jawnn (445279) | about 2 years ago | (#39498707)

If these absolutely idiotic notions about people of other cultures and religions, or even the suggestion that an agent is above the law, have managed to reach the level of teaching doctrine at the FBI, we're fucked. Not because they have an institutional tendency toward violating our rights. That would be bad enough. But no. That such utter bullshit is embraced and taught there is an indicator of dangerous incompetence, not to mention ignorance. This our nation's elite law enforcement agency? Seriously? It's almost as if the average agent were educated in the Texas public school system. Now, I am scared, because these idiots are just too fucking stupid to do their jobs even half-right.

Re:If this is the best the FBI can do... (1)

LifesABeach (234436) | about 2 years ago | (#39499087)

There appears to be a group of people that are currently gaming the laws of this country. Where they are immune from prosecution, and all others are not. This is causing the country to shift from a "Seller Beware", to a "Buyer Beware" economy; that's bad for business. The erosion of Trust, and Faith in the U.S.Government is the victim. These Grinning Gaming Showoffs are photographed daily, smiling at the misery they cause others; why?

I am a former employee of the federal government (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39498729)

And I endorse this message.

God damn you, George W. Bush! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39498779)

Oh, wait.

We can still blame the EEEVIL BOOOOSHITLER for this, right?

In Soviet Russia (1)

Roachie (2180772) | about 2 years ago | (#39498879)

Agent IS the law!

What can I do? (1)

Noxal (816780) | about 2 years ago | (#39498915)

I keep hearing all these horror stories about the pathetic state of our civil liberties.

My questions are as such: What can I do? Whom can I call, what can I sign, what sort of action can I take to fight this as a United States citizen?

Short of voting for Ron Paul in my state's upcoming primary.

Congress did not intent for this (3, Insightful)

Skapare (16644) | about 2 years ago | (#39498939)

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

Ill tell you what (1)

M0j0_j0j0 (1250800) | about 2 years ago | (#39498961)

They are the new Gestapo.

Good Guys Equals Bad Guys (1)

LifesABeach (234436) | about 2 years ago | (#39498979)

My current definition of the "Good Guys" are those that know what the "Bad Guys" know, but don't do it.

Now I read that someone thinks that Tyranny is acceptable conduct for public servants? I believe that this person should wake up from their wet dream in prison.

really? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39499119)

foxtrot uniform, Slashtard

Having visited the middle east (5, Insightful)

OzPeter (195038) | about 2 years ago | (#39499167)

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.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...