The Intercept: The FBI's Secret Rules

User avatar
adwinistrator
Posts: 677
Joined: Thu Dec 01, 2016 7:29 pm
Location: NY

The Intercept: The FBI's Secret Rules

Post by adwinistrator » Tue Jan 31, 2017 10:31 am

The FBI's Secret Rules
President Trump has inherited a vast domestic intelligence agency with extraordinary secret powers. A cache of documents offers a rare window into the FBI’s quiet expansion since 9/11.

After the famous Church Committee hearings in the 1970s exposed the FBI’s wild overreach, reforms were enacted to protect civil liberties. But in recent years, the bureau has substantially revised those rules with very little public scrutiny. That’s why The Intercept is publishing this special package of articles based on three internal FBI manuals that we exclusively obtained.

These stories illuminate how the FBI views its authority to assess terrorism suspects, recruit informants, spy on university organizations, infiltrate online chat rooms, peer through the walls of private homes, and more.

In addition to the articles collected here — which include nine new pieces and two that we previously published based on the same source material — we have annotated the manuals to highlight what we found most newsworthy in them. We redacted the sections that could be used to identify individuals or systems for the purpose of causing harm. We’re presenting the stories alongside the manuals because we believe the public has a right to know how the U.S. government’s leading domestic law enforcement agency understands and wields its enormous power.
Currently reading the articles, but there is a lot of incredibly concerning programs, loopholes, and assessments in this.

The FBI has Quietly Investigated White Supremacist Infiltration of Law Enforcement
"White supremacists and other domestic extremists maintain an active presence in U.S. police departments and other law enforcement agencies. A striking reference to that conclusion, notable for its confidence and the policy prescriptions that accompany it, appears in a classified FBI Counterterrorism Policy Guide from April 2015, obtained by The Intercept"
Based on a Vague Tip the Feds Can Surveil Anyone
At its lowest level of investigative activity, on the basis of vague tips or broad intelligence interests, the FBI can follow people with airplanes, examine travel records, and analyze links between email, phone, and other records collected by intelligence agencies.

Two large FBI manuals obtained by The Intercept, one of which is classified, offer previously unreleased information about just how powerful an intelligence apparatus the FBI draws on even for low-level checks, known as “assessments.”
Undercover FBI Agents Swarm the Internet Seeking Contact with Terrorists
The bureau has made online counterterrorism a strategic focus, lavishing staff and attention on a clearinghouse project called Net Talon and measuring performance through such metrics as the amount of time agents spend online, how many postings they make, and the personas they create. The FBI’s virtual tentacles are so ubiquitous that the bureau sometimes finds itself investigating its own people.
...
According to the guide, an online counterterrorism investigation can target websites or online networks that the FBI believes terrorists are using “to encourage and recruit members” or to spread propaganda. Such probes may extend to the administrators or creators of those forums, as well as people engaged in “the development of communications security practices” or “acting as ‘virtual couriers’ for terrorist organizations by passing online messages among members or leadership.”

User avatar
C-Mag
Posts: 25250
Joined: Tue Nov 29, 2016 10:48 pm

Re: The Intercept: The FBI's Secret Rules

Post by C-Mag » Tue Jan 31, 2017 10:50 am

All Federal Law Enforcement need to get their chains yanked back a bit.
PLATA O PLOMO


Image


Don't fear authority, Fear Obedience

User avatar
Fife
Posts: 15145
Joined: Wed Nov 30, 2016 9:47 am

Re: The Intercept: The FBI's Secret Rules

Post by Fife » Tue Jan 31, 2017 10:53 am

Where is that provision in the Constitution for Federal Police, of any kind?

With all this pussy-grabbing, I seem to have forgotten where to find it.

User avatar
C-Mag
Posts: 25250
Joined: Tue Nov 29, 2016 10:48 pm

Re: The Intercept: The FBI's Secret Rules

Post by C-Mag » Tue Jan 31, 2017 11:36 am

Fife wrote:Where is that provision in the Constitution for Federal Police, of any kind?

With all this pussy-grabbing, I seem to have forgotten where to find it.
Yeah, I don't think it's in there. The Central Government doesn't need to send the 82nd Airborne into Chicago, they have a heavily armed federal police force, hell they even have postal and IRS law enforcement.
PLATA O PLOMO


Image


Don't fear authority, Fear Obedience

User avatar
ssu
Posts: 2142
Joined: Thu Dec 01, 2016 4:05 pm

Re: The Intercept: The FBI's Secret Rules

Post by ssu » Tue Jan 31, 2017 12:42 pm

The programs started after 9/11 to catch terrorists had one Basic problem: there's actually not so many Al Qaeda terrorists around. Hence a lot of the effort drifted to other groups that were seen to be worth following. And naturally lot of that effort has gone to the "War on Drugs" too.

User avatar
jbird4049
Posts: 1117
Joined: Wed Nov 30, 2016 8:56 pm

Re: The Intercept: The FBI's Secret Rules

Post by jbird4049 » Tue Jan 31, 2017 9:29 pm

Since the FBI's manuals really do recommend blackmailing people, including those known to be innocent into being informants, and later helping ICE find and deport them, this will be useful.

https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20170 ... ions.shtml

The list seems to include the FBI and the DEA.

We are a police state.
The blood-dimmed tide is loosed, and everywhere
The ceremony of innocence is drowned;
The best lack all conviction, while the worst
Are full of passionate intensity.

User avatar
SuburbanFarmer
Posts: 23414
Joined: Wed Nov 30, 2016 6:50 am
Location: Ohio

Re: The Intercept: The FBI's Secret Rules

Post by SuburbanFarmer » Fri Feb 03, 2017 8:21 am

jbird4049 wrote: We are a police state.
Image
SJWs are a natural consequence of corporatism.

Formerly GrumpyCatFace

https://youtu.be/CYbT8-rSqo0

User avatar
jbird4049
Posts: 1117
Joined: Wed Nov 30, 2016 8:56 pm

Re: The Intercept: The FBI's Secret Rules

Post by jbird4049 » Sat Feb 04, 2017 12:55 am

GrumpyCatFace wrote:
jbird4049 wrote: We are a police state.
Image
You're welcome.

When I think about that it makes want to hide under the chair with the cat, a case of Redtail Ale, some Doritos, and Netflix.
The blood-dimmed tide is loosed, and everywhere
The ceremony of innocence is drowned;
The best lack all conviction, while the worst
Are full of passionate intensity.

User avatar
SuburbanFarmer
Posts: 23414
Joined: Wed Nov 30, 2016 6:50 am
Location: Ohio

Re: The Intercept: The FBI's Secret Rules

Post by SuburbanFarmer » Sat Feb 04, 2017 9:28 pm

jbird4049 wrote:
GrumpyCatFace wrote:
jbird4049 wrote: We are a police state.
Image
You're welcome.

When I think about that it makes want to hide under the chair with the cat, a case of Redtail Ale, some Doritos, and Netflix.
I try not to think about it. It drives me insane.
SJWs are a natural consequence of corporatism.

Formerly GrumpyCatFace

https://youtu.be/CYbT8-rSqo0

User avatar
C-Mag
Posts: 25250
Joined: Tue Nov 29, 2016 10:48 pm

Re: The Intercept: The FBI's Secret Rules

Post by C-Mag » Wed Jun 30, 2021 8:49 am

Is Stewart Rhodes, founder and head of Oathkeepers a government agent ?
The following questions should be shouted from every megaphone, every street corner, and every Congressional lectern until the American people get full and complete answers:
-Does the FBI now, or has it ever, maintained a formal or informal relationship or point of contact with Stewart Rhodes, whether directly or indirectly, including through intermediaries?

-Do any other Federal counterintelligence equities, whether in military, intelligence or law enforcement, including but not limited to Army Counterintelligence, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) the Joint Terrorism Task Force (JTTF), or otherwise, maintain or have they ever maintained a formal or informal relationship with Stewart Rhodes, whether directly or indirectly, including through intermediaries?

-If such a confidential relationship did exist between Stewart Rhodes and one or more U.S. counterintelligence equities, how do the FBI and other responsible agencies reconcile the enormous gravity of this omission from their previous deflections, non-answers, and boilerplate that they had “no actionable intelligence” before 1/6?
If such a confidential relationship did exist between Stewart Rhodes and one or more U.S. counterintelligence equities, does this explain the FBI and Justice Department’s failure to pursue criminal actions against Stewart Rhodes in similarly high-profile “right-wing conspiracy plots” in which Rhodes appears to have played a similarly driving role?

-More specifically, did the FBI or any other U.S. counterintelligence equities maintain a discrete or confidential relationship with Stewart Rhodes during the 2014 Bundy Ranch standoff? Was this fact dispositive in the Justice Department’s decision to charge 19 defendants — including certain of Stewart Rhodes’s alleged Oath Keepers underlings — for conspiracy to obstruct a legal proceeding, and to spare Rhodes of similar charges?

-Has the FBI even procured a search warrant for Stewart Rhodes’s personal residence and home electronics? If so, on what dates and what specific categories of evidence were sought?

-If Stewart Rhodes is subsequently arrested after the date of this report (given the pressure these revelations are likely to generate), how does the Justice Department explain its failure to indict Stewart Rhodes on conspiracy charges for nearly six months, when its declared purpose for seeking bail denial for simple trespassers was the DOJ’s stated need to prevent “the immediate danger to the community” defendants allegedly posed? Given that multiple Oath Keepers were charged before the January 20th inauguration citing the need to stop their “immediate danger,” why did the DOJ not file immediate charges against Rhodes, and then make a superseding indictment later in time, as is their routine practice in 1/6 cases?
https://www.revolver.news/2021/06/stewa ... nspirator/
Good Questions.
Rhodes stood up the Oathkeepers in 2009, during the Obama Admin, when all these agencies were starting to be use for political purposes at a level that would make J. Edgar blush.
PLATA O PLOMO


Image


Don't fear authority, Fear Obedience