CAIR Frets Over FBI Policies
On September 30, the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) expressed concerns over recently revised and publicly posted FBI Domestic Investigations and Operations Guide (DIOG). Specifically, CAIR complained that a substantial portion of the DIOG was “whited out” and did not disclose the policies covered by that section.
The ACLU is a co-complainer with CAIR in this matter. Michael Macleod-Ball, acting director of its
The DIOG is 258 pages of clear, and understandable instructions on how the FBI conducts its domestic investigative and intelligence operations. These policies are replete with admonitions concerning the protection of Constitutional and civil rights. These policies link directly to similar Attorney General guidelines, requiring specific high level FBI headquarters and Department of Justice approval for the FBI to engage in certain kinds of investigative or intelligence gathering operations, including those that target religious organizations or prominent religious figures and prohibiting investigative efforts focused on First Amendment-protected activities.
These are the documented facts. Facts that are conveniently ignored by CAIR and similar Islamist apologist organizations as they seek to have these issues viewed through their muddied perspective.
CAIR contends that Part 16, dealing with “undisclosed participation,” covers the use of informants working undercover in mosques. This has been a major issue of contention with CAIR and other Islamist groups, who believe the FBI indiscriminately and unjustifiably sends undercover informants into mosques even when there is no criminal predicate to do so. This issue came to a near boiling point with the arrest by the FBI in southern California of Ahmadullah Niazi, who was charged with immigration fraud stemming from a counter-terrorism investigation. That investigation employed a confidential informant who met with Niazi in a local mosque. As the Investigative Project on Terrorism reported in April, CAIR
CAIR and other Islamist apologists ignore that Part 16 of the DIOG (page 242) pertains in large part to the FBI
These operations are clearly authorized by Presidential Executive Order (E.O.), specifically E.O. 12333. The E.O. Subsection related to “undisclosed participation” is also very specific about such operations being undertaken for the purpose of influencing the activities of an organization or its members. Subsection 2.9 states in part:
No such participation may be undertaken for the purpose of influencing the activity of the organization or its members except in cases where:
(a) The participation is undertaken on behalf of the FBI in the course of a lawful investigation; or
(b) The organization concerned is composed primarily of individuals who are not United States persons and is reasonably believed to be acting on behalf of a foreign power.
This provides clear authorization for the FBI to engage in such an operation if it is in the course of a lawful investigation or related to foreign counterintelligence.
The DIOG also clearly addresses how the FBI can pursue investigative operations involving a “Sensitive Investigative Matter” (page 57) that can include religious organizations or prominent members thereof.
5.7. (U) Sensitive Investigative Matter / Academic Nexus / Buckley Amendment
A. (U//FOUO) Sensitive Investigative Matter: An investigative matter involving the activities of a domestic public official or political candidate (involving corruption or a threat to the national security), religious or political organization or individual prominent in such an organization, or news media, or any other matter which, in the judgment of the official authorizing an investigation, should be brought to the attention of FBI Headquarters and other DOJ officials. (AGG-Dom, Part VII.N.)
This policy means that investigative operations targeting religious organizations or prominent religious persons require approval at FBI headquarters and/or the Department of Justice. This approval process requires detailed justification and is subject to several levels of legal review. Such operations cannot legally be undertaken indiscriminately nor without an articulated justification.
These sensitive investigative matters often involve undercover operations, including the kind about which CAIR complains, wherein an informant may be sent into a mosque to gather evidence or intelligence. Part of CAIR
The DIOG prohibits undercover operations in the conduct of “assessments.” Further, assessments conducted relative to foreign intelligence matters must be approved by FBI headquarters.
Comment on this item
by Alan M. Dershowitz
by Khaled Abu Toameh
There is growing concern in Ramallah, Cairo, Riyadh and Dubai that the U.S. Administration is working to prevent the collapse of Hamas.
"The Americans mistakenly think that moderate political Islam, which is represented by the Muslim Brotherhood, will be able to combat radical Islam. The Americans are trying to bring the Muslim Brotherhood back to the region." — Palestinian official, Ramallah.
The Iranians, with whom the U.S. is now negotiating on nuclear weapons -- amid fears in the Middle East that the U.S. will capitulate to Tehran's demands if it has not effectively capitulated to them already -- have now joined Qatar and Turkey in opposing any attempt to confiscate Hamas's weapons.
The Paris conference was actually a spit in the face to the anti-Hamas forces in the Arab world. By failing to invite the Palestinian Authority to the conference, Kerry indicated that he does not see any role for Abbas and his loyalists in a post-Hamas Gaza Strip.
by Amir Taheri
According to Küntzel, German leaders have at least two other reasons for helping Iran defy the United States. The first is German resentment of defeat in the Second World War followed by foreign occupation, led by the US. The second reason is that Iran is one of the few, if not the only country, where Germans have never been looked at as "war criminals" because of Hitler.
by Malcolm Lowe
Go to Nazareth and you can easily find the mini-mosque. It displays a large poster of Koran quotations denigrating Christianity and urging Christians to convert to Islam.
Overlooked is a fundamental difference between the two regimes. Israel is a state governed by the rule of law. The Palestinian Authority, like most other states in the region, is a personal dictatorship. Arafat started the fashion of simply disregarding the laws.
What is needed in Israel is a central policy unit with the brief of developing long-term policies both to integrate Israeli Christians and to engage with the great variety of Christians in foreign countries.
by Peter Huessy
The Washington Post's Glenn Kessler not only invents points the Cheneys did not make, he then casually dismisses "uncomfortable points" they did make. How many Pinocchios is that worth?
Kessler evidently assumes that when intelligence assessments differ, the correct version is only that which differs from the points made by the Cheneys but not by their critics.
Most senior Democratic members of the Senate at the time voted -- twice -- for giving the President the authority to take down Saddam Hussein. How else can Democrats say they made a mistake voting for the war if they cannot now make the case that they were "fooled"?
The U.S. took down Saddam Hussein's regime because on balance the threat-intelligence could not be ignored.