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 Pierre Rehov
For terrorists, the death of innocent children is irrelevant. In a society that promotes martyrdom as the ultimate sign of success, the death of innocent children can sometimes even be seen as a public relations blessing.
In every action, intent is paramount. There should never be a moral equivalence painted between the deliberate killing of civilians, and a retaliation that tragically leads to casualties among civilians.
There is, however, one small difference: in the Middle East, reporters are threatened, except in Israel. Their choice becomes a simple one: promote the Palestinian point of view or stop working in the West Bank. Keep the eye of the camera dirty or lose your job. This show should not go on.
by Khaled Abu Toameh
Since 1948, the Arab countries and government have been paying mostly lip service to the Palestinians.
"They have money and oil, but don't care about the Palestinians, even though we are Arabs and Muslims like them. What a Saudi or Qatari sheikh spends in one night in London, Paris or Las Vegas could solve the problem of tens of thousands of Palestinians." — Palestinian human rights activist.
"Some Arabs were hoping that Israel would rid them of Hamas." — Ashraf Salameh, Gaza City.
"Some of the Arab regimes are interested in getting rid of the resistance in order to remove the burden of the Palestinian cause, which threatens the stability of their regimes." — Mustafa al-Sawwaf, Palestinian political analyst.
"Most Arabs are busy these days with bloody battles waged by their leaders, who are struggling to survive. These battles are raging in Yemen, Syria, Iraq, Egypt, Libya and the Palestinian Authority." — Mohammed al-Musafer, columnist.
"The Arab leaders don't know what they want from the Gaza Strip. They don't even know what they want from Israel." — Yusef Rizka, Hamas official.
by Soeren Kern
European elites, who take pride in viewing the EU as a "postmodern" superpower, have long argued that military hard-power is illegitimate in the 21st century. Unfortunately for Europe, Russia (along with China and Iran) has not embraced the EU's fantastical soft-power worldview, in which "climate change" is now said to pose the greatest threat to European security.
For its part, the European Commission, the EU's administrative branch, which never misses an opportunity to boycott institutions in Israel, has issued only a standard statement on the shooting down of MH17 in Ukraine, which reads: "The European Union will continue to follow this issue very closely."
The EU has made only half-hearted attempts to develop alternatives to its dependency on Russian oil and gas.
by Shoshana Bryen
Proportionality in international law is not about equality of death or civilian suffering, or even about [equality of] firepower. Proportionality weighs the necessity of a military action against suffering that the action might cause to enemy civilians in the vicinity.
"Under international humanitarian law and the Rome Statute, the death of civilians during an armed conflict, no matter how grave and regrettable does not constitute a war crime.... even when it is known that some civilian deaths or injuries will occur. A crime occurs if there is an intentional attack directed against civilians (principle of distinction) or an attack is launched on a military objective in the knowledge that the incidental civilian injuries would be clearly excessive in relation to the anticipated military advantage (principle of proportionality)." — Luis Moreno-Ocampo, Chief Prosecutor, International Criminal Court.
"The greater the military advantage anticipated, the larger the amount of collateral damage -- often civilian casualties -- which will be "justified" and "necessary." — Dr. Françoise Hampton, University of Essex, UK.