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 Burak Bekdil
Where Turkey stands today is a perfect example of how, when Islamists -- mild or otherwise -- rule a county, even the most basic liberties are systematically suppressed.
"A climate of fear has emerged in Turkey." — Hasam Kilic, President, Turkey's Constitutional Court.
The prosecutor demanded a heavier penalty for the victim than for her torturers.
The European Commission identified government interference in the judiciary and bans imposed on social media as the major sources of concern regarding Turkey's candidacy for full membership.
by Khaled Abu Toameh
To understand what drives a young Palestinian to carry out such a deadly attack, one needs to look at the statements of Palestinian Authority leaders during the past few weeks.
The anti-Israel campaign of incitement reached its peak with Abbas's speech at the UN a few weeks ago, when he accused Israel of waging a "war of genocide" in the Gaza Strip. Abbas made no reference to Hamas's crimes against both Israelis and Palestinians.
Whatever his motives, it is clear that the man who carried out the most recent attack, was influenced by the messages that Abbas and the Palestinian Authority leadership have been sending their people.
by Richard Kemp
Would General Allen -- or any other general today -- recommend contracting out his country's defenses if it were his country at stake? Of course not.
The Iranian regime remains dedicated to undermining and ultimately destroying the State of Israel. The Islamic State also has Israel in its sights and would certainly use the West Bank as a point from which to attack, if it were open to them.
There can be no two-state solution and no sovereign Palestinian Arab state west of the Jordan, however desirable those things might be. The stark military reality is that Israel cannot withdraw its forces from the West Bank.
Fatah leaders ally themselves with the terrorists of Hamas, and, like Hamas, they continue to reject the every existence of the State of Israel.
If Western leaders actually want to help, they should use all diplomatic and economic means to make it clear to the Palestinians that they will never achieve an independent and sovereign state while they remain set on the destruction of the State of Israel.
by Louis René Beres
The Palestine Liberation Organization [PLO], forerunner of today's Palestinian Authority, was founded in 1964, three years before Israel came into the unintended control of the West Bank and Gaza. What therefore was the PLO planning to "liberate"?
Why does no one expect the Palestinians to cease all deliberate and random violence against Israeli civilians before being considered for admission to statehood?
On June 30, 1922, a joint resolution of both Houses of Congress of the United States endorsed a "Mandate for Palestine," confirming the right of Jews to settle anywhere they chose between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean Sea. This is the core American legacy of support for a Jewish State that President Obama now somehow fails to recall.
A sovereign state of Palestine, as identified by the Arabs -- a Muslim land occupied by "Palestinian" Arabs -- has never existed; not before 1948, and not before 1967. From the start, it was, and continues to be, the Arab states -- not Israel -- that became the core impediment to Palestinian sovereignty.
by Timon Dias
It looks as if this new law is meant to serve as a severe roadblock to parties that would like to dismantle the EU in a democratic and peaceful way from within.
A rather dull semantic trick pro-EU figures usually apply, is calling their opponents "anti-Europe."