I refused to be an FBI informant once. They threatened to make up false charges on me. I held my ground.
They harrassed me at home twice, talked to my employer and made a huge stink trying to create pressure.
I didn't cave and they eventually went away, because I committed no crimes and they knew it.
As a security researcher I sometimes make contact with controversial people in order to get information, like a journalist might. They wanted those contacts. Too bad.
I think people here will probably underestimate how common your story is in the security industry.
Just from DEFCON connections, I'm on a first name basis with a roughly four different FBI employees who are constantly trying to recruit myself or friends as informants.
We discuss, openly, what a bad deal it is to be an informant and how I don't have any useful information for them anyway. But they persist. Thankfully lightly. Nothing like what you mentioned, but I fully believe that your story happens. And regularly.
I feel like this is a good time to remind you, and everyone: never talk to federal agents. FBI, Fish and Game, Secret Service. Don't. They can say you told them anything, and guess what? It's a felony to lie to them. They will push a pre-written statement in front of you and if you refuse to sign it they will threaten you with saying you lied to them. Don't. Talk. To. Feds. Ever.
I've had similar experiences, though, not with FBI, with DHS at DEFCON, to the point where I've been handed DHS business cards prior to hopping on flights out of Las Vegas on my way home, and them calling me on my personal (non-work-published) cell phone a few days later.
First name basis with FBI employees and you didn't do your duty and publish all the information you have extracted from them including names and face pictures. What the hell?! FBI befriends you, that is just their way to get informants. The be your friend manipulation. They are trained to manipulate you. You fell for it hard!
During my last polygraph (I've had a lot over the years), I was accused by the FBI examiner of being a terrorist. Although we are not supposed to discuss these things, my boss told me later that they had done the same thing to him. The accusations rose to the level of abuse and the examiner was yelling at me and threatening my livelihood and future for several hours. Apparently, once he was satisfied that I had done nothing wrong, we were done. He offered his handshake to me as I left the room. I shook his hand, but I felt soiled afterward.
how accurate are polygraphs? they seem to be uniquely American (though i can't pretend i know that as a fact). I always thought they are really just worthless window-dressing on par with the tsa.I.e it's a lot of bluff and only a bit of substance. Can your experiences substantiate what i'm saying or am i being biased?
> who do you report law enforcement misconduct to?
These rights are privately enforced. There is no public federal enforcement. You have to do what this gentleman is doing. Sue in the courts.
It is becoming apparent that the U.S. needs an independent agency focussed on transgressions by law enforcement / a civil rights enforcement bureau. One could keep it purely civil, to avoid conflicting with the DoJ. But in the same way that criminal prosecution is specialized enough that consolidating it in the DoJ makes sense, investigating law enforcement is specialized and conflicted enough that consolidating it under an independent agency makes sense.
> So who do you report law enforcement misconduct to?
In the case of the FBI, the FBI Office of Professional Responsibility (essentially, the FBI’s “Internal Affairs” unit), DoJ Inspector General, your reps in either House of Congress, or members of the Judiciary Committee (in either House) or the Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations (in the Senate) or the Oversight and Reform Committee (in the House).
May also be worth going to media and/or NGOs, though which, if any (especially of the latter) are most likely to be useful varies a lot by who you are and what the exact details of thr misconduct are.
Private litigation may or may not be useful (both governmental and personal immunities come into play) and can be very expensive (though NGOs may help with this.)
This is basically internal affairs for the FBI. Report here. Personally, I would make a report here no matter what, just to start a paper-trail of them harassing you.
A friend of mine (mid-West redhead) spent years in China doing research. She came back to the US to do her PhD, and FBI started hassling her, asking if she was spying for the Chinese. Finally ended when she called that agent's superior and implied the agent was coming on to her.
That is so ridiculous. They stopped because she accused them of sexual harassment, not because they were out of line? Like is that all a real Chinese spy would have to do to get the FBI of her back?
Which is totally not how you recruit a source - sounds like some FBI officers think that acting like an OTT cop from TV show (Constable Savage for UK HN's of a certain age.) is how it works.
The way malwarebytes was handled is another example great the FBI has just alienated a large potential group of sources and this FBI idiot by bullying Mr Chebli has alienated a lot of Lebanese Americans who might provide information in future.
Why not ask for something impossible for them to agree to so they leave you alone? For example "I'll become an informant if you pay me 2 billion per contact and 1 million per week while being an informant". Will that not work?
Besides why didn't you go for a lawsuit? They threatened and harassed you. They threatened your employment, your livelihood.
Not to mention you claim to be a security researcher and the first thing on your mind wasn't to record them and take down their details to publish later on internet.
It's a good punishment. It would prevent those who visits you to do certain work and with their face and name everyone will know what they are, where they live. In case people want to visit and leave some very justified feedback about the FBI.
It's perfectly legal to record them since they entered your home/property. Always, always record!
I bet they left a card so you could contact them. Even publishing that alone is good.
FBI is very afraid of the public light because of this in my opinion illegal stuff they do. FBI must have positive PR. Bad PR means less trust, less informants, etc.
A a security researcher you are supposed to know this stuff. How to deal with FBI, etc. I'm disappointed.
This is hilariously bad advice. Keep in mind that the FBI needs a good relationship with people out in industry and doing research.
Most of the attempts to recruit informants are benign, as I mentioned in my own story elsewhere in the thread. It boils down to being in Vegas the same few days and having a drink and killing time talking about how great America is (yes, FBI agents generally do love their country). It's good PR for everyone involved.
There was a similar, much more terrifying, story was in the New Yorker about six months ago.
An Iranian physicist, Sirous Asgari, visited some US universities. On his next entry into the US he was detailed by the FBI as he entered and handed a completely-invented indictment of numerous crimes, and they demanded that he become an informant.
He refused, since the indictment was completely phony. The FBI, furious, ensured he was charged with everything under the sun.
Even though the government lost its case against him (due to clear lies by the FBI), he was then thrown in an ICE jail, through utter Kafkaesque bureaucratic hand-offs. Had to endure near-prison revolts as the inmates tries to keep themselves free of Covid. A judge almost granted him release due to the dangers of getting ill, but then he caught Covid and nearly died, so his petition was rejected. He was finally swapped as part of a prisoner-swap deal with Iran. And yet he seems to be persona-no-grata now in Iran, as the assumption is that he must now be working for the FBI.
There's the story of the Ibrahim family, too. The mother, Dr. Rahinah Ibrahim, sued over being wrongly put on the No-fly list. Her daughter — a US citizen — was to testify at her trial but was denied boarding her flight because she too had been put on the no fly list.
> Dr. Ibrahim’s oldest daughter Raihan Mustafa Kamal was denied boarding in Kuala Lumpur yesterday when she tried to board a flight to San Francisco to observe and testify at the trial in her mother’s lawsuit.
> Ms. Mustafa Kamal, an attorney licensed to practice law in Malaysia, was born in the U.S. and is a U.S. citizen. Ms. Mustafa Kamal was with her mother when Dr. Ibrahim was denied boarding on a flight from K.L. to San Francisco in 2005 (after having been told that her name had been removed from the “no-fly” list) under what now seem eerily similar circumstances. The DHS had been given notice that Ms. Mustafa Kamal would testify at the trial as an eyewitness to those events she witnessed in 2005.
Happy that the ACLU is taking this on. It shouldn't matter, but if you look at the filed complaint[1] Ahmad is a US citizen. This treatment seems clearly unconstitutional to me.
Also, this excerpt from the complaint:
>In response, the agents pulled out two newspaper articles about Hezbollah and told Mr. Chebli, “We know you are a Hezbollah agent and were sent here by Hezbollah.”
The complaint is absolutely disgusting to read. One (I suspect uncontested) fact alleged in the complaint really stood out to me:
> As a result, he was stranded in Lebanon for over a month, during which time the U.S. government confirmed that he had been placed on the No Fly List. Mr. Chebli was then able to obtain a one-time waiver to fly home.
If someone is dangerous enough to be on the No Fly List why would the US government allow them to fly? To the US? Even once? And if they're safe enough to fly on that occasion why are they, upon landing (presumably safely), once again considered unsafe to fly? The No Fly List logic just doesn't quite add up for me...
> why would the US government allow them to fly? To the US? Even once?
Because it was never about him being dangerous. It was about creating a condition where he felt trapped. And if you are a US Citizen stuck in a foreign country international news orgs notice that. Investigations get started. Questions get asked. And this thing that is wildly unconstitutional gets asked about in a public court. But if it's a US Citizen in the US it can be conveniently swept under the rug. The investigations now not so urgent.
It's probably less about logic and more about law, the US government can't refuse entry to US citizens and would rather prevent a court case that inevitably ends in the No-Fly list being ruled unconstitutional.
> If someone is dangerous enough to be on the No Fly List why would the US government allow them to fly? To the US? Even once?
Extend this logic just a millimeter further and you should understand how awful the no fly list truly is. If we have evidence a person is too dangerous to fly, and we're willing to let everyone know that we know they're dangerous, why wouldn't we just take them into custody and charge them with a crime? Put them in prison, or get them to roll on someone involved in their conspiracy?
But of course, there's approximately never any evidence.
He is very lucky to be a US citizen. The FBI has treated non-citizens much much worse.
For example [0], the FBI arrested Syrian-Canadian engineer Maher Arer while he changed planes in USA. The FBI imprisoned him without charges, denied him a lawyer, and then kidnapped him and delivered him to a prison in Syria where he was tortured for 10 months. His wife finally got the Canadian government to intervene and get him out. The head of RCMP (Canada's FBI) resigned in shame for letting it happen. All of the US people responsible continued with their lives as before. A few of them apologized.
While it's terrible enough in either case, it does make a big difference that he's a citizen. Countries have another level of responsibility towards their citizens than to their residents. It shows in how AFAIK no country has even talked about restricting inbound travel for their citizens during the pandemic while even permanent residents have been blanket denied.
Australia has severely rate limited the number of incoming passengers, including citizens. One year on, there are still tens of thousands of Australians unable to get home that want to do so.
NZ allows both citizens and permanent residents to return home - however we have limited space in managed quarantine that limits how many can return at a time - and if you're just coming home for a holiday, not permanently, or you left for a holiday or biz trip, they will charge you for the whole process
The first time the FBI went to interview him, he should have requested an attorney - whether he had one or not. As soon as you lawyer up (which is totally legal in his case) the FBI get really itchy about having to deal with lawyers and probably would've moved on to another target.
He should have also gone to the media much sooner or threatened to take this public. Yes, it is now, but had he gone to the media sooner, I'm sure the FBI would've backed off a lot sooner. Having a Muslim racially profiled, intimidated and then put on a no-fly list for no reason is not a good look for that agency.
> Having a Muslim racially profiled, intimidated and then put on a no-fly list for no reason is not a good look for that agency.
We have had a steady stream of stories like this for almost 20 years now. Nothing substantial has changed. I don’t think the FBI is worried about PR around this at this point.
> The first time the FBI went to interview him, he should have requested an attorney - whether he had one or not.
Was he under arrest? The FBI is not obligated to bring you an attorney if they are merely interviewing you.
> He should have also gone to the media much sooner or threatened to take this public. Yes, it is now, but had he gone to the media sooner, I'm sure the FBI would've backed off a lot sooner.
I somehow doubt it. Muslims (and antiwar activists) being placed on no fly lists were often in the news. That didn't stop it.
A friend of mine was in such situation in Russia. She is a journalist specializing on exotic countries and regions. She has applied for an international passport and was approached by an FSB (Russian FBI) agent. She agreed to meet with him and a lawyer. The FSB agent just disappeared and did not return calls. She has never heard from them again.
How could he go to the media before getting banned? There's not much to go on, especially if he didn't have a recording.
The other part is, who will actually listen to that story? My wife was subjected to pretrial restrictions on a charge that the trooper knew was incorrect. I even have evidence supporting it. An investigative journalist pitching it to their editor, but other than that nobody cares. IAD thinks it's fine, the DA thinks it's fine (an ADA was also aware that the charge was wrong, but I don't think the complaint with the Bar will result in anything), and the judge misapplied the law and contradicted himself so that the issue could be ignored in court.
This story is making me reconsider contacting the FBI/DOJ about police misconduct.
I'm glad the ACLU is taking this on, but if Ahmad was a Trump supporting redneck from West Virginia who refused to be an informant in an investigation of the January 6th riot, they wouldn't touch it. And that's a big problem, because the old ACLU didn't care how unpopular and disgusting the client was. They cared that abuse of power against the unpopular is an inevitable slippery slope towards abuse of power against all citizens.
> They cared that abuse of power against the unpopular is an inevitable slippery slope towards abuse of power against all citizens.
They also have to care about having a case that will win and not lose and set bad precedent.
Unfortunately, the Supreme Court is stacked against them and they have to have cases that will provoke public outrage if it goes the wrong way to prevent the court from going too far off track.
Having sympathetic defendants is unfortunately something required for right now.
There is a reason why you know about Rosa Parks and not Claudette Colvin.
The no fly list seems to be clearly unconstitutional. You can't find out why you are on it, you can ask for redress but you have no legal ability to file actions on it apparently. You cannot ever overcome it because it is the magic "national security". For us citizens especially, why can I travel anywhere via any normal legal means? If I'm dangerous on an airplane and you can legally stop me from doing it, it seems it's another obvious extension to say I can't ride on a bus, a boat, drive a car?
There must be a good reason the no fly list has not come to the us supreme court - probably because the govt delays and then folds if anyone has a compelling case. But it must come to trial! I know there are dangerous terrorists in the world that want to kill me, and I don't want to enable them. But there's a lot more people on the no fly list in the us for very dubious considerations (probably, the number must be a secret too).
It isn't unconstitutional since you don't have a right to fly since it's a private endeavour, even though it's highly regulated. Clearly the are abusing it as punitive rather than preventative measure. it's stupid in this case that it's being used as a punishment for no good reason. Congress need to address this and give a much better definition for what can be used to "put you on the no fly list"
...or the courts need to wake up to the reality of life in the modern world, where being denied the ability to board an airplane can result in harm to a person's personal and professional life. My boss is great but there is no way he is approving a 5 day trip on Amtrak for my next in-person meeting in California, let alone weeks of travel by boat for the next conference in Europe or Asia (assuming these things resume after the pandemic). I have met people whose entire career would be destroyed if they could not fly freely and frequently.
If the courts are not prepared to rule the no-fly list unconstitutional, then they need to start awarding damages to people who have been placed on the list. Either the government proves in court that there was a legitimate reason to prevent a person from flying or they compensate that person for all the harm that ensues.
You can get put on a "kill list" as well as the "no fly list" even if you are a US citizen and the opacity and inability to remove oneself or correct the issue is the same.
good point, that's another terrible overreach. It was surprising how much obama in particular was involved with choosing people to be killed with drones.
I would speculate that they are pretty quick to take citizens off the list as soon as they lawyer up, rendering any case that could get the whole thing thrown out moot.
What makes you think the no-fly list is unconstitutional? The Supreme Court doesn't take cases because a law is unfair, they take cases that violate the Constitution or written law. The Court has routinely deemed "national security" concerns as a valid reason for laws to exist, so long as those concerns aren't just makeup for a more discriminatory reasoning.
IANAL but it would not surprise me if the courts further restricted the ability of law enforcement to arbitrarily
modify the no-fly list in the future.
- You getting "moved" to small villages (e.g. as a teacher).
And if they couldn't affect you they went for your relative. E.g. your children being bared from studying at a university even if they are qualified and so on.
Did the Stasi also permit you to lawyer up with the ACLU and sue them in open court?
What these FBI agents did, if true, was reprehensible. But surely we can come up with a better comparison than one of the most evil secret police regimes ever to exist.
The FBI doesn't "permit" you to lawyer up, the Bill of Rights does. Comparison of the tactics used is sound.
The FBI isn't "less evil" because they "tolerate" laws that they have no ability to ignore. They aren't tolerating them out of the goodness of their hearts, or out of a sense of morality. If they had the ability to ignore them, they would.
Edit: Re: responses
I'm not claiming that the FBI is incapable of violating the law, I'm objecting to the parent's claim that they are somehow "less evil" than the Stasi because they "allow" the law to be upheld, when they're not the ones allowing anything. Yes, when they are able to get away with breaking the law, they sometimes do. It's not clear how prevalent this is, because "able to get away with it" implies not getting caught.
The comparison is certainly valid. Almost all the FBI's "terrorism" convictions over the last 20 years have been people set ip by a CI or agent, including the FBI supplying materiel.
The fact that there still exists, to some degree, a mechanism in the USA to challenge this in some cases is indeed something to celebrate, but the quite reasonable comparison is not just legitimate and appropriate but is a tool for trying to fix the injustice, not just retail (one victim at a time) but wholesale (change of law).
How generous of my government to let me spend years battling them in court, while they get to violate my rights for the duration with little consequence if they end up losing. Much like a corporation getting fined or sued by the government is often just a slap on the wrist and the “cost of doing business,” the FBI has demonstrated time and time again that it doesn’t mind breaking the law to serve its goals. When the recourse for most people when the government violates their rights is to hope that some org like the ACLU will step up and represent you pro-bono, and that the courts will actually rule in your favor, and that even if they do you’ll still have a long time of suffering while the case goes through the courts... it tells the FBI that they can basically do whatever they want, because most people don’t want to deal with that crap.
I mean, the U.S. has been caught running interrogation black sites in our own borders, so the comparison extends further than even some of the other commenters are admitting.
> But surely we can come up with a better comparison than one of the most evil secret police regimes ever to exist.
So we have to be thankful that we are "allowed" to spend our life's saving on fighting a lawsuits against a trillon dollar government ?
For every such case there are probably 100 other people who folded. There is no difference between those cases and cases where stasi might have done the same thing. It is 100% same.
Apples to Oranges. OP was referring to the MO of acquiring collaborators, not the legal environment surrounding it. Which is the same MO used by the secret police in basically all countries behind the iron curtain.
Let's not mention people lacking money for a proper legal defense.
There are a lot of gradations between "guilty" and "not guilty" in our system, some of them very unpleasant.
For example, the author experienced involuntary exile while technically "not guilty." Many employers will fire an employee who is charged with a crime, without a conviction. A "not guilty" person can be arrested and held in jail until a court date which could get postponed repeatedly.
There are plenty of cracks people can fall (or be pushed) into.
We (America) have lots of folks that accept plea agreements because we put pre-trial folks in jail and treat them like criminals, which can easily ruin lives even if you are found not guilty.
Of course, you might not be talking about the US system when you refer to a decent system, so maybe you are correct.
I'd note that all powers not granted in the US Constitution are denied and federal police forces are definitely NOT allowed by the US Constitution.
Once again, it's just the garbage logic that EVERYTHING can potentially affect more than one state, so they have the right to control everything via the interstate commerce clause.
The reality is that when it really comes down to it, the institutions are fundamentally unethical. And this is no surprise because governments are essentially very official mafias.
> I worry that government officials who claim to protect all Americans equally can violate our constitutional rights with impunity.
At this point, is there any doubt of this? At least, insofar as "constitutional rights" comprise reasonable interpretations of the Constitution wrt. individual rights, without the sort of tortured, unaccountable interpretations that lead to things like the "100 mile rule".
>Generally speaking ANYONE can violate someone's constitution rights. It's what happens (if anything) as a result that is important.
I disagree. "What happens as a result" is a process that takes... 8 to 10 years before it reaches the supreme court.
For all practical purposes it's the degree by which those representing the government hold themselves to the laws of their country that matters.
The fact that in 8 years the injustice will be corrected for one or two people that invest an extraordinary amount of time and suffering to make that happen doesn't mean much.
This article in itself is also in the best interest of the FBI. "You've been warned. Decline our offer and the same will happen to you." And it wouldn't surprise me if that was an expected benefit when they engaged knowingly in this illegal activity.
Government agencies holding themselves to the law is what is important. And that's not what happened in this case. That means my constitutional rights are theoretical, as is my freedom to be left alone from government interference. I won't engage in a 8 year struggle for justice if they knock on the door trying to coerce me. I'll just fuck off to another country instead, where they won't do that. Way easier and a better use of my time.
It's kinda BS that cops and agents are required to know the law. It wouldn't be so much BS if you were compensated and had job security in the event that the state lied or was wrong like in germany.
> “Unwitting silent parole” allows the F.B.I. to issue foreign nationals a document that looks to them like a visa but in fact grants them permission to enter the country only for the Bureau’s purposes.
So anyone entering the United States could actually be walking into a trap. Good to know.
That's super easy to say. Personally, I know I'd be scared shitless if I ended up in a room, under false pretenses, with the door closed, and government agents questioning if I'm an enemy of the state. I doubt I'd have the presence of mind to just 'walk away' from the FBI.
I suggest you avoid blaming the victim. This person though they lived in the freedom country and got East Germany, they were taken by surprise. Moreover an Arabic person asking for a lawyer is always a complicated proposition.
Giving advice that people may want to know/follow is not victim blaming. It is trying to be helpful to people that come after, by providing advice that may help avoid this type of event. Saying "this person would have been safer had they acted in this way" does not automatically mean "this person did something they should have known not to".
I didn't read it as blaming Ahmad, rather a reminder that you should have a lawyer present when dealing with law enforcement if possible, because it always comes with the risk of very grave consequences regardless of your innocence.
I'm neither in the US nor Arabic, but your second sentence sounds very problematic. How does this manifest? A person would say that they would like to speak to a lawyer, and then get ignored? Harassed until they relent?
Unfortunately people have to get an important idea in their head. The police are not there to help you for the most part.
In the UK we call the Police the filth for good reason. Law enforcement's job is to incriminate you. They are not there to "protect and serve" that is just marketing. That isn't true of every police officer and isn't true of every police force, but it is safest to assume that it is the truth.
If law enforcement are "wanting to chat" that means they are trying to push something on you. You don't tell them anything, you ask for legal representation and the answer to every question should be "no comment". Anything you tell them will be used against you in the court room.
It shouldn't be that way. But unfortunately that is the truth.
> an Arabic person asking for a lawyer is always a complicated proposition.
The Sixth Amendment guarantees adequate representation. Being accused of a crime by the FBI would qualify as a situation where that representation could be reasonably required if requested by the accused. Arab or not, citizen or not.
You can still make mistakes while not being to blame. Pointing out those mistakes doesn't change the fact that they're the victim, but it might help them or someone else later.
If I leave my car unlocked with an iphone on the dashboard and it gets stolen, I made a mistake, but I'm not to blame.
What if you are poor? You won’t be provided with a lawyer, since they aren’t accusing him of a crime. Most people can’t afford to hire a lawyer for something like this.
By saying that you want a lawyer, it makes the results of interrogations without a lawyer very hard to use in court. If you're dealing with investigators that know the law and want a conviction, they'll hold off on questions until a lawyer is present. If you can't get a lawyer to be present, then that's a potential impasse.
Then you decline to answer any questions without the advice of counsel. They can choose to arrest you or let you go, but they can't compel you to answer their questions without advice of counsel if you invoke that request.
The person in the article did not know they were going to be questioned by the FBI - they were told they had a "permit issue" at City Hall and were ambushed by the FBI there.
At some point, it became clear that the FBI was questioning them, right? That's the point where you decline to answer without consulting counsel. You don't have to bring a lawyer with you on every errand just in case it's a trap.
While I agree with the sentiment that no one can be prepared for an FBI ambush every day of their lives. This is a teachable moment.
Law enforcement often use tactics like this to convince citizens to voluntarily testify against themselves. It's not fair as the tactic preys on our natural desire to help. But it's important to train ourselves into the mindset that if you are talking with uniformed law enforcement, then you are being interviewed by them.
To whit, if you are being interviewed by law enforcement, your best option is to never answer any of their questions and repeatedly ask to leave. If you are not able to leave then you switch to repeatedly asking for your lawyer.
Readit News
They harrassed me at home twice, talked to my employer and made a huge stink trying to create pressure.
I didn't cave and they eventually went away, because I committed no crimes and they knew it.
As a security researcher I sometimes make contact with controversial people in order to get information, like a journalist might. They wanted those contacts. Too bad.
Just from DEFCON connections, I'm on a first name basis with a roughly four different FBI employees who are constantly trying to recruit myself or friends as informants.
We discuss, openly, what a bad deal it is to be an informant and how I don't have any useful information for them anyway. But they persist. Thankfully lightly. Nothing like what you mentioned, but I fully believe that your story happens. And regularly.
These rights are privately enforced. There is no public federal enforcement. You have to do what this gentleman is doing. Sue in the courts.
It is becoming apparent that the U.S. needs an independent agency focussed on transgressions by law enforcement / a civil rights enforcement bureau. One could keep it purely civil, to avoid conflicting with the DoJ. But in the same way that criminal prosecution is specialized enough that consolidating it in the DoJ makes sense, investigating law enforcement is specialized and conflicted enough that consolidating it under an independent agency makes sense.
In the case of the FBI, the FBI Office of Professional Responsibility (essentially, the FBI’s “Internal Affairs” unit), DoJ Inspector General, your reps in either House of Congress, or members of the Judiciary Committee (in either House) or the Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations (in the Senate) or the Oversight and Reform Committee (in the House).
May also be worth going to media and/or NGOs, though which, if any (especially of the latter) are most likely to be useful varies a lot by who you are and what the exact details of thr misconduct are.
Private litigation may or may not be useful (both governmental and personal immunities come into play) and can be very expensive (though NGOs may help with this.)
https://oig.justice.gov/hotline/submit_complaint
This is basically internal affairs for the FBI. Report here. Personally, I would make a report here no matter what, just to start a paper-trail of them harassing you.
https://oig.justice.gov/
The way malwarebytes was handled is another example great the FBI has just alienated a large potential group of sources and this FBI idiot by bullying Mr Chebli has alienated a lot of Lebanese Americans who might provide information in future.
Besides why didn't you go for a lawsuit? They threatened and harassed you. They threatened your employment, your livelihood.
Not to mention you claim to be a security researcher and the first thing on your mind wasn't to record them and take down their details to publish later on internet. It's a good punishment. It would prevent those who visits you to do certain work and with their face and name everyone will know what they are, where they live. In case people want to visit and leave some very justified feedback about the FBI. It's perfectly legal to record them since they entered your home/property. Always, always record!
I bet they left a card so you could contact them. Even publishing that alone is good.
FBI is very afraid of the public light because of this in my opinion illegal stuff they do. FBI must have positive PR. Bad PR means less trust, less informants, etc.
A a security researcher you are supposed to know this stuff. How to deal with FBI, etc. I'm disappointed.
Most of the attempts to recruit informants are benign, as I mentioned in my own story elsewhere in the thread. It boils down to being in Vegas the same few days and having a drink and killing time talking about how great America is (yes, FBI agents generally do love their country). It's good PR for everyone involved.
Deleted Comment
I 100% would handle things very differently today and advise others based on my mistakes.
They gave me a good pretext for talking to me and caught me 30 seconds out of bed. Still. Lessons learned.
Just sharing another example.
An Iranian physicist, Sirous Asgari, visited some US universities. On his next entry into the US he was detailed by the FBI as he entered and handed a completely-invented indictment of numerous crimes, and they demanded that he become an informant.
He refused, since the indictment was completely phony. The FBI, furious, ensured he was charged with everything under the sun.
Even though the government lost its case against him (due to clear lies by the FBI), he was then thrown in an ICE jail, through utter Kafkaesque bureaucratic hand-offs. Had to endure near-prison revolts as the inmates tries to keep themselves free of Covid. A judge almost granted him release due to the dangers of getting ill, but then he caught Covid and nearly died, so his petition was rejected. He was finally swapped as part of a prisoner-swap deal with Iran. And yet he seems to be persona-no-grata now in Iran, as the assumption is that he must now be working for the FBI.
https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2020/09/21/the-man-who-re...
https://papersplease.org/wp/2013/12/02/witness-in-no-fly-tri...
> Dr. Ibrahim’s oldest daughter Raihan Mustafa Kamal was denied boarding in Kuala Lumpur yesterday when she tried to board a flight to San Francisco to observe and testify at the trial in her mother’s lawsuit.
> Ms. Mustafa Kamal, an attorney licensed to practice law in Malaysia, was born in the U.S. and is a U.S. citizen. Ms. Mustafa Kamal was with her mother when Dr. Ibrahim was denied boarding on a flight from K.L. to San Francisco in 2005 (after having been told that her name had been removed from the “no-fly” list) under what now seem eerily similar circumstances. The DHS had been given notice that Ms. Mustafa Kamal would testify at the trial as an eyewitness to those events she witnessed in 2005.
Deleted Comment
Dead Comment
Also, this excerpt from the complaint:
>In response, the agents pulled out two newspaper articles about Hezbollah and told Mr. Chebli, “We know you are a Hezbollah agent and were sent here by Hezbollah.”
What a couple of assholes.
[1] https://www.aclu.org/legal-document/chebli-v-kable-complaint...
> As a result, he was stranded in Lebanon for over a month, during which time the U.S. government confirmed that he had been placed on the No Fly List. Mr. Chebli was then able to obtain a one-time waiver to fly home.
If someone is dangerous enough to be on the No Fly List why would the US government allow them to fly? To the US? Even once? And if they're safe enough to fly on that occasion why are they, upon landing (presumably safely), once again considered unsafe to fly? The No Fly List logic just doesn't quite add up for me...
Because it was never about him being dangerous. It was about creating a condition where he felt trapped. And if you are a US Citizen stuck in a foreign country international news orgs notice that. Investigations get started. Questions get asked. And this thing that is wildly unconstitutional gets asked about in a public court. But if it's a US Citizen in the US it can be conveniently swept under the rug. The investigations now not so urgent.
It's not logical, it's political theater. Like the whole TSA, basically.
Extend this logic just a millimeter further and you should understand how awful the no fly list truly is. If we have evidence a person is too dangerous to fly, and we're willing to let everyone know that we know they're dangerous, why wouldn't we just take them into custody and charge them with a crime? Put them in prison, or get them to roll on someone involved in their conspiracy?
But of course, there's approximately never any evidence.
For example [0], the FBI arrested Syrian-Canadian engineer Maher Arer while he changed planes in USA. The FBI imprisoned him without charges, denied him a lawyer, and then kidnapped him and delivered him to a prison in Syria where he was tortured for 10 months. His wife finally got the Canadian government to intervene and get him out. The head of RCMP (Canada's FBI) resigned in shame for letting it happen. All of the US people responsible continued with their lives as before. A few of them apologized.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maher_Arar
They can of course arrest you the second you set foot in the country, but that's an entirely different story. They must allow you to inter.
He should have also gone to the media much sooner or threatened to take this public. Yes, it is now, but had he gone to the media sooner, I'm sure the FBI would've backed off a lot sooner. Having a Muslim racially profiled, intimidated and then put on a no-fly list for no reason is not a good look for that agency.
We have had a steady stream of stories like this for almost 20 years now. Nothing substantial has changed. I don’t think the FBI is worried about PR around this at this point.
.. is what the DHS was created for? After 9/11 some Muslims had to be punished for something, regardless of personal guilt, and here we are.
There have been worse outcomes: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abdulrahman_al-Awlaki
Was he under arrest? The FBI is not obligated to bring you an attorney if they are merely interviewing you.
> He should have also gone to the media much sooner or threatened to take this public. Yes, it is now, but had he gone to the media sooner, I'm sure the FBI would've backed off a lot sooner.
I somehow doubt it. Muslims (and antiwar activists) being placed on no fly lists were often in the news. That didn't stop it.
How could he go to the media before getting banned? There's not much to go on, especially if he didn't have a recording.
The other part is, who will actually listen to that story? My wife was subjected to pretrial restrictions on a charge that the trooper knew was incorrect. I even have evidence supporting it. An investigative journalist pitching it to their editor, but other than that nobody cares. IAD thinks it's fine, the DA thinks it's fine (an ADA was also aware that the charge was wrong, but I don't think the complaint with the Bar will result in anything), and the judge misapplied the law and contradicted himself so that the issue could be ignored in court.
This story is making me reconsider contacting the FBI/DOJ about police misconduct.
They also have to care about having a case that will win and not lose and set bad precedent.
Unfortunately, the Supreme Court is stacked against them and they have to have cases that will provoke public outrage if it goes the wrong way to prevent the court from going too far off track.
Having sympathetic defendants is unfortunately something required for right now.
There is a reason why you know about Rosa Parks and not Claudette Colvin.
There must be a good reason the no fly list has not come to the us supreme court - probably because the govt delays and then folds if anyone has a compelling case. But it must come to trial! I know there are dangerous terrorists in the world that want to kill me, and I don't want to enable them. But there's a lot more people on the no fly list in the us for very dubious considerations (probably, the number must be a secret too).
And yet here we are, with it still going on.
https://www.aclu.org/press-releases/federal-court-sides-aclu...
https://www.aclu.org/press-releases/federal-court-sides-aclu...
If the courts are not prepared to rule the no-fly list unconstitutional, then they need to start awarding damages to people who have been placed on the list. Either the government proves in court that there was a legitimate reason to prevent a person from flying or they compensate that person for all the harm that ensues.
We are still being deprived of our liberty without due process, making it unconstitutional.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bilal_Abdul_Kareem
https://www.cfr.org/blog/obamas-final-drone-strike-data
https://aclu-or.org/en/cases/court-rules-no-fly-list-process...
IANAL but it would not surprise me if the courts further restricted the ability of law enforcement to arbitrarily modify the no-fly list in the future.
Monitor someone who they wanted to recruit until they could
1) find an accusation for which the target would have no alibi (although they were clearly innocent)
2) confront the target with the accusation and the penalties for it,
3) say that (as an agent) "I personally think that you are innocent although you have no alibi and would have to be found guilty if reported,
4) "but to prove your loyalty, you could help us just this once in our fight against the criminals we just accused you of working with."
- You not getting a job.
- You losing a job.
- You getting "moved" to small villages (e.g. as a teacher).
And if they couldn't affect you they went for your relative. E.g. your children being bared from studying at a university even if they are qualified and so on.
The whole film is fantastic.
These two seem to be getting more popular nowadays.
What these FBI agents did, if true, was reprehensible. But surely we can come up with a better comparison than one of the most evil secret police regimes ever to exist.
The FBI isn't "less evil" because they "tolerate" laws that they have no ability to ignore. They aren't tolerating them out of the goodness of their hearts, or out of a sense of morality. If they had the ability to ignore them, they would.
Edit: Re: responses
I'm not claiming that the FBI is incapable of violating the law, I'm objecting to the parent's claim that they are somehow "less evil" than the Stasi because they "allow" the law to be upheld, when they're not the ones allowing anything. Yes, when they are able to get away with breaking the law, they sometimes do. It's not clear how prevalent this is, because "able to get away with it" implies not getting caught.
The fact that there still exists, to some degree, a mechanism in the USA to challenge this in some cases is indeed something to celebrate, but the quite reasonable comparison is not just legitimate and appropriate but is a tool for trying to fix the injustice, not just retail (one victim at a time) but wholesale (change of law).
The more we start comparing to other countries and say “oh well at least we’re better than them” the more complacent people are.
Not to mention many of US’s worst action have had the excuse of “well there was some worse country out there we gotta stop!”
So we have to be thankful that we are "allowed" to spend our life's saving on fighting a lawsuits against a trillon dollar government ?
For every such case there are probably 100 other people who folded. There is no difference between those cases and cases where stasi might have done the same thing. It is 100% same.
Dead Comment
Let's not mention people lacking money for a proper legal defense.
But now that we're talking about it, you might want to read about FISA Courts. Also stuff like https://www.aclu.org/press-releases/federal-court-sides-aclu... and yet..
Edit: Your boos mean nothing, I've seen what makes you cheer.
For example, the author experienced involuntary exile while technically "not guilty." Many employers will fire an employee who is charged with a crime, without a conviction. A "not guilty" person can be arrested and held in jail until a court date which could get postponed repeatedly.
There are plenty of cracks people can fall (or be pushed) into.
Would you be willing to risk that the system you live in is decent? I live in the UK and I hope I never need to find out, because I have a few doubts.
We (America) have lots of folks that accept plea agreements because we put pre-trial folks in jail and treat them like criminals, which can easily ruin lives even if you are found not guilty.
Of course, you might not be talking about the US system when you refer to a decent system, so maybe you are correct.
Once again, it's just the garbage logic that EVERYTHING can potentially affect more than one state, so they have the right to control everything via the interstate commerce clause.
Dead Comment
Shafting people has been around for aeons
Dead Comment
At this point, is there any doubt of this? At least, insofar as "constitutional rights" comprise reasonable interpretations of the Constitution wrt. individual rights, without the sort of tortured, unaccountable interpretations that lead to things like the "100 mile rule".
I disagree. "What happens as a result" is a process that takes... 8 to 10 years before it reaches the supreme court.
For all practical purposes it's the degree by which those representing the government hold themselves to the laws of their country that matters.
The fact that in 8 years the injustice will be corrected for one or two people that invest an extraordinary amount of time and suffering to make that happen doesn't mean much.
This article in itself is also in the best interest of the FBI. "You've been warned. Decline our offer and the same will happen to you." And it wouldn't surprise me if that was an expected benefit when they engaged knowingly in this illegal activity.
Government agencies holding themselves to the law is what is important. And that's not what happened in this case. That means my constitutional rights are theoretical, as is my freedom to be left alone from government interference. I won't engage in a 8 year struggle for justice if they knock on the door trying to coerce me. I'll just fuck off to another country instead, where they won't do that. Way easier and a better use of my time.
"The Man Who Refused to Spy
The F.B.I. tried to recruit an Iranian scientist as an informant. When he balked, the payback was brutal."
https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2020/09/21/the-man-who-re...
So anyone entering the United States could actually be walking into a trap. Good to know.
I'm neither in the US nor Arabic, but your second sentence sounds very problematic. How does this manifest? A person would say that they would like to speak to a lawyer, and then get ignored? Harassed until they relent?
In the UK we call the Police the filth for good reason. Law enforcement's job is to incriminate you. They are not there to "protect and serve" that is just marketing. That isn't true of every police officer and isn't true of every police force, but it is safest to assume that it is the truth.
If law enforcement are "wanting to chat" that means they are trying to push something on you. You don't tell them anything, you ask for legal representation and the answer to every question should be "no comment". Anything you tell them will be used against you in the court room.
It shouldn't be that way. But unfortunately that is the truth.
The Sixth Amendment guarantees adequate representation. Being accused of a crime by the FBI would qualify as a situation where that representation could be reasonably required if requested by the accused. Arab or not, citizen or not.
If I leave my car unlocked with an iphone on the dashboard and it gets stolen, I made a mistake, but I'm not to blame.
Why? just say you want to call a lawyer and have him present.
Any deal would have to be made with lawyer present, no objections, polite.
And call one anyway first point its possible.
Now, being an informant might be degrading but if you have genuine threats that you can help with, might as well cover all options.
Law enforcement often use tactics like this to convince citizens to voluntarily testify against themselves. It's not fair as the tactic preys on our natural desire to help. But it's important to train ourselves into the mindset that if you are talking with uniformed law enforcement, then you are being interviewed by them.
To whit, if you are being interviewed by law enforcement, your best option is to never answer any of their questions and repeatedly ask to leave. If you are not able to leave then you switch to repeatedly asking for your lawyer.