FBI: Murder, Wrongful Imprisonment May Be Necessary to Preserve Drug Investigations

Status
Not open for further replies.

Flyboy

Member
Joined
Apr 19, 2004
Messages
1,888
Location
Oklahoma City, OK
http://reason.com/blog/show/121692.html
Last week, a federal judge excoriated the FBI for not only hiding exculpatory evidence that would have exonerated four innocent men who served more than thirty years in prison, but for rewarding those who did the hiding and covering up with bonuses and promotions. For this crime against American citizens, American taxpayers will now shell out more than $100 million. Thus far, none of the government agents actually responsible for this crime have been held accountable. Only rewarded.

Well, we're just getting started. On July 19th, the House Judiciary Committee held hearings on the use and abuse of confidential drug informants. The testimony Assistant Director of the FBI Directorate of Intelligence Wayne M. Murphy gave at that hearing is truly astonishing.

The transcript below was provided by the ACLU. It comes from the Q &A session after the witnesses provided their initial testimony. Murphy's being questioned by Rep. Dan Lundgren (R-Calif.) and Rep. William Delahunt (D-Mass.). The context: Lundgren and Delahunt have cited incidents in the past in which the FBI has covered up evidence that its confidential drug informants have committed violent crimes (including murder) in order to protect their identities, so that they could continue providing the bureau with information. They've cited other incidents, including the case above, in which the FBI has hidden exculpatory evidence, and allowed innocent people to go to prison. Lundgren and Delahunt want Murphy to assure them that the FBI has instituted policies to ensure that these sorts of incidents won't happen again--that murderers won't be protected and innocent people sent to prison in order to preserve drug investigations.

... [transcript of Congressional testimony; the money quote follows]

Representative Delahunt: I'm not asking about qualities or guidelines or considerations. Does there exist today, in your opinion, a legal responsibility for the FBI to communicate, in a homicide investigation, either exculpatory information to the state and local authorities, or evidence that would indicate that an individual is responsible for murder? That's a 'yes' or 'no' question.

Murphy: I would prefer to answer that question offline if you wouldn't mind, thank you Congressman.

Delahunt: Well I do mind. And I don't see the reason why that answer has to be provided offline. That's a legal question.

In other words, when questioned by Congress, the FBI says "we don't want to publicly give you an answer about our policy of protecting murderers to help in drug investigations."

I guess it's a question of priorities.
 
In other words, when questioned by Congress, the FBI says "we don't want to publicly give you an answer about our policy of protecting murderers to help in drug investigations."

I guess it's a question of priorities.
You're obviously not a supporter of our Great War on Drugs. I bet you're also against the Great War on Terror.

In this post-9/11 world we live in, things like "guilt" or "innocence" matter little compared to stopping those evil Drug Dealers and Terrorists.
 
If the FBI will protect murderers and send innocent people to prison in order to further an investigation then they have not only utterly failed in their mission to enforce the law; they have become agents of lawlessness themselves.

I would say that's the primary reason that Murphy did not want to answer the question in a public forum. To say "no" is to admit the FBI helps criminals and imprisons the innocent, to say "yes" is a lie given the facts at hand
 
This is, in fact, one of the major arguments against the 'war' on drugs: It's simply impossible to prosecute it with anything resembling success without massively abusive police practices. The amount of damage this 'war' has done to our civil liberties dwarfs the costs of most military wars.
 
After reading the link and associated links the one thing that is clear is that there isn't any proof that any of these claims are in fact true. What the FBI is saying is that there isn't one answer to fit every situation. There are also issues involving procedure and tactics that the FBI does not want made public. Is it because they are guilty of the things you seem to feel they are or is it because it give the cartels an eye into how the FBI handles informants? We don't know?

The are offering to answer the question, but not in an open forum.

Are you actually aware of a case where the FBI has knowingly allowed an innocent person to go to prison to protect a source? I'm not arguing, just curious, because I'm not finding that info in this article.
 
"The amount of damage this 'war' has done to our civil liberties dwarfs the costs of most military wars."

Worse, the damage done to appropriate attitudes about government. When you're used to top-down management (not in a business, mind you, but in society at large), and that management comes through what is supposed to be a moral, rights-protecting, freely chosen government, it becomes easy to force the concepts together, so that the abuses seem to be (must be!) good and necessary. War is peace, 2+2 = 5, etc.

Even people who *use* drugs seem to enjoy huddling in the haze of guilt; the people who profit I suspect are more cynical (to the extent they think about it at all); they know that "a million dollars worth of marijunana plants"* is only worth thousands of more times the same number of geraniums *because* the pot is illegal.

timothy

* That's what was taken two weeks ago just a few blocks down the street from the house where I've been staying; I'm not sure of the quantity, but it was supposedly a bit more than "a million dollars' worth."
 
The are offering to answer the question, but not in an open forum.
Are you asserting that the FBI is permitted to keep the details secret from Congressional oversight? Isn't it up to Congress to determine whether the means of enforcement of their laws should be done in public, rather than the agency (which, BTW, clearly has something to hide)?

Are you actually aware of a case where the FBI has knowingly allowed an innocent person to go to prison to protect a source?
Read ArmedBear's link. Also, read the link in the Reason story about the House of Death; I started a thread on that one several months (maybe even a year) ago.

What the FBI is saying is that there isn't one answer to fit every situation.
Actually, there really is: "In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right ... to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor...." This has been held to mean that the accused gets to see all evidence against him. Hiding informants--particularly those with substantial criminal backgrounds--would seem to deprive him of that right. Further, protecting a murderer deprives the victims of justice. Are you saying that a drug investigation is more important than murder?

I guess you really can't make an omelet without breaking a few eggs.
 
Are you asserting that the FBI is permitted to keep the details secret from Congressional oversight? Isn't it up to Congress to determine whether the means of enforcement of their laws should be done in public, rather than the agency (which, BTW, clearly has something to hide)?

Where are they refusing to answer to congress? They want to answer the question ON THE RECORD in closed session.
 
I really wish the asshat Democrats would drop their War on Guns. If they did that, there might be other reasons that I could vote for them. As long as they wage the War on Guns, guess what, despite agreeing with them on some issues, they will never get my vote.
 
Kinda reenforces why the Second is so important

Why people don't have their pensions stripped, be tried for false imprisonment, lying under oath and anything else is beyond me. :banghead:
 
read the link in the Reason story about the House of Death; I started a thread on that one several months (maybe even a year) ago.

I read that link. It uses words like "apparently", "pending", and "may have". sounds like speculation to me. Has there been an investigation, a trial? Let's read what the author said "If true, this ought to be a scandal on par with Abu Ghraib".
 
Anything a little more recent than 40 years ago?

I'm going out on a limb here, but I think some things might have changed since 1965.
The truth on that just came out. It will take 20 or 30 years for the truth on anything presently being done.
 
Here is something more recent. An FBI whistle blower.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/11/25/60minutes/main530750.shtml
So what kind of message is being sent to officials like him at the FBI?

“Where are your loyalties? If they’re to the person that can advance your career then you will be loyal if you want to move on. If you want to take a stand and say, ‘Hey, enough’s enough, this is wrong. We can’t continue to operate this way’ then they’re doomed,” Roberts says.

As for the senior FBI officials whom Roberts found had committed misconduct at Ruby Ridge, all of them were promoted and - in some cases - given bonuses. One of them is Van Harp. Even though Roberts said Harp altered a report to cover up serious wrongdoing, Harp was promoted and awarded a bonus of $22,000. Harp now runs the FBI’s Washington field office and is heading the anthrax investigation.

The FBI itself says Harp did nothing wrong at Ruby Ridge, but last week, the Inspector General of the Justice Department released a report that endorsed John Roberts’ findings about the FBI’s handling of Ruby Ridge and his criticism of Harp. The report said the FBI’s handling of the incident was rife with misconduct, obstruction, and was, at best, grossly deficient and, at worst, intentionally slanted to protect the FBI and senior FBI officials. The report concludes that the "FBI suffered and still suffers from a strong perception that a double standard exists within the FBI.”

“John Roberts has been vindicated, but then you have to ask, of course, the obvious question: If he was vindicated, why all this retaliation against him, against his wife, why this effort to hold him up to ridicule?” asks Leahy.

“This is what it comes down to, this effort to send a signal, not just here in Washington, but in California and Texas, Illinois, everywhere else where the FBI are, that send a signal, don't blow the whistle. Don't be a whistleblower.”
 
So now I've read more about the house of death. You are upset because US government agents didn't do anything AFTER murders were committed in MEXICO? Murders assisted by Police officers and commanders in Mexico?

I'll agree that if they could they should have tried to put a stop to it, but we don't even know that Mexico would have cooperated.
 
Any time you make a human vice, Prostitution, Gambling Alcohol or Drugs, illegal, you create a lucrative black market run by violent criminals. The huge amount of money made outside the legal system, ensures violence on the part of the criminals to protect their valuable franchise since they can't use the courts to do it (drug dealers shooting each other is one result).

In order to catch and prosecute the violent criminals you have created, you have to use other violent criminals as informants and grant them immunity.
Or the Government agents have to become violent civil rights stomping criminals themselves.

When you make the drug addicts, gamblers, Johns criminals then they will not testify against their suppliers except under the threat of government violence.
The Addicts are less likely to seek treatment because they will be admitting to breaking the law.

Drug abuse needs to be treated like a health problem rather then a criminal one.
 
The problem of lawless law enforcement is not just endemic to the FBI. It extends to all federal agencies.

The USMS, in Indianapolis: http://www.wthr.com/Global/story.asp?S=6849110

Indianapolis supervising marshal alleges whistleblower violation

July 27, 2007 10:19 AM EDT

Indianapolis - A U.S. marshal is seeking protection under the Whistleblower Protection Act, claiming he was mistreated after he exposed wrongdoing within the agency's Indianapolis office.

Jason Wojdylo, a supervisory deputy with the U.S. Marshals Service, has filed a complaint alleging he was passed over for promotion, harassed by other deputies and transferred to San Antonio after reporting the alleged misdeeds to officials within the agency, said his attorney, Richard Waples.

The alleged retaliation came after Wojdylo exposed federal officers who obtained citizens' telecommunication records with a forged subpoena, broke into residences and vandalized the property of people who didn't cooperate with their investigations, the attorney said in a statement.

"Despite being ranked second in the nation among his peers in a merit-based promotion system, Mr. Wojdylo has been overlooked for career advancement within the USMS and has suffered other serious acts of reprisal, including attacks on his character that have hurt him both professionally and personally," Waples said.

A statement from the U.S. Marshal's Indianapolis office said it was aware of the investigation but would not answer questions about it.

"The U.S. Marshals Service takes all such allegations seriously and the District will continue cooperating fully with any reviews," the statement said.
 
Scorpiusdeus said:
Are you actually aware of a case where the FBI has knowingly allowed an innocent person to go to prison to protect a source? I'm not arguing, just curious, because I'm not finding that info in this article.
You need to look up the articles about this case. Two of the four men died in prison, the other two were in for extremely long periods of time. The FBI viewed their incarceration as "collateral damage."

It's small wonder the judge read the FBI out in his decision. Allowing innocent people to be imprisoned for crimes they didn't commit is so unconscionable that I can't even find words to express my contempt.
 
It is Time for agents, supervisors, Head’s of agency, justice dept prosecutors and attorneys generals to due jail time for this atrocity of justice.,
 
There's an old saying at home in central Alabama: "I stole this suit to be buried in, if my motive is good then where's the sin?"

Those old country folk at home sure were smart... too bad they don't get hired as FBI agents.

lpl/nc
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top