Posted on 05/31/2002 12:46:35 PM PDT by Asmodeus
Edited on 04/22/2004 12:33:40 AM PDT by Jim Robinson. [history]
WASHINGTON
(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...
Which would hopefully include fundamental interview procedures.
[quote]When asked about the backwardness of the FBI in not having its agents tape record their interviews, Dr. Whitehurst said this is because they don't want to be tied down to what the person being interviewed actually says. They want to be able to embroider the interview or trim it. He said he had recommended equipping all the agents with eyeglasses that have a built-in video camera that will record both what is said and what the agent can see. He said that was rejected. It would deprive the agents of their freedom to misreport what the witnesses had said. [end quote] Source - Accuracy In Media
The FBI 302 Form Interview Procedure
Routinely, two agents conduct the interview, usually one asking the questions while the other takes notes on a pocket pad and sometime later dictates a summary of the interview which dictation is sometime later transcribed on a 302 form which is eventually returned to the agent for review and signature (or any corrections, additions or deletions he might consider appropriate). It's not evidence of what the agents or the person interviewed actually said. At best, it's the agent's recollection of what was said. At worst, it's an invitation to skullduggery and - keeping in mind the information is Intelligence - potentially horrendous peril for all Americans as the obvious Intelligence breakdown prior to the events of 11 September 2001 dramatized.
The 302 procedure guarantees that even the interviewing agents' Supervisors have no way of knowing what was actually said - and not said - by any of those present, much less whether the interview was thorough and complete.</font size>
http://www.ntsb.gov/events/TWA800/Transcript_8_23_3.htm
[excerpt][quote] " . . . . . the FBI did not make any transcripts or recordings of these interviews. Documents are written in the words of the FBI agents who prepared them. Some of the documents contain incomplete information or are vaguely worded. In other words, the documents may not always say what the witness said." [end quote]
http://www.law.emory.edu/4circuit/june96/945902.p.html
[excerpt][quote] "Thus, when a government agent interviews a witness and takes contemporaneous notes of the witness' responses, the notes do not become the witness' statement- - despite the agent's best efforts to be accurate- - if the agent "does not read back, or the witness does not read, what the [agent] has written." Goldberg v. United States, 425 U.S. 94, 110- 11 n.19 (1976). And a government agent's interview notes that "merely select portions, albeit accurately, from a lengthy oral recital" do not satisfy the Jencks Act's requirement of a "substantially verbatim recital." Palermo, 360 U.S. at 352. [end quote]
In short, the FBI 302 form interview summaries are not "witness reports" or "witness statements" or "witness declarations" and don't document anything said during the interviews.
Why does the FBI cling to the 302 interview procedure?
To tilt the playing field in the prosecutions' favor in the event of an arrest by avoiding the documentation of any suggestive "leading" questions by the agents and any exculpatory statements that might be made by those being interviewed or even the agents themselves.
Trial lawyers dealing with cases involving FBI 302 form interview summaries instead of recorded interviews and the transcripts of those recorded interviews routinely raise hell about it not just those reasons but also for the the obvious reason that they can neither hear for themselves everything both the witness and the interviewer actually said nor read everything both the witness and the interviewer actually said.
The press is well aware of the problem, as the following documents, but have done a poor job of bringing it to the attention of the public.
http://www.usdoj.gov/ag/speeches/1998/jan1598.htm
[quote]
QUESTION: After the Nichols trial, there was some concern on the part of some of the jurors there about the fact -- and this comes up from time to time -- that the FBI does not transcribe interviews, it does this form 302. And every once in a while somebody says, you know, that it is not the best evidence, 302's are summaries of what something thinks somebody said. And people, every once in a while, look at whether the FBI should change that.
Is that anything that is being looked at? During the time you have been Attorney General, has anyone ever suggested that the FBI ought to change that practice?
ATTORNEY GENERAL RENO: I have heard it on occasions and have discussed it with Director Freeh. I cannot discuss it in the context of this particular case.
QUESTION: But as a general matter, is that something that is pretty much a dead letter now?
ATTORNEY GENERAL RENO: As always, we continue to review each issues, the circumstances of the issue in the context it arises, to see what is appropriate. But, again, with respect to this matter, in this case, I cannot discuss it.
QUESTION: Yes, but as a general matter, does it strike you as a good idea, the way the FBI does the 302's? Do you see any need to change that?
ATTORNEY GENERAL RENO: I think, each case, you have got to look at it on a case-by-case basis, and I think that is what the Bureau does.
QUESTION: Are you saying that they sometimes use a tape recorder?
ATTORNEY GENERAL RENO: Again, I think you have to look at the specific examples of each case and make the best judgment of what is right in that case.
QUESTION: (Off microphone) -- some have suggested the FBI should no longer use this form 302, and should go to a transcription of interviews. Would that be a good idea, in your view?
ATTORNEY GENERAL RENO: Again, you are going to have to look at the whole matter: each case, when you interview, who you interview, what the circumstances are.
QUESTION: But the FBI has a policy that applies to all cases all the time, that they do not tape record their interviews.
ATTORNEY GENERAL RENO: I will be happy to check with Director Freeh and clarify anything that I have said. But, again, I cannot comment on this particular case. And I think you have got to look at the larger picture. [end quote]
Janet Reno obviously chose to engage in wiggleworming when publicly confronted with the indefensible FBI 302 form interview procedure.
Los Angeles Times 7-31-2001 Hearings Open on Mueller
Senate: Bush's pick to head the FBI tells panel his "highest priority" is to restore public's trust in the battle-weary bureau. [excerpt] " . . . . . he said he would consider expanded tape-recording of FBI interviews to give its investigations greater credibility--another idea the bureau has resisted through the years." [end excerpt]
Oh, really. It is abundantly clear where HIS loyalty lies. I wonder how many better-qualified and loyal caucasians were passed by when the agency found this puke. In the interest of PC diversity, we are substantaiily less secure. And I wonder how many of the enemy have infiltrated our governmet and it's agencies (military, justice, etc.). Recall how in Afghanistan and Pakistan how, when working with the Paki military, every time a "surprise" raid was conducted, the nest was empty. It's going to be the same here, thanks to the PC leftists. We have become a nation led by fools.
That should be grounds for termination of one's federal employment.
"Oh, really. It is abundantly clear where HIS loyalty lies. I wonder how many better-qualified and loyal caucasians were passed by when the agency found this puke. In the interest of PC diversity, we are substantaiily less secure. And I wonder how many of the enemy have infiltrated our governmet and it's agencies (military, justice, etc.). Recall how in Afghanistan and Pakistan how, when working with the Paki military, every time a "surprise" raid was conducted, the nest was empty. It's going to be the same here, thanks to the PC leftists. We have become a nation led by fools."
Although politcal correctness in hiring has been a major factor in the mass of mess the FBI has become, the same is true in all government agencies at all levels of government from local to Federal and has made it more difficult for free interprise firms to be as productive as they otherwise could have been - but in this instance it was not a factor.
To effectively combat terrorism, foreign and domestic, the FBI and CIA [which is supposed to fully share intelligence it gathers with the FBI] need all the Muslim investigators they can get and some consider it a religious taboo to record another Muslim - which was the situation in this instance as acknowledged by both Klayman and Wright during the Judicial Watch press conference who also made it clear the loyalty of the Muslim investigator to the United States has never been in doubt.
They also pointed out that it is imperative to use agents devout in their religion in investigations of suspects devout in the same religion as dramatized by the use of a devout Jew in the interviews of another devout Jew, Jonathan Pollard.
But seriously, this sucks.
They also pointed out that it is imperative to use agents devout in their religion in investigations of suspects devout in the same religion as dramatized by the use of a devout Jew in the interviews of another devout Jew, Jonathan Pollard.
All of the above may be true. My initial reaction to this is: if the agent can't handle all aspects of the job, maybe he/she shouldn't be in the job. Upon further reflection, I suppose the agency could tailor the agent's responsibilities to avoid this conflict. But I have a great deal of difficulty with this. The agency has an obligation to define the job description and responsibilities based on the needs of the agency -- and thus, the needs of the people of the USA. The greater need is to those the agent has sworn a duty to serve. The people's needs must trump the agent's needs.
There are many agents in many government agencies throughout the world who are, for example, Roman Catholics. In Catholicism, it is forbidden to murder. Some say that all killing is murder, but this is another discussion. Nonetheless, Catholic agents seem to be able to adapt to the requirements of the job when killing is required of them. Why should Muslims be given special treatment? And where would this lead? Every job description will be subject to modification based on the religious views(and why stop there -- why not any views)of the jobholder? On Saturday all Jewish agents get the day off, no matter the cirumstances? This is simply nonsense. When holding a job, one either follows through with the requirements of the job or recuses themselve (e.g they resign).
Having said my piece, I understand the significance of recruiting agents who can gather intel from the groups that are under investigation. If the need is great enough, it might be perfectly acceptable for management to adjust the job description as they see fit. But this should be a management decision.
PS: I agree with you that the PC problem pervades all levels of government, to our detriment.
That's appears to be where the FBI blew it by reportedly just stopping the investigation Wright was conducting. Wright and Klayman had to be careful in discussing it with the press but clearly appeared to believe that continuing the investigation would have shortly resulted in cutting off the money supply to terrorists in the U.S. and that the 19 highjackers on 9/11 wouldn't even have gotten started with the expensive preparation toward their goal for lack of funds.
Here's another fairly recent example:
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.