The Federal Bureau of Investigation has always encouraged Americans to report anything they consider a threat to national security or a violation of Federal law.
But recently the FBI has adopted a practice that is almost certain to sharply decrease the number of people willing to report knowledge of a crime.
Earlier this year, a friend of mine named Jim visited the San Francisco field office of the FBI. He wanted to report a violation of Federal computer fraud and harassment laws.
This meant visiting the San Francisco Federal Building (technically named the Phillip Burton Federal Building, in honor of the late San Francisco Congressman).
At 450 Golden Gate Avenue, located close to the Civic Center and City Hall, it serves as a courthouse of the United States District Court for the Northern District of California.
It also lhouses offices for such Federal law enforcement agencies as the FBI, Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms, Drug Enforcement Administration and U.S. Marshal’s Service.
To enter, you must first show a driver’s license or State ID card. Then you must remove
- Your belt
- Your shoes
- Your watch
- Your wallet
- All other objects from your pants pockets
- Any jacket you’re wearing
- Any cell phone you’re carrying
All of these must be placed in one or more large plastic containers, which are run through an x-ray scanner.
Then, assuming you avoid setting off any alarm system, you’re set for your next big screen test.
This comes when you enter the 13th floor office of the FBI.
According to Jim: You walk into a large room filled with several comfortable chairs that sit close to the floor. Ahead is a window such as you find in a bank–made of thick, presumably bulletproof glass.
A secretary on the opposite side greets you, and asks why you’ve come.
You say that you want to speak with an agent about what you believe is a violation of Federal law.
If you’ve done your homework, you should know at least the general legal area this violation falls under. And you’re even better-off if you know what division of the FBI is assigned to handle it.
For example: Jim knew the acts he wanted to report were a violation of Federal anti-computer hacking and harassment laws. He also knew that these violations are handled by the FBI’s Cybercrime Division.
So he asked to speak with an agent from that division.
The secretary said she would see what she could do. But before he could speak with an agent, he would have to show her his driver’s license or State ID card.
The secretary made a xerox of this, and then handed the card back.
Then, as if that wasn’t enough, he had to fill out a single-page form, where he was required to provide his:
- Name
- Address
- Phone number
- Social Security Number
- The reason he wanted to speak to an agent
Of course, he could refuse to fill out the form. But then the secretary would refuse to let him meet with an FBI agent to gain help in resolving his problem.
In Jim’s case, his request to speak with an agent specializing in Cybercrime was denied. He would up speaking instead with the “duty agent”–whichever luckless person has been assigned to deal with the public that day.
Unofficially, the “duty agent” is the one who takes the “nut calls” from, among others, the mentally disabled who claim they’re picking up KGB transmissions in the fillings of their teeth.
In Jim’s case, the “duty agent” he drew specialized in Gang Violence. While this is definitely a worthy subject for investigation, it had nothing to do with the matter Jim wanted to talk about.
The agent candidly said he knew nothing about cybercrime. Which meant he couldn’t give Jim even the barest information about what he might expect to happen after submitting his report.
Fortunately, Jim had thought ahead enough to write up a detailed, three-page report of the cyber attacks he had recently experienced. He now gave this to the agent.
The agent promised to forward it to the Cybercrime Division.
Jim asked when he might hear from someone there. The agent said this was highly unlikely.
Jim was surprised. The agent was in turn surprised that Jim would expect anyone to get back to him.
“I would think,” said Jim, “they would want to ask me a few questions. And give me some idea as to what was going on in my case.”
The agent said that if the FBI wanted more information, they would contact him. And, no, they wouldn’t give him any hints about what–if anything–was happening in his case.
That was assuming they chose to investigate it.
No one at the FBI ever contacted Jim.
So if you want to report a crime to the FBI, be prepared to give up a lot of your own privacy beforehand.
And don’t expect to receive even the courtesy of a call-back in exchange for all of it.
ABC NEWS, ALVARO OBREGON, ANCHOR BABIES, CBS NEWS, CNN, DREAM ACT, EMILIANO ZAPATA, FACEBOOK, FELIPE CALDERON, FRANCISCO MADERO, illegal immigration, Kamala Harris, LA RAZA, MEXICAN REVOLUTION, MEXICO, MSNBC, NBC NEWS, PANCHO VILLA, RACIAL PROFILING, THE HUFFINGTON POST, THE LOS ANGELES TIMES, THE NEW YORK TIMES, THE WASHINGTON POST, TWITTER, VENUSTIANO CARRANZA
REAL IMMIGRATION REFORM
In Bureaucracy, Law, Law Enforcement, Politics, Social commentary, Uncategorized on September 26, 2013 at 12:02 amIf Americans decide they truly want to control access to their own borders, there is a realistic way to accomplish this.
(1) The Justice Department should vigorously attack the “sanctuary movement” that officially thwarts the immigration laws of the United States.
Among the 31 “sanctuary cities” of this country: Washington, D.C.; New York City; Los Angeles; Chicago; San Francisco; Santa Ana; San Diego; Salt Lake City; Phoenix; Dallas; Houston; Austin; Detroit; Jersey City; Minneapolis; Miami; Denver; Baltimore; Seattle; Portland, Oregon; New Haven, Connecticut; and Portland, Maine.
These cities have adopted “sanctuary” ordinances that do not allow municipal funds or resources to be used to enforce federal immigration laws, usually by not allowing police or municipal employees to inquire about one’s immigration status.
(2) The most effective way to combat this movement: Indict the highest-ranking officials of those cities who have actively violated Federal immigration laws.
In San Francisco, for example, former District Attorney Kamala Harris—who is now California’s Attorney General—created a secret program called Back on Track, which provided training for jobs that illegal aliens could not legally hold.
She also prevented Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) from deporting even those illegal aliens convicted of a felony.
(3) Indicting such officials would be comparable to the way President Andrew Jackson dealt with the threat South Carolinians once made to “nullify” any Federal laws they didn’t like.
Jackson quashed that threat by making one of his own: To lead an army into that State and purge all who dared defy the laws of the Federal Government.
(4) Even if some indicted officials escaped conviction, the results would prove worthwhile.
City officials would be forced to spend huge sums of their own money for attorneys and face months or even years of prosecution.
And this, in turn, would send a devastating warning to officials in other “sanctuary cities” that the same fate lies in store for them.
(5) CEOs whose companies–like Wal-Mart–systematically employ illegal aliens should be held directly accountable for the actions of their subordinates.
They should be indicted by the Justice Department under the Racketeer Influenced Corrupt Organizations (RICO) Act, the way Mafia bosses are prosecuted for ordering their own subordinates to commit crimes.
Upon conviction, the CEO should be sentenced to a mandatory prison term of at least twenty years.
This would prove a more effective remedy for combating illegal immigration than stationing tens of thousands of soldiers on the U.S./Mexican border. CEOs forced to account for their subordinates’ actions would take drastic steps to ensure that their companies strictly complied with Federal immigration laws.
Without employers luring illegal aliens at a fraction of the money paid to American workers, the flood of such illegal job-seekers would quickly dry up.
(6) The Government should stop granting automatic citizenship to “anchor babies” born to illegal aliens in the United States.
A comparable practice would be allowing bank robbers who had eluded the FBI to keep their illegally-obtained loot.
A person who violates the bank robbery laws of the United States is legally prosecutable for bank robbery, whether he’s immediately arrested or remains uncaught for years. The same should be true for those born illegally within this country.
If they’re not here legally at the time of birth, they should not be considered citizens and should–like their parents–be subject to deportation.
(7) The United States Government–from the President on down–should scrap its apologetic tone on the right to control its national borders.
The Mexican Government doesn’t hesitate to apply strict laws to those immigrating to Mexico. And it feels no need to apologize for this.
Neither should we.
(8) Voting materials and ballots should be published in one language: English.
In Mexico, voting materials are published in one language–Spanish.
Throughout the United States, millions of Mexican illegals refuse to learn English and yet demand that voting materials and ballots be made available to them in Spanish.
(9) Those who are not legal citizens of the United States should not be allowed to vote in its elections.
In Mexico, those who are not Mexican citizens are not allowed to participate in the country’s elections.
The Mexican Government doesn’t consider itself racist for strictly enforcing its immigration laws.
The United States Government should not consider itself racist for insisting on the right to do the same.
(10) The United States should impose economic and even military sanctions against countries–such as China and Mexico–whose citizens make up the bulk of illegal aliens.
Mexico, for example, uses its American border to rid itself of those who might demand major reforms in the country’s political and economic institutions.
Such nations must learn that dumping their unwanteds on the United States now comes at an unaffordably high price. Otherwise those dumpings will continue.
Share this:
Like this: