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.

9/11, ABC NEWS, AL QAEDA, AMERICAN EMPIRE, BILL CLINTON, BUREAUCRACY, CBS NEWS, CHRIS MATHEWS, CNN, DWIGHT EISENHOWER, FACEBOOK, FBI, FRANKLIN D. ROOSEVELT, GEORGE H.W. BUSH, GEORGE W. BUSH, GERALD R. FORD, HARRY S. TRUMAN, JIMMY CARTER, JOHN F. KENNEDY, LYNDON B. JOHNSON, MSNBC, NBC NEWS, NIGEL HAMILTON, OSAMA BIN LADEN, REPUBLICAN PARTY, RIAHCRD M. NIXON, ROMAN EMPIRE, SEPTEMBER 11, SUETONIUS, TERRORISM, THE HUFFINGTON POST, THE LOS ANGELES TIMES, THE NEW YORK TIMES, THE TWELVE CAESARS, TWITTER
SALUTING THE AMERICANS WHO GAVE US 9/11: PART THREE (END)
In Bureaucracy, History, Military, Politics, Social commentary on September 13, 2013 at 12:00 amColonel Brandt: “I wonder what we’ll do after we lose the war.”
Captain Kiesel: “Prepare for the next one.”
–“The Cross of Iron,” film by Sam Peckinpah
On September 12, 2001, President George W. Bush attended a meeting of the National Security Council.
“Why shouldn’t we go against Iraq, not just Al-Qaeda?” demanded Donald Rumsfeld, the Secretary of Defense.
Vice President Dick Cheney enthusiastically agreed.
Secretary of State Colin Powell then pointed out there was absolutely no evidence that Iraq had had anything to do with 9/11 or Al-Qaeda. And he added: “The American people want us to do something about Al-Qaeda”–-not Iraq.
On November 21, 2001, only 10 weeks after 9/11, Bush told Rumsfeld: It’s time to turn to Iraq.
Liars Club: Condoleeza Rice, Dick Cheney, George Bush, Donald Rumsfeld
Bush and his war-hungry Cabinet officials knew that Americans demanded vengeance on Al-Qaeda’s mastermind, Osama bin Laden, and not Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein,. So they repeatedly fabricated “links” between the two:
Yet as early as September 22, 2001, Bush had received a classified President’s Daily Brief intelligence report, which stated that there was no evidence linking Saddam Hussein to 9/11.
The report added that there was scant credible evidence that Iraq had any significant collaborative ties with Al-Qaeda.
Even more important: Saddam had tried to monitor Al Qaeda through his intelligence service-–because he saw Al-Qaeda and other theocratic radical Islamist organizations as a potential threat to his secular regime.
Bush administration officials repeatedly claimed that Iraq possessed huge quantities of chemical and biological weapons, in violation of UN resolutions. And they further claimed that US intelligence agencies had determined:
Among other lies stated as fact by members of the Bush administration:
Consider the following:
August 26, 2002: Cheney told the Veterans of Foreign Wars, “There is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction. There is no doubt he is amassing them to use against our friends, against our allies and against us.”
September 8, 2002: National Security Advisor Condoleeza Rice said on CNN: ”There is certainly evidence that Al-Qaeda people have been in Iraq. There is certainly evidence that Saddam Hussein cavorts with terrorists.”
September 18, 2002: Rumsfeld told the House Armed Services Committee, “We do know that the Iraqi regime has chemical and biological weapons. His regime has amassed large, clandestine stockpiles of chemical weapons—including VX, sarin, cyclosarin and mustard gas.”
October 7, 2002: Bush declared in a nationally televised speech in Cincinnati that Iraq “possesses and produces chemical and biological weapons. It is seeking nuclear weapons.”
March 16, 2003: Cheney declared on NBC’s “Meet the Press”: “We believe [Saddam Hussein] has, in fact, reconstituted nuclear weapons.”
March 30, 2003: On ABC’s “This Week” program, 10 days into the war, Rumsfeld said: “We know where they [weapons of mass destruction] are.”
Bush never regretted his decision to invade Iraq, which occurred on March 29, 2003.
Even as American occupying forces repeatedly failed to turn up any evidence of “weapons of mass destruction” (WMDs), Bush and his minions claimed the invasion a good thing.
In fact, Bush-–who hid out the Vietnam war in the Texas Air National Guard-–even joked publicly about the absence of WMDs.
He did so at a White House Correspondents dinner on March 24, 2004-–one year after he had started the war.
To Bush, the non-existent WMDs were nothing more than the butt of a joke that night. While an overhead projector displayed photos of a puzzled-looking Bush searching around the Oval Office, Bush recited a comedy routine.
Click here: Bush laughs at no WMD in Iraq – YouTube
“Those weapons of mass destruction have gotta be somewhere,” Bush laughed, while a photo showed him poking around the corners in the Oval Office.
“Nope-–no weapons over there! Maybe they’re under here,” he said, as a photo showed him looking under a desk.
Meanwhile, an assembly of wealthy, pampered men and women–-the elite of America’s media and political classes–-laughed heartily during Bush’s performance.
Ultimately, the war that Bush had deliberately provoked would
Share this: