Foley Lessons, 9-11: How DoJ Enables Illegal Presidential War Crimes

Criminals Manipulate Judicial System, Blame Victims -- Law Enforcement Admits They Ignored Indicators of Unusual Behavior

Ref Like after 9-11, the FBI is admitting with Foley that they blew it. Again. This is a recurring pattern in law enforcement which needs attention.

Canine dog handlers in law enforcement [k9] sometimes have electronic shock collars on their K9 dogs to punish the dog if it refuses to obey handler commands.

___ [snark] What is the plan of the Department of Justice to put K9 Dog Collars on Law Enforcement: Give We the People the chance to press a button, "ZAP" -- "Bad crisis management officer, you are not looking at the right problem."

Ref: Unchecked abuse of power supported the Nazis. Here is what happens when a Foley-like denial becomes a national, illegal psychology: Details -- Similar to what is going on with the President's singing statements to illegally open private mail witout a warrant. Denial feeds the problem, especially when the valid concerns get turned on their head: The denials are not challenged; and those raising the valid concerns are targeted.

The error is for law enforcement to fail to realize they have been manipulated by suspects to do nothing about valid concerns; but have been manipulated to target the wrong people. Nazis used this shell game approach to accountabilility to expand their power, expand warfare, and stretch their borders beyond what imprudence could not sustain. At the foundation of this recklessness is stupid people in positions of power who, using abuse to avoid consequences for their incompetence and reckless results, are exploited by more competent manipulators.

* * *

Suspects are experts at manipulating law enforcement to not respond to valid indicators of problems, but target concerned citizens proving law enforcement leads. Imagine you're a 17-year-old female, attempting to end unwanted harassment from a male admirer. When law enforcement believes the male's denials, but targets the victim for "wasting law enforcement time," law enforcement offers assigned to "crisis management" hardly inspire confidence when they accuse the victim of having "psychological problems."

___ WHen do the officers assigned to the "crisis management unit" plan to pull their head out of their rear-end, stop making excuses, and act professionally at all times; not make excuses to treat concerned citizens with arrogance?

Something may not be a crime, but if the activity were appropriate it should continue despite the confronation with law enforcement. Suspects who change their behavior may not be criminals, but it suggests the original reports of unusual behavior and the law enforcement response correctly focused attention on the suspect. The error is for law enforcement to believe the suspects denials, and target the concerned citizen with more vigor than they applied to the suspect.

This investigation sloppiness is arrogance, and helps explain why criminal conduct occurs, is rewarded. Evetually, when enough people are in power who can shift attention from their criminal conduct, and blame the messenger, they are able to manipulate a nation to wage an illegal war based on illusory evidence; and despite deffeat, convince the nation to mobilize for a second war, despite having no demonstrated competence for effecitve planning.

The Bush Administration is a criminal enterprise disguised as competent government. They have a cast of enablers in law enforcement targeting concerned citizens, and beliving the deception of criminals. Birds of a feather.

* * *

Ref How many concerned citizens has law enforcement openly attacked because they dared to do what a reasonable, responsible citizen might do: Raise issues of concern to law enforcement related to unusual behavior.

The arrogance is for Law Enforcement to use the concerned public reseponse as a basis to target the cooperating public; and fail to direct their focuse to those who are abusing, undermining, and manipulating the criminal justice system for their illegal objectives.


Foley, FBI, and the 9-11 Indicators

Before Sept 2001 events, I publicly shared specific concerns with a disturbing pattern of conduct. I documented my concerns in July 2001, outlining the risks if there were problems; specifically pointing to solutions and recommendations. Sadly my efforts to communicate were ineffectual. ( Sample: Ref: See post kw=[ 14 June 2001 04:20 PM ] )

My reason for commenting in 2007 is to share the same views as they relate to law enforcement and concerned citizens. The same problem we had prior to Sept 2001 -- that of people not listening, and making excuses to target the cooperative private citizen -- continues.

Disturbingly, despite the lessons of Sept 2001 and the "solution" of removed firewalls between the CIA and FBI, the communication problem continues, as evidenced by the Foley Scandal. The FBI was given specific information called an "investigative lead," which they ignored as "not criminal."

Suspicious beavhior does not wave a sign of "criminal" but it relates to conduct which warrants further review, examination, understanding.

If, after law enforcement reviews the issue, the conduct changes, that is fine. The error is to ignore the change in behavior, and pretend the suspect's conduct or explanations do not deserve followup.

It appears the FBI, rather than reviewing the information and inquiring, may have relied on denials from the very people who had an interest not to have the activity examined.

When suspects chang their behavior after an interaction with law enforcement, they cannot credibly claim that the concerns were invalid. If the unusualu behavior was explanable, the unusual conduct should continue; when the suspect pretends that the "issue" is with the "person making the complaint," yet the suspect has chagned tehir behavior, there is a simple message:

1. The suspect undersatnds there is no plausible explanation for the activity;

2. The activity is not appropriate;

3. The activity has been observed;

4. THe conduct has been reported and is under examination;

The goal of the suspect isn't to asgree with the investigator or say, "Yes, I agree that I'm doing that; i will stop." Rather, they take the defensive approach, but appear to act stupid, doign the following:

A. Acting stupid about the qauestioned conduct;

B. FOcusing attgention on the confusion and those who have raised the issue;

C. Despite their feigned ignorance about the problem, they immediately change their behavior, communicating clearly: They fully understand the concern, and do no twant to do something to attract attention.

The way forward is not to accept the suspect's denial on its face; but to reconsider the original reports; then examine teh subsequent conduct; and consider the following:

1. Did the suspect deny something that they knew was true;

2. Based on the suspects response -- their change in actions -- is it clear that th esuepct knew their actions were a problem; and understood the qauestion from law enforcemente; but they are inappropriately hoping to mislead law enforcement about whether the concern is or is no treal;

3. To what extent do the suspects behaviors -- warranting concern and a report -- square with the first reports; and how does the suspect change their conduct, feign igorance, or attempt to shift attention to something else?

4. Has there been a credible reconciilation between [a] the original reports; [b] the observed behavior; [c] the suspects explanations; and [d] the change in behavior?

* * *

Suspects who are good manipulators will do the following:

A. Provoke an incident

B. Test who is or is not responding to unusual activity;

C. Evaluate how long it takes for a report to get filed;

D. When asked about the unusual conduct, they'll feign stupidity, asking who may be concerned [thereby identifiying teh informants]

E. Play off the reports as nothing

F. Hope to hide the fact that they have changed their behavior, validating the merits of the origina concern;

G. Then target for subsequnnt harassment the indiviauls who provided the original information to do the following: Silence the most outspoken; create an example; ensure they are beyond attention; and create the impression that the origianl concerns were no twarranted, and the "problem" lies with those who are raising the concerns.

H. Continue with their conduct, confident that law enforcement has been reassured that they are "not doing anyting wrong," thereby manipularing law enforcement to conclude that the suspect is not doing anyting wrong; and the problem lies with the most observant.

* * *

Foley: The Excuse of "it's not a crime."

Wow, looks like more of the Field Training Officer [FTO] approach: "If you don't want to spend time processing paperwork, tell the public that the unusual behavior -- that warrants review -- is 'not a crime'."

Valid indicators of unusual behavior prior to Sept 2001 were rebuffed. The error is for JTTF and law enforcement to ignore these indicators; do nothing about valid responses; then blame the people daring to come forward.

In this situation, CREW stepped forward, did the right thing, and the FBI arrogantly accused CREW of doing something wrong. This is outrageous, and invites additional Congressional scrutiny:

1. Why despite the "lessons" of 9-11 is law enforcement treating informants and concerned citizens with disdain?

2. Why bother sending FBI agents to school if the public, despite knowing the rules of evidence and US Attorney manual better, STILL is rebuffed with law enforcement laziness?

It is arrogant for the American law enforcement to whine that "nobody cares," only to openly attack the people at CREW who dares to do the right thing. WE have the makings of another 9-11, not because of what others are or are not doing, but because of the SAME roadblocks to getting information into the system DESPITE having removed the roadblocks between the CIA and FBI.

We have less privacy, and less security; and the American law enforcement is unreasonably using the public response, and effort to assist, as a basis to accuse the public of having problems. The problem exists with the arrogant management in the American law enforcement who refuse to pull their head out of their rear-end: People, trying to help, are directly attacked by law enforcement reducing the chances. If only the FBI were as arrogant with criminals -- oh, wait they do that -- they violate the Geneva Conventions.

* * *

The danger is when the public is induced to keep quiet about minority abuses, fearing retalation. How many more warnings are needed? [ Beware the Leader]