Talk:Federal Bureau of Investigation

WHERE'S WHITEY?

Why no mention of the FBI's corruption of special agents, U.S. attorneys and federal judges in the Whitey Bulger case? A conspiracy to protect a serial murderer for decades and wrongfully imprison four men for Bulger's murders is a relevant part of the FBI story. Not including this sorry episode (with links) here makes the page look like it's been censored by the FBI.

Jurisdictional Issues

Federal Protective Service (United States) is a newcomer and competitor to the FBI in times of emergency and falls under the jurisdiction of the Department of Homeland Security. In critical moments, jurisdictional confusion and chaos generally follow disaster. Chaos costs lives when it comes to physical body trauma and shock. This article needs to get it sorted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.100.129.244 (talk) 05:48, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Old comment

An editor made a comment to a subpage, so it may have been missed by readers of this page. The subpage is likely to be deleted, so I am copying the comment here so it doesn't get lost. I don't see any action to take, but want the comment in the record.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 13:39, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

FBI agents: There was probably trace amounts of metal toxins due to the burning of technical equipment. I think you all are correct about arsons setting the 2007 October Fires.. Note Holly Berry's ex-husband's house was one of the homes consumed. She was in Great Britian at the time-Wales I think.......Also, were the avacados part of Jamie Fox's unknown location. His avacado garden he hired people to take care of that. There was I think Spanish talk going around a few months back. I told a little girl about it..Hollywood movie stars making real movies? Somebody paid them a lot of money that is all I know. They were not very friendly to me...Wal Mart in North Carolina. Hanzjo 04:54, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Neutrality: This is *not* a neutral article

This page reads like the PR office of the FBI wrote it.

The FBI is a *highly* controversial organization in the United States, with a 105-year history of continual abuse of civil and human rights - followed by a consistent pattern of claims that "this is in the past". That was true in 1920, it is true today. There are many that would call the FBI the Federal secret police, notwithstanding strong FBI protestations to the contrary.

Why is there no 'voice of criticism' in this article.

Again- it reads as-if written by the PR office of the FBI.

• "There were worried about this problem, but it was solved" (kind of a thing).
• "People have expressed concerns, but that isn't so" (like of a thing).
• "We have taken that into consideration, to make sure it isn't like that" (kind of a thing).

When the reality of the situation is that the FBI has, for over a hundred years, been the tool of crushing public dissent and the tool of persecution for any person deemed to be anathema to the state, in the United States.

The FBI has outright murdered people (notably during the Black Panther-era, also during the AIM investigations), has conducted campaigns of persecution for decades against certain persons (usually U.S. persons) and none of that is mentioned in this article. I am not mentioning blithe "criticism of the FBI". I making note of "missing pertinent information" about how the FBI operates on a continual, repetitive and inherent basis. Rabbit Eared Radio Antenae (talk) 07:24, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

I read the article and found abundant references to real and alleged FBI abuses of power. The problem being in cases like the ABSCAM investigations, allegations from Congress that its members were entrapped by FBI are no more probative from OUR standpoint in Wikipedia than FBI denials that such entrapment occurred - both sets of allegations could use a nice dose of WP:PROVEIT. As it stands, this is a fairly balanced article with one glaring omission, the Whitey Bulger case (and since Bulger was just convicted of the crimes of which he was accused, a definitive section on Bulger and his friend in the FBI could hardly have been written till now). loupgarous (talk) 17:26, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

We'd all like to see you produce evidence that qualifies under WP:PROVEIT of an ongoing FBI tradition of murder. The omission of the Whitey Bulger case would be close but not exactly probative of such - it was a case in which one Supervisory Special Agent went against FBI policy to help his personal friend and confidential informant James "Whitey" Bulger conceal several murders committed not at FBI instance, but simply to further Bulger's criminal career. If you can, indeed, prove that the FBI has sanctioned even one murder, please produce the evidence, by all means. loupgarous (talk) 17:19, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps a "Controversies" or similarly-headed section should be included? Mercy11 (talk) 02:42, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

I think such a section coverage [revised] would be a good idea; when one reads a book such as Curt Gentry's biography of J. Edgar Hoover (Gentry, Curt (1991). J. Edgar Hoover: The Man and the Secrets. Plume. ISBN 0-452-26904-0.), one finds ample evidence of ways that the FBI needs checks and balances from the rest of the society and government in order to keep the republic/representative democracy/constitutional democracy concepts from being hollowed out. Of course, this is true for any national police, counterintelligence agency, or intelligence agency within what aspires to be a democratic republic form of government (and the fact that the DDR called itself a democratic republic, and that the DPRK does so, shows how badly shit can go wrong behind a label). Bottom line, power corrupts; humans do bad shit when getting away with it seems likely, and being in such an organization can provide "opportunities" to get away with shit. Gentry's book provides plenty of info on the 1920s to 1970s; I haven't read others covering ≥1980s, but it would be nice to find the time. I doubt I will get around to building such a section anytime soon, but FWIW, commented here. As for how much the FBI will come periodically whitewash such a section: it would be interesting to conduct the experiment. Sadly I already don't have enough time to devote to WP editing, let alone adding this to the wish list. Wish more people contributed; someone could have done this item already. — ¾-10 04:09, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

I believe it also infiltrated other governments, paricularly in 20th century Latin America, with results ranging from changed election outcomes to deposing leaders, etc. Point being that controversies need not be limited to inside the USA only. If there are reliable sources, such controversial issues could be located in such section as well. Mercy11 (talk) 15:53, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Be careful with "Controversy" sections as they can come close to NPOV WP:STRUCTURE issues, see Wikipedia:Criticism "Editors should avoid having a separate section in an article devoted to criticism, controversies, or the like because these sections call undue attention to negative viewpoints. Instead, articles should present positive and negative viewpoints from reliable sources together, fairly, proportionately, and without bias." As described by criticism template, It is better to integrate the section's contents into the article as a whole, or rewrite the material. Morphh ^(talk) 17:33, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

True. You're right, it would be better to build coverage throughout the article. Regarding the reply above about murder (WP:PROVEIT etc), there's truth in both comments. Rabbit Eared is right that a "continual abuse of civil rights" happened, at least during J.E. Hoover's half century (Gentry's book and others document it), although loupgarous is right that it rarely included murder. And loupgarous is right that the current article version contains "abundant references to real and alleged FBI abuses of power", and yet it is still incomplete to the point that it does suffer from the "There were worries about this problem, but it was solved" (kind of a thing)" that Rabbit Eared mentioned. For example, the current version says "as long as the FBI did not break into a person's home to complete the tapping" and later "as long as they obtain a warrant beforehand". What's not stated in the following sentences is "...which sounded great on paper, but was later repeatedly violated" (which Gentry documents). So, on the one hand, it's not at all like a 20th Congress sort of thing, where a ton of extrajudicial murders happened and then later a de-Whatever-ization took place (de-Nazification, de-Stalinization, de-Baathification). But on the other hand, there's an upshot that isn't adequately covered. Really the lesson from the J.E. Hoover era is not that the U.S.'s constitutional democracy was trampled to death (it wasn't) but rather simply that most of the locks barring the door from such a thing happening, which Americans have traditionally prided themselves on, were left dangling open, which sounds tamer but is still scary because such a door left ajar is likely to get walked through eventually. The reason why constitutional law exists is to lock the door such that people trying to jimmy it are caught before they get completely through. They may all be crooks, but at least no 1 crook gets his hands on unlimited power. Anyway, barely have time to write these thoughts, let alone expand the content coverage, but can at least point at what would be needed, if anyone ever gets time. — ¾-10 00:42, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

• Section started. Tried to include as much as possible of what was listed above but may have missed some details. Mercy11 (talk) 03:46, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

link to COINTELPRO

can we please add a link to the COINTELPRO page where it is mentioned in the article? Thank you --Dhornbein (talk) 06:08, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

Done. It was already linked in one section; but I linked it at first mention in another section because if a reader goes straight there, then it's the first mention that they see. — ¾-10 17:10, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

No reference to ABSCAM

There is no reference to the FBI operation, termed ABSCAM, during the late 70s. This was a significant operation for the FBI, an historic turning point, and one of heightened controversy, especially for the FBI use of questionable entrapment methods and their perceived prosecution of congressional democrats in response to the Church Committee investigations of the FBI.

In the wake of Abscam, Attorney General Benjamin Civilett issued "The Attorney General Guidelines for FBI Undercover Operations" ("Civiletti Undercover Guidelines") on January 5, 1981. These were the first Attorney General Guidelines for undercover operations, and they formalized procedures necessary to conduct undercover operations.

Additional reference could be made to the 2013 film, American Hustle, as an exploration of the moral issues surrounding the FBI ABSCAM operation.