FBI allowed informants to commit 5,658 crimes in 2011

Well this is alarming to say the least.

It looks like the FBI is out of control too.

I wonder if the current Administration was aware, and even encouraged some 'selective' activity to benefit any of their 'friends'. Perhaps a clever back door technique.

Very suspicious.

I also wonder how some of this was even justified, as it certainly produced many innocent victims.

Sacrifice a few victims to get a few convictions and maybe some profits too while we're at it ??

Well ?

WASHINGTON — The FBI gave its informants permission to break the law at least 5,658 times in a single year, according to newly disclosed documents that show just how often the nation's top law enforcement agency enlists criminals to help it battle crime.

The U.S. Justice Department ordered the FBI to begin tracking crimes by its informants more than a decade ago, after the agency admitted that its agents had allowed Boston mobster James "Whitey" Bulger to operate a brutal crime ring in exchange for information about the Mafia. The FBI submits that tally to top Justice Department officials each year, but has never before made it public.

Agents authorized 15 crimes a day, on average, including everything from buying and selling illegal drugs to bribing government officials and plotting robberies. FBI officials have said in the past that permitting their informants — who are often criminals themselves — to break the law is an indispensable, if sometimes distasteful, part of investigating criminal organizations.

Exclusive: FBI allowed informants to commit 5,600 crimes


Link to the FOIA document

"It sounds like a lot, but you have to keep it in context," said Shawn Henry, who supervised criminal investigations for the FBI until he retired last year. "This is not done in a vacuum. It's not done randomly. It's not taken lightly."

reply to post by xuenchen


X.....

Just think of what Hoover "allowed", back in the day.

reply to post by xuenchen


I believe any seismic rumbling we see recorded in the D.C. area will just be J. Edgar Hoover rolling in his grave like a child's toy spinning in a blur.

He was many things and liked isn't often described as one of them. However, he did bust his hump to keep the FBI OUT of drugs, racketeering and undercover of ANY kind. This was WHY. He wanted just one place. ONE agency in Law Enforcement that stayed above the gutter of professional corruption. He'd just cry like a baby to see what has become of his beloved Bureau, in my opinion. It's become no better than a big city vice squad with cowboy anti-terrorist agents tossed in for the special effects when needed.

If you want to know why they are building bunkers in the middle of the US, it's not because of some outside perceived threat, it's the complete planning for the controlled failure of the united states of America, seems it's been in play for the past 30 years or so.

FBI needs to keep their funding so they need infomation, they don't work with other ABC branches so how else can they get their info, if they don't let their informants create the intel, duh.

If you need to keep your job as the Criminal catchers, you must create more criminals 1st that your job goes after.

Haven't you learned anything from watching American CON-gress?

For some odd reason this thread reminds me of Informer by Snow.

Everyone is getting away with crimes these days from the top of the state, to it's gestapo agencies to people coming here illegally.

And people like us who are not doing anything wrong have become 'criminals'.

What a truly messed up world we live in.

reply to post by neo96


When you allow money to gain power via it's necessity for living easier you also give rise to a future government that will not be made of people who care about people but people who care about money.

How can no one else understand that money corrupts power? So why are we allowing those in power to handle money? Maybe we need to have Separation of Money and State.

It's because "We the people " have become " Ouch My boo Boo " an constantly ask for help when we need limit what is done between government and the people.

Those are the ones that were reported. Double or triple it and you have the truth. That's typical for the crimes caught, there are more unseen.

There are probably 10 smaller agents doing hard work for the 1 crooked agent who got comfy taking the free tickets to the games, or the one cyber-spying for personal profit, selling out forensic intel in exchange for drugs, or doing whatever it takes to make a surveillance for TV production with the NSA, or just the simple hate crimes on religion or ethnic backgrounds which lead to neglect to do a duty.

Like, locally, I suspect my neighbors claim FBI-dom, and have the spy toys that are newer for the agency, camped outside, on an investigation. And then I see fugitives running by, missing kids in the spy house yard, a sex offender at the spy house, the info I mention in my house gets hijacked and sold out to the black market, etc. Oh but the local government thinks they have to stay because they are the ones doing the crimes. Do those crimes get listed as part of that number, or just the ones that make it to a courtroom?

They wait around until the criminals do the crimes that they want them to commit before the criminals get arrested. The second big problem is the cartel affiliations of government representatives.

It's a formula. If you have three criminals in a house, you have a crooked law enforcement person somewhere. Same thing here, except go up a tier. If you have three criminals in the FBI, you have a crooked supervisor person somewhere who chose to go along with the corruption instead of standing against it. So let's take that number 5658, there's at least one criminal per crime, divide that by three and you have, 1,886 crooked agents backing that up. Hmmm, whatever shall be done about that?

Damn, I wanted to post to the other thread, but I will copypasta:
A quote from myself:

I wonder what happened to entrapment laws along the way? Seriously. In all of North America. Somehow I felt like when I was a kid there actually was something defined as entrapment and maybe there was actually some difference between the one side and the other. But as I've grown, so have the tactics that have been used. And perhaps it was always like this but I didn't see it until now.

Originally posted by boncho

Seems he was a "Snitch" from many years passed. There is something like 40 murders he's credited with, which makes me wonder about a much darker "conspiracy" if you will.

For him to be involved in all that he was, and with such a long criminal career with so many bodies involved, and working as an informant for the feds, it really makes me wonder if the most successful criminals are the ones who are backed by the government.

Sure they "help" the government for the war on _______, but it seems like a good number simply get passes on all their crimes just turning in others to keep themselves going.

Isn't that just state sponsored gangsterism in another dress? Seems it really doesn't pay to be a "stand up guy" anymore. Imagine the types of behaviour they are promoting.

What happened to "Zero Tolerance" ?

You can either support something or you can oppose something. But if our actions are needed to "stop" what we are fighting, then we are just supporting what we oppose.

It's a little ironic, that in the news we see the racial crusaders and/or the homophobic zealots who end up getting caught being a bigot or being a closet homosexual, and it seems with crime it's no different.

Then there's the old saying, "to catch one, you have to become one."

I think it goes beyond simple entrapment however, I think it boils down to the entire inner workings and profiting from the actions which are claimed to be against the official accepted behaviour.

What do I mean?

Well.

If police and government profit off of illegal actions. If they bust criminals simply to take and use their money, they are operating on the proceeds of crime. They are benefiting from the proceeds of a criminal organization.

It would only make sense then for them to encourage this type of behaviour some how (discreetly or indirectly) so they could "bring down the bad guy" and earn another pay check.

Originally posted by Wrabbit2000
reply to post by xuenchen

 

He wanted just one place. ONE agency in Law Enforcement that stayed above the gutter of professional corruption.

Are you talking about the same J Edgar Hoover who authorized surveillance on Marilyn Monroe so he could get some dirt on the Kennedy brothers? Are you talking about the same J Edgar Hoover who authorized surveillance on Martin Luther King to black mail him? Is that the principled and righteous J Edgar Hoover you are referring to?

reply to post by groingrinder


Yup... The same Hoover who'd rather look like a complete idiot with his head in the sand than admit the Mafia existed at all for the need it would raise to do something about it. He made it very clear in what he said and wrote across both public statements and personal notes to come out after his death that his priorities included keeping the FBI out of the gutter trap which is becoming a criminal to catch one.

Like I said.. Hoover had a thousand faults but he could have been the worst man the world has ever seen birthed....it still remains that he worked his life to keep the FBI out of the areas that directly lead to corruption because the methods basically require it. After all, they ARE corrupt. They just :"fake" it to get the bad guys.....then try and convince us they know when to turn that off. Yeah.....it's that last part they can't seem to keep right and why it was avoided entirely and should have stayed that way.