Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The Last Diplomat

wsj.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–59 of 59 posts

Re: The Last Diplomat

#51

Post by rpeden »

wheelerwj wrote: post #16
wolf550e wrote: post #14

I have a little off topic question. The article says that after months of investigating a career diplomat with 40 years of service under suspicion that she turned and now works as a Pakistani spy in the US... >> Two FBI agents approached her, their faces stony. “Do you know any foreigners?” they asked Why do cops ask such questions? What is this investigative technique supposed to achieve? Make the suspect angry so t…

they ask some of the most ridiculous questions trying to trip you and make you say stuff you don't mean or isn't true. Like, "do you know any foreigners?" turns into "why didn't you disclose that telationship, did they pay you money?" No matter what you say it opens up a new line of questioning for the investigators. That's why lawyers tell you to never talk to them, not even to try and clear things up.

It's also a very ambiguous question that's hard to answer properly without asking for far more detail.

For example - what do they mean by "know"? What you think it means can be very different from how the investigators interpret it. Do only close friends and associates count? How about that co-worker who sits three cubicles away from you, who you don't consider a friend but talk about football with a few times a week while waiting for the coffee machine? Or the barista at Starbucks who has seen you every morning for the past 3 years and 'knows' you well enough to ask how you family is doing?

And then - what do they consider a foreigner? Anyone who has born in a foreign country, even if they are a citizen? Or landed immigrants? Or only people who currently reside in foreign countries?

It would be easy for someone to believe they were honestly answering 'no' to the question without realizing their assumptions about what is being asked are incorrect.

I don't blame investigators for asking questions like this, but people should think very carefully about answering the questions without legal counsel. There's usually just too much ambiguity in most questions (even simple ones) to be able to comprehend all of the possible meanings and implications of every word. Relying on your ability to recall things on-the-spot while being questioned in a high-stress situation also seems like a bit of a lose-lose proposition.

Re: The Last Diplomat

#52

Post by Z1nfandel »

wolf550e wrote: post #13
bearcobra wrote: post #6

The attitude of the FBI towards diplomacy portrayed in the story is pretty alarming. I generally have a positive view on the Obama administration, but their pursuit of "leaks" post Wikileaks & Snowden is deeply upsetting to me.

Counterintelligence people trying to build careers. Suppose the US government database says the US drone program in Pakistan is classified top secret and she did not have official permission to speak about it. Except that everyone who is anyone knows about it. So the difference between how the US wants something to be classified and how secret it actually is allows FBI to say she talked about things without permissio…

Spot on. I think the most interesting thing in the article was (paraphrasing): You can write up a report on a conversation you have with a Pakistan official, and it becomes classified. Are you then expected to no longer discuss the same topic on your next meeting, because the report you wrote has a classification on it?

To me this whole SNAFU boils down to the two FBI agents assigned to the case not doing due diligence in their investigation.

Re: The Last Diplomat

#55

Post by chengiz »

A far too subjective article. Diplomats of her ilk have messed up several countries because they didnt give a hoot about the commoners or long term scenarios, and dealt with only the rich and powerful for short term political gain, whilst flaunting their partying and wealth and immunity. Case in point Iran. Case in point Pakistan, which might be going the same way. The implementation may require work, but the impetus for accountability for diplomats is a fucking good thing.

Re: The Last Diplomat

#56

Post by wheelerwj »

rpeden wrote: post #51
wheelerwj wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

they ask some of the most ridiculous questions trying to trip you and make you say stuff you don't mean or isn't true. Like, "do you know any foreigners?" turns into "why didn't you disclose that telationship, did they pay you money?" No matter what you say it opens up a new line of questioning for the investigators. That's why lawyers tell you to never talk to them, not even to try and clear things up.

It's also a very ambiguous question that's hard to answer properly without asking for far more detail. For example - what do they mean by "know"? What you think it means can be very different from how the investigators interpret it. Do only close friends and associates count? How about that co-worker who sits three cubicles away from you, who you don't consider a friend but talk about football with a few times a week…

i definitely blame investigators. ask what you want to know, otherwise be prepared for false positives.

the most concerning part is that they dont care about the false positives.

Re: The Last Diplomat

#57

Post by wheelerwj »

rpeden wrote: post #51
wheelerwj wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

they ask some of the most ridiculous questions trying to trip you and make you say stuff you don't mean or isn't true. Like, "do you know any foreigners?" turns into "why didn't you disclose that telationship, did they pay you money?" No matter what you say it opens up a new line of questioning for the investigators. That's why lawyers tell you to never talk to them, not even to try and clear things up.

It's also a very ambiguous question that's hard to answer properly without asking for far more detail. For example - what do they mean by "know"? What you think it means can be very different from how the investigators interpret it. Do only close friends and associates count? How about that co-worker who sits three cubicles away from you, who you don't consider a friend but talk about football with a few times a week…

i definitely blame investigators. ask what you want to know, otherwise be prepared for false positives.

the most concerning part is that they dont care about the false positives.

Re: The Last Diplomat

#58

Post by lefler »

wtbob wrote: post #41
lefler wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Doing their jobs" misses a huge part of the story. Someone illegally leaked the details of the ongoing investigation to the New York Times, changing what could have been a temporary unpaid leave for Raphel into a front page story with damaging after effects. Had this been investigated and resolved secretly, as per the rules, Raphel could have reapplied for her job after the FBI concluded there was no espionage case.

> Someone illegally leaked the details of the ongoing investigation to the New York Times, changing what could have been a temporary unpaid leave for Raphel into a front page story with damaging after effects. Pending further information, I suspect that it was someone in Raphel's camp who leaked those details. The best case situation for her was for this to be argued in the court of public opinion.

I do not share your suspicion. The initial 20161106 wapo article had this: "U.S. officials spoke on the condition of anonymity because the investigation is ongoing."

Pleading "ongoing investigation" suggests the source was in law enforcement, not authorized to discuss the case, discussed the case anyway, and used anonymity to avoid the consequences. A victim or friend can safely go on the record with a reporter, an investigator cannot.

In any case, the friends of Raphel seemed quite upset about the leak when they were spoken to for follow-up articles.

Post reply on HN