from Hacker News

The Last Diplomat

by specialk on 12/5/16, 1:53 AM with 53 comments

  • by tjic on 12/5/16, 11:00 AM

    I've got multiple thoughts about this story, but the biggest one is that Robin Raphel answered FBI questions for quite a while BEFORE thinking that she should get a lawyer.

    For anyone who's not as politically connected as she is (say, if you're Martha Stewart, or - God help you - a mere mortal like any of us), this is a sure fire way to end up locked in a cage. ...and make no mistake: if you read the article carefully, it's clear that the one thing that kept her out of jail is the fact that she was heavily connected to DC elites and worked a campaign of back-channel pressure.

    Never, ever, EVER answer police or FBI questions.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d-7o9xYp7eE

  • by leodeid on 12/5/16, 4:43 AM

    That was a rather entertaining article, both for the story, but also for the subtext about the dangers of SIGINT-only intelligence gathering. The NSA hoovers up everything it can get automatically, but that data is used without context. In this story, the context of being a diplomat, the context of being in Pakistan, and the context of being conversational partners with a HUMINT source.

    I'm sure the NSA is (at this point) aware of this problem, and trying to make the collected data more context-aware. I wonder to what extent the content of just phone calls, texts, emails, and facebook posts can be used to learn small-group dynamics. (Like the fact that the people of E-7 in the story consider talks of a Pakistani coup to be normal idle dinner talk.)

  • by bearcobra on 12/5/16, 4:56 AM

    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.

  • by pjc50 on 12/5/16, 3:09 PM

    So, normally in the West we assume that some form of "collective responsibility" principle applies to government agencies. That the views and actions of the government can be talked about as if it were a single coherent entity.

    Pakistan is very much not like that. The intelligence agencies are extremely autonomous and unaccountable. It's a large country with underpopulated "bandit country" uplands (FATA) where all kinds of armed groups can hide. And there's substantial evidence that, while Pakistan has formally been a US ally since the Cold War, internal factions have been supporting the Taliban.

    Now it appears that the US is replicating this structure, as factions within one intelligence agency start arresting members of another as a means of influencing foreign policy. The Hilary Clinton email controversy that everyone has now forgotten was another similar move; maybe it wasn't aimed so much at her personally, but an attack on the State Department?

    (And of course now the FBI director's favoured candidate has won, and is conducting diplomacy in a manner that completely bypasses the State Department ...)

    (Edit: this post seems to be bouncing up and down in the voting. Feel free to take the analysis with a pinch of salt, the general point is to be aware of the political actions of intelligence agencies.)

  • by chengiz on 12/5/16, 9:05 PM

    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.

  • by leereeves on 12/5/16, 12:59 PM

    > “Do you know any foreigners?”, the FBI asked.

    As if that would be suspicious.

  • by wolf550e on 12/5/16, 8:29 AM

    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 they would be less careful in phrasing their answers? Let the suspect assume the investigator knows nothing so the suspect would think they can blatantly lie and the investigator would not realize? Something else?

    I don't think there are any elicitation techniques the FBI has that she hasn't mastered, so why do that?

  • by capitalsigma on 12/5/16, 3:34 AM

    paywall :(

  • by tscs37 on 12/5/16, 7:08 AM

    Damn Paywalls.

    I wish there was a service that I could sign up to and it would make all the paywalls go away.

  • by IBM on 12/5/16, 1:48 PM

    This story is obviously sourced mainly from Raphel and her friends/allies. Personally I view the FBI investigation as them just doing their jobs. In the end this wasn't really a failure on their part, assuming the innocent reason for all the suspicion was true, they investigated her as they were tasked and the DoJ ended the investigation when they realized there was no case.

    I think the interesting story is the change in culture at the State Department which has the effect of getting less human intelligence. I'm not sure if that's because they want to be cooped up in their embassies because they feel less safe meeting with people in certain host countries, or if security requirements are being imposed on them. Clearly in this case Raphel felt restricted and she had no problem, but I'm not sure other State Deparment employees feel the same.

    Benghazi and the Camp Chapman attack [1] are pretty good reasons why they should be concerned about security.

    [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Camp_Chapman_attack