
The Last Diplomat - specialk
http://www.wsj.com/articles/the-last-diplomat-1480695454
======
tjic
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](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d-7o9xYp7eE)

~~~
Diederich
I knew what this youtube link was before I clicked it.

This is so important, my family and I watch it several times a year.

As far as I'm concerned, it should be taught in school, though that's so
politically incorrect as to be unthinkable.

As are most of us, law enforcement are professionals who are rated on various
metrics. The main metric is getting convictions. Guilt or innocence is not
even a secondary concern.

------
leodeid
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.)

~~~
guerrilla
You might be interested in Robert Baer's books for a perspective on this
problem within the CIA. HUMINT seems to have been drclining significantly over
the last few decades and it's the opinion of some in these organisations that
this is a tragedy and won't work.

------
bearcobra
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.

~~~
wolf550e
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 permission, when her
bosses in State know she didn't tell anyone anything they didn't already know.

~~~
Z1nfandel
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.

------
pjc50
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.)

~~~
eternalban
> Pakistan is very much not like that. The intelligence agencies are extremely
> autonomous and unaccountable.

This was [US] news in 1973: [https://ia802601.us.archive.org/12/items/pdfy-
JnCrjsoqI22z8p...](https://ia802601.us.archive.org/12/items/pdfy-
JnCrjsoqI22z8p9i/The%20Secret%20Team%20%5BThe%20CIA%20And%20Its%20Allies%20In%20Control%20Of%20The%20United%20States%20And%20The%20World%5D.pdf)

It's well worth the read. In fact, possibly required reading. The author was
retired military and directly involved.

------
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.

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

As if that would be suspicious.

~~~
TheGirondin
It's a starting point in an investigation.

"Only my great uncle from Mexico." Not much further inquiry required.

"3 people from Tehran" Get their names and do a little investigation.

"No" Caught them in a lie, when you know they know 3 people from Tehran.

------
wolf550e
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?

~~~
ubernostrum
If they ask "do you know any foreigners" and you say no, and then they can
prove you know a foreigner, that's it: they've got you guilty of a federal
felony (lying to an FBI agent about materially relevant matters in the
investigation), and since there were two FBI agents one will act as the
witness for the other. Then they don't need to investigate anything else; your
career is over and you're going to prison.

~~~
Swizec
But why would a diplomat whose job it is to talk to foreigners say they don't
know any?

~~~
TheSpiceIsLife
_Who_ doesn't know _any_ foreigners?

------
capitalsigma
paywall :(

~~~
grzm
Have you tried the "web" link under the submission title? It works for me.
Others have mentioned it sometimes doesn't.

~~~
panzagl
I had to open in incognito tab.

~~~
_rzzzwilson_
Paywall even in incognito mode.

~~~
JBiserkov
Press Alt+D, Home, Question_mark, Space, Enter. Click first result.

~~~
nicky0
Doesn't Alt-D create a bookmark on most browsers?

------
tscs37
Damn Paywalls.

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

~~~
rocqua
Go to the comments, click 'web' on top, open the first link in the resultant
google search.

For some reason, they don't paywall access through google, only direct links.

~~~
tscs37
Still Paywalled for me.

~~~
tomhoward
Run the web search in an incognito window.

~~~
tscs37
And still paywalled.

~~~
tomhoward
Obviously I can't directly see exactly what you're doing, but there's always a
way to get to these articles by using the right combination of techniques to
appear as a new visitor arriving via a Google search.

Web link from incognito usually seems to do it for most people (it does for me
on this occasion, as it always does for me on WSJ), but if that fails perhaps
you need to try it from a clean browser instance.

Update: I'm in Australia. It may be different for you depending on what
country you're in. Some people get around geographic restrictions by using a
VPN or Tor Browser.

------
IBM
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](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Camp_Chapman_attack)

~~~
lefler
"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.

~~~
wtbob
> 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.

~~~
lefler
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.

