FBI Director Robert Mueller was asked about the Iraqi interviews during his testimony before a House committee today. He refused to comment on how many of the interviewees had been arrested or detained.

Reaction remains mixed, at best, among the Iraqis selected for FBI interviews. As we reported yesterday, while the FBI would like us to believe that these interviews are fine with Muslim-Americans and not much more than a social tea, that's an overstatement. Many Iraqi-Americans have felt insulted or intimidated by them.

An American citizen, Hanna said the questioning sends a message that "U.S. citizenship is nothing more than a piece of paper," that the government doesn't "trust your loyalty."

We raise another issue now. Yesterday we also mentioned that last month Ashcroft gave the FBI the authority to arrest and detain Iraqi interviewees for immigration violations, which are not criminal offenses. Before, it was the INS who performed this function. But now that INS is kaput and the FBI works closely with Homeland Security, Ashcroft thinks it makes sense to let the FBI do it.

This morning on MSNBC, we watched a former FBI agent be interviewed by anchor Chris Jantzen. She asked him about the FBI's newly granted authorization to arrest Iraqis in the context of these voluntary interveiws. He acknowledged the authorization, but stressed that it was discretionary with the agents. Only 30 had been arrested and detained so far. (This number matches press reports.)

As we were trying to figure out whether he could possibly mean what we were afraid he meant by stressing that the FBI agents' arrest authority is discretionary, he came right out and said it: When they come across a selected interviewee who is in violation of an immigration regulation, the agents can tell the interviewees that they have the ability to overlook the violation if they cooperate with the interview. On the flip side, they have the ability to arrest them if they don't. Chris Jantzen asked the former FBI agent guest about this again, and he confirmed it, saying "It's leverage."

We do have a problem with the FBI using the threat of arrest or detention over a non-criminal offense as a tactic to get a voluntary interview. At court this morning, we were in the hall, waiting for a case to be heard and talking to an Assistant U.S. Attorney and a court interpreter. We told them what we had heard this former agent say on the show, and they both did doubletakes. Any federal law enforcement agents or prosecutors out there want to tell us why we're wrong to think this goes beyond the pale?