home

Feds Informant Policy Under Fire

I've been waiting years to see a report like this in today's Los Angeles Times.

A recent inspector general's investigation of the FBI's informant program noted violations in that agency's use of snitches in 87% of cases reviewed.

The story behind the story:

A Yemeni immigrant's activities cast a shadow on federal agencies' use of informants. One man the felon fingered didn't go quietly to prison.

Ismael took on the system and won:

He says he never lost faith that the truth would emerge. "I knew there were corrupt agencies, like you see in the movies," Ismael said. "But I figured the court couldn't be corrupt, too. "If the court were corrupt, people wouldn't want to live in America."

Snitch testimony is purchased testimony. It is bought with promises of leniency. Freedom is a far more precious commodity than money. The incentive to lie is enormous. Only by telling the Government's version of the truth does the snitch get his pay-off: a lesser sentence for his own misdeeds.

Say no to snitching.

< Pirro Rejects Pullout in Senate Race Against Hillary | Support For Death Penalty Declines As 1,000 Have Been Executed >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Re: Feds Informant Policy Under Fire (none / 0) (#1)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:06:36 PM EST
    Great story. I'll bet it's being pitched around Hollywood as we speak.

    Re: Feds Informant Policy Under Fire (none / 0) (#2)
    by Dadler on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:06:37 PM EST
    I agree the impulse to say what they want you to say is strong, but then why are we celebrating that Duke Cunningham is singing? Can't have it both ways.

    Re: Feds Informant Policy Under Fire (none / 0) (#3)
    by Dadler on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:06:37 PM EST
    I guess my larger point is would you, as a defense lawyer, if you had a client who was cooperating in order to gain a lighter sentence ultimately, would you tell that client not to cooperate because his impulse to lie would be too great? Just playing devil's advocate. I understand both sides, which is what makes it hard sometimes.

    Re: Feds Informant Policy Under Fire (none / 0) (#4)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:06:37 PM EST
    Amen TL. B

    Re: Feds Informant Policy Under Fire (none / 0) (#5)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:06:37 PM EST
    I think that the issue with "snitches" is not simply limited to whether or not they cooperate, but includes whether or not they offer false testimony in exchange for lighter sentences. Many innocent people in the United States have been convicted of crimes based solely on the testimony of a "jailhouse snitch", and the federal authorities seem to engage in more than their share of this most egregious of prosecutorial abuses.

    Re: Feds Informant Policy Under Fire (none / 0) (#6)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:06:37 PM EST
    As a defense attorney who only represents the poor, I can't stand snitches of any sort. B/C the odds are they are snitching on a current or formal client of mine. Further, I've seen snitches (confidential informants) used to nab unsuspecting low level criminals. Such as someone selling 1/4 bags of pot to their friends. Once they have ensnared a few they move on and set up snitch shoop with another law enforcement agency. Not kidding, cops call around for references on the snitches prior work. So, before working for the cops they are scum. Once working for the cops they are suddenly credible in the eyes of law enforcement. Its the lowest form of law enforcement.