T.E. W. (terez93) reviewed The FBI Way: Inside the Bureau's Code of Excellence on + 345 more book reviews
Written by one of the FBI's "luminaries," former Assistant Director Frank Figliuzzi, this book was far from what I initially expected, but that doesn't account for the low rating. In short, it constituted little more than, if not an outright apology (in the sense of a defense), a low-key propaganda piece about how righteous the FBI and its denizens are - and there are certainly no shortage of those - according to its "7 C's" code. Other exposes, however, but including even some of the material related by the author in his own book (more below), suggest that the FBI is anything but righteous. Morally ambiguous, I think, is the term of the day. I agree with multiple other reviewers that it constitutes little more than shameless promotion and a sometimes-apology of the way in which this often-esteemed agency deals with wrongdoers among its own ranks. Wonder why an entire book was needed on that subject... read on.
I read a fair bit about true crime, albeit highly selectively and not in the salacious sense, but more as a means of self-protection (knowledge is power), so I'm not entirely unfamiliar with the inner workings of federal law enforcement agencies, at least through the lens of the former agents who have written a seemingly endless stream of books about their experiences. That said, this was one of the more one-sided, biased works I've encountered to date. It extols the "virtues" of the Bureau, while addressing few of its shortcomings, and there are plenty of those, aside from the author's anecdotes about how he personally addressed some of the misconduct committed by Bureau employees as the head of the internal disciplinary unit, the Office of Professional Responsibility. High-profile and much-publicized examples of firings of FBI personnel are primarily internal, and largely political, aside from the Robert Hanssen fiasco, which is probably the FBI's greatest public embarrassment. There is some attempt at demonstrating that internal investigations and official reprimand are effective and more than cursory, but that doesn't relate to many of the primary complaints with regard to the behavior of federal law enforcement personnel in the way I think a book like this should.
The stated premise of the book is to discuss the Seven Cs of the FBI: Code, Conservancy, Clarity, Consequences, Compassion (the shortest chapter, by far), Credibility and Consistency. The material is engaging, and the stories do offer some insight into the inner workings of the Bureau, but the author's accounts which ostensibly illustrate his points about the "Seven Cs" are highly selective and irritatingly one-sided. If one has a even a remotely balanced view of federal law enforcement and their tactics, this is a galling read. I don't want to rehash all of them, so I'll stick to some specific points and observations for the purpose of this review.
This is just personal opinion - but that's kind of what the reviews are for - at least to judge from the books I've read on the subject hitherto, most of which have been written by former agents: the FBI just seems to attract a certain type of individual, specifically ones with a disproportional surfeit of self-righteousness and a twisted view of self, which is seemingly amplified the higher in the ranks they rise. Because they're "heroes" in their own minds, they mistakenly believe that they're heroes to everyone else, too - which is far from the case. They often make irksome and not infrequently "off-color" statements implying that it's just the criminals and deviants who don't like them. Untrue. Authors of these books endlessly attempt to reinforce that view, even when, in my opinion, it's not warranted, hence my statements about "propaganda," but, in truth, it goes deeper than that. I've also been reading recently about psychology, and the most applicable trait I think I could use to describe many of these authors-cum-former-agents is a disturbing one: classic (pathological) narcissism. The characteristics are disturbingly uncanny.
Perhaps the most representative figure, at least the one who has written two books, now, is James Comey. Not saying the dude is a classic narcissist. That said, however, something is definitely off. Perhaps because he is the consummate politician, it's difficult to determine from his and others' writings whether they are simply playing a character - many are or have been lawyers, and lawyers are actors - in putting on a public face, or whether they are actually drinking their own kool-aid, and fully believe what they are espousing. I kind of suspect it's both. They seemingly also lack almost any degree of introspection. For example, this author writes, at one point: "Senior executives are certainly not immune to this trap, as egos and self-images tend to inflate with rank. Even U.S. presidents are not immune to their own hubris." As I noted above, and what he clearly, obviously doesn't see: that statement applies to federal agents, too. He addressed that somewhat in this section, but doesn't elaborate to the degree that it's actually a useful discussion of the subject.
These former higher-ups are also quick to extol the virtues of the employees of their respective agencies, but rarely include much material about the innumerable civil rights violations routinely committed by said employees. Example: even in this book - which Figliuzzi even attempts to justify - he writes, in one case, about someone under surveillance taking a photograph of one of their undercover surveillance agents whose cover was blown. He writes: "...they [the group being surveilled] found a couple of our vehicles and they made a point of walking right up to and past those cars. The following night, one of them had a camera. Sure enough, they found a surveillance unit and snapped a photo of the driver. Our full-time surveillance agents operate undercover. They don't like it when a bad guy [was it a bad guy? Had this person been arrested, charged and/or convicted?] takes their photo. IN FACT, HYPOTHETICALLY ONE OF THOSE AGENTS JUST MIGHT DECIDE TO RUN UP BEHIND THE GUY WITH THE CAMERA, YANK IT OUT OF HIS HANDS, AND KEEP RUNNING. YOU KNOW, HYPOTHETICALLY, IT'S SOMETHING THAT COULD HAPPEN ON A DARK CITY STREET IN THE MIDDLE OF THE NIGHT. I'M JUST SAYING." (emph. mine)
What the author was "saying" was that multiple aggravated felonies occurred at the hands of a federal agent, if, as he intones, this incident actually did occur. A person has a constitutional right to photograph federal employees in a public place (i.e., on a city street). I'm not a lawyer, but I believe that multiple charges would ordinarily apply here, including any other associates present, as accessories after the fact. The "agent" clearly committed strong-arm and/or armed robbery, assault with a deadly weapon (assuming that the agent in question was armed at the time), possession of a firearm during a crime of violence, and multiple civil rights violations, starting with a Bane Act violation and Deprivation of Rights Under the Color of Law, a federal crime which, depending on severity, actually can incur the DEATH PENALTY.
"Heroes," anyone?
His statement, "when a government official betrays their office [or their oath], they are betraying the public trust" just rings hollow in the wake of his shameless bragging about an agent acting as though law doesn't apply to them by committing several aggravated felonies and civil rights violations.
They talk the talk but they often don't walk the walk, "7 C's" notwithstanding. Straight-up narcissism.
As I noted above, not only the "bad guys" have problems with the FBI and other agencies, which their leaders frequently fail to acknowledge, simply writing off the objections of their detractors, many of whom have perfectly legitimate reasons for criticism, and, not infrequently, federal lawsuits, including for egregious civil rights violations. The FBI, for example, has been sued multiple times in recent years for harassment of and violations against Muslim-Americans - the most recent example I'm aware of is the US Supreme Court's acceptance of a case regarding alleged civil rights violations in Orange County, California, whereby the FBI was accused of illegally surveilling three Muslim men in violation of their Fourth Amendment rights, which, according to court documents, is a not-uncommon occurrence. According to the Supreme Court brief, the FBI wants to avoid legal liability and, no doubt, more embarrassment, by hiding behind the nebulous "state secrets privilege," as a way to cover up their likely-illegal activities.
But... sunlight IS often the best disinfectant.
Another case involved yet another Muslim man, Ahmad Chebli, who alleges in yet another lawsuit against the FBI, that in 2018, an FBI agent repeatedly approached and pressured him to become a "snitch," on account of his language skills and "Lebanese background." When he refused, in retaliation, the US government placed him on a no-fly list, which essentially constitutes an indefinite air-travel ban. This was also after the US Supreme Court ruled that three other Muslim men who were placed on the no-fly list after refusing to serve as FBI snitches, at risk to their and their families' lives and safety, could hold the federal agents financially liable for the same activity. I don't want to go into it here, but read about the Chebli case, if you want a balanced view of federal agents: they do good, in stopping "terrorism," but at what cost? What happened to this individual - and his family members when he refused to become an FBI stooge is reprehensible: even his family wasn't spared from horrific abuses and attacks by these self-fashioned "heroes" in the Bureau, who threatened to deny his wife's naturalization status, among other despicable behavior, solely for the purpose of retaliation and intimidation.
Here's where the disconnect is most manifest: suspected criminals don't have civil rights protections in the minds of these federal servants, and can be robbed by an armed assailant, among other things ... who happens to be a federal agent... because they're under surveillance as a suspected criminal? That makes these agents righteous, how? Shocking, but not really. This book was a good read as an example of the aforementioned disconnect between these agents' perceived realities, in their own minds, and how they appear to everyone else. It's useful for that purpose alone.
In sum, I think this was a missed opportunity: a few high-profile examples of internal regulation appear, but it could have been utilized much more effectively, honestly, and in a far more balanced and candid manor.
I read a fair bit about true crime, albeit highly selectively and not in the salacious sense, but more as a means of self-protection (knowledge is power), so I'm not entirely unfamiliar with the inner workings of federal law enforcement agencies, at least through the lens of the former agents who have written a seemingly endless stream of books about their experiences. That said, this was one of the more one-sided, biased works I've encountered to date. It extols the "virtues" of the Bureau, while addressing few of its shortcomings, and there are plenty of those, aside from the author's anecdotes about how he personally addressed some of the misconduct committed by Bureau employees as the head of the internal disciplinary unit, the Office of Professional Responsibility. High-profile and much-publicized examples of firings of FBI personnel are primarily internal, and largely political, aside from the Robert Hanssen fiasco, which is probably the FBI's greatest public embarrassment. There is some attempt at demonstrating that internal investigations and official reprimand are effective and more than cursory, but that doesn't relate to many of the primary complaints with regard to the behavior of federal law enforcement personnel in the way I think a book like this should.
The stated premise of the book is to discuss the Seven Cs of the FBI: Code, Conservancy, Clarity, Consequences, Compassion (the shortest chapter, by far), Credibility and Consistency. The material is engaging, and the stories do offer some insight into the inner workings of the Bureau, but the author's accounts which ostensibly illustrate his points about the "Seven Cs" are highly selective and irritatingly one-sided. If one has a even a remotely balanced view of federal law enforcement and their tactics, this is a galling read. I don't want to rehash all of them, so I'll stick to some specific points and observations for the purpose of this review.
This is just personal opinion - but that's kind of what the reviews are for - at least to judge from the books I've read on the subject hitherto, most of which have been written by former agents: the FBI just seems to attract a certain type of individual, specifically ones with a disproportional surfeit of self-righteousness and a twisted view of self, which is seemingly amplified the higher in the ranks they rise. Because they're "heroes" in their own minds, they mistakenly believe that they're heroes to everyone else, too - which is far from the case. They often make irksome and not infrequently "off-color" statements implying that it's just the criminals and deviants who don't like them. Untrue. Authors of these books endlessly attempt to reinforce that view, even when, in my opinion, it's not warranted, hence my statements about "propaganda," but, in truth, it goes deeper than that. I've also been reading recently about psychology, and the most applicable trait I think I could use to describe many of these authors-cum-former-agents is a disturbing one: classic (pathological) narcissism. The characteristics are disturbingly uncanny.
Perhaps the most representative figure, at least the one who has written two books, now, is James Comey. Not saying the dude is a classic narcissist. That said, however, something is definitely off. Perhaps because he is the consummate politician, it's difficult to determine from his and others' writings whether they are simply playing a character - many are or have been lawyers, and lawyers are actors - in putting on a public face, or whether they are actually drinking their own kool-aid, and fully believe what they are espousing. I kind of suspect it's both. They seemingly also lack almost any degree of introspection. For example, this author writes, at one point: "Senior executives are certainly not immune to this trap, as egos and self-images tend to inflate with rank. Even U.S. presidents are not immune to their own hubris." As I noted above, and what he clearly, obviously doesn't see: that statement applies to federal agents, too. He addressed that somewhat in this section, but doesn't elaborate to the degree that it's actually a useful discussion of the subject.
These former higher-ups are also quick to extol the virtues of the employees of their respective agencies, but rarely include much material about the innumerable civil rights violations routinely committed by said employees. Example: even in this book - which Figliuzzi even attempts to justify - he writes, in one case, about someone under surveillance taking a photograph of one of their undercover surveillance agents whose cover was blown. He writes: "...they [the group being surveilled] found a couple of our vehicles and they made a point of walking right up to and past those cars. The following night, one of them had a camera. Sure enough, they found a surveillance unit and snapped a photo of the driver. Our full-time surveillance agents operate undercover. They don't like it when a bad guy [was it a bad guy? Had this person been arrested, charged and/or convicted?] takes their photo. IN FACT, HYPOTHETICALLY ONE OF THOSE AGENTS JUST MIGHT DECIDE TO RUN UP BEHIND THE GUY WITH THE CAMERA, YANK IT OUT OF HIS HANDS, AND KEEP RUNNING. YOU KNOW, HYPOTHETICALLY, IT'S SOMETHING THAT COULD HAPPEN ON A DARK CITY STREET IN THE MIDDLE OF THE NIGHT. I'M JUST SAYING." (emph. mine)
What the author was "saying" was that multiple aggravated felonies occurred at the hands of a federal agent, if, as he intones, this incident actually did occur. A person has a constitutional right to photograph federal employees in a public place (i.e., on a city street). I'm not a lawyer, but I believe that multiple charges would ordinarily apply here, including any other associates present, as accessories after the fact. The "agent" clearly committed strong-arm and/or armed robbery, assault with a deadly weapon (assuming that the agent in question was armed at the time), possession of a firearm during a crime of violence, and multiple civil rights violations, starting with a Bane Act violation and Deprivation of Rights Under the Color of Law, a federal crime which, depending on severity, actually can incur the DEATH PENALTY.
"Heroes," anyone?
His statement, "when a government official betrays their office [or their oath], they are betraying the public trust" just rings hollow in the wake of his shameless bragging about an agent acting as though law doesn't apply to them by committing several aggravated felonies and civil rights violations.
They talk the talk but they often don't walk the walk, "7 C's" notwithstanding. Straight-up narcissism.
As I noted above, not only the "bad guys" have problems with the FBI and other agencies, which their leaders frequently fail to acknowledge, simply writing off the objections of their detractors, many of whom have perfectly legitimate reasons for criticism, and, not infrequently, federal lawsuits, including for egregious civil rights violations. The FBI, for example, has been sued multiple times in recent years for harassment of and violations against Muslim-Americans - the most recent example I'm aware of is the US Supreme Court's acceptance of a case regarding alleged civil rights violations in Orange County, California, whereby the FBI was accused of illegally surveilling three Muslim men in violation of their Fourth Amendment rights, which, according to court documents, is a not-uncommon occurrence. According to the Supreme Court brief, the FBI wants to avoid legal liability and, no doubt, more embarrassment, by hiding behind the nebulous "state secrets privilege," as a way to cover up their likely-illegal activities.
But... sunlight IS often the best disinfectant.
Another case involved yet another Muslim man, Ahmad Chebli, who alleges in yet another lawsuit against the FBI, that in 2018, an FBI agent repeatedly approached and pressured him to become a "snitch," on account of his language skills and "Lebanese background." When he refused, in retaliation, the US government placed him on a no-fly list, which essentially constitutes an indefinite air-travel ban. This was also after the US Supreme Court ruled that three other Muslim men who were placed on the no-fly list after refusing to serve as FBI snitches, at risk to their and their families' lives and safety, could hold the federal agents financially liable for the same activity. I don't want to go into it here, but read about the Chebli case, if you want a balanced view of federal agents: they do good, in stopping "terrorism," but at what cost? What happened to this individual - and his family members when he refused to become an FBI stooge is reprehensible: even his family wasn't spared from horrific abuses and attacks by these self-fashioned "heroes" in the Bureau, who threatened to deny his wife's naturalization status, among other despicable behavior, solely for the purpose of retaliation and intimidation.
Here's where the disconnect is most manifest: suspected criminals don't have civil rights protections in the minds of these federal servants, and can be robbed by an armed assailant, among other things ... who happens to be a federal agent... because they're under surveillance as a suspected criminal? That makes these agents righteous, how? Shocking, but not really. This book was a good read as an example of the aforementioned disconnect between these agents' perceived realities, in their own minds, and how they appear to everyone else. It's useful for that purpose alone.
In sum, I think this was a missed opportunity: a few high-profile examples of internal regulation appear, but it could have been utilized much more effectively, honestly, and in a far more balanced and candid manor.
