This series of emails discusses constitutional issues overseas. One email notes that FBI personnel in the Iraq are gathering intelligence for military operations--not independent FBI operations. The same email asks a couple of questions: " If the FBI is'permitted to have and use all of the info/statements provided by the detainees to military personnel, why can't we ask a couple of questions? If we are not contemplating prosecuting the military detainee, why can't we ask questions under the same rules as the military? What are the military rules?"
•
THOMAS, JULIE F. (OGC) (FL)
ALL INFOPNATIOil CONTAINED
HEREIN IE UNCLASIFIFD
DATE 07-07-2009 EY 65179 DMH/MJ5
' From: THOMAS, JULIE F. (OGC) (FBI)
Sent: Friday, November 19, 2004 1:11 PM
To:, , CaProni, Valerie E. (OGC) (FBI)
Subject: ' RE: Overseas Application of 4th and 5th Amendment
NON-RECO
I do not know to whom the memo or charts were distributed. I will do my best to find out.
Julie
Original Message
From: Caproni, :Valerie E. (OGC) (FBI)
Sent: Friday, November 19, 2004 11:54 AM
To:I 1(OGC) (FBI); THOMAS, JULIE F. (OGC) (FBI)
Subject: RE: Overseas Application of 4th and 5th Amendment '
NON-RECO
Was the memo distributed? Were the charts distributed?
Original Message
From:1 1(OGC) (FBI)
Sent: Thursday, November 18, 2004 4:06 PM
To: THOMAS, JULIE F. (OGC) (FBI); Caproni, Valerie E.. (OGC) (FBI)
Subject: FW: Overseas. Application of 4th and 5th Amendment .
OINP.-" ,41111 ED
NON-RECORD 136
h7C
In addition to what I sent to you in hard copy, Isent.me this e-mail today.
This advice was not given by OGC, but by the CDC Office in NYC.
I do not know if NY coordinated the advice with oqc.
Original Message
From I(OGC) (FBI)
Sent: Thursday, November 18, 2004 4:03 PM
To:1 1 (OGC) (FBI) ;1 J(OGC) (FBI)
Subject: FW: Overseas Application of 4th. and 5th'Amendment
UNCLASSIFIED
NON-RECORD
The attached are docUments creat b FBI New York's legal team, ADC' 'regarding
constitutional issues overseas. and I discussed these matters in detail, so I be-,
thought this should be passed on a so. b7C
b6
1D7C
-b6
-----rriainal Message
From:
Senc: Tuesday. flecemhr 30, 2003 3:40 PM
To:I
Subject: Overseas Application of 4th and 5th Amendment
1
1D6
b7C
FBI0087560GC
FBI FO#10 DOJOIG 006335 FB1-0000159"
b6
b7C
Following up on our conversation, I think it is also important to note that
for the most part, our SAS in Iraq and neighboring countries are assisting the
military in gathering intelligence , for military operations, targets,
vulnerabilities, etc. They are not independently taking people into custody
and conducting FBI fci investigations. Those in custody'are military
detainees.
If the FBI is'permitted to have and use all of the info/stateMents prOvided by
the detainees to military personnel, why can't we ask a couple of questions?
If we are not contemplating prosecuting the military detainee, why can't we
ask questions under the same rules as the military? What are the military
rules?
Finally, how does the current OGC policy (which essentially says providing
Miranda warnings hinges on whether prosecution in the U.S. is contemplated)
mesh with the new 315 classification? CTD is repeatedly stressing to its
agents that 315s are intelligence investigations. In this regard, your
question (Dallas' question) probably involves NSLB more than it does ILU.
Attached are the documents we discussed. My memo and the charts
discuss/describe 2d circuit case law and the 4th/5th Amendment issues
implicated when prosecution is contemplated and/or occurring.
I
***This Document Contains Attorney Work Product ***
FBI0087570GC
FBI Fo*1 0
2
DOJOIG 006336 FBI-0000159
b6
b7C