[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.

[smcl]

That's weird, it sounds like this technique is designed to just find someone guilty of something - not the perpetrator of a specific crime, just sweep up a guilty person. Like is the goal of an FBI agent or Policeman simply to be tricksy enough to make someone slip up, so they can sling them in jail?

[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?

[CmdrSprinkles]

As mentioned in the other path, it is partly about tripping people up.

The diplomat already provided a list of all known foreign nationals that is supposed to be kept somewhat up to date. If foreign nationals are known that aren't on that list, it raises a red flag.

Why didn't you mention you banged this person? Why are you doing business with that person? Were the questions that this third person asked pressing enough that they should have been added to the list?

It is one of those things that makes perfect sense if you have even a basic understanding of these kinds of processes but that makes for a good narrative for the masses who don't.

[wheelerwj]

they ask some of the most ridiculous questions trying to trip you and make you say stuff you don't mean or isn't true.

Like, "do you know any foreigners?" turns into "why didn't you disclose that telationship, did they pay you money?"

No matter what you say it opens up a new line of questioning for the investigators. That's why lawyers tell you to never talk to them, not even to try and clear things up.

[rpeden]

It's also a very ambiguous question that's hard to answer properly without asking for far more detail.

For example - what do they mean by "know"? What you think it means can be very different from how the investigators interpret it. Do only close friends and associates count? How about that co-worker who sits three cubicles away from you, who you don't consider a friend but talk about football with a few times a week while waiting for the coffee machine? Or the barista at Starbucks who has seen you every morning for the past 3 years and 'knows' you well enough to ask how you family is doing?

And then - what do they consider a foreigner? Anyone who has born in a foreign country, even if they are a citizen? Or landed immigrants? Or only people who currently reside in foreign countries?

It would be easy for someone to believe they were honestly answering 'no' to the question without realizing their assumptions about what is being asked are incorrect.

I don't blame investigators for asking questions like this, but people should think very carefully about answering the questions without legal counsel. There's usually just too much ambiguity in most questions (even simple ones) to be able to comprehend all of the possible meanings and implications of every word. Relying on your ability to recall things on-the-spot while being questioned in a high-stress situation also seems like a bit of a lose-lose proposition.

[wheelerwj]

i definitely blame investigators. ask what you want to know, otherwise be prepared for false positives.

the most concerning part is that they dont care about the false positives.

[nradov]

There is a common sales technique to ask customers questions where the only possible answer is yes. The point isn't to gain information, but rather to build rapport with the customer and get them into a positive frame of mind. Presumably the same approach is helpful in criminal interrogations.

[mikeash]

Not every single question needs to be potentially incriminating. They can also just be part of gathering information. Maybe you know an honest and hard-working immigrant. Maybe you know an employee of the ISI. They don't know, that's why they ask.

It's typical for law enforcement to ask about your neighbors, but that doesn't mean having neighbors is incriminating, or that starting with "do you know your neighbors?" would be part of some underhanded interrogation tactic.