danivon wrote:

Doctor Fate wrote:Not necessarily true. The government can't just willy-nilly do as it pleases. 2 months and 20 phone lines--it seems more like a fishing expedition than any pressing "national security" concern.

No, it may not be the Patriot Act, but then again it may be, and under it NSLs were issued without a judge signing them off.

I think the pressure is on the Administration to prove there was a legitimate need.

The flipside of that is that if they can claim security concerns, they will also make the claim that providing evidence for it is also a security risk.

Sure, there appears to be a lot to answer here (although I note how much you link to is simply allegation and accusation rather than documented truth).

Doctor Fate wrote:Taken to an extreme, your argument would mean that the Administration is free to spy on whomever it pleases as long as it says it's for "national security." No proof. No judges. No Congress. Ever.

That's too far.

One of the most controversial aspects of the USA PATRIOT Act is in title V, and relates to National Security Letters (NSLs). An NSL is a form of administrative subpoena used by the FBI, and reportedly by other U.S. government agencies including the CIA and the Department of Defense (DoD). It is a demand letter issued to a particular entity or organization to turn over various records and data pertaining to individuals. They require no probable cause or judicial oversight and also contain a gag order, preventing the recipient of the letter from disclosing that the letter was ever issued. Title V allowed the use of NSLs to be made by a Special Agent in charge of a Bureau field office, where previously only the Director or the Deputy Assistant Director of the FBI were able to certify such requests.

Doctor Fate wrote:Taken to an extreme, your argument would mean that the Administration is free to spy on whomever it pleases as long as it says it's for "national security." No proof. No judges. No Congress. Ever.

That's too far.

geojanes wrote:

Doctor Fate wrote:Taken to an extreme, your argument would mean that the Administration is free to spy on whomever it pleases as long as it says it's for "national security." No proof. No judges. No Congress. Ever.

That's too far.

Well, it's the Patriot Act that allowed this to happen (which is, BTW, the most oxymoronic law name ever.) The only reason the FBI can seize records like this without a court approval is because of the powers that Act gives the FBI. If something good comes out of this it will be full and total repeal of the Patriot Act, which has been incredibly damaging.

More here from Wikipedia:

One of the most controversial aspects of the USA PATRIOT Act is in title V, and relates to National Security Letters (NSLs). An NSL is a form of administrative subpoena used by the FBI, and reportedly by other U.S. government agencies including the CIA and the Department of Defense (DoD). It is a demand letter issued to a particular entity or organization to turn over various records and data pertaining to individuals. They require no probable cause or judicial oversight and also contain a gag order, preventing the recipient of the letter from disclosing that the letter was ever issued. Title V allowed the use of NSLs to be made by a Special Agent in charge of a Bureau field office, where previously only the Director or the Deputy Assistant Director of the FBI were able to certify such requests.

As detailed in their letter to Cole and Holder, about 50 news organizations assert that DOJ did not follow legal guidelines on investigations that impair First Amendment rights:

Subpoenas of the news media for testimony and evidence are governed by the Attorney General’s guidelines found at 28 C.F.R. § 50.10 and incorporated into the U.S. Attorney’s Manual (See § 9-13.400). These guidelines were enacted in 1972 and were expanded specifically to cover telephone records in 1980. They were developed to accommodate both the interests of the government in prosecuting crime and the First Amendment interests in reporting on issues of public concern. We know this to be true because the Reporters Committee played a role in their promulgation. In this instance, where the department subpoenaed two months of records related to 20 telephone lines, including records from major AP bureaus and the home phone and cellphone records of individual journalists, the department appears to have ignored or brushed aside almost every aspect of the guidelines.

The news organizations then detailed the ways in which the A.P. investigation did not conform to the guidelines designed to protect the First Amendment. Cole’s reply was as amateurish as it was unilluminating. He claims narrowing the time period to two months was sufficient. He said the massive surveillance was taken after 550 interviews, but says he can’t say anything more. Why should we trust him? His squirrely response includes no mention of the negotiation with the AP described above.

geojanes wrote:I'll go against my norm and make predictions:

Benghazi: Ultimately won't matter. Bad crap happens, politicians try to spin it, and get caught. Dog bites man: unpleasant if you're the man, but not news.

AP: Ultimately won't matter. Gov't abuses reporters, but the people don't really care about reporters. For better or worse.

IRS: Will matter. People hate the IRS and to think that they are not just following the rules but instilling their actions with personal political beliefs of the agents/administrators? The people will not stand for that. Heads will roll and they will be held up so that the people can cheer, and our politicians will take delight in those cheers.

rickyp wrote:geo I agree with #1. If the Iraq War abuses, (not just the war but the fiasco's that occurred running the War) didn't resonate more - this will go away too. And Clinton, should she run in 16 won't be affected.
#2... Probably right.
3. If it matters now, why hasn't it mattered enough in the past . Enough that changes could occur?
Its repetitive this IRS scandal. Seems to be one in almost every administration. Sometimes more.
At the heart of the problem is the complexity of the tax code.... Simplifying it would end a lot of the compliance and enforcement problems.

http://www.salon.com/2013/05/14/when_th ... _liberals/

bbauska wrote: Re #3: I agree with you. That is exactly why I think there should be a flat tax with no deductions. There is no place for who gets benefits, and who doesn't. There is no place for ideology. There is only room for math.

Sounds fine to me.

bbauska wrote:Do you admit that your desire is based upon your ideology as well as mine?

freeman3 wrote:Why were these conservative groups targeted? Is it because some people in the IRS don't like conservative groups?...Or is it because Tea Party groups after 2010 election decided that this 503(c)(4) was quite a good thing to have. We know applications doubled after the 2010 election. The fact that there were so many new applications made it reasonable to carefully scrutinize at least some of the new applications. How does the IRS decide to audit? Well, if there are certain red flags that come up on a return then that return is more likely to be audited.
So context matters here. What percentage of 503(c)(4) applications in 2011 and 2012 came from conservative groups? Would it have been for irrational for the IRS to be concerned that Tea Party Groups, heavily involved in campaigns in 2010, were now in droves seeking to get a favorable tax classification that does not allow them to favor or disfavor politicians? I don't think so.
Now, could the IRS use key words to flag conservative returns? No that is not allowable, probably logical and more efficient in this case, but you can't single out conservative groups.
I think conservatives are protesting a bit much here...