NationStates Jolt Archive

Look at the 9/11 report. Look at the reason Homeland Security was founded. The problem wasn't that the government didn't have access to the information needed to avert 9/11. The problem was that they didn't have enough Arabic translators to keep up with the information they were already getting and they didn't have enough interdepartmental communication to put all the pieces together.

Now look at the NSA spying program. Even with a secret court set up to specifically issue warrants, even retroactively, the White House contends that the the sheer number of lines it wants to tap and the sheer amount of information it wants to gather is so much that they simply did not have time to get warrants.

In other words, they are making their number one problem in gathering intelligence even worse. There is now a truly massive amount of raw information to wade through, most of it likely innocent chatter. As I doubt Al Qaeda will oblige us by speaking primarily in English, any REAL intel will have to be translated before it can even be recognized as important. Meanwhile, inevitably, avenues of greater return for the amount of effort expended will have less emphasis placed on them as analysts are pulled off their jobs in order to interpret the data from the NSA program that is so massive that it needs to do an end around the secret court whose only function is to issue warrants for domestic spying.

So, basically, we're giving up our right to privacy to make us less safe. Brilliant!

In the final analysis, it makes no sense for the NSA program to be instituted UNLESS it's purpose isn't to keep us safe from Al Qaeda, but to gather information about Americans that can't be done in a legal manner. Considering the Bush administration's rather extreme stance on criticism and dissent, one can only begin to suspect that the NSA program is being used much like Nixon's "enemy list."

But hey, keep defending it, those of you who like the idea of our leaders being able to spy on American citizens without any oversight of any sort. Blind and unthinking obedience is likely the best way to keep oneself free from government spying...

When people read my thread without responding, I always wonder if I've made a terrific point or a terrible one.

Assuming the spying were legitimate, there might be some benefit to it. However, given the constant shortage of personnel capable of translating these communications it would probably result in a giant amount of junk to sort through; there is always, of course, that they already have a good idea of who to spy on when, but that's completely theoretical and unlikely.

When people read my thread without responding, I always wonder if I've made a terrific point or a terrible one.

It is, in fact, so terrific that the word 'terrific' would be insufficient, unless it was pronounced with a roll of the tongue on the double 'r'. Only that rolling would properly convey the correctness of your position.

Yay, civil liberties.

When people read my thread without responding, I always wonder if I've made a terrific point or a terrible one.
Oh sorry, it was good. I just found it a waste of a post to go "Yes." The mods watch for that.

In the final analysis, it makes no sense for the NSA program to be instituted UNLESS it's purpose isn't to keep us safe from Al Qaeda, but to gather information about Americans that can't be done in a legal manner. Considering the Bush administration's rather extreme stance on criticism and dissent, one can only begin to suspect that the NSA program is being used much like Nixon's "enemy list."

i figured that was it's obvious purpose when i first heard about it. but then again, i've been aware of the increasing known domestic political spying going on for years now. at this point all we're left to wonder is how many times do we have to catch them doing it before it clicks with the stragglers?

Gymoor, you recieve my Attaboy Award. Which is rewarded only to those who meet my capricious and fickle standards and it issued as often as I like.

However, because you recieve the first New Rafnaland Attaboy Award, you can know that you are much spiffier than all the Award winners before you.

Or something like that.

Gymoor, you recieve my Attaboy Award. Which is rewarded only to those who meet my capricious and fickle standards and it issued as often as I like.

However, because you recieve the first New Rafnaland Attaboy Award, you can know that you are much spiffier than all the Award winners before you.

Or something like that.

I try, I try.

I'm kinda surprised that none of the Hard Core Bush supporters have have responded yet, using their usual trick of ignoring my points completely.

When people read my thread without responding, I always wonder if I've made a terrific point or a terrible one.

Controversy breeds popular threads. Make a well reasoned and generally agreeable post and watch as it sinks to anonymity.

When people read my thread without responding, I always wonder if I've made a terrific point or a terrible one.
Here, I'm not quite sure.

Here, I'm not quite sure.

Care to expand upon that?

There still is some hope in the U.S of A, it seems.

Nicely said. RAWSTORY been on it for quite some time, as a lot of other blogs/websites. But the Corporate Media still refuses to really investigate into this.

Care to expand upon that?
I'm not sure whether you have lost your mind or have made a really good point.

I'm not sure whether you have lost your mind or have made a really good point.

Assuming I had a mind to start with, what about my post makes you think I might have, perchance, misplaced it?

I try, I try.

I'm kinda surprised that none of the Hard Core Bush supporters have have responded yet, using their usual trick of ignoring my points completely.
They've probably gotten tied up in some other thread and you'll probably have to jack that one, or at least imply they don't have the capacity to argue this point rationally.
Could be also they haven't yet coordinated their talking points.

A well thought out post, as is pretty much always the case, Gym.

They've probably gotten tied up in some other thread and you'll probably have to jack that one, or at least imply they don't have the capacity to argue this point rationally.
Could be also they haven't yet coordinated their talking points.

A well thought out post, as is pretty much always the case, Gym.

I'd say something insulting about conservatives, but I don't want to be ka-booted by the ka-mods. This would be in the hope of goading them to post something here, of course.

I'd say something insulting about conservatives, but I don't want to be ka-booted by the ka-mods. This would be in the hope of goading them to post something here, of course.
...query...
Has that ever happened to you?
I've had a mod remind me that i wasn't contributing anything particularly useful to the thread, and if i'd meant to carry on in that same fashion, he/she would be urging me to go elsewhere. That's about the extent of it ... and curiouser still is i had been basically saying blatantly that i was only funning the thread and didn't have anything particularly useful to add to it anyway.
I've been thinking that the mods either SERIOUSLY do NOT want to read/hear another thread about Bush/lib/cons/fund so much that they don't even bother, SOMEONE had better expect to get offended. I'm guessing though, maybe they're just collating, lying in wait as the aliens from War of the Worlds.

Wow, 183 people have viewed my little thread here, and not one dissenting voice.

Armageddon, my friends, is nigh.

Wow, 183 people have viewed my little thread here, and not one dissenting voice.

Armageddon, my friends, is nigh.
Try this one. The nails go in just a little more ...

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/01/09/AR2006010901788.html

Wow, 183 people have viewed my little thread here, and not one dissenting voice.

Armageddon, my friends, is nigh.

Naah, they're probably asleep or doing something or another. Give them time to wind up their motors and before you know it, it will be another hot one.

Still winding...

Hmmm, sounds like a dead motor perhaps?

Mmmkay, winding down or up?

*ahem*

Jan. 11, 2006, 11:34PM
President welcomes wiretap hearings
Bush repeats his anti-terror reasons for surveillance


By DAVID E. SANGER
New York Times

LOUISVILLE, KY. - President Bush said Wednesday that he would welcome a congressional investigation of whether he had the authority to order the National Security Agency to monitor communications in the United States without warrants.

Until now, the White House had opposed public hearings, which are scheduled to begin next month in the Senate.

But on Wednesday, answering questions from a friendly crowd in Louisville in a conference center decorated with signs that said "Winning the War on Terror," Bush appeared ready to make the best of a political necessity.

In his campaign-style meeting, he was repeatedly applauded for authorizing the wiretaps, a decision that some of his political aides said they believed would ultimately help rebuild his approval ratings by demonstrating the lengths to which he will go to prevent another terrorist attack inside the United States.

Asked whether his administration was going to "go after the media" for revealing operations like the domestic wiretapping, Bush sidestepped the question of the leak itself and instead defended his decision to authorize the surveillance.

"I did so because the enemy still wants to hurt us," he said. "And it seems like to me that if somebody is talking to al-Qaida, we want to know why."

Bush's order enabled the NSA to monitor the international phone calls and e-mail of people inside the United States suspected of links to al-Qaida terrorists.

Singling out Americans and others in the United States for such surveillance would normally require a warrant under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, although the act also allows the attorney general to authorize a wiretap if it is reported to the court within 72 hours for retroactive approval.

"Now, I — look, I understand people's concerns about government eavesdropping," Bush said. "And I share those concerns, as well. So obviously I had to make the difficult decision between balancing civil liberties and, on a limited basis — and I mean limited basis — try to find out the intention of the enemy."

The president never directly addressed the question of why he avoided the existing system, although his legal advisers and intelligence aides have said it was too cumbersome.

"There will be a lot of hearings to talk about that, but that's good for democracy," Bush said. "Just so long as the hearings, as they explore whether or not I had the prerogative to make the decision I made, doesn't tell the enemy what we're doing. See, that's the danger." :rolleyes:

Bush said key members of Congress had been briefed on the program years ago and "we gave them a chance to express their disapproval or approval."

The president's statement that he was willing to see public hearings go forward marked a change from his stance just before Christmas.

At that time, he said: "Any public hearings on programs will say to the enemy, 'Here's what they do — adjust.' "

Sen. Arlen Specter, R-Pa, the chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, has scheduled open hearings, and the Senate Intelligence Committee has said it plans closed hearings.

The president's legal justification for the NSA program has gotten mixed legal reviews, ranging from enthusiastic to skeptical to scathing, including one from the nonpartisan Congressional Research Service that questioned the reasoning offered by Bush, Attorney General Alberto Gonzales and the Department of Justice.

This week, Rep. Jane Harman of California, the top Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee, released a 14-page legal analysis she had requested from a former CIA general counsel, Jeffrey Smith.

Although recognizing the president's assertion that his power as commander in chief justifies warrantless surveillance, Smith called that case "weak" in light of the language and documented purpose of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978, which requires warrants.

Look at the 9/11 report. Look at the reason Homeland Security was founded. The problem wasn't that the government didn't have access to the information needed to avert 9/11. The problem was that they didn't have enough Arabic translators to keep up with the information they were already getting and they didn't have enough interdepartmental communication to put all the pieces together.

Now look at the NSA spying program. Even with a secret court set up to specifically issue warrants, even retroactively, the White House contends that the the sheer number of lines it wants to tap and the sheer amount of information it wants to gather is so much that they simply did not have time to get warrants.

In other words, they are making their number one problem in gathering intelligence even worse. There is now a truly massive amount of raw information to wade through, most of it likely innocent chatter. As I doubt Al Qaeda will oblige us by speaking primarily in English, any REAL intel will have to be translated before it can even be recognized as important. Meanwhile, inevitably, avenues of greater return for the amount of effort expended will have less emphasis placed on them as analysts are pulled off their jobs in order to interpret the data from the NSA program that is so massive that it needs to do an end around the secret court whose only function is to issue warrants for domestic spying.

So, basically, we're giving up our right to privacy to make us less safe. Brilliant!

In the final analysis, it makes no sense for the NSA program to be instituted UNLESS it's purpose isn't to keep us safe from Al Qaeda, but to gather information about Americans that can't be done in a legal manner. Considering the Bush administration's rather extreme stance on criticism and dissent, one can only begin to suspect that the NSA program is being used much like Nixon's "enemy list."

But hey, keep defending it, those of you who like the idea of our leaders being able to spy on American citizens without any oversight of any sort. Blind and unthinking obedience is likely the best way to keep oneself free from government spying...

A terrific point...and one I had not really considered.

I don't think you'll get much of a response, however, other than from like-minded individuals.

Bush supporters know, somewhere in the back of their minds, that if Kerry (or even Gore) had done something like this that they would be crying foul and ranting about "big government", and the clamor would be ten times what it is now.

Instead, they'll just pray they are vindicated in the Senate hearings, and keep quiet until then.

When people read my thread without responding, I always wonder if I've made a terrific point or a terrible one.

Terrible one.

1) Only international calls are being checked.
2) The lack of Translators was PRE- 9/11.

I think it's funny that everyone is totally ignoring that fact that Ole King Billy openly admitted that he was doing exactly the same thing, in the same way. But now that "The Great Satan" Bush is doing it, somehow it is suddenly wrong.

OK, Bush made a tactical error by not going and getting the retro-active warrants, but look at everything he's dealing with. He can't think of everything. And asking the CIA or FBI to think or something like that is like asking a Kentuckian why they date thier own sister. All you get is a blank stare and a grin.

Anyone with an IQ over that of a slug should know that you don't ever say anything truly private over an unsecured line. I couldn't care less if the Government is listening to me tell my wife that I am going to the store, and does she need anything, or telling my daughter that I love her.

And notice..the most recent Polls show that 60% of Americans also could care less.

No, I don't like everything Bush has done. Stepping on Stem Cell research, being anti-gay, among a few others, rather pissed me off. But, as far as the War on Terror situation, I feel he's doing a damn good job. His only error, and one he continues to perputrate, is not forcing the Iraqi people to police thier own. More Iraqis are dying to suicide bombers than are American troops. ANd yet, they have lived so long under an oppressive government that they have trouble working out the simple fact that now they can do something about it simply by banding together and working against these terrorist ( oh, let's be Politically Correct here..Insurgent...oh God, I want to Ralph just typing that word) scumbags.

Yes, I have very strong views about this war. I am a firm believer in that old quote..."If you are not for us, you are against us. If you are against us, I will kill you, I will kill your family, I will kill your dog, I will burn your crops. I will hunt you down like the scum that you are, to keep the lives of me and mine safe". And the best part, and one that makes me want to cry every time I see someone decry the Articles or War, is that these terrorist scumbags 1) are not signatories to the Geneva Conventions, and 2) thier tactics, in and of themselves, violate the Conventions in toto, and yet, these anti-American Americans whine and puke about how we treat these low-life assholes when we do manage to catch one of them. Let them sign the COnventions, then put them in Uniforms so we can tell who they are outright, and then I might begin to fell the slightest pangs of sympathy for them. Until then, I feel for them about like I feel for the Centipede I scraped off my shoe sole last week. Absolutly nothing.

Terrible one.
2) The lack of Translators was PRE- 9/11.

And of course, nobody took any steps to rectify that problem. Instead, they compounded it by adding even more data flooding. Either you deliberately missed it or you would fail as an engineer.

"Bridge overloaded? Add more cars"


I think it's funny that everyone is totally ignoring that fact that Ole King Billy openly admitted that he was doing exactly the same thing, in the same way. But now that "The Great Satan" Bush is doing it, somehow it is suddenly wrong.

Nice try at using that deflection method. Warrantless wiretapping is still illegal. It doesn't matter who does it.


OK, Bush made a tactical error by not going and getting the retro-active warrants, but look at everything he's dealing with. He can't think of everything. And asking the CIA or FBI to think or something like that is like asking a Kentuckian why they date thier own sister. All you get is a blank stare and a grin.

"I'm sorry officer. I didn't know I needed a license to drive"

If he's that daft, he doesn't belong in a position of responsibility. If YOU are that daft, you don't belong in any position of power either because you're liable to mess everything up from your ignorance.


And notice..the most recent Polls show that 60% of Americans also could care less.

Of course they don't care less. They wouldn't care about the "big brother" unless it was a democrat doing it or unless they were being herded off into prison camps. It's the same kind of apathy that lets the administration walk all over them like they were dirt rugs.


Yes, I have very strong views about this war. I am a firm believer in that old quote..."If you are not for us, you are against us. If you are against us, I will kill you, I will kill your family, I will kill your dog, I will burn your crops. I will hunt you down like the scum that you are, to keep the lives of me and mine safe".

Well, I'm definitely not for you, ergo, you've automatically given me and more than half the world, including national leaders, death threats. I look forward to your visit by the FBI.

Do you think we'll see the return of Cointelpro? (*dons tin foil* assuming that it ever went away) That'll be cool...

Look at the 9/11 report. Look at the reason Homeland Security was founded. The problem wasn't that the government didn't have access to the information needed to avert 9/11. The problem was that they didn't have enough Arabic translators to keep up with the information they were already getting and they didn't have enough interdepartmental communication to put all the pieces together.

Now look at the NSA spying program. Even with a secret court set up to specifically issue warrants, even retroactively, the White House contends that the the sheer number of lines it wants to tap and the sheer amount of information it wants to gather is so much that they simply did not have time to get warrants.

In other words, they are making their number one problem in gathering intelligence even worse. There is now a truly massive amount of raw information to wade through, most of it likely innocent chatter. As I doubt Al Qaeda will oblige us by speaking primarily in English, any REAL intel will have to be translated before it can even be recognized as important. Meanwhile, inevitably, avenues of greater return for the amount of effort expended will have less emphasis placed on them as analysts are pulled off their jobs in order to interpret the data from the NSA program that is so massive that it needs to do an end around the secret court whose only function is to issue warrants for domestic spying.

So, basically, we're giving up our right to privacy to make us less safe. Brilliant!

In the final analysis, it makes no sense for the NSA program to be instituted UNLESS it's purpose isn't to keep us safe from Al Qaeda, but to gather information about Americans that can't be done in a legal manner. Considering the Bush administration's rather extreme stance on criticism and dissent, one can only begin to suspect that the NSA program is being used much like Nixon's "enemy list."

But hey, keep defending it, those of you who like the idea of our leaders being able to spy on American citizens without any oversight of any sort. Blind and unthinking obedience is likely the best way to keep oneself free from government spying...

The long held "holy grail" of modern intelligence, especially since the days of the Church hearings permanently destroyed the "human intelligence" aspect of the US intelligence operations has been large scale data mining. I guess you forget Admiral Poindexter's plan to get all information and collate it, or the CIA's current ongoing op called "Quantum Leap" that mines all of your bills, credit card statements, email, etc - right now.

What I think people like Gymoor basically object to is the existence of an intelligence gathering enterprise. They don't want it done by humans in a one on one way (the point of the Church hearings) and they don't want it done by technical means, either. In short, they don't want it done.

I personally don't have a problem with broad-based surveillance of credit card records, phone calls, and emails, web surfing habits, etc. It's the same thing as going outside in London - you can't avoid a camera if you're outside.

Sure, whatever I do inside my house, stays inside my house. But anything that goes outside the walls is fair game in my book.

See, Gymoor, you just have to be patient and an argument will start soon enough. :)

Thanks for making a thread on an aspect of this NSA thing that I've mentioned in other threads, but got ignored in hub-bub of the civil rights argument.

I don't understand how anyone can fail to get the point that "data-mining" (a/k/a "fishing expedition") is useless if you don't have enough qualified data analysts to make anything of it. As more reports show that the "mining" has been far more widespread than the administration first admitted, it seems obvious to me that the NSA should have been on a hiring spree as well. Yet there is no indication that they have been. Conclusion: they are using up untold amounts of taxpayer money and uncounted manhours that should be devoted to security, and they are accomplishing nothing.

Even if the true purpose of the project is to target domestic critics and dissenters, the result will still be nothing because they still don't have enough people to pull information out of all those taps. The only way they could use it would be to archive every single recorded phone call, and then, when some Quaker peace activist says something against Bush, they start a search to see if they've ever, under any circumstances, recorded a phone call from, to, or about this person, and if their name ever comes up, they brand them a suspected terrorist for having been targeted by this anti-terrorism program. Knowing how bureaucrats work, it should only take, from the time the Quaker speaks up, about 10 - 12 years to get an excuse to arrest and Gitmo-ize him.

I think we would get better results by "following the money" on this one (sage advice from good old Deep Throat (the informant, not the movie, though I suppose...)

Cheney loves the NSA project. Cheney doesn't love anything that doesn't pump money into some corporation he's connected to. An increase in spying like this must have required expensive new hardware and software. Just to collect the data (nevermind analyze it) would require more staff -- so if the NSA isn't hiring, they must be outsourcing. To whom? For how much?

I think this is the real purpose of the NSA program -- to make a few people very, very rich and to set things up so this gravy train will run indefinitely.

The long held "holy grail" of modern intelligence, especially since the days of the Church hearings permanently destroyed the "human intelligence" aspect of the US intelligence operations has been large scale data mining. I guess you forget Admiral Poindexter's plan to get all information and collate it, or the CIA's current ongoing op called "Quantum Leap" that mines all of your bills, credit card statements, email, etc - right now.

Again though, you're defending the idea of "if we do more of what didn't work, it'll work." Conservatives are supposed to be against those kinds of ideas. What were the cited problems with our intelligence post 9/11? Boots on the ground and the ability to share information quickly and expansively. This NSA program does neither and actually, since it greatly expands the amount of information gathered that has to be sifted through, pull manpower away from directions that we know need bolstering. Subsequent reports have indicated that the translation backlog still persists.

What I think people like Gymoor basically object to is the existence of an intelligence gathering enterprise. They don't want it done by humans in a one on one way (the point of the Church hearings) and they don't want it done by technical means, either. In short, they don't want it done.


You're free to make up what you think I object to. It doesn't make it accurate. I want intelligence gathering to go by the book. I want oversight. I want assurances that the government can't just rummage on a whim. When you cut out things like due process and warrants, you open the door, inevitably, to just that. The framers of the Constitution were very leery of investing too much power in one person. This NSA program does just that as well.

I personally don't have a problem with broad-based surveillance of credit card records, phone calls, and emails, web surfing habits, etc. It's the same thing as going outside in London - you can't avoid a camera if you're outside.

Fine. Do you have a problem if they take your guns away? Oh, so you want to pick and choose what Constitutional rights are inviolate? I thought so. Privacy is the same protection, ultimately, from the government that guns are.

Sure, whatever I do inside my house, stays inside my house. But anything that goes outside the walls is fair game in my book.

So, say 20 years in the future, we're hit with a massive terrorist attack. A state of war is declared. A party other than Republican is in power. The President at the time becomes concerned that certain Republicans are undermining the War effort. On a whim, he considers them possible enemies of the state and has all their communications tapped. Suddenly, this discretionary power you're so willing to hand the President, with no oversight and no records that can be reviewed, is a political weapon that infringes on your right to privacy, your right to assemble with like minded people, and your right to petition the government. If we openthe door, this is what we face, inevitably, considering that epople are indeed people and will use a power once it's handed to them. To think otherwise is to believe in the overall goodness and dependability of people to such an extent that you really shouldn't be supporting war in the first place, you bleeding heart you.

I personally don't have a problem with broad-based surveillance of credit card records, phone calls, and emails, web surfing habits, etc. It's the same thing as going outside in London - you can't avoid a camera if you're outside.

Fine. Do you have a problem if they take your guns away? Oh, so you want to pick and choose what Constitutional rights are inviolate? I thought so. Privacy is the same protection, ultimately, from the government that guns are.

...bitch slapped! :eek:

Fine. Do you have a problem if they take your guns away? Oh, so you want to pick and choose what Constitutional rights are inviolate? I thought so. Privacy is the same protection, ultimately, from the government that guns are.


No, the difference is that when they come to take my guns, they'll get more than some whining about my rights.

Rights do not exist because they are in the Constitution, or written down as law. Some rights exist regardless even if the government makes them illegal. There's a Supreme Court decision (Cruikshank, I believe, around 1876) that makes this clear.

Your First AND Second Amendment rights are such rights - they exist even if the government makes them illegal and the Constitution is torn up.

No, the difference is that when they come to take my guns, they'll get more than some whining about my rights.

Rights do not exist because they are in the Constitution, or written down as law. Some rights exist regardless even if the government makes them illegal. There's a Supreme Court decision (Cruikshank, I believe, around 1876) that makes this clear.

Your First AND Second Amendment rights are such rights - they exist even if the government makes them illegal and the Constitution is torn up.

Exactly. That's why, instead of whining, we have to impeach Bush's ass. Thanks for making my point.

Okay...so now I'm confused. You're saying that the Supreme Court, whose power is set up and defined by the Constitution, insures our rights, even if there is no Constitution? Um. Okay. Then you'll be happy to know that the Supreme court has upheld the idea of a right to privacy time and time again. Hopefully they'll do so once again.

There are countries where the right to free speech and the right to carry guns don't exist. Political talk can get you disappeared. All guns are outlawed. Tell the people in those countries that the government can't take away their rights. If you're in said countries at the time, don't expect to be keeping any appointments.

No, the difference is that when they come to take my guns, they'll get more than some whining about my rights.
:rolleyes:
I'm quivering with antici ...............................................pation.
Anywho, i figured the paranoia is well served with three things that may not seem like they have anything to do with each other ...
Upon closer inspection however, you might get a different idea.
I would also add I have been subject to a freeze ....

*ahem*

IRS Plan To Outsource Tax Collection Raises Security Concerns

The agency plans to hire three contractors to track down deadbeat taxpayers. But the Government Accountability Office and the National Treasury Employees Union have questioned the IRS's ability to properly manage contracted employees.
By Larry Greenemeier
InformationWeek

Jan 13, 2006 11:00 AM

The Internal Revenue Service by March expects to award contracts to three
private-sector companies to help the agency improve its ability to track
down deadbeat taxpayers. Yet despite carefully worded security stipulations
written into the IRS's request for quotes from prospective contractors,
concerns remain regarding the government and the business world's ability to
adequately protect sensitive information.

President Bush gave the IRS the power to use private-sector contractors when
he signed the American Jobs Creation Act in October 2004. The act created
Section 6206 of the Internal Revenue Code permitting contractors to be used
to help collect taxes in cases where the tax owed is not in dispute. The
IRS, which started looking for contractors last October, says using them for
debt collection will help increase the amount of tax liabilities collected
each year, leading to an estimated additional $1.4 billion dollars in tax
revenue over the next 10 years.

"Taxpayer information on file with the IRS is and will remain private and
secure," an IRS spokeswoman said Thursday. Contractors will only be able to
communicate with taxpayers via telephone or written correspondences, except
under special circumstances.

The contractor program will run on a trial basis for a year after the
contracts are awarded, with the option for another year if all goes well.
Full program implementation is planned for January 2008. The contractors
will help the agency collect a portion of the estimated $12 billion in taxes
individuals have acknowledged they owe but have not paid. The contractors
stand to receive up to 25% of the tax money they help to collect.

Due to the extreme sensitivity of tax data, the IRS, which expects to
process about 135 million individual tax returns in 2006, is requiring all
work done by contractors to be performed within the United States.
Contractors also have to agree to purge taxpayer financial information from
their IT systems once their work on a given taxpayer account is completed.
If the contractor isn't able to immediately purge this data, they are
responsible for protecting that data from unauthorized inspections or
disclosures. Contractor IT systems must meet Federal Information Security
Management Act of 2002 standards and track the location of tax returns and
return information at all times.

But both the Government Accountability Office and the National Treasury
Employees Union, which represents 94,000 employees of the Treasury
Department as well as another 60,000 employees in other federal agencies and
departments, have questioned the IRS's ability to properly manage contracted
employees in the past.

The GAO, which is Congress's investigative arm, has criticized the IRS over
its diligence in contractor background investigations. In an April 27, 2005
letter to IRS Commissioner Mark Everson, GAO Financial Management and
Assurance director Steven Sebastian identified a number of internal control
issues at the IRS that "adversely affected safeguarding of tax receipts and
information, refunds to taxpayers, and lien resolutions."

Sebastian's letter also notes that at three IRS service centers his group
investigated, some contractors were granted staff-like access to restricted
areas, including IRS-owned or controlled facilities, information systems,
security items and products, or sensitive but unclassified information,
despite not having undergone background investigations. This increased the
risk that "taxpayer receipts and information could be lost, stolen, misused,
or destroyed," Sebastian wrote. During his team's fiscal year 2004 audit,
they found the IRS didn't submit new security clearance paperwork for 10
contractors until four years after the contractors had already been granted
staff-like access.

In response to the GAO report, the IRS stated that it has "implemented
steps" to monitor and enforce existing requirements related to background
checks for contractors.

The IRS also is getting pressure from the Treasury Department's employee
union to use government employees rather than contractors. The National
Treasury Employees Union, unsurprisingly, believes that IRS employees could
do the same job cheaper and better. The union is pushing for passage of H.R.
1621, a House of Representatives bill sponsored by Rep. Rob Simmons,
R-Conn., that would revoke the IRS's authority to hire private debt
collectors.

Concerns over the government's ability to protect sensitive citizen data
extends to other federal agencies as well. The Justice Department failed to
remove several Social Security numbers from its Web site, www.usdoj.gov. For
example, the Social Security number of a woman involved in a 2003
immigration-review case was included in documentation about the case.
Additional site searches yielded other peoples' numbers in a half-dozen
other places.

The business world's track record of protecting customer data does little to
improve the public's confidence. People's Bank has joined the unenviable,
but growing, list of companies that have mishandled customer data. The
financial institution acknowledged Thursday that a backup tape containing
personal information on 90,000 customers was lost while being transported by
UPS to credit reporting bureau TransUnion. The tapes contained names,
addresses, and bank account and Social Security numbers for customers who
have a form of checking account overdraft protection called personal credit
lines.

Membership in the "Oops, I lost your data" club continues to grow.
Hopefully, the IRS and other handlers of sensitive information will learn
from their predecessors.
---
Wednesday, Jan. 11, 2006 11:00 a.m. EST
IRS Tracked Political Party Affiliation
The Internal Revenue Service collected information about the political party
affiliation of people in 20 states as it hunted down scofflaws who owed back
taxes.

Sen. Patty Murray (D-Wash.), a member of a subcommittee with jurisdiction
over the IRS, called the practice an "outrageous violation of the public
trust."

Sen. Murray told the Tacoma News Tribune that she learned about the practice
from the president of the National Treasury Employees Union, Colleen Kelly,
who said several IRS employees had complained to the union about the
collection of party affiliations.

Kelly wrote to the IRS that "material routinely consulted in the tax
collection process raises an appearance of possible impropriety that could
erode taxpayer confidence in the independence of our voluntary compliance
system."

In a letter to Kelly, Deputy IRS Commissioner John Dalrymple said the
information was collected through a "database platform" supplied by an
outside contractor, which targeted voter registration lists in search of tax
scofflaws.
"This information is appropriately used to locate information on taxpayers
whose accounts are delinquent," he told the News Tribune.
But Sen. Murray said: "This agency should not have that type of information.
No one should question whether they are being audited because of party
affiliation."

IRS officials have told the outside contractor to screen out the party
affiliation information.

The 20 states where the IRS collection the information, according to Murray,
are Alaska, Arkansas, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Florida, Louisiana,
Massachusetts, Michigan, Nevada, New Jersey, New York, North Carolina, Ohio, Oklahoma, Rhode Island, South Carolina, Texas, Utah and Wisconsin.
----
Report: IRS Holds Fraud Suspects' Refunds
Staff and agencies
10 January, 2006
By MARY DALRYMPLE, AP Tax Writer Tue Jan 10, 5:57 PM ET

WASHINGTON - The Internal Revenue Service freezes tens of thousands of tax
refunds it deems questionable without telling people that they're suspected
of fraud, the nation's taxpayer advocate said Tuesday.

"It is a central tenet of American law that the government must notify an
accused person of the offense it suspects he committed and must give the
accused person an opportunity to present exculpatory evidence to show his
innocence," Olson said in her report.

Speier said the IRS acknowledges it could do a better job of communicating
with these taxpayers. Overall, the program temporarily delays a small number
of refunds but stops billions in false refunds from being paid to criminals,
the agency said.

The IRS tries to validate the taxpayers' right to the refund and lifts the
freeze if no fraud is found. If the refund cannot be validated, it
permanently freezes the refund for further investigation.

Once frozen, some tax returns are referred to other IRS offices for an
audit. Olson said many probably aren't examined or resolved. Refunds claimed
on tax returns determined to be fraudulent remain frozen for an undisclosed
number of years until the IRS sees the taxpayer file a number of legitimate
returns.

That study showed no evidence of fraud in 66 percent of the cases, and
taxpayers were given a full refund. In another 14 percent of the cases,
taxpayers were given a partial refund. Taxpayers got some or all of their
claimed refund in 80 percent of the cases.

The IRS said the taxpayer advocate's study used a "significantly biased
sample." It cannot, therefore, be concluded that the majority of taxpayers
whose refunds are frozen under the program deserved those refunds. Innocent
taxpayers are more likely to search out a refund, they said.

The tax collectors said the cases involved sensitive criminal investigations
but that Criminal Investigation "acknowledges that communications with
taxpayers on potentially fraudulent returns is an issue." The IRS started
last March sending letters to some taxpayers who inquired about their
refunds.

"At a minimum, this procedure constitutes an extraordinary violation of
fundamental taxpayer rights and fairness," she said. "In our view, it may
also constitute a violation of due process of law."

Senate Finance Committee Chairman Charles Grassley, R-Iowa, said he was
troubled by some issues raised by the IRS refund freezes. "Refunds have been
a source of abuse recently, but we need to make sure taxpayers have proper
due process when the IRS decides to freeze a refund," he said in a
statement.

You know, there's a kid at my school who has a spectrum of letters he uses to indicate when he likes or dislikes something. The base letters are M, good, and W, bad. They're sort of like 1 and -1; then there are letters of greater magnitude, V is the worst, more like a -10 or something, and there are more positive letters too. But mostly he uses Ms and Ws.

Keeping that in mind, I think there's a reason Bush's identifying initial is W.

OK, Bush made a tactical error by not going and getting the retro-active warrants, but look at everything he's dealing with. He can't think of everything. And asking the CIA or FBI to think or something like that is like asking a Kentuckian why they date thier own sister. All you get is a blank stare and a grin.

Anyone with an IQ over that of a slug should know that you don't ever say anything truly private over an unsecured line. I couldn't care less if the Government is listening to me tell my wife that I am going to the store, and does she need anything, or telling my daughter that I love her.



so with all those people around him everyday, all those aides, advisers and whatnot, not one ever bothered to think and tap bush on the shoulder and say, "err, boss i think that's illegal. might need a warrant for that. if you can't get it now, at least get it soon after authorizing the wiretapping, okay?"

so you're saying that just because i don't give my credit card information, passwords, account numbers, etc over the phone, it's alright for the government to listen in to my conversations? if i don't even want my family and friends hear me fight with my boyfriend over highly personal matters, i sure as hell wouldn't want some anonymous person do it without my consent.


I am a firm believer in that old quote..."If you are not for us, you are against us. If you are against us, I will kill you, I will kill your family, I will kill your dog, I will burn your crops. I will hunt you down like the scum that you are, to keep the lives of me and mine safe".

oh that's just great. does that mean you want to kill everyone that argues with you on politics and the war? try it, i dare ya. i think you'll nicely be rewarded with a long jail sentence. "but, but, they're eeevil. they're scum. they were arguing with me over the internet."

snip

I like the cut of your jib, Epictitus.

That's right, domestic spying never made any sense in the first place...
Dubya just wants to know if anyone talks bad about him behind his back so he can send a certain black van to their houses to make them disappear over night...

No, the difference is that when they come to take my guns, they'll get more than some whining about my rights.
I'm sure they will appreciate that, probably congratulate you with a jail sentence.

Rights do not exist because they are in the Constitution, or written down as law. Some rights exist regardless even if the government makes them illegal. There's a Supreme Court decision (Cruikshank, I believe, around 1876) that makes this clear.
1876? It has probably been overridden two dozen times. The Constitution protects rights, you basically have no rights if they are not written down in the Constitution. You can say whatever you damn well please, but that obviously doesn't mean shit.

they exist even if the government makes them illegal and the Constitution is torn up.
And no one will give a rat's ass about those rights at that point in time. Even less so about the fundamental right to be able to shoot other people. :rolleyes:

That's right, domestic spying never made any sense in the first place...
Dubya just wants to know if anyone talks bad about him behind his back so he can send a certain black van to their houses to make them disappear over night...
Exactly! Well... nice knowing ya...

The Bush administration wasn't protecting us, they were wasting out time and money while they relieved us of our right to privacy...or at least our right to have someone checking when they invade our privacy.

Their methods make us less safe. Remember that.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10887725/

The Bush administration wasn't protecting us, they were wasting out time and money while they relieved us of our right to privacy...or at least our right to have someone checking when they invade our privacy.

Their methods make us less safe. Remember that.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10887725/
Here's another one, same basic idea (http://www.nytimes.com/2006/01/17/politics/17spy.html?pagewanted=print), but far more detailed.
But the results of the program look very different to some officials charged with tracking terrorism in the United States. More than a dozen current and former law enforcement and counterterrorism officials, including some in the small circle who knew of the secret program and how it played out at the F.B.I., said the torrent of tips led them to few potential terrorists inside the country they did not know of from other sources and diverted agents from counterterrorism work they viewed as more productive.

"We'd chase a number, find it's a schoolteacher with no indication they've ever been involved in international terrorism - case closed," said one former F.B.I. official, who was aware of the program and the data it generated for the bureau. "After you get a thousand numbers and not one is turning up anything, you get some frustration."

Exactly. That's why, instead of whining, we have to impeach Bush's ass. Thanks for making my point.

Okay...so now I'm confused. You're saying that the Supreme Court, whose power is set up and defined by the Constitution, insures our rights, even if there is no Constitution? Um. Okay. Then you'll be happy to know that the Supreme court has upheld the idea of a right to privacy time and time again. Hopefully they'll do so once again.

There are countries where the right to free speech and the right to carry guns don't exist. Political talk can get you disappeared. All guns are outlawed. Tell the people in those countries that the government can't take away their rights. If you're in said countries at the time, don't expect to be keeping any appointments.

No, I'm saying that there are certain rights under the Bill of Rights, specifically in the First and Second Amendments, that are held to be inalienable. That is, the government, and even the courts can hold them to be void, but you still have them.

If this is a police state, there sure are a lot of guns around. Police states invariably start by disarming the populace - but there's only one political party in the US that disarms the people as a matter of public policy - in one case, trying to do so by literally translating Hitler's civilian disarmament law.

Look at the 9/11 report. Look at the reason Homeland Security was founded. The problem wasn't that the government didn't have access to the information needed to avert 9/11. The problem was that they didn't have enough Arabic translators to keep up with the information they were already getting and they didn't have enough interdepartmental communication to put all the pieces together.

Now look at the NSA spying program. Even with a secret court set up to specifically issue warrants, even retroactively, the White House contends that the the sheer number of lines it wants to tap and the sheer amount of information it wants to gather is so much that they simply did not have time to get warrants.

In other words, they are making their number one problem in gathering intelligence even worse. There is now a truly massive amount of raw information to wade through, most of it likely innocent chatter. As I doubt Al Qaeda will oblige us by speaking primarily in English, any REAL intel will have to be translated before it can even be recognized as important. Meanwhile, inevitably, avenues of greater return for the amount of effort expended will have less emphasis placed on them as analysts are pulled off their jobs in order to interpret the data from the NSA program that is so massive that it needs to do an end around the secret court whose only function is to issue warrants for domestic spying.

So, basically, we're giving up our right to privacy to make us less safe. Brilliant!

In the final analysis, it makes no sense for the NSA program to be instituted UNLESS it's purpose isn't to keep us safe from Al Qaeda, but to gather information about Americans that can't be done in a legal manner. Considering the Bush administration's rather extreme stance on criticism and dissent, one can only begin to suspect that the NSA program is being used much like Nixon's "enemy list."

But hey, keep defending it, those of you who like the idea of our leaders being able to spy on American citizens without any oversight of any sort. Blind and unthinking obedience is likely the best way to keep oneself free from government spying...

i like the idea of being as safe as possible. The government owes us that, and listening in on terrorists' calls is far better than not listening to them, regardless of your argument that there's too much info for us to handle.

i'd much rather we have too much than none at all.

it's time to get real: these people hate us and want us dead. we need to know what they're plotting. if we stop listening, we'll lose a lot of potential leads (indeed, there will be no leads).

No, I'm saying that there are certain rights under the Bill of Rights, specifically in the First and Second Amendments, that are held to be inalienable. That is, the government, and even the courts can hold them to be void, but you still have them.

If this is a police state, there sure are a lot of guns around. Police states invariably start by disarming the populace - but there's only one political party in the US that disarms the people as a matter of public policy - in one case, trying to do so by literally translating Hitler's civilian disarmament law.

ahh, one great paradox of American liberals:

give us freedom, but take away our guns.

hehe

No, I'm saying that there are certain rights under the Bill of Rights, specifically in the First and Second Amendments, that are held to be inalienable. That is, the government, and even the courts can hold them to be void, but you still have them.

If this is a police state, there sure are a lot of guns around. Police states invariably start by disarming the populace - but there's only one political party in the US that disarms the people as a matter of public policy - in one case, trying to do so by literally translating Hitler's civilian disarmament law.
Well, it is alot smarter, and easier, to institute a police state by making the people with the guns like you. That way, you can deprive the peoples slowly of their fundamental rights while having the armed populace supporting you since you arn't doing anything suspicious like trying to take their guns. But, once you have finished removing all important barriers, you go after the people with guns, assuming they havn't already joined your official police state policing force.

i like the idea of being as safe as possible. The government owes us that, and listening in on terrorists' calls is far better than not listening to them, regardless of your argument that there's too much info for us to handle.

i'd much rather we have too much than none at all.

it's time to get real: these people hate us and want us dead. we need to know what they're plotting. if we stop listening, we'll lose a lot of potential leads (indeed, there will be no leads).
Nicely executed 100% missing of the point.

This whole debate is about our contention that the wiretap program makes us less safe. If you've read our arguments and concluded that it is still making us as safe as possible, then in your opinion I guess it's not possible for us to be safe at all.

Or else you just need to get those over-active knee-jerk responses looked at.

Oh, and which people hate us? I actually know who you're talking about, because you've gone on about this before, but I want to know if you get it that they are spying on all the people, not just "those people." They have already admitted how broad the scope of the spying is, so their claims that they are just targeting terrorists is clearly a lie. But you go ahead and believe the fairy tales if you want.

ahh, one great paradox of American liberals:

give us freedom, but take away our guns.

hehe
So, let me see if I understand how you think this is going to work:

1. The government can watch everything you do and listen to everything you say and track every move you make and every piece of paper you sign, can get access to all your bank accounts, etc., and can issue orders freezing your accounts, holding your paycheck, banning you from air travel, etc., but

2. The government is going to be perfectly okay with you owning guns, and they're going to let you shoot your enemies if they come after you, including government agents if they try to take your guns away.

Right. :rolleyes:

Well, it is alot smarter, and easier, to institute a police state by making the people with the guns like you. That way, you can deprive the peoples slowly of their fundamental rights while having the armed populace supporting you since you arn't doing anything suspicious like trying to take their guns. But, once you have finished removing all important barriers, you go after the people with guns, assuming they havn't already joined your official police state policing force.
I'm waiting for Order 66, personally.

ahh, one great paradox of American liberals:

give us freedom, but take away our guns.

hehe

You realize that not one "liberal" on this thread has suggested that we give up guns?

As the government gets more and more pervasive and sticks it's nose more and more into our business, I think more and more liberals see guns as a necessary evil.

But again, I wonder why the "I've got guns in case the guvment tries anything!" crowd is so willing to let the executive branch conduct completely unsupervised wiretapping, that, according to the evidence coming out, didn't solve our intelligence woes but exacerbated them.

Police states invariably start by disarming the populace

interesting. cause in my universe, it has historically been the case that authoritarian movements come to power by having a large number of armed individuals who aren't part of the state (at first) as part of their organization.

But again, I wonder why the "I've got guns in case the guvment tries anything!" crowd is so willing to let the executive branch conduct completely unsupervised wiretapping, that, according to the evidence coming out, didn't solve our intelligence woes but exacerbated them.

because they don't fear the government, they fear progress. they'll take all the fascism you've got as long as you don't make them help black people.

I'm waiting for Order 66, personally.
You would.
Well, point for the SW ref.

Actually, you are wrong, the people who "have their guns in case the guvment attacks" are also very much against the government spying.. in fact, they are against the government... period.. but.. i grew up around guns, and never shot anyone, neither did my parents, or my grandparents, etc etc, except in 1 case that I can remember, and it was with a shotgun, in the butt, as the punk was spraypainting one of my grandfather's cows.

He survived, and learned from the lesson.. never messed with my grandpa again. I, do not own a gun, but not because I am scared of them, I just think it's a waste of time for me to have one, when a) I'm a trucker, and by federal law, we cannot have any weapon of any kind inside a commercial vehicle (which is crazy.. the guy wanting my 2million $US worth cargo is sure gonna have guns, but I cant) and b) why keep one at home, when I'm never there?

My wife, however, does own a small derringer which she keeps in her purse, fully loaded at all times, in case someone tries to rape her.. again..

Actually, you are wrong, the people who "have their guns in case the guvment attacks" are also very much against the government spying.. in fact, they are against the government... period..

evidence?

evidence? for stating a logical conclusion? what kind of tripe is that?

If we are talking about people who distrust the government to the point they think the government is going to come after them, and they need guns to protect themselves from said government, why is it a stretch to think those same people would want said government spying on them?

:headbang: I mean.. its not rocket science..

evidence? for stating a logical conclusion? what kind of tripe is that?

If we are talking about people who distrust the government to the point they think the government is going to come after them, and they need guns to protect themselves from said government, why is it a stretch to think those same people would want said government spying on them?

:headbang: I mean.. its not rocket science..

Ask anyone in the NRA what the primary purpose of the 2nd Amendment is. Then ask them if they support the President's wiretap program.

It's not rocket science.

If we are talking about people who distrust the government to the point they think the government is going to come after them, and they need guns to protect themselves from said government, why is it a stretch to think those same people would want said government spying on them?

because their actions seem to indicate otherwise. and because it is an empirical statement and therefore needs to be backed up by empirical evidence.