Jump to content

Snowden


ken barber

Recommended Posts

U.S. intelligence agencies fear Edward Snowden has achieved celebrity as a leaker and could be inspiring others to disclose classified national security information.One indication of that may be in new documents published this week by the Intercept, the website begun by Glenn Greenwald, who published Snowden's leaks.Government officials believe the documents, labeled "Secret," came from a Pentagon-run computer network called SIPRnet that government agencies used to share classified information. Investigators are looking for the leak.The degree that people have been lionizing Snowden, it encourages people to make a name for themselves by leaking," Schiff told CNN in an interview.Rep. Adam Schiff, a member of the House Intelligence Committee, called it the "copycat phenomenon" and noted it was a big concern.Schiff said the issue has come up in intelligence briefings that he couldn't talk about."It's a concern we've discussed: That Snowden has become the model for other leakers," he said.

++++The above is a clip from and article on CNN.com. http://www.cnn.com/2014/08/06/politics/leaks-snowden-copycat/index.html?hpt=po_c2

This is what happens when the we honor a traitor. This man is not a celebrity he broke the law and violated an oath he swore he belongs in prison. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Whether the amount of government secrecy is a good thing or a bad thing is besides the point, disclosing classified information is against the law and it has always been so. The rapidity of Russian sanctuary for this leaker only reinforces the value that the Russian Government puts on the information Snowden gave them. Has it damaged the United States, we may never know, but my guess is the answer is YES.

 

We are in a precarious "pickle" right now and ANY damage to our position, however small, could put us over the edge. We are beset on all sides and it would not take a lot of damage to work irrepairable harm on our country, I have witnessed first hand, how the "otherside" lives and it scares the HELL outta me!

 

 

Charles Bird

SeaBird

Link to comment
Share on other sites

While I agree, wholeheartedly, that Snowden is a criminal (he violated not just his "oath," but the very meaning of the law), we should be very, very careful about labeling him, a traitor.

 

I say this, because Treason is the only crime that is wholly defined within the Constitution. It has a very distinct meaning and this meaning has not changed since the Constitution was written. The one thing that we should all be weary of, is an expansion of the terms. Once we start expanding the definition, we can be assured that it will not stop. Currently Treason is defined in U.S.C. 18 § 2381:

 

 

Whoever, owing allegiance to the United States, levies war against them or adheres to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort within the United States or elsewhere, is guilty of treason and shall suffer death, or shall be imprisoned not less than five years and fined under this title but not less than $10,000; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States.

 

 

The above is very specific. Whatever else Snowden is guilty of, it is not Treason.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

While generally I would agree with you, his seeking sanctuary in a foreign state is probably not treason, but how long does it take under these circumstances before he looses his citizenship? Sanctuary is NOT the same as voluntary residence and the fact that he "carried" state secrets into this sanctuary that is sponsored by a foreign power compounds the problem. In giving those secrets to Russia in return for sanctuary, is Snowden then "employed" by the Russian Government? THAT is a big question because that is one of the ways a person can loose his or her American Citizenship.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well Alan you are very correct that this is spelled out specifically in our Constituion, but I'm just waiting for the whole political agenda even in this regard rear it's ugly head and once more twist and turn our Constitution to suit their definition. After all there are various definitions of war, and that is the first place our Supreme courst would slowly chip away at depending on their personal beliefs and not the intent of the Constitution. What Snoden did in my opinion is definately against the law and he should pay the piper. What has me more concerned though is our own government spying on it's own citizens, and believe me the information they are gathering is for political gains and their own self interests. They could care less about the average every day citizens and in my opinion what they are doing is against the law as well, yet no one is going to pay the piper for that one are they. After all they are the elite and if anything some flunky will pay, but I doubt that's ever going to happen. We accuse Russia and all of these other countries of spying on their own people yet we are heading down the same road and our government is getting just as bad in some regards. It doesn't take much to go down that slippery slope and the government is about keeping the average citizen under their thumb. We are way better off than most people in the world, but again, for how much longer. Our politicians would love to trample all of our rights so long as they reap the benefits. Slowly but surely our rights as citizens are being eroded and more restrictions put in place. Slowly but surely our Constitution and it's original intent is being manipulated by the system for their own gains. The people sitting on the bench is supposed to have a blind eye to their own personal beliefs yet they interject it each and every time they make a ruling. They made it to the bench not because of their qualifications but their personal beliefs. Politics at its height of corruption.

What Snowden did was completely wrong and I'm sure at some point he will probably be brought back. It may take years, but at some point our government will get him in all likelihood; unless, they truly want this to simply go away. Who knows bringing him to justice might create an even bigger fervor and who knows what all will be revealed.

It's a sad thing because on the one hand what he did was totally out of line; yet, on the other hand it came to light what our own government was doing to it's own citizens. Shame on America for doing that and trampling our rights in this fashion. It's kind of ironic because supposedly NSA is keeping all these records of everything so why not produce the records of the IRS and the lost email transactions, lol?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

This is what happens when the we honor a traitor. This man is not a celebrity he broke the law and violated an oath he swore he belongs in prison. 

 

Good thing we aren't honoring a traitor.

 

Read the constitution:

 

Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.

 

 

He didn't levy war against the US.  He isn't 'adhering to [our] enemies', he's blowing a much needed whistle on the state of our intelligent apparatus.  Far from being a taitor, he is a hero, willingly giving up his comfortable life and his family for the good of his nation.  He didn't try to profit by releasing the information, he simply got it out there and then acted to preserve his own life.  If he'd stayed in the US, there is zero doubt in my mind he'd have wound up vanished, either to Guantanimo or some other facility.  And if he hadn't escaped from US control as quickly as he did, I doubt the information -- which needed to get out there -- would have managed it.

 

While Wikileaks and Snowden's actions may have done some actual, real damage to our nation and it's interests, in my mind the bulk of the 'damage' has been in revealing a corrupt government for what it is.  And that far outweighs the damage Snowden has done.  And note that -- despite the efforts of many individuals to conflate the two -- unlike Chelsea Manning's releases, Snowden did his best to vet the documents he released to minimize the damage done.

 

So, bluntly, lets hope for more releases.  We need to shine the light on our government and it's actions, and we need to do so badly.

 

 

It's a sad thing because on the one hand what he did was totally out of line; yet, on the other hand it came to light what our own government was doing to it's own citizens. Shame on America for doing that and trampling our rights in this fashion. It's kind of ironic because supposedly NSA is keeping all these records of everything so why not produce the records of the IRS and the lost email transactions, lol?

 

Because the records the NSA is keeping is useless for that conversation.  It's metadata -- who sent an email, when, and to whom.  And from there, what replies were sent, so on and so forth.  What you need is the content of those emails -- which the NSA does not keep.  At least, none of the leaks has revealed anything quite that broad yet.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No not quite traitor but also no hero in my opinion. As many documents as he stole it is too difficult for him to vet it all. I'm afraid of what both outcomes can mean. Like I said we needed to know some of the things the government is doing illegally, but it scares me to death what can be released by accident and unwittingly. This is dangerous all around. We don't know what all was taken so we don't know just how dangerous it has made it for our country.

As for the NSA, I'm sure they have the necessary information, lol, but good luck getting it from them. Once that door is opened then the legal system will go wild with trying to get them to submit documentation on a whole slew of issues. So convenient for the IRS though with the records going poof, lol. Wish I could get away with such a lame excuse. I think it would be interesting to see what happened if everyone getting audited suddenly stands up to the IRS and the government and simply say, "Sorry, all the records got lost." Never will happen, but it would be funny to see the reactions of the IRS agency. That's one arm of the government that really needs to be regulated heavily. The average citizen doesn't stand a chance against them, and there needs to be more done to tip the balance back into the citizen's hands. When it comes to the IRS the average Joe is screwed. The whole debacle regarding the IRS is another shameful thing with how our Congress is handling this issue with everyone going down party lines once more for the most part.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What Snowden did is part and parcel of a much larger issue that includes government spying on its own citizens, US. That spying has been going on for a long time, but during the present Administration, it has become a fine art. We, the public, are on a wild roller coaster ride to becoming subjects rather than citizens. We already have a Royal Presidency and they are working hard to disarm us. The next step is to limit our ability to move about our own country and that has already begun. There are DHS checkpoints on many major highways throughout the country and you can bet your bottom dollar your license plate it being recorded a you drive through. Our travels by air are recorded by the same DHS  and there is no question in my mind that there is a file somewhere with each of our names on it, with records of where we go and when we go there. Our financial transactions are already recorded by the Treasury Department and our telephone conversations are monitored by soldiers and sailors at Fort Gordon Georgia and at Fort Belvoir in Maryland. There may be other locations now, that information is several years old.

 

Recent news reports tell us that our e-mails are being collected and local jurisdictions are being required to submit copies of traffic camera files. The National Government probably knows more about us than we know ourselves. Congress is a hopeless cripple and slowly, the noose is tightening around our individual necks, making the term, "THE LAND OF THE FREE" a childish joke.

 

Charles Bird

SeaBird

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree on a lot of points you've made and I've been saying this for years. The current Administration may have made this a fine art, but it most definately was started in previous Administrations setting the groundwork for what it has blossomed into. Previous Administrations knew that over time how this was going to blossom and take over. Like everything else in this country the government slowly chips away at our Constitutional rights tweeking it here and there to suit their own personal needs. They've always had an end goal in mind, that is complete and utter control over all of the U.S. citizens, but the way to get there is not to simply do it in one fell swoop but to take all these little baby steps which leads to a landslide in the end. You chip away at our rights here and there in little steps which opens the door to chip away at it from a different angle and before you know it you've got what you've wanted.

We are quick to point a finger at the Russians and accuse them of spying on their citizens, but our government is by far worse now than Russia in this regard in my opinion. The Russian government most assuredly spies on its own citizens, but with our technology we have far outpaced Russia's capabilities in this regard. Our every step and move is accounted for in some way or manner. Now they want to allow the use of Drones for firefighers and the police, etc..., they say laws will be passed so that it can only be used in emergency situations for things like searching for missing people, monitoring fires, etc..., but we all know that once the police are allowed to use drones that those laws will end up morphing into something completely different. Once a law is implimented allowing them to use drones they will chip away at the law here and there and before you know it they are using drones all over the skies to spy on the average every day citizens.

It's like in our state with those stupid traffic cameras. Initially those were installed with the stipulation that when you get a violation it would only cost like $15 or $20 dollars but cities soon found a loop hole in the initial intent of the law and since the get go are passing out $200 tickets because there was a little passage in the law concerning handicap ticketing which allowed them to increase the range up to that amount because of how the law was worded. Well guess what our legislatures simply let it stand never going back to repair the wording, which makes me wonder if they've had that in mind all along. Corruption to the umpteenth and that is our government at work. They find ways to chip away at the laws to pervert it for their own use. Temporary taxes, baaaah, nothing temporary about them. Once implemented they are unwilling to keep their filthy hands off the money so morph it into something else to keep it in place forever.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As for the NSA, I'm sure they have the necessary information, lol, but good luck getting it from them. Once that door is opened then the legal system will go wild with trying to get them to submit documentation on a whole slew of issues. So convenient for the IRS though with the records going poof, lol. Wish I could get away with such a lame excuse. I think it would be interesting to see what happened if everyone getting audited suddenly stands up to the IRS and the government and simply say, "Sorry, all the records got lost." Never will happen, but it would be funny to see the reactions of the IRS agency. That's one arm of the government that really needs to be regulated heavily. The average citizen doesn't stand a chance against them, and there needs to be more done to tip the balance back into the citizen's hands. When it comes to the IRS the average Joe is screwed. The whole debacle regarding the IRS is another shameful thing with how our Congress is handling this issue with everyone going down party lines once more for the most part.

You really need to move it into a seperate thread if you really want to discuss the IRS stuff, but the situation is not how a lot of people would like to portray it.  It may be a double standard that the IRS will get in less trouble than we would in such a situation, but the fact is there really are good explanations for why that data was lost.  The government's IT policies are somewhere between 'outdated', 'atrocious', and 'damaging'.  And those IT policies are what lead to the lost e-mails.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes I'm sure it would fit into a seperate category, but it was sort of an aside to the main topic, and if you would note it was a little blurb which I had moved on from and left it alone. I'm sure it happens all the time among the other topics as well where something is discussed and it sort of travels in a round about way to the main topic discussing other things as well along the way in a roundabout way (If that last sentence isn't beating around the bush then I don't know what is, lol). Anyway, if it is the case that other topics can't creep in at times then perhaps it should be stipulated in the rules for everyone to follow, just so it is clarified. Overall I keep on topic for the most part, but let's face it with many focused topics other things tie in to it for conversational sake.

Anyway, since you brought it back up and made a quick comment on it I will as well. I'm sure the IRS IT policies are outdated in some respects , like many things in our government in some respects, although they do hire professional IT professionals and companies to try keeping the IRS on track, but when the IRS break their own rules, then there you go. It is interesting to note though how the timing was convenient, and let's face it the government is good at that when it protects their own interests. They are good at hiding things just like they've been hiding all these secrets Snowden brought out about how they are spying on us (how's that for tying in the IRS into the Snowden conversation, lol). As for a really good explanation, nah, it's pretty lame and it is fairly obvious what happened. Double standard...yes...but the way it should work...is that it is the American People who are afforded the benefit of the doubt...not the government. Anyway...my opinion on the matter.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Anyway, since you brought it back up and made a quick comment on it I will as well. I'm sure the IRS IT policies are outdated in some respects , like many things in our government in some respects, although they do hire professional IT professionals and companies to try keeping the IRS on track, but when the IRS break their own rules, then there you go. It is interesting to note though how the timing was convenient, and let's face it the government is good at that when it protects their own interests. They are good at hiding things just like they've been hiding all these secrets Snowden brought out about how they are spying on us (how's that for tying in the IRS into the Snowden conversation, lol). As for a really good explanation, nah, it's pretty lame and it is fairly obvious what happened. Double standard...yes...but the way it should work...is that it is the American People who are afforded the benefit of the doubt...not the government. Anyway...my opinion on the matter.

Um, the IRS may hire 'professionals' to keep them on track, but their IT policies are so bad there is zero doubt in my mind that they truly, genuinely, and without deliberation just plain lost the emails in question.  What surprises me is that they don't lose all their emails.

 

Here is an article covering just how atrocious their system is.  Some highlights:

 

Users were limited to 150MB of storage space (now upped to 500MB).  Document retention is handled by archiving .pst files to local drives, and then printing out 'official correspondence' documents.  Given their age and probable condition, those drives are probably dying like flies -- being constantly replaced, their data lost.  And their server backups are stored using a six-month rollover strategy -- the backup lasts for six months before being replaced by a newer backup.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Then if nothing else they are guilty of negligence because they are supposed to keep records of everything. I still think it was deliberate because it not only happened to one but several at the same time on different systems. Too much of a coincidence in my book and something most definately that wouldn't fly for anyone else no matter how outdated their system. To keep this in line with the Snowden thread if only his system could have crashed as well, lol, but no such dumb luck there.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Then if nothing else they are guilty of negligence because they are supposed to keep records of everything. I still think it was deliberate because it not only happened to one but several at the same time on different systems. 

You make it sound like it's somehow surprising that multiple systems would go down at the same time.  It's actually exactly what you'd expect.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You make it sound like it's somehow surprising that multiple systems would go down at the same time.  It's actually exactly what you'd expect.

Yes, when they are on seperate systems and email accounts.  To have everyone email accounts disappear like that is a bit suspicious, not to mention to dispose of the seperate hard drives the way they did when there is a procedure set in place for this in which they ignored.  So yes, way too suspicious with most definately the average every day Joe most assuredly getting prison time for such actions if we were to do the same.  Anyway, now we truly have gone off the grid of the original snowden posting, lol, unless we want to tie in the fact that if Snowden comes back he's going to prison for his actions, lol.  I keep trying to tie and keep it in the realm of the original post, you keep spinning us away from it, lol.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Haha :P  too funny.  It's funny how he was the one to point out the IRS topic should be in another thread.  So it goes, lol.  No harm in it though in my opinion.  If we stray a little it doesn't much matter so long as the conversation is a good one.  After all that's how it is in life, we move from topic to topic as the conversation carries forward.  We can't stay stuck, but move forward, so in my opinion no foul no harm, well at least that's how it should be, but to tie in the Snowden factor I'm sure that's not how our government views the fact of how he revealed so much embarrising things the government is doing to us.  It's a two edged sword though because it also at the same time made it dangerous for our country.  Who knows where the information he has taken will lead down the road.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, when they are on seperate systems and email accounts.  To have everyone email accounts disappear like that is a bit suspicious, not to mention to dispose of the seperate hard drives the way they did when there is a procedure set in place for this in which they ignored.  So yes, way too suspicious with most definately the average every day Joe most assuredly getting prison time for such actions if we were to do the same.  Anyway, now we truly have gone off the grid of the original snowden posting, lol, unless we want to tie in the fact that if Snowden comes back he's going to prison for his actions, lol.  I keep trying to tie and keep it in the realm of the original post, you keep spinning us away from it, lol.

 

Re-read the article.  First off, server-side copies are gone -- users are required to store them locally, because of the aforementioned size limits on their inboxes.  And with a six-month turnover on backups, the backups from the relevant emails have been overwritten six times since 2011.

 

As for the local copies they're supposed to keep, hard drives fail.  And the last time the IRS upgraded their infrastructure was in 2002.  No, it's not surprising, at all, that they might have had mass hard drive failures.  Not surprising at all.

And for however much you carp about how the 'normal' man would be in trouble, why don't you try to show the same compassion you'd like to request and stop carping at the IRS.  However stupid I might find a lot of things, I'm not going to carp on them for losing the emails in question.  What I want to carp about is the crappy approach the government in general takes to IT, but that's another story.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And for however much you carp about how the 'normal' man would be in trouble, why don't you try to show the same compassion you'd like to request and stop carping at the IRS.  However stupid I might find a lot of things, I'm not going to carp on them for losing the emails in question.  What I want to carp about is the crappy approach the government in general takes to IT, but that's another story.

I'm not exactly sure what you mean by "why don't you try to show the same compassion you'd like to request and stop carping at the IRS"  Are you trying to suggest I show compassion to the IRS when they obviously do not show it to the average citizen when things go wrong.  Sorry if I can't trust the IRS to do the right thing.  It's one of the most powerful arms of the government, and you might not be afraid of them, but most people are.  Just for the record I never requested compassion from the IRS because I wouldn't expect them to show any towards people.  I just pointed out that the average person wouldn't be able to come up with excuses of any kind.  The IRS wants what they want, no matter any excuses the average American citizen may have.  So the whole compassion thing is a bit confusing in the way you present it unless I'm missing your meaning, which is possible.

 

Yes, I will give you that there are plenty of issues regarding the IT within the IRS and a lot of our government agencies in this regard, but let's face it there are a lot of people involved here with a lot of emails from multiple people going poof.  Is it plausible, sure, but this most definately goes a lot deeper with this being the tip of the iceberg.  You say why carp on this, well just like an iceberg the bulk of the mass is below the surface, but every so often it tips and rotates revealing what's truly under the surface.  Continue chipping away at what you can and eventually you may come up with the real truth.  Why deviate from the protocol in reporting and disposing of the hard drives then?  See it just isn't the lost emails, failed harddrives, but everything that revolves around it.  There's a lot of lying going on all around and I'm sure many are now in the protecting themselves mode.  There are even bigger issues than the simple IRS one and the IT one.  It's not only this administration, but administrations in the past and the ones that will follow afterwards. 

 

Why carp about one thing or another, why not, we all do it, lol.  Sorry, but I'm sure there are some things you carp about as well that seem important at the time.  We all do that.  Although, why not add that to another thread, the whole issue of the crappy approach the government in general takes to IT?  I'm sure there are plenty of members that have a decent handle with this topic that could give you a stimulating conversation regarding it.  It falls in your realm of interests so why not put it out there to see what others have to say about it. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not exactly sure what you mean by "why don't you try to show the same compassion you'd like to request and stop carping at the IRS"  Are you trying to suggest I show compassion to the IRS when they obviously do not show it to the average citizen when things go wrong.

You have a point -- and I think I was misreading your points earlier.  But at the same time, he who does not show mercy cannot expect to receive it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But at the same time, he who does not show mercy cannot expect to receive it.

Exactly, and I know this isn't what you had intended for your quote and do understand it in the way it was sent and meant but...since the IRS behaves towards the average American citizen in the fashion it does, then it shouldn't expect any mercy when it misbehaves and illegally targets certain groups.  Now I'm not saying that because it was Republican Tea Party (and despite what people may believe in some of my comments, I'm not a republican or democrat; I'm an independent if people want to know) people who were targeted, but rather I'd be peeved at no matter who or what particular party affiliation is targeted.  If it was specific democrats that were targeted because they are democrats I'd be really upset about that as well.  I do not appreciate any government entity targeting any, and I mean any, specific party.  For one administration or another to use the IRS in this fashion is illegal and should be dealt with rather swiftly by Congress on both sides because they could be next.  The IRS is supposed to be neutral and treat everyone equally, even if that equal is treating them like crap, but treating one or the other more harshly because of political views is wrong plain and simple and those individuals in the IRS need to pay the piper because they were just as wrong as what Snowden did.  Yes, I appreciate to some extent what Snowden brought to light, but he went way beyond the line of simply exposing certain criminal activities of our government when he absconded(or is it obsconded...we really do need a spellcheck feature on here, lol) with a whole slew of other sensitive material that could put our country in harm's way if it gets into the wrong hands.

 

Now back to your point about showing compassion, yes we need to show mercy and compassion when appropriate, yet we need to also be firm in our conviction with what is right and wrong.  Just because you punish your children for doing wrong doesn't mean you are a monster or that you do not have compassion for them.  On the contrary, you punish your children (and now I'm not saying corporal punishment and smacking them around and crap like I now many would suddenly misread into my statement like they always do making inferences just because they don't like another person's viewpoint so just hold on to your knickers everyone in this regard and don't jump to conclusions) to teach them from right and wrong, to protect them when what they are doing could get them hurt.  Just because we tell someone what they did was wrong and then punish them for it doesn't mean we don't have compassion for them.  We do this to protect everyone else as well.  If I say go after the IRS and certain individuals for overstepping their bounds (and I mean this in the way of investigating them to the fullest extent holding them accountable for their actions and words, and yes going after them when important information suddenly evaporates whether their excuse is plausible or not), that isn't necessarily not showing compassion.  Where was the compassion in these individuals who carried out something that was so blatantly harmful to other innocent people.  We cannot allow such things to occur and to do this we have to send a message this behavior is unnacceptable.  Doing so on our part does not indicate we do not have compassion, on the contrary it shows we have compassion towards those who have been wronged.  Sometimes showing compassion means making the tough choice.  If we love our children, when we punish them it is difficult for us, but we do it precisely because we love and have compassion for them.  Don't confuse certain actions as not having compassion because that truthfully can be a mistake of assumptions.  We all have our varied views of what is right or wrong in a specific context, but for most we tend to have an overall generalized view of what is right or wrong.  We also have various views on how such things should be dealt with, but that is why we also have procedures in place to deal with such things.  Like I pointed out compassion has a time and place, and should always be a factor, but we have to weigh it in with how we have compassion for those who are harmed as well.

 

I have compassion for Snowden and I feel for him because I honestly believes if he returns to our country he really won't have proper protections in the legal sense because of the nature of his accused crime.  He falls into a totally different category in the legal sense, so it is difficult for me to justify bringing him back in this fashion to pay the piper.  My hope is that some day an agreement can be reached where his legal protections will be assured and he gets a fair shake at coming home to face the piper in the true sense of the word.  The way things are now he doesn't stand a chance in the legal sense because of the nature of the crime he's been accused of.  I feel compassion towards him in this regard, but I feel strongly that he has to face up to what he did in some regards by coming home someday.  Again, in my opinion we should support an effort to bring him home in a way that he will be assured a truly fair legal way.  Right now that simply isn't what the government wants.  Maybe someday down the line a compromise in this regard can occur.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I can't address the entirety of your comment very effectively; this forum does NOT format walls of text very well, and I just had a hard time reading it in the first place.  I just can't handle 20-30 lines of closely spaced text -- my eyes refuse to track it.  But this sentence jumped out at me.

 

 Where was the compassion in these individuals who carried out something that was so blatantly harmful to other innocent people.

 

Correct me if I'm wrong, but this scandal had nothing to do with denying people tax-exempt status wrongfully, it was about increased scrutiny for certain individuals based on their political agenda.

 

Was it wrong to deliberately target the President's political opponents, yes.  Were they 'innocent'?  Hardly.  They were trying to claim tax exempt status when they didn't meet the criteria in the first place.  Cry me a river.  (Note:  I'll freely grant they may have believed they met the criteria, but that is a different story altogether.)  Now, if you find evidence that a group should have been considered tax exempt, but for political purposes they were not, that would be a different story.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Correct me if I'm wrong, but this scandal had nothing to do with denying people tax-exempt status wrongfully, it was about increased scrutiny for certain individuals based on their political agenda.

 

Was it wrong to deliberately target the President's political opponents, yes.  Were they 'innocent'?  Hardly.  

 

Sorry about the font size, hopefully this shows up better for you.

 

Yes the scandal had a lot to do with increased scrutiny and innapropriate requests for additional information they didn't request of others, all of which drew out the process to the point where some removed their request for tax exempt status (and yes I'm sure there's a big percentage of those who did so for other reasons, but if even one removed their submittal due to the innapropriate actions of the IRS and the pressure they applied then it is wrong) while others had to wait longer before being approved with a few lasting up to two election cycles.  Of course a percentage of those who applied were denied tax exempt status because yes indeed they did not qualify, but in my view drawing out the process for a certain targeted group is illegal, despite I'm sure them finding plenty of loopholes to justify their actions up to a point.

 

In addition are you suggesting that those individuals who were unduly scrutinized where guilty of something.  That's how it is coming across by the "Were they 'innocent'? Hardly," comment.  If they are guilty of doing something illegal in their request for tax exempt status then that is something new on me, if you are simply assuming they are guilty because of their political views then that's disturbing as well.  The statement comes across a bit on the assumption of them "hardly" being innocent.  If there's proof that they aren't innocent in this process, then I'd like to know what they did to "hardly" make them innocent in this process.  In my view simply asking for tax exempt status even though they might not qualify doesn't make them guilty of something.  If so then I'm sure there are plenty of people out there who are guilty just for applying even though they aren't sure if they qualify.

 

So technically in the end even though a good amount of them were finally granted tax exempt status the way they were targeted, scrutinized closer than other groups, and simply delayed in the process indicates a serious problem.  Like I said I'd be just as upset at this no matter which party this happened to.  The behavior at best is despicable and at worst illegal.  Of course the whole illegal part would still need to be determined, but I don't think this will ever happen considering the polarized political party agenda on both sides.  It is very disturbing though because this could open up doors in the future to continue such behavior...again, I emphasize could and not necessarily this happening again.

 

So yes technically speaking...no they weren't denied in the sense of the word that in the end of the 296 potential political cases that were reviewed 108 applications had been approved, 28 were withdrawn by the applicant, none had been denied, and 160 cases were open from 206 to 1,138 calendar days (some crossing two election cycles).  Having said this though what did it take to finally approve those 108 applicants and how long had it taken for them to be approved compared to others of differing political leanings?  This all comes from a site that agrees with your assessment (http://www.nationalmemo.com/the-tea-party-the-irs-scandal-and-the-actual-facts-of-the-case/) in regards to it being more about them in the end not being denied, but the legal concern for me is in the way they went about it...if this truly is legal.  They deliberately held up the process and they deliberately asked for additional information (some of it considered private) that they didn't require of other applicants, and in what appears to be a targeted group.

 

"Crying a river" doesn't have anything to do with it.  Some could cry a river on a whole range of issues while others roll their eyes at it.  Just because one person or other might deem certain individuals as "hardly" innocent doesn't mean that it is right to target those individuals for whatever reason in an unfair manner just because it is assumed that they might not be so squeeky clean, lol.  After all where does it end then?  All sides should be afforded equal protection of due process.  Plain and simple it would "appear" at the very least people were unduly scrutinized because of political leanings in this case.  Again, I say "appears" because we have to allow for the fact that perhaps this isn't what happened since the individuals within the IRS is also afforded the priviledge of due process in determining if they did something wrong in this regard.

 

Sorry, about the length again.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

Sorry about the font size, hopefully this shows up better for you.

It's not a font size issue.  It's a formatting issue -- line length comes to mind.  Font size can help, but what's really needed -- and I didn't think of -- is to adjust the line spacing.

 

 

 

In addition are you suggesting that those individuals who were unduly scrutinized where guilty of something.  That's how it is coming across by the "Were they 'innocent'? Hardly," comment.  If they are guilty of doing something illegal in their request for tax exempt status then that is something new on me, if you are simply assuming they are guilty because of their political views then that's disturbing as well.  The statement comes across a bit on the assumption of them "hardly" being innocent.

Given that I'm basically picking at very specific points and phrasings, it was rather boorish of me not to double-check my own.  I apologize for that mistake.  That said...

 

My phrasing was poorly chosen, I'll agree, but in the end the point is valid: to the best of my knowledge, insofar as anyone was 'harmed' because of political leanings, it was only in regards to having the request for tax-exempt status more closely inspected.  They weren't denied for political reasons.  (Though some of those denied were definitely denied for bad reasons; 'Open Source' software was one of the terms they threw in for extra scrutiny, and the IRS's poor understanding of the concept lead to them rejecting at least one application because it 'didn't qualify' when really, it should have)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...