Prism Program ( Big Brother gone too far?)

[ravenshrike]

 

 

 

 

Stop, turn around, and go look at the documentation of the IRS stuff. That was handled 1 or two offices TOTAL and done without the presidents knowledge of authorization. The assumptions that it went to the presidential level was created by Fox and friends to get viewers hooked and ideologically on their side.

 

Obama has a pretty big problem with perception now. It isn't just the IRS stuff, it's the systematic spying on journalists for doing their job even if everyone* agrees what they've done is legal, it's prism, it's the persecution of whistleblowers, the unbelievably ill conceived notion of claiming the right to summarily execute by fiat of terrorist label and the overall conclusion has to be that the guy who promised transparency (hey, he's talking about it right now in RSA) really meant that the US public would be transparent, not its government. He looks more and more like a US version of Tony Blair- articulate enough to deflect criticism for a while, but ultimately immensely disappointing and not likely to be remembered kindly.

 

*well, those who want to criminalise journalism would like it to be illegal to publicise a leak as well as actually do the leak

 

I know, I wasn't talking about anything except the IRS schtick. My point was that the IRS thing was internal to the IRS, and not Obama sitting in office going "I want you to go out and ensure that my opponents have tax issues!" to the IRS bosses. GD makes it sound like Obama had a Fast and Furious esque CCTV view of all of the deals and was quietly giggling to himself each time a republican was delayed or turned down.

We THINK it was internal. One should wait until the investigation is done to declaim such a thing solidly however. Lerner's testimony should be interesting. Hopefully the republicans will actually have the balls to use their sergeant at arms and that nice warm jail cell they have under Congress if she continues to try and plead the 5th after already testifying that she broke no IRS rules or regulations and that she has not provided any false infomation to the commitee. Which means she waived any and all right not to answer questions concerning IRS rules and regulations or any information previously given to Congress. Now, since that was not a Mirandization, she can still selectively not answer any questions about other topics, but anything under those categories is fair game.

 

And we thought it was entirely external due to the media blitz pushing that connection and the politicization. A political witch hunt will net us nothing, and just because somebody doesn't have the Miranda rights read to them doesn't mean that those rights do not exist. If she feels that something she says could incriminate her, be it for this particular topic or one unrelated to these investigations, she will always have the right to not say anything.

 

Oh this should be good. Since you seem to know so much about Miranda, please explain the SCOTUS' rationale for creating the Miranda right and how it differs from standard 5th amendment protections. Also, please explain why you think Miranda rights apply to Lerner.

[Calax]

 

 

 

 

 

Stop, turn around, and go look at the documentation of the IRS stuff. That was handled 1 or two offices TOTAL and done without the presidents knowledge of authorization. The assumptions that it went to the presidential level was created by Fox and friends to get viewers hooked and ideologically on their side.

 

Obama has a pretty big problem with perception now. It isn't just the IRS stuff, it's the systematic spying on journalists for doing their job even if everyone* agrees what they've done is legal, it's prism, it's the persecution of whistleblowers, the unbelievably ill conceived notion of claiming the right to summarily execute by fiat of terrorist label and the overall conclusion has to be that the guy who promised transparency (hey, he's talking about it right now in RSA) really meant that the US public would be transparent, not its government. He looks more and more like a US version of Tony Blair- articulate enough to deflect criticism for a while, but ultimately immensely disappointing and not likely to be remembered kindly.

 

*well, those who want to criminalise journalism would like it to be illegal to publicise a leak as well as actually do the leak

 

I know, I wasn't talking about anything except the IRS schtick. My point was that the IRS thing was internal to the IRS, and not Obama sitting in office going "I want you to go out and ensure that my opponents have tax issues!" to the IRS bosses. GD makes it sound like Obama had a Fast and Furious esque CCTV view of all of the deals and was quietly giggling to himself each time a republican was delayed or turned down.

We THINK it was internal. One should wait until the investigation is done to declaim such a thing solidly however. Lerner's testimony should be interesting. Hopefully the republicans will actually have the balls to use their sergeant at arms and that nice warm jail cell they have under Congress if she continues to try and plead the 5th after already testifying that she broke no IRS rules or regulations and that she has not provided any false infomation to the commitee. Which means she waived any and all right not to answer questions concerning IRS rules and regulations or any information previously given to Congress. Now, since that was not a Mirandization, she can still selectively not answer any questions about other topics, but anything under those categories is fair game.

 

And we thought it was entirely external due to the media blitz pushing that connection and the politicization. A political witch hunt will net us nothing, and just because somebody doesn't have the Miranda rights read to them doesn't mean that those rights do not exist. If she feels that something she says could incriminate her, be it for this particular topic or one unrelated to these investigations, she will always have the right to not say anything.

 

Oh this should be good. Since you seem to know so much about Miranda, please explain the SCOTUS' rationale for creating the Miranda right and how it differs from standard 5th amendment protections. Also, please explain why you think Miranda rights apply to Lerner.

 

You're the one who started throwing around Miranda rights there skipper. And technically "Miranda Rights" is really just the official notification to the suspect (or interrogated) of what their rights are and aren't. In this case, she always has the right to remain silent, she always has the right to an attorney, and she always has the right to stop speaking until she speaks to an attorney.

 

It's not some magical constitutional on-off switch where you have your rights as long as the government informs you of them.

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

And that shows you have no clue what was going on.

Of course not, I'm pretty sure no one on this board is privy to all of the operations of the IRS.

NONE of the applications in question were denied. They were all delayed until conveniently right after the election. These were not 501©3 orgs who are not allowed political spending. These are 501©4s.

You are aware that the income of a 501©4 spent on political activities is taxable? Do you think there was a good chance that Tea Party groups were spending money on political activities?

 

I guaran****ingtee that no liberal org had to answer anything remotely intrusive as them

Prove it then. With evidence from reputable sources and not politically biased blogs.

Edited June 30, 2013 by KaineParker

[Malcador]

Shame Hillary didn't win the nomination.

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

Shame Hillary didn't win the nomination.

I doubt it be much different no matter who was elected POTUS.

 

Prism won't go away as long as the US is afraid of terrorists, the IRS will want to collect their taxes, drone strikes will continue as long as they are considered effective, etc.

[Zoraptor]

 

I guaran****ingtee that no liberal org had to answer anything remotely intrusive as them

Prove it then. With evidence from reputable sources and not politically biased blogs.

 

 

 

Can't prove a negative. ACORN probably proves a positive, though I suspect that will be Different.

 

I know, I wasn't talking about anything except the IRS schtick. My point was that the IRS thing was internal to the IRS, and not Obama sitting in office going "I want you to go out and ensure that my opponents have tax issues!" to the IRS bosses.

 

I wasn't specifically saying that he had any involvement in the IRS thing, just that it could be seen as part of a pattern. The trouble is that at some point in the political cycle the burden of proof on such things almost always reverses- once there's a sufficient critical mass of problems and the perception of problems it becomes in effect necessary to prove innocence rather than lack of guilt. People just plain stop believing you even if you're telling the truth, in other words. That's a very subjective thing of course, and the threshold will vary markedly from person to person but I've generally noted a decreased tendency to defend Obama in the past few months.

Edited June 30, 2013 by Zoraptor

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

Can't prove a negative.

Then guaranteeing it seems a bit foolish doesn't it?

[ravenshrike]

 

 

 

 

 

 

Stop, turn around, and go look at the documentation of the IRS stuff. That was handled 1 or two offices TOTAL and done without the presidents knowledge of authorization. The assumptions that it went to the presidential level was created by Fox and friends to get viewers hooked and ideologically on their side.

 

Obama has a pretty big problem with perception now. It isn't just the IRS stuff, it's the systematic spying on journalists for doing their job even if everyone* agrees what they've done is legal, it's prism, it's the persecution of whistleblowers, the unbelievably ill conceived notion of claiming the right to summarily execute by fiat of terrorist label and the overall conclusion has to be that the guy who promised transparency (hey, he's talking about it right now in RSA) really meant that the US public would be transparent, not its government. He looks more and more like a US version of Tony Blair- articulate enough to deflect criticism for a while, but ultimately immensely disappointing and not likely to be remembered kindly.

 

*well, those who want to criminalise journalism would like it to be illegal to publicise a leak as well as actually do the leak

 

I know, I wasn't talking about anything except the IRS schtick. My point was that the IRS thing was internal to the IRS, and not Obama sitting in office going "I want you to go out and ensure that my opponents have tax issues!" to the IRS bosses. GD makes it sound like Obama had a Fast and Furious esque CCTV view of all of the deals and was quietly giggling to himself each time a republican was delayed or turned down.

We THINK it was internal. One should wait until the investigation is done to declaim such a thing solidly however. Lerner's testimony should be interesting. Hopefully the republicans will actually have the balls to use their sergeant at arms and that nice warm jail cell they have under Congress if she continues to try and plead the 5th after already testifying that she broke no IRS rules or regulations and that she has not provided any false infomation to the commitee. Which means she waived any and all right not to answer questions concerning IRS rules and regulations or any information previously given to Congress. Now, since that was not a Mirandization, she can still selectively not answer any questions about other topics, but anything under those categories is fair game.

 

And we thought it was entirely external due to the media blitz pushing that connection and the politicization. A political witch hunt will net us nothing, and just because somebody doesn't have the Miranda rights read to them doesn't mean that those rights do not exist. If she feels that something she says could incriminate her, be it for this particular topic or one unrelated to these investigations, she will always have the right to not say anything.

 

Oh this should be good. Since you seem to know so much about Miranda, please explain the SCOTUS' rationale for creating the Miranda right and how it differs from standard 5th amendment protections. Also, please explain why you think Miranda rights apply to Lerner.

 

You're the one who started throwing around Miranda rights there skipper. And technically "Miranda Rights" is really just the official notification to the suspect (or interrogated) of what their rights are and aren't. In this case, she always has the right to remain silent, she always has the right to an attorney, and she always has the right to stop speaking until she speaks to an attorney.

 

It's not some magical constitutional on-off switch where you have your rights as long as the government informs you of them.

 

Aaand your knowledge of constitutional law is as sketchy as Obama's. Congratulations. What I actually said was that her claim of the 5th did not Mirandize her. Mirandization ONLY applies when in the custody of law enforcement. it does not apply to people merely called to testify on the witness stand when not the focus of a criminal investigation. Instead they are covered by the standard 5th amendment. Which means they can selectively invoke the 5th if there is a chance they may incriminate themselves. HOWEVER, that means they may not testify at all as to the subject they are claiming the fifth on. In Lerner's case that she broke no IRS rules and regulations and that all the information she provided Congress was true. The two statements that she broke no laws and that she was innocent do not apply because those are not judicially findable facts. Since she testified as to the two former statements, she cannot then refuse to answer questions which directly concern those statements. So Congress could, if they really wanted to be giant douchebags, go through every single IRS rule and regulation and ask her if she ever violated it. Interestingly, it also gives them the ability to seize all her work emails and other work correspondence so long as they grant her immunity from any other possible crimes she committed.

 

 

As to Mirandization, the reasons that SCOTUS created it out of whole cloth was because they felt the coercion of being in police custody, both physical and mental, broke the spirit of the Bill of Rights and thus stated you could refuse to answer questions the police asked of you without your lawyer present. Technically speaking it should have been codified under the 6th amendment and not the 5th, but there you go.

 

 

 

 

Can't prove a negative.

Then guaranteeing it seems a bit foolish doesn't it?

 

If the leftist orgs had been subject to the same types of questions, they would have bitched about it just like the Tea Party orgs did. Oddly enough not a single leftist 501( c )4 has done so even during this brouhaha. So while I suppose the probability that they were subject to the same type of intrusive questioning is non-zero, it's still really ****ing small.

Edited June 30, 2013 by ravenshrike

[Calax]

 

Aaand your knowledge of constitutional law is as sketchy as Obama's. Congratulations. What I actually said was that her claim of the 5th did not Mirandize her. Mirandization ONLY applies when in the custody of law enforcement. it does not apply to people merely called to testify on the witness stand when not the focus of a criminal investigation. Instead they are covered by the standard 5th amendment. Which means they can selectively invoke the 5th if there is a chance they may incriminate themselves. HOWEVER, that means they may not testify at all as to the subject they are claiming the fifth on. In Lerner's case that she broke no IRS rules and regulations and that all the information she provided Congress was true. The two statements that she broke no laws and that she was innocent do not apply because those are not judicially findable facts. Since she testified as to the two former statements, she cannot then refuse to answer questions which directly concern those statements. So Congress could, if they really wanted to be giant douchebags, go through every single IRS rule and regulation and ask her if she ever violated it. Interestingly, it also gives them the ability to seize all her work emails and other work correspondence so long as they grant her immunity from any other possible crimes she committed.

 

 

 

As to Mirandization, the reasons that SCOTUS created it out of whole cloth was because they felt the coercion of being in police custody, both physical and mental, broke the spirit of the Bill of Rights and thus stated you could refuse to answer questions the police asked of you without your lawyer present. Technically speaking it should have been codified under the 6th amendment and not the 5th, but there you go.

 

I never claimed to be a lawyer, but I know well enough that Mirandization is creating informed consent by a person that they know and understand their rights as a interogatee (the UCMJ version is entirely written). This is done to conform with the Fifth and Sixth amendments like you said, but one thing you're refusing to consider (or somethign) is that she can answer whatever she wants however she wants, and she will have to face the consequences. But to blanket state that she HAS to answer any question relating to the rules and regs of the IRS and cannot refuse to answer is idiotic. People don't lose the "right to remain silent" as soon as they answer one of the questions.

 

As to siezing her Emails etc? That's shakey. They'd need to have a warrant for it and propable cause, particularly given one of the main things she dealt with was peoples personal finances and SSN #'s, both of which are dangerous if "let out".

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

If the leftist orgs had been subject to the same types of questions, they would have bitched about it just like the Tea Party orgs did. Oddly enough not a single leftist 501( c )4 has done so even during this brouhaha. So while I suppose the probability that they were subject to the same type of intrusive questioning is non-zero, it's still really ****ing small.

That is speculation, not proof. You said you could "guaran****ingtee that no liberal org had to answer anything remotely intrusive as them", please do so.

[Zoraptor]

 

Can't prove a negative.

Then guaranteeing it seems a bit foolish doesn't it?

 

Well no, it's eminently sensible in a rhetorical sense. In effect you never have to provide evidence because the statement is constructed so you cannot provide it and means that the onus of proof is moved to the other person.

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

Well no, it's eminently sensible in a rhetorical sense. In effect you never have to provide evidence because the statement is constructed so you cannot provide it and means that the onus of proof is moved to the other person.

Guaranteeing something that you can not actually guarantee is foolish, even if it does make for good rhetoric. The burden of proof should always be on the person who makes the claim*, as is the case with ravenshrike and his "guaran****ingtee that no liberal org had to answer anything remotely intrusive as them". If that statement was not intended to be a factual statement, that should be clarified.

 

*Imagine what science would be like, if any yahoo could claim any outrageous thing without having to provide any evidence whatsoever. I'll agree that others should be able to prove it right or wrong, but the person who makes the claim should have more proof than "liberal orgs weren't bitching" to support their case.

Edited June 30, 2013 by KaineParker

[Meshugger]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-23116517

 

It's alright, they got nothing hide after all.

[Drowsy Emperor]

Not much trust between supposed allies eh.

 

Vassals might be more appropriate than allies methinks.

Edited June 30, 2013 by Drowsy Emperor

[Zoraptor]

 

Well no, it's eminently sensible in a rhetorical sense. In effect you never have to provide evidence because the statement is constructed so you cannot provide it and means that the onus of proof is moved to the other person.

Guaranteeing something that you can not actually guarantee is foolish, even if it does make for good rhetoric. The burden of proof should always be on the person who makes the claim*, as is the case with ravenshrike and his "guaran****ingtee that no liberal org had to answer anything remotely intrusive as them". If that statement was not intended to be a factual statement, that should be clarified.

 

*Imagine what science would be like, if any yahoo could claim any outrageous thing without having to provide any evidence whatsoever. I'll agree that others should be able to prove it right or wrong, but the person who makes the claim should have more proof than "liberal orgs weren't bitching" to support their case.

 

Oh, I agree. This is the internet though, and this is a political thread, not a scientific discussion. A certain amount of rhetoric is... inevitable.

[ravenshrike]

 

Well no, it's eminently sensible in a rhetorical sense. In effect you never have to provide evidence because the statement is constructed so you cannot provide it and means that the onus of proof is moved to the other person.

Guaranteeing something that you can not actually guarantee is foolish, even if it does make for good rhetoric. The burden of proof should always be on the person who makes the claim*, as is the case with ravenshrike and his "guaran****ingtee that no liberal org had to answer anything remotely intrusive as them". If that statement was not intended to be a factual statement, that should be clarified.

 

*Imagine what science would be like, if any yahoo could claim any outrageous thing without having to provide any evidence whatsoever. I'll agree that others should be able to prove it right or wrong, but the person who makes the claim should have more proof than "liberal orgs weren't bitching" to support their case.

 

Except between human nature and the fact there is undisputable statistical evidence that Tea Party groups et al were targeted my guarantee that no liberal groups were targeted in the same way, while not rising to the equivalent of scientific Law, certainly clears the equivalent of Theory.

[Calax]

 

 

Well no, it's eminently sensible in a rhetorical sense. In effect you never have to provide evidence because the statement is constructed so you cannot provide it and means that the onus of proof is moved to the other person.

Guaranteeing something that you can not actually guarantee is foolish, even if it does make for good rhetoric. The burden of proof should always be on the person who makes the claim*, as is the case with ravenshrike and his "guaran****ingtee that no liberal org had to answer anything remotely intrusive as them". If that statement was not intended to be a factual statement, that should be clarified.

 

*Imagine what science would be like, if any yahoo could claim any outrageous thing without having to provide any evidence whatsoever. I'll agree that others should be able to prove it right or wrong, but the person who makes the claim should have more proof than "liberal orgs weren't bitching" to support their case.

 

Except between human nature and the fact there is undisputable statistical evidence that Tea Party groups et al were targeted my guarantee that no liberal groups were targeted in the same way, while not rising to the equivalent of scientific Law, certainly clears the equivalent of Theory.

 

Only if you're using theory like criminal theory, not scientific theory. And even then it wouldn't hold up in court.

[ravenshrike]

 

 

 

Well no, it's eminently sensible in a rhetorical sense. In effect you never have to provide evidence because the statement is constructed so you cannot provide it and means that the onus of proof is moved to the other person.

Guaranteeing something that you can not actually guarantee is foolish, even if it does make for good rhetoric. The burden of proof should always be on the person who makes the claim*, as is the case with ravenshrike and his "guaran****ingtee that no liberal org had to answer anything remotely intrusive as them". If that statement was not intended to be a factual statement, that should be clarified.

 

*Imagine what science would be like, if any yahoo could claim any outrageous thing without having to provide any evidence whatsoever. I'll agree that others should be able to prove it right or wrong, but the person who makes the claim should have more proof than "liberal orgs weren't bitching" to support their case.

 

Except between human nature and the fact there is undisputable statistical evidence that Tea Party groups et al were targeted my guarantee that no liberal groups were targeted in the same way, while not rising to the equivalent of scientific Law, certainly clears the equivalent of Theory.

 

Only if you're using theory like criminal theory, not scientific theory. And even then it wouldn't hold up in court.

 

True, but in court the discovery process would allow me to get copies of the questionnaires the liberal groups were forced to fill out, thus making this entire conversation irrelevant.

[Walsingham]

Is anyone else really confused now? Cal, wtf are you two banging on about? I've lost track.

[ravenshrike]

Is anyone else really confused now? Cal, wtf are you two banging on about? I've lost track.

Lois Lerner, the IRS, difference between witness version of 5th amendment and Mirandization, and whether she has to testify on the specifics of what she already said before trying to claim the 5th.

[Walsingham]

 

Is anyone else really confused now? Cal, wtf are you two banging on about? I've lost track.

Lois Lerner, the IRS, difference between witness version of 5th amendment and Mirandization, and whether she has to testify on the specifics of what she already said before trying to claim the 5th.

 

 

Well, I appreciate you clarifying. I think it was just a couple of pay grades above what I can understand, rather than you being incomprehensible.

[Calax]

Is anyone else really confused now? Cal, wtf are you two banging on about? I've lost track.

He's saying that until he's proven different, he's going to operate on the assumption that Liberal organizations were given different hoops to jump through than those that have been discussed. Because, in his opinion, it's more logical to do that than to operate on the assumption that everyone was given the same forms and wordsearch was used.

[Wrath of Dagon]

Inspector General said conservative groups were targeted, there's no evidence liberal groups were.

[Calax]

When WoD is agreeing with me, I get scared.........

[Wrath of Dagon]

Well, I can't see what I'm agreeing with, but may be I'm not understanding the discussion.