3 ms·

You're using an extreme example, and I think a lot of people will agree in that case because it's extreme, but might have reservations about applying the same l

by eurleif 13y ago

You're using an extreme example, and I think a lot of people will agree in that case because it's extreme, but might have reservations about applying the same logic elsewhere. For example, should it be ok to single out people who advocate marijuana legalization for drug crime investigations? There has to be some restraint, or else people will be afraid to participate in the political process.

wtallis 13y ago
I think it depends on what kind of "singling out" is being considered. What the IRS agents did in this case definitely crossed the line. But they should be allowed to scrutinize applications from suspect groups, and probably also be allowed to ask for more information to the extent that they would in a random audit. Further than that should require strong probable cause and warrants and all the other due process that was ignored by the IRS agents in this case. A drug case would probably get to the point of needing a warrant much sooner, since a pro-legalization activist isn't usually directly initiating contact with the government, so the government has no business asking for information without a warrant. But if a pro-legalization activist makes public statements about their illegal activities or intentions, it's okay for the DEA to keep an eye on those public statements and to use them to try to get a warrant.
pekk 13y ago
This wasn't a criminal investigation and is not comparable to a criminal investigation. I wouldn't be concerned that a group whose politicians have on several occasions advocated: armed marches, intimidation of the other party around polls, refusing to pay tax, shoot census takers, or preparation for civil war - was "afraid to participate in the political process." I would rather be concerned that it was causing others to be afraid to participate in the political process. This IRS gaffe is covering a history of anti-democratic conduct from the very group beating its breast (even as its groups enjoy the nonprofit status which the IRS gave them long ago).

by eurleif 13y ago

wtallis 13y ago

I think it depends on what kind of "singling out" is being considered. What the IRS agents did in this case definitely crossed the line. But they should be allowed to scrutinize applications from suspect groups, and probably also be allowed to ask for more information to the extent that they would in a random audit. Further than that should require strong probable cause and warrants and all the other due process that was ignored by the IRS agents in this case. A drug case would probably get to the point of needing a warrant much sooner, since a pro-legalization activist isn't usually directly initiating contact with the government, so the government has no business asking for information without a warrant. But if a pro-legalization activist makes public statements about their illegal activities or intentions, it's okay for the DEA to keep an eye on those public statements and to use them to try to get a warrant.

pekk 13y ago

This wasn't a criminal investigation and is not comparable to a criminal investigation. I wouldn't be concerned that a group whose politicians have on several occasions advocated: armed marches, intimidation of the other party around polls, refusing to pay tax, shoot census takers, or preparation for civil war - was "afraid to participate in the political process." I would rather be concerned that it was causing others to be afraid to participate in the political process. This IRS gaffe is covering a history of anti-democratic conduct from the very group beating its breast (even as its groups enjoy the nonprofit status which the IRS gave them long ago).