On the likelihood of undercover IRS agents being long active on cypherpunks, and/or the use of Jim Bell as a lure for entrapment: Can anyone with experience in law and/or law enforcement comment on what other law enforcement agencies are permitted to do what the IRS agents can, as noted here yesterday:
The chapter on Undercover Operations provides for covertly attending client-attorney sessions; posing as an attorney, physician, clergyman, or member of the news media; obtaining through false pretense privileged information from attorneys, physicians, clergy and news media; giving false testimony; putting innocent parties at risk of physical violence; carrying out criminal actions; and earn income to offset cost of the operations ("churning"):
Along with a host of other apparently criminal activities. Or are these wide-ranging law breaking methods unique to the IRS? If they are unique, why is that the case? Is it because the money-raising arm of government is crucial to all the rest? What is striking about these criminal activities is how similar they are to what intelligence agencies are permitted to do for national security -- but are presumably prevented from doing to US citizens. This is pursuing a thought that the IRS investigators may be the fundamental link between national security agencies and domestic agencies, as was demonstrated at the latest Bell trial where IRS involved a host of government agencies in the case. If it is IRS, not FBI, not Secret Service, not DoJ, not FEMA, not DoD, which is leading homeland defense, that would be in conformance with the essay by Deborah Natsios on the topic which grew out of observation of the peculiar features of the Bell trial. No other government agency has as much information about US citizens as the IRS, so it would be logical for its investigative arm to lead investigations and prosecutions for internal enemies. And to be sure, all other agencies and branches of government would happily look the other way while the money-raisers do what has to be done to keep all of them in business. This, despite faint recent criticism of IRS outlaw practices. (One might suspect the bumbling FBI is being used as a diversion from the rise of IRS hegemony in US law enforcement.) And, if IRS is leading homeland defense investigation, that might well portend most interesting days ahead for cypherpunks. As well as heighten interest in the undercover operatives here who presumably have been long engaged in building reputation, confidence and trust -- or fomenting their opposites -- and aiming at entrapment by advocating criminal behavior, as specified by the CI Handbook. Note that the Handbook encourages the use of private parties as witting and unwitting undercover agents. This would include the possibility that Jim Bell is such a wit or unwit, as well as others who have come to his defense, or for that matter, who have strongly attacked him. Indeed, according to the Handbook there are no innocents which may not be drawn into combating tax crimes, no crimes that cannot be committed by undercover agents, no prohibition against false testimony, no ban on stealing privileged communications, no deception or concealment forbidden that will catch alleged or prospective tax criminals. That is a fair description of war against America, which is another way of saying government terrorism against the homeland. I guess that makes sense for those who are determined to assure with Italy's Interior Minister that "a state must never lose the monopoly on the use of force" (NY Times today). Not even when that force is applied illegally -- again as often justified in times of war.