IRS War Against US Homeland

[John Young]

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"):
>
>  http://cryptome.org/irs-ci/36211a.html

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.