
IRS manual detailed DEA's use of hidden intel evidence - muzz
http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/08/07/us-dea-irs-idUSBRE9761AZ20130807
======
betterunix
So now that we know that the DEA is not merely a paramilitary force, but also
a rogue intelligence agency that is in the business of lying to judges,
prosecutors, and defense attorneys, can we please disband them? As an agency
the DEA is one of the most (maybe even _the most_ ) destructive forces in this
country.

~~~
anigbrowl
Sounds great, but my bet is that it ain't happening as long as the cult of
Reagan persists in the GOP.

~~~
flyt
The cult of Reagan is less powerful than the cult of private companies that
exist due to government money funneled through DEA programs.

~~~
falk
I wouldn't blame just Republicans for drugs not being legal and the DEA being
intact. Democrats get campaign contributions from police unions, private
prisons, alcohol companies, pharmaceutical companies, and prison guard unions
too.

The fact of the matter is that our politicians don't work for us they work for
corporate interests. Also, before someone says we should elect politicians,
please realize that the problem isn't the politicians. It's the American
people. Americans are dumber than a box of rocks. They love their low prices
they get at Walmart and don't realize how much we subsidize the company's
employees via welfare programs because they refuse to pay them a living wage.

The baby boomers (and possibly my generation) will have to die off before
cannabis and other drugs are legalized.

~~~
tolmasky
The problem is not the American people. If a system requires nearly the entire
populace to be as active (intellectually and financially) as every individual
vested interest just to be successful, then it is a bad system. Its easy to
call people dumb as rocks when they aren't rich and need to spend their time
working really difficult jobs, and then choose low prices and tv for the
leisure they have left as opposed to researching the complex web of interests
that define the political actions of this country. The reality is that even
the people that are "well informed" have wildly different beliefs about what
is going on.

The government represents an entity capable of on the one hand restricting
just about anything, and on the other hand propping up other things. It is
thus a completely natural and logical result that thousands of vested
interests will start vying for its favor. Now all of a sudden the entire
population needs to go on defense for each of these issues. Its madness and
completely unsustainable. You happen to care about and understand drug
legalization, but I guarantee you that there are hundreds of other issues you
aren't even aware of that are equally bad. Does that make you a bad person or
dumb? Of course not.

~~~
falk
"If a system requires nearly the entire populace to be as active
(intellectually and financially) as every individual vested interest just to
be successful, then it is a bad system."

We can't even get half of the country to make informed decisions. Americans
are definitely the problem. They vote every couple of years to elect rich
politicians that don't give a fuck about them. And they vote based off of
arbitrary reasons. They find out we are being constantly spied on and they
just don't care. Just like they didn't care when Japanese Americans were
thrown into camps during WW2. Just like they didn't care when we were lied
into Vietnam and then again into Iraq to make a few people richer. Americans
are complacent.

~~~
pstuart
With drugs it's even worse than that: otherwise intelligent and well meaning
people have been brainwashed into thinking that we have to be protected from
these dangerous drugs.

Lot's of people will say legalize pot but not the "hard stuff" (only because
they want legal pot for themselves).

~~~
hga
I'm not sure "brainwashed" or anything like it is right, or at least the one's
I've discussed this with who were beyond thinking were _terrified_ about their
children. I pointed out the choices of liberty or a drug war, which they did
not deny, and they preferred the latter.

~~~
falk
Brainwashed is the right word. Have you seen any of thr old drug propaganda
videos? Check them out on YouTue. Also look up and watch Referrer Madness. In
D.A.R.E my brothers kid learned that LSD stays in your system forever and
drips acid down your brainstem, among a whole slew of other non-factual
information.

~~~
hga
These were people around my age or a bit younger, pre-D.A.R.E (which was
started in 1983), and _Reefer Madness_ was considered camp at best by my time.

Never heard any outrageous things like that LSD stuff (can't say for sure
about the people I talked to), but it was very well established by then,
without any lies needed, that hard drugs are very bad news (by that time
psychedelics weren't a big concern, they were long out of fashion).

------
bediger4000
I honestly don't see how "parallel construction" isn't considered "fruit of
the poisoned tree" in considering evidence.

This whole "SOD" thing explains how minor traffic infringements end up as
major drug busts so often. Perhaps it also explains why possession of kiddy
porn is so often among the auxilliary charges on major criminals. The NSA
dragnet catches it, and the DEA SOD tips off local police to it, or maybe the
DEA uses "parallel construction" to be able to charge someone with drug
crimes.

~~~
LoganCale
It likely is fruit of the poisoned tree. That's why they've been ordering
everyone to cover it up.

~~~
smokeyj
I wonder what happens to inmates who discover they were prosecuted with
illegal evidence.

~~~
anigbrowl
They get to file appeals, and they do. Such appeals have a fairly decent
chance of success, although I don't have numbers to hand.

~~~
falk
How are they supposed to know if parallel construction was used in their case
or not?

~~~
ToothlessJake
They are not supposed to know, the government is attempting to cover up it's
crimes again[1] until it can work out immunity and monetary compensation for
the actors involved[2].

[1] [http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/cia-
chief-w...](http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/cia-chief-wanted-
in-italy-for-rendition-on-his-way-back-to-us-8721235.html)

[2]
[http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2012/oct/10/supreme...](http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2012/oct/10/supreme-
court-telecoms-win-immunity)

Edit: To the user below, this is various arms of the government passing around
information amongst it's branches to avoid accountability and exposure as much
as possible. Rather monolithic.

Keep the ready made mantras out of this please.

~~~
anigbrowl
For the _n_ th time, government is not monolithic. It's misleading (mainly of
yourself) to operate on the basis that it is.

~~~
smokeyj
> For the nth time, government is not monolithic

In what sense? A government is a monopoly on violence. I find monopolies to be
monolithic.

~~~
krapp
Government is not monolithic in the sense that (at least in the US) its sheer
size and complexity prevents all the actors involved from correlating their
actions and ideologies into a single conspiratorial entity like swallows in
flight. Not even in regards to tyranny and violence.

~~~
flumbaps
Large and complex systems can coordinate in a decentralised way to form a
monolithic entity. Local interactions can lead to global convergence. Swallows
in flight is a good example - each swallow only pays attention to the others
nearby, yet the whole flock is coordinated. I'm not saying that is how it is
in the US government. However, the closer the agencies work together, the more
monolithic the government is likely to be (otherwise they wouldn't be able to
cooperate).

------
tomrod
Wow. Words are failing me as to how asinine the US government has become.

I don't post much on political stories, but this really upsets me. I don't
feel like as a single citizen I have any power to fix things either.

------
dictum
_First they came for the foreigners..._

~~~
wissler
"He that would make his own liberty secure, must guard even his enemy from
oppression; for if he violates this duty, he establishes a precedent that will
reach to himself." \-- Thomas Paine

~~~
seanmcdirmid
Thomas Paine is rolling in his grave given how libertarians have perverted his
message to mean freedom to own lots of guns and not pay taxes.

~~~
ferdo
Thomas Paine was no friend to taxes:

"War is the common harvest of all those who participate in the division and
expenditure of public money, in all countries. It is the art of conquering at
home; the object of it is an increase of revenue; and as revenue cannot be
increased without taxes, a pretence must be made for expenditure. In reviewing
the history of the English Government, its wars and its taxes, a bystander,
not blinded by prejudice nor warped by interest, would declare that taxes were
not raised to carry on wars, but that wars were raised to carry on taxes."

Rights of Man

[http://ebooks.adelaide.edu.au/p/paine/thomas/p147r/complete....](http://ebooks.adelaide.edu.au/p/paine/thomas/p147r/complete.html)

~~~
nknighthb
Thomas Paine's objective was not what you think it was.

"The first step, therefore, of practical relief, would be to abolish the poor-
rates entirely, and in lieu thereof, to make a remission of taxes to the poor
of double the amount of the present poor-rates, viz., four millions annually
out of the surplus taxes."

Rights of Man, Part the Second

~~~
ferdo
I very much doubt Paine would be in favor of what's passing for government at
the moment.

~~~
seanmcdirmid
Compared with what was common his time? I wouldn't be so sure. And we have no
way of knowing for sure.

~~~
gyepi
I think we can be more definite than that. Based on "Common Sense" and "Rights
of Man" it is pretty clear that Paine was oppossed to any kind of government
that was more concerned with furthering its own power than the social good.

~~~
seanmcdirmid
Meaning he wouldn't be satisfied with any government in his time or ours? Ok,
I can agree with that.

------
ismaelc
Here are some summary snippets:

    
    
        "As Reuters reported Monday, the Special Operations Division of the DEA funnels information from overseas NSA intercepts, domestic wiretaps, informants and a large DEA database of telephone records to authorities nationwide to help them launch criminal investigations of Americans.",
    
        "While the IRS document says that SOD information may only be used for drug investigations, DEA officials said the SOD role has recently expanded to organized crime and money laundering.",
    
        "According to the document, IRS agents are directed to use the tips to find new, \"independent\" evidence: \"Usable information regarding these leads must be developed from such independent sources as investigative files, subscriber and toll requests, physical surveillance, wire intercepts, and confidential source information.",
    
        "Sen. Rand Paul, R-Kentucky, a member of the Homeland Security and Government Affairs Committee, said he was troubled that DEA agents have been \"trying to cover up a program that investigates Americans.\"",
    
        "The DEA database, called DICE, consists largely of phone log and Internet data gathered legally by the DEA through subpoenas, arrests and search warrants nationwide."

------
andrewfelix
This is what happens when you industrialise law enforcement and incarceration.
There is an incentive to prosecute and convict as many people as possible,
regardless of any real evidence of a crime or the existence of a victim.

------
ToothlessJake
Where are the users that come in to say "I disagree with this, but consider
it's validity because.."

I would love to hear a thoughtful argument for how hiding the source of an
investigation, including evidence used, is just under the letter of the law.
Followed up with how 'overreaches' are bound to happen but are acceptable as
long as results are shown(but evidence is not).

~~~
flumbaps
Well, I suppose the defence would be some argument that the fruit of the
poisonous tree doctrine doesn't apply, because there's nothing illegal about
the NSA sharing information with other agencies, and there's no obligation to
share every piece of evidence in an investigation. The prosecution is required
to share all exculpatory evidence with the defence, but this wouldn't be
exculpatory. There is an obligation to provide probable cause in order to
justify each search, seizure, warrant, arrest, etc. but this obligation was
met - that would be the purpose of the parallel construction. Cases were tried
based on probable cause that was shared, and so that probable cause must have
been sufficient. The investigators simply did not disclose ALL the probable
cause they had, (because some of it was secret).

There will be some contention over whether investigators lied or simply didn't
share all evidence. This will probably lead to some slippery wordplay. For
example, in the case of a "random" traffic stop that was actually targeting an
individual, the word "random" could be stretched to mean "without reason" \-
meaning that by saying it was a "random" traffic stop, investigators were
really just not giving a reason for the stop. Since no reason is required for
a random traffic stop (under this new definition), that's all fine.

Perhaps the real problem here isn't that the NSA was sharing information, but
that it is easy to find probable cause when properly motivated.

~~~
gyepi
Good try, but these won't wash. It's hard to argue against it because the
facts seem quite clear and straightforward.

1\. If the origin of the investigation is revealed to be illegal, the entire
investigation is thrown into question and the resulting evidence could be
suppressed.

2\. Random traffic stops are illegal. There _must_ be a reason for every stop.

[https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/531/32/case.html](https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/531/32/case.html)

