Conservative groups in the US really were targeted by the IRS

Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:

No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.

If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

**Dreadclaw69**

dogma wrote:
Most, not all. They're different words.

You make an excellent point... if only I had said "all". In any event it does not take away from the fact that IRS policy was breached.

dogma wrote:
Additionally there are several kinds of 501(c) groups that must disclose their donors, and the article you're quoting wasn't clear regarding the application status of the organizations which were, and were not solicited regarding such. Indeed, it would violate federal law if the IRS did not ask in some cases.

I think a clear inference can be drawn that these groups in question were not of the kind you describe, or else it would not have been against IRS policy. Even if you were to reject such an inference the head of the IRS division that oversees tax-exempt groups said that it was a breach of policy. Furthermore you are ignoring that aside from the donor list issue IRS staff also asked for details of posts on social media sites and details of family members.
You cannot ignore that, or claim that they were acting within their powers and in good faith, especially when the IRS has openly admitted to wrong doing.

dogma wrote:
The review is probably justifiable according to internal criteria (because that's all that matters with 501(c)s), but any surrender of confidential documents to third parties is not.

Is the review is more than justifiable given that the head of the IRS division that oversees tax-exempt groups said that it was a breach of policy, and for many other reasons besides. At least we agree on the 3rd Party issue.

dogma wrote:
No, because suspect cases require investigation.

Suspect case? I thought you said that the IRS was merely using "the legal tools at its disposal", and that "reviewing groups due to their political views is acceptable"

Maybe you should read some of the coverage concerning this;
http://bigstory.ap.org/article/irs-apologizes-targeting-conservative-groups
"IRS agents singled out dozens of organizations for additional reviews because they included the words "tea party" or "patriot" in their exemption applications"
"In some cases, groups were asked for lists of donors, which violates IRS policy in most cases"

"Lerner acknowledged it was wrong for the agency to target groups based on political affiliation.

"That was absolutely incorrect, it was insensitive and it was inappropriate. That's not how we go about selecting cases for further review," Lerner she heads the [RS division that oversees tax-exempt groups] said at a conference sponsored by the American Bar Association."

"Many conservative groups complained during the campaign that they were being harassed by the IRS. They accused the agency of frustrating their attempts to become tax exempt by sending them lengthy, intrusive questionnaires.
The forms, which the groups have made available, sought information about group members' political activities, including details of their postings on social networking websites and about family members."

"As part of this process, agents in Cincinnati came up with a list of things to look for in an application. As part of the list, they included the words, "tea party" and "patriot," Lerner said.
"It's the line people that did it without talking to managers," Lerner told The AP. "They're IRS workers, they're revenue agents.""

http://www.politico.com/story/2013/05/irs-investigation-groups-targets-91243.html?hp=l1_b1
Tea party groups on Monday are threatening to sue the Internal Revenue Service after the agency admitted last week that it wrongly targeted conservative groups applying for nonprofit status.

The IRS said on Friday that it inappropriately subjected groups applying for nonprofit status to extra scrutiny if their applications included terms such as “tea party” or “patriot.”

As early as March 2010, the agency’s so-called determinations unit began targeting conservative groups. Lois Lerner, the IRS official in charge of nonprofits, told reporters Friday that the decision to include “tea party” and “patriot” as search terms was made by low-level field reporters in Cincinnati.
But a few months after the targeting program began, a Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration report found that the “determinations unit management requested its specialists to be on the lookout for tea party applications.”

You have continued to ignore the basic facts of this case and the weight of evidence that has come to light so far, you downplay the IRS admitting their wrong doing in this manner and you obfuscate that the real problem is the tax code and no the targeting of groups because of their political opinions. Your stance ignores the fact that at best IRS staff operated without oversight under a permissive culture, which was ripe for abuse, to conspire in no less than four offices around the country to break policy to harass and target groups that had a particular political view when there was no evidence of wrong doing by the targeted groups, who then passed on information that was private to third parties.

No one is saying that tax-exempt groups should not be investigated where there is just cause. Had there been just cause the IRS could have demonstrated that and put this issue to bed very quickly. They haven't, and that speaks volumes. What people are objecting to is what appears to be the de facto targeting of certain groups because of their legitimate political beliefs based on keywords. Why were these phrases used, given that they are so specific and most likely to occur on one side of the political spectrum? If you are going to investigate tax-exempt groups then do so, but do it fairly, without passion and without prejudice.

**Ouze**

I don't think the IRS can be sued, as they were... arguably... acting within the scope of their employment.

But there is also an equal protection argument here. I'm not sure.

**KalashnikovMarine**

If they were targeting specific groups and abusing their positions then it could be argued they were out of the scope of their position, not sure if that'd be a viable suit... but it's possible.

**Grey Templar**

Indeed, selectively applying your mandate isn't cool.

Its no different than cops selectively pulling over traffic violators of a certain ethnicity. Yes the guy ran the red light, but you letting the white guys slide running the red light isn't cool bro. You pull over everyone.

**Dreadclaw69**

KalashnikovMarine wrote:
If they were targeting specific groups and abusing their positions then it could be argued they were out of the scope of their position, not sure if that'd be a viable suit... but it's possible.

In the UK you could have a claim for tortuous misfeasance of a public office, or you could sue the person rather than the organisation if they were operating so far outside their remit that vicarious liability would not cover them (i.e. that their employer could not be liable)

**d-usa**

They might not have broken any laws.

They admitted that they violated internal rules, but that's a little ways from breaking laws I would think.

We will see if the investigations and statements are just lip service or if there will be some significant follow through here and if any actual laws were broken. If so I would hope to see some actions from that.

**Dreadclaw69**

With the FBI being put on the case we may soon see whether laws were broken
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-22529435

US President Barack Obama has said the federal tax agency's targeting of conservative groups for extra scrutiny was "intolerable and inexcusable".

He said those responsible for the Internal Revenue Service's (IRS) actions would be held responsible.

Mr Obama spoke after a treasury department report placed the blame on "ineffective management" at the agency.

The US attorney general earlier ordered an FBI inquiry into the IRS conduct before the 2012 presidential election.

Eric Holder told a news conference that agents would determine if any laws had been broken.

The actions of tax officers, if not criminal, were "certainly outrageous and unacceptable", Mr Holder added.

'Inappropriate criteria'
The IRS had used key words such as "Tea Party" and "Patriot" to subject applications by groups seeking tax-exempt status for extra scrutiny.

On Tuesday evening, Mr Obama said in a statement on the treasury department's investigation: "The report's findings are intolerable and inexcusable.

"The IRS must apply the law in a fair and impartial way, and its employees must act with utmost integrity. This report shows that some of its employees failed that test."

He spoke as a Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration (TIGTA) report found that senior IRS officials had told inspectors the decision to focus on Tea Party and other groups based upon their names or policy positions was not influenced by any individual or organisation outside the agency.

But it found managers had allowed "inappropriate criteria" to be developed and stay in place for more than 18 months, resulting in "substantial delays" in processing applications for tax-exempt status, and requests for "unnecessary information", such as lists of past and future donors.

Of the 296 total applications reviewed by TIGTA, 108 were approved, 28 were withdrawn by the applicants, and 160 were still open, the report said.

In response, the acting IRS Commissioner of the Tax Exempt and Government Entities, Joseph Grant, said: "We believe the front line career employees that made the decisions acted out of a desire for efficiency and not out of any political or partisan view point."

'Targeting political enemies'
Mr Obama's press secretary, Jay Carney, said earlier that no-one at the White House had known about the matter until lawyers were told several weeks ago TIGTA would publish a report.

At least three Congressional committees are planning hearings into the matter.

The House Ways and Means committee will hold a hearing on Friday. The Senate finance and investigations committees have also said they will hold hearings.

"This was a targeting of the president's political enemies, effectively, and lies about it during the election year so that it wasn't discovered until afterwards," senior Republican Congressman Darrell Issa told CBS on Tuesday.

Two high-profile Republican governors called on President Obama to appoint a special prosecutor to investigate whether any laws were broken.

"This is big brother come to life and a witch hunt to prevent Americans from exercising their first amendment [free speech] rights," Governors Bobby Jindal of Louisiana and Scott Walker of Wisconsin wrote.

Ahead of the 2012 presidential election, conservative groups complained to the IRS and to members of Congress that their applications for tax-exempt status were being held up.

Some groups have said they were asked to provide lists of donors and volunteers, statements of their activities, and lists of legislators they had contacted.

From the same link;

Analysis
Mark Mardell - North America editor
From what we know so far this appears to be an A-grade scandal - a shocking abuse of power with apparently political motives. President Obama says he's outraged - and has moved quickly to make it clear he knew nothing about it.

It is true that plenty of groups claim to be non-political when most sensible people would say that politics is their main purpose. But on the evidence so far, it seems only right-wing groups were targeted - and more bizarrely still only small local ones, not the huge lobby groups.

This affair, along with the justice department's raid on the Associated Press, is likely to have a political impact. Conservative groups have long claimed an overbearing administration is targeting their freedoms and that abuses of power are ignored by a complacent media. The events of this week will strengthen their belief that someone is out to get them.

**dogma**

Dreadclaw69 wrote:

You make an excellent point... if only I had said "all". In any event it does not take away from the fact that IRS policy was breached.

Alright, lets take a few steps back. What do you think IRS policy is, and how do you think it was breached?

Because there is a critical difference between IRS policy, and the tax code.

Dreadclaw69 wrote:

Suspect case? I thought you said that the IRS was merely using "the legal tools at its disposal", and that "reviewing groups due to their political views is acceptable"

Yes, I said both of those things. The IRS is legally entitled to review several categories of 501(c)s at its discretion, with 501(c)(4)s being the most obvious potential violators.

**Jihadin**

I've a good feeling that a good chunk of the CoC knew about it. They're going to get canned.

**dogma**

sebster wrote:

But we're talking about a specific instance here, in which the IRS didn't just crack down on not for profits, but on not for profits with a specific ideological bent.

It isn't clear what we're talking about, because all the articles on the subject matter have either been deliberately unclear or deliberately provocative.

**sebster**

Grey Templar wrote:
Indeed, selectively applying your mandate isn't cool.

Its no different than cops selectively pulling over traffic violators of a certain ethnicity. Yes the guy ran the red light, but you letting the white guys slide running the red light isn't cool bro. You pull over everyone.

Or, for that matter, assigning police officers to tail, harass or investigate people with undesirable political opinions (which is something that happened in your country in Hoover's FBI, for instance).

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Jihadin wrote:
I've a good feeling that a good chunk of the CoC knew about it. They're going to get canned.

A good feeling? Does the FBI know you have a good feeling about this? I think you better get in contact with them right away, they could take their investigation in totally the wrong direction, if they're left unaware of your good feeling.

Seriously, the speculation is ridiculous. This case is moving plenty fast as it is.

**Dreadclaw69**

dogma wrote:
Alright, lets take a few steps back. What do you think IRS policy is, and how do you think it was breached?
Because there is a critical difference between IRS policy, and the tax code.

I'm starting to get the distinct impression that you are quite simply not reading what I'm posting, especially as this is the fourth time that I have posted this from - http://bigstory.ap.org/article/irs-apologizes-targeting-conservative-groups
IRS agents singled out dozens of organizations for additional reviews because they included the words "tea party" or "patriot" in their exemption applications, said[u][b] Lois Lerner, who heads the IRS division that oversees tax-exempt groups. In some cases, groups were asked for lists of donors, which violates IRS policy in most cases, she said.
I trust you'll forgive me if I take the word of the person who is the head of an IRS division over your word when it comes to whether or not policy was breached.

dogma wrote:
Yes, I said both of those things. The IRS is legally entitled to review several categories of 501(c)s at its discretion, with 501(c)(4)s being the most obvious potential violators.

I've already addressed this multiple times before so let me just repeat myself.
No one is saying that tax-exempt groups should not be investigated where there is just cause. Had there been just cause the IRS could have demonstrated that and put this issue to bed very quickly. They haven't, and that speaks volumes. What people are objecting to is what appears to be the de facto targeting of certain groups because of their legitimate political beliefs based on keywords. Why were these phrases used, given that they are so specific and most likely to occur on one side of the political spectrum? If you are going to investigate tax-exempt groups then do so, but do it fairly, without passion and without prejudice.

It seems that only are you not content with ignoring the facts, but your discussion centers around attrition by repeating your own arguments and ignoring legitimate points that contrary to your own beliefs.

**KalashnikovMarine**

Well any of you vets want to work for the IRS? Should be plenty of nice management positions opening up.

**Dreadclaw69**

KalashnikovMarine wrote:
Well any of you vets want to work for the IRS? Should be plenty of nice management positions opening up.

dogma seems think that he knows more than the head of the IRS division that oversees tax-exempt groups, so many he should get his resume ready to roll.

**sebster**

dogma wrote:
It isn't clear what we're talking about, because all the articles on the subject matter have either been deliberately unclear or deliberately provocative.

You think so? I think at this point the debate to be had is on the scope of the issue, not the nature.

**Jihadin**

Work in the IRS....pfffttt Hell no. I rather be little on the crazy side and not go full bore crazy for working in the IRS. Sebster I'm 110% sure the FBI is having the same chain of thought. You need to brush up on ths since your working off old news. Since this is going back to 20110 now....more then one location...that superiors in IRS knew about it. So ease off there buddy

**sebster**

Jihadin wrote:
Work in the IRS....pfffttt Hell no. I rather be little on the crazy side and not go full bore crazy for working in the IRS. Sebster I'm 110% sure the FBI is having the same chain of thought. You need to brush up on ths since your working off old news. Since this is going back to 20110 now....more then one location...that superiors in IRS knew about it. So ease off there buddy

I was just making fun more than anything

But even so, you are moving around your already vague statements. First up it was a good chunk of the chain of command, and now its 'superiors' which could just be a couple of branch managers. Point is, it could be bigger or smaller than any of that - at this point we just don't know, so guessing seems kind of pointless.

**dogma**

Dreadclaw69 wrote:

I'm starting to get the distinct impression that you are quite simply not reading what I'm posting, especially as this is the fourth time that I have posted this from - http://bigstory.ap.org/article/irs-apologizes-targeting-conservative-groups
IRS agents singled out dozens of organizations for additional reviews because they included the words "tea party" or "patriot" in their exemption applications, said[u][b] Lois Lerner, who heads the IRS division that oversees tax-exempt groups. In some cases, groups were asked for lists of donors, which violates IRS policy in most cases, she said.
I trust you'll forgive me if I take the word of the person who is the head of an IRS division over your word when it comes to whether or not policy was breached.

But you aren't taking the word of Lois Lerner, you're taking the word of a person who is interpreting the words of Lois Lerner.

Note: none of what you placed in bold, and underlined, was a direct quote from Lois Lerner.

Dreadclaw69 wrote:

No one is saying that tax-exempt groups should not be investigated where there is just cause.

No, we're just arguing about what constitutes "just cause".

Dreadclaw69 wrote:

Why were these phrases used, given that they are so specific and most likely to occur on one side of the political spectrum?

Because the phrase "Tea Party" and the word "Patriot" have been especially prominent political terms since 2009, and Citizen's United v. FEC was in 2010.

**Ouze**

In all fairness, wild speculation is sort of how we roll and indeed all that is open to us pending new information.

I heard Obama killed Breitbart personally because he uncovered the truth. Muslimmed him right to death.

**sebster**

Ouze wrote:
In all fairness, wild speculation is sort of how we roll and indeed all that is open to us pending new information.

True

I heard Obama killed Breitbart personally because he uncovered the truth. Muslimmed him right to death.

When verified, I will support Obama in taking that course of action, because Breitbart was a serious donkey-cave.

**Frazzled**

Dreadclaw69 wrote:
KalashnikovMarine wrote:
If they were targeting specific groups and abusing their positions then it could be argued they were out of the scope of their position, not sure if that'd be a viable suit... but it's possible.

In the UK you could have a claim for tortuous misfeasance of a public office, or you could sue the person rather than the organisation if they were operating so far outside their remit that vicarious liability would not cover them (i.e. that their employer could not be liable)

It should be noted, in the US, you cannot sue the sovereign, unless the sovereign permits it. Suits against the IRS can occur only if already permitted by law. You could sue to enforce your constitutional rights, but thats not "suing the IRS."

Automatically Appended Next Post:

KalashnikovMarine wrote:
Well any of you vets want to work for the IRS? Should be plenty of nice management positions opening up.

I doubt anyone will get fired. There may be a token resignation, but thats it.

Automatically Appended Next Post:
Graham charities now believe they were also targeted.
http://www.politico.com/story/2013/05/franklin-graham-irs-targeting-91362.html

**Easy E**

KalashnikovMarine wrote:
Well any of you vets want to work for the IRS? Should be plenty of nice management positions opening up.

Nah, anyone who gets fired will not be replaced. Sequestration you know.

**Valion**

sebster wrote:
No, feth that.

bs calls for impeachment are no less disruptive and no less bs just because some idiots claimed the same thing about your guy 6 years ago.

That's the whole fething point of this. You need to value what good government is, and what good government practice is. The alternative is just more and more partisan bs, and that will only lead to more abuse of government power, whether its IRS misusing it's power for partisan ends, or ridiculous calls for impeachment.

Do we take your word that you were saying the same thing and condemning the Bush impeachment calls even when you were stroking out on a daily basis over things he did?

**Frazzled**

One group has announced they are suing the IRS, claiming the IRS gave leaked documents to an Obama campaign co-chair.
Mmmm reminds me of that epic phrase: "I am not a crook!"

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2013/05/14/Obama-campaign-co-chair-attacked-Romney-conservative-group-in-2012-with-leaked-IRS-scandal-documents

**IronWarLeg**

KalashnikovMarine wrote:
Well any of you vets want to work for the IRS? Should be plenty of nice management positions opening up.

I already do, and no, we have had a continuous 3 year hiring freeze, so don't bother with the resumes, it wont do you any good.

**Dreadclaw69**

dogma wrote:
But you aren't taking the word of Lois Lerner, you're taking the word of a person who is interpreting the words of Lois Lerner.

Note: none of what you placed in bold, and underlined, was a direct quote from Lois Lerner.

So in the absence of anything to counter the argument you are now nit picking in the extreme and being deliberately obtuse. Are you saying that the information that I provided was inaccurate, that the reporter was incorrect? Unless you're going to actually counter this argument then it stands

dogma wrote:
No, we're just arguing about what constitutes "just cause".

Then perhaps you would be so kind as to tell us what you believe constitutes "just cause"

dogma wrote:
Because the phrase "Tea Party" and the word "Patriot" have been especially prominent political terms since 2009, and Citizen's United v. FEC was in 2010.

You answered the first part, but not the second part of my question. Are admitting that they used politically loaded search criteria that only focused on one side of the political spectrum, and not the other?

Not to put too blunt dogma but so long as you keep nit picking at other's arguments or merely restating your own points and not acknowledging the arguments that do not suit you, while ignoring the emerging facts, ignoring the evidence stacking up, ignoring the IRS admitting wrong doing, all because it does not suit your ideological stand, then you are being dishonest and making it abundantly clear that you are arguing from nothing more than an ideological point of view.

Frazzled wrote:
In the UK you could have a claim for tortuous misfeasance of a public office, or you could sue the person rather than the organisation if they were operating so far outside their remit that vicarious liability would not cover them (i.e. that their employer could not be liable)

It should be noted, in the US, you cannot sue the sovereign, unless the sovereign permits it. Suits against the IRS can occur only if already permitted by law. You could sue to enforce your constitutional rights, but thats not "suing the IRS."

**IronWarLeg**

Ouze wrote:
In all fairness, wild speculation is sort of how we roll and indeed all that is open to us pending new information.

I heard Obama killed Breitbart personally because he uncovered the truth. Muslimmed him right to death.

This made me LOL, on the ferry going to Seattle.. Even though I have no idea what it does for you I exalted it.

**dogma**

Dreadclaw69 wrote:

So in the absence of anything to counter the argument you are now nit picking in the extreme and being deliberately obtuse. Are you saying that the information that I provided was inaccurate, that the reporter was incorrect?

No. I've just been interpreting the information you provided.

Dreadclaw69 wrote:

Then perhaps you would be so kind as to tell us what you believe constitutes "just cause"

Whatever is legally permitted, as this action appears to have been.

Also, bear in mind we're not talking about the IRS authorizing the execution of conservatives, we're talking about extra scrutiny being accorded to an application for nonprofit status. That might be annoying, but it isn't the end of the world.

Dreadclaw69 wrote:

You answered the first part, but not the second part of my question. Are admitting that they used politically loaded search criteria that only focused on one side of the political spectrum, and not the other?

I'm admitting that they used politically loaded search criteria, I don't know if it only focused on 1 side of the spectrum as I don't have a list of all search criteria. I'm further (re)stating that this is to be expected, is even acceptable, because whether or not an organization is accorded nonprofit status is statutorily grounded in the extent to which it engages in political activity.

Frazzled wrote:
One group has announced they are suing the IRS, claiming the IRS gave leaked documents to an Obama campaign co-chair.
Mmmm reminds me of that epic phrase: "I am not a crook!"

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2013/05/14/Obama-campaign-co-chair-attacked-Romney-conservative-group-in-2012-with-leaked-IRS-scandal-documents

The 501(c)(4) or the 501(c)(3)*?

Donors to 501(c)(3)s are matters of public record, donors to 501(c)(4)s are not. If the 501(c)(4) then that is grossly inappropriate.

*Color me shocked that an article from Breitbart is either poorly researched, or deliberately unclear.

Edit: It came through the 501(c)(4). As said above, that's grossly inappropriate. Though the larger story outlines the problem with nonprofit tax law.

**SickSix**

My only point is turn the tables and think about how this would have gone down under Bush's administration, with lefty grouos being targeted.

The media would be calling for impeachment, and those of you defending the IRS would be screaming bloody murder.

**Dreadclaw69**

dogma wrote:
No. I've just been interpreting the information you provided.

No doubt you have been interpreting it. Just not in a way that could be considered objective, or in line with the facts.

dogma wrote:
Whatever is legally permitted, as this action appears to have been.

Are you saying that your position is that on its face it is legal to single out right leaning groups applying for tax exempt status where there is no evidence of wrong doing? Bearing in mind that there was also a significant increase in liberal leaning groups also claiming exempt status yet it appears that similar action was not taken against them
This may interest you - http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/just+cause
A reasonable and lawful ground for action.
Appearing in statutes, contracts, and court decisions, the term just cause refers to a standard of reasonableness used to evaluate a person's actions in a given set of circumstances. If a person acts with just cause, her or his actions are based on reasonable grounds and committed in Good Faith.
Singling out groups, with no evidence of any actual wrong doing, based on nothing more than their political affiliation cannot by any objective standard be said to be either reasonable or an act of good faith.

dogma wrote:
Also, bear in mind we're not talking about the IRS authorizing the execution of conservatives, we're talking about extra scrutiny being accorded to an application for nonprofit status. That might be annoying, but it isn't the end of the world.

So singling out groups for discriminatory treatment, breaching policy to harass them, asking them for details of social media activity and family members, passing their files onto outside parties is acceptable because no one was executed.
I think you've just outright showed your hand and can't even claim to be looking at the facts in anything approaching an objective manner.

dogma wrote:
I'm admitting that they used politically loaded search criteria, I don't know if it only focused on 1 side of the spectrum as I don't have a list of all search criteria. I'm further (re)stating that this is to be expected, is even acceptable, because whether or not an organization is accorded nonprofit status is statutorily grounded in the extent to which it engages in political activity.

So if they used "politically loaded search criteria" and have admitted to targeting right leaning groups where there was no evidence that they had done anything wrong, requested information that breached IRS policy, admitted that they were wrong and then passed files to outside bodies during an election are you still going to say with a straight face that what occurred was justifiable and not politically motivated?

Automatically Appended Next Post:

SickSix wrote:
My only point is turn the tables and think about how this would have gone down under Bush's administration, with lefty grouos being targeted.

The media would be calling for impeachment, and those of you defending the IRS would be screaming bloody murder.

The cries of "McCarthy!!" may very well still be ringing in our ears to this day
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McCarthyism

McCarthyism is the practice of making accusations of disloyalty, subversion, or treason without proper regard for evidence. It also means "the practice of making unfair allegations or using unfair investigative techniques, especially in order to restrict dissent or political criticism."