[Rudey]

OK but here is the question I have.

They already have lists, right? How does this list change anything?

Originally posted by DeltAlum
They have done it before, and nobody wanted to believe it then.

The Nixon Administration had the White House Enemy's List and a lot of information was gleaned through the misuse of IRS records -- even things like which charities to which you contributed.

There was also documented evidence of the FBI infiltrating groups that wouldn't seem to warrant their concern at the direction of the White House to the late Director Hoover.

In some cases, power does corrupt.

ETA -- this was from the Watergate hearings:

"Dean Memo on 'Enemies'
Memorandum from (Presidential Council John) Dean to Lawrence Higby, former assistant to Haldeman, dated Aug. 16, 1971 and entitled "Dealing with our political enemies."

This memorandum addresses the matter of how we can maximize the fact of our incumbency in dealing with persons known to be active in their opposition to our Administration, Stated a bit more bluntly--how we can use the available federal machinery to screw our political enemies.

After reviewing this matter with a number of persons possessed of experience in the field, I have concluded that we do not need an elaborate mechanism or game plan, rather we need a good project coordinator and full support for the project. In brief, the system would work as follows:

--Key members of the staff (e.g., Colson, Dent, Flanigan, Buchanan) could be requested to inform us as to who they feel we should be giving a hard time.

--The project coordinator should then determine what sorts of dealings these individuals have with the Federal Government and how we can best screw them (e.g., grant availability, federal contracts, litigation prosecution, etc.)

--The project coordinator then should have access to and the full support of the top officials of the agency or departments in proceeding to deal with the individual.

I have learned that there have been many efforts in the past to take such actions, but they have ultimately failed--in most cases because of lack of support at the top. Of all those I have discussed this matter with, Lyn Nofizger [President's California manager] appears the most knowledgeable and most interested. If Lyn had support he would enjoy undertaking this activity as the project coordinator. You are aware of some of Lyn's successes in the field, but he feels that he can employ limited efforts because there is a lack of support.

As a next step. I would recommend that we develop a small list of names--not more than ten--as our targets for concentration. Request that Lyn "do a job" on them and if he finds he is getting cut off by a department agency, that he inform us and we evaluate what is necessary to proceed. I feel it is important that we keep our targets limited for several reasons: (1) a low visibility of the project is imperative; (2) it will be easier to accomplish something real if we don't over expand our efforts; and (3) we can learn more about how to operate such an activity if we start small and build.

More: http://www.artsci.wustl.edu/~polisci...gate/enemy.htm

There were also a (large) number of criticisms of both the Clinton and Bush (W) administrations using government agencies against citizens -- but they weren't sworn Congrssional testimony like the link above.

Anyway, that's why I'm not comfortable with the government making any more lists.