4 ms·

Elected officials represent the will of the people in a democratic government. Their policies are the legitimate policies of the government. The security and de

Elected officials represent the will of the people in a democratic government. Their policies are the legitimate policies of the government. The security and defense wings of the government are strictly subservient to the policies of elected officials, or it's no longer a democratic government.

vidarh 11y ago
While I agree with the principle, and have severe objections to the security services being allowed to engage in that kind of surveillance because of the significant threats it poses - I would rather take the risk of extra terror as I see it as far smaller -, this does still not preclude elected officials from being terrorists or having close contact with terrorists. Nothing says that terrorists, or their supporters, never represents the will of at least a sufficient part of the people to gain representation. In fact, we have many prominent examples where terrorists or people with close associations with terrorist groups have been elected to public office. Some you might sympathise with, others not so much: IRA's ties to Sinn Fein, which has seats in the UK parliament, for example. Or the ANC, whose armed wing used to carry out bombings targeting civilians. Or Hamas. Or most prime ministers of Israel (most of whom were parts of terror organizations like Irgun or Haganah in their youth).
dahart 11y ago
In the US, a republic, our system of checks and balances can and does cause situations where security personnel who are subservient to some elected officials can and does conflict with and enforce rules against the policies and/or actions of other elected officials.
DavidChouinard 11y ago
This is true only in aggregate.
venomsnake 11y ago
> Elected officials represent the will of the people in a democratic government. Only if you assume that the voter is rational and informed.
- StavrosK 11y ago
  No, they always represent the will of the people. Even if the will is irrational.
jessriedel 11y ago
Huh? That the police investigate criminal wrong-doing by elected officials is obviously consistent with the police force being under control of ("strictly subservient to") the elected officials. Why would national security be any different?

vidarh 11y ago

While I agree with the principle, and have severe objections to the security services being allowed to engage in that kind of surveillance because of the significant threats it poses - I would rather take the risk of extra terror as I see it as far smaller -, this does still not preclude elected officials from being terrorists or having close contact with terrorists. Nothing says that terrorists, or their supporters, never represents the will of at least a sufficient part of the people to gain representation. In fact, we have many prominent examples where terrorists or people with close associations with terrorist groups have been elected to public office. Some you might sympathise with, others not so much: IRA's ties to Sinn Fein, which has seats in the UK parliament, for example. Or the ANC, whose armed wing used to carry out bombings targeting civilians. Or Hamas. Or most prime ministers of Israel (most of whom were parts of terror organizations like Irgun or Haganah in their youth).

dahart 11y ago

In the US, a republic, our system of checks and balances can and does cause situations where security personnel who are subservient to some elected officials can and does conflict with and enforce rules against the policies and/or actions of other elected officials.

DavidChouinard 11y ago

This is true only in aggregate.

venomsnake 11y ago

> Elected officials represent the will of the people in a democratic government. Only if you assume that the voter is rational and informed.

StavrosK 11y ago
No, they always represent the will of the people. Even if the will is irrational.

jessriedel 11y ago

Huh? That the police investigate criminal wrong-doing by elected officials is obviously consistent with the police force being under control of ("strictly subservient to") the elected officials. Why would national security be any different?