4 ms·

Reform government surveillance, huh? So we just need better government surveillance then? With checks and balances and all, but how well have those worked in th

Reform government surveillance, huh? So we just need better government surveillance then? With checks and balances and all, but how well have those worked in the past? Did Bradley Manning get his "due process"? No? "-But.. but.. checks.. and balances!".. Who checks the checkers and balances the balancers? If you put Stalin in power and tell him to make sure he himself behaves well, what can you expect to happen? What about politicians in a democracy? Will/can they watch their peers, or is it more likely they'll just collude in corruption?

zymhan 13y ago
> Who checks the checkers and balances the balancers? The Appeals Courts, the Supreme Court, the executive (can pardon), and the people's ability to riot in the streets until we get our way. We certainly aren't hopeless, we just have to try a little harder.
- anoncowherd 13y ago
  >> The Appeals Courts, the Supreme Court, the executive (can pardon) So basically you're saying the watchers watch themselves? But this is exactly the problem I was pointing out. It's just not going to work, ever, and the US is excellent proof of that. Started with a minimal government and a strong constitution, but then.. an Empire happened. >> We certainly aren't hopeless, we just have to try a little harder. Not through political means though. Writing to your representatives doesn't work all that well either. Neither does voting.
  - zymhan 13y ago
    > So basically you're saying the watchers watch themselves? No, because judges don't hear appeals to their decisions. Of course if you think the entire system is broken, then there's not much I can do to convince you.
    - anoncowherd 13y ago
      The system is working fine, it's just not to our benefit.
      - zymhan 13y ago
        But it _does_ work to our benefit. Sure, innocent people are mistakenly jailed (and even executed), which is a travesty beyond words. But overall the system works, and throwing your hands up in defeat instead of trying to influence the system is certainly unhelpful. You won't start a revolution by kvetching in online comments, maybe you should try writing some letters sometime. They really do read them, and respond to them.
        anoncowherd 13y ago
        >> But it _does_ work to our benefit. No it doesn't. It works to the benefit of the ruling class, which, coincidentally, is the group of people who set the system up in the first place, and still control it today. Sure, its members come and go, but the power structure stays in place. >> Sure, innocent people are mistakenly jailed Mistakenly? -Rarely, if ever. Most of the time they know exactly what they're doing. >> But overall the system works, and throwing your hands up in defeat What defeat? I thought you just said the system "works"? -Where's the defeat if it's working properly and thus, everything is fine? >> instead of trying to influence the system is certainly unhelpful. You won't start a revolution by kvetching in online comments, maybe you should try writing some letters sometime. They really do read them, and respond to them Wow, you're so naive. Check out the other reply to my comment above, where someone said he's figured that it doesn't work. When Obama or whoever gets elected through receiving and using millions/billions of dollars of campaign contributions (ie. "bribes"), who exactly do you think he represents?
  - cryoshon 13y ago
    Unfortunately, the way that I have begun to see things is that voting and representative-writing are pressure release valves for the public's discontent. I have had poor results with both methods, though I have gained the all-important sensation of "doing something" while truly accomplishing precisely nothing tangible. In my view, the sublime difficulty is that voting, forming PACs to finance/bribe campaigns, and writing representatives are the only fully-recognized "legitimate" outlets for political discontent. These methods are absolutely ineffective in the face of money and power structures. Even the mildest in desire and most orderly in execution of protests aren't viewed as reputable by bystanders, typically aren't covered positively by media if at all, and thus aren't effective in creating change.
    - anoncowherd 13y ago
      >> I have had poor results with both methods, though I have gained the all-important sensation of "doing something" while truly accomplishing precisely nothing tangible. At least now you know it's a waste of time and effort. >> In my view, the sublime difficulty is that voting, forming PACs to finance/bribe campaigns, and writing representatives are the only fully-recognized "legitimate" outlets for political discontent. Yep, that's the way the system is designed. >> These methods are absolutely ineffective in the face of money and power structures. Indeed they are. By design. >> Even the mildest in desire and most orderly in execution of protests aren't viewed as reputable by bystanders, typically aren't covered positively by media if at all, and thus aren't effective in creating change. Well, who do you think the media serves? What group of people is it that decides whether some specific TV/radio-channel is allowed to operate, and for how long? What group of people would stand to gain the most from controlling the whole mainstream media?
- cryoshon 13y ago
  The courts and executive branches are always (always, always, always) going to side with the power of the government itself-- this is clearly demonstrated throughout history in every totalitarian government. In our system of government, this situation is guaranteed by the appointment of the ranking members of the judiciary branch by the executive branch. This guarantees loyalty from the judiciary-- loyalty to party lines, which is settled on top of loyalty to the government itself. Next, the executive branch's government agency appointments are vetted by the legislative branch, which is accountable to the corporate branch. The corporate branch can then cycle members via the legislative branch into the government agencies which are then intended to regulate the corporate branch. This allows for high profit margins, which can be used to fund candidacies in the executive and legislative branches, securing their loyalty on top of the already-established loyalty from lobbying. So you see, everything is perfectly checked and balanced-- against the voters having any political effect via the only legitimate outlet for their demands.
  - zymhan 13y ago
    You have a fundamental misunderstanding of why the judiciary is the US is setup the way it is. Judges are appointed by the Executive, but they are essentially immune from any political pressure after they're appointed, as they don't have to get re-elected or re-appointed. The courts do not always side with the power of government, as has been shown multiple times (e.g. recently barring the FBI from throwing GPS trackers on cars without a warrant). Judicial nominees are typically confirmed very easily by Congress, so you definitely need some sources if you're gonna claim that corporations have undue influence in who gets appointed to be a judge. You've spun a conspiracy theory that is hardly supported by any facts, you've not cited a single source, or even referenced a real-world event to support your claims. You need to try harder if you want to convince people their government and their freedom is a lie.
    - cryoshon 13y ago
      If judges are in fact "immune to political pressure" then that's merely one less facet of the government that the public has any kind of oversight on. It's not really debatable that the current court is heavily pro-corporation/government power, though some blips against this trend can be observed, as you pointed out. In terms of sources: http://crooksandliars.com/susie-madrak/elizabeth-warren-warns-corporate-capt http://crooksandliars.com/susie-madrak/elizabeth-warren-warn... ; the quoted remarks by Senator Warren indicate that judicial nominees are actually not easily confirmed, and are sometimes already "captured" by corporate interest. It's very feasible that lobbyists could lobby the legislature in order to promote confirmation of judicial candidates who fit their agenda. Aside from lobbying the legislature to affect the judiciary's appointments, the judiciary can also be directly bought and sold: http://jonathanturley.org/2013/06/02/its-all-about-the-judges/ http://jonathanturley.org/2013/06/02/its-all-about-the-judge... ; most relevantly: “According to a recent investigation by the Center for Public Integrity, “conservative foundations, multinational oil companies and a prescription drug maker were the most frequent sponsors of more than 100 expense-paid educational seminars attended by federal judges over a 4 1/2-year period.” About 185 federal judges participated in these “educational” events which were sponsored by multinational corporations such as ExxonMobil, Pfizer and BP." I do not accept that the corruption that I outlined is a "conspiracy theory"-- it is a well-documented reality.

zymhan 13y ago

> Who checks the checkers and balances the balancers? The Appeals Courts, the Supreme Court, the executive (can pardon), and the people's ability to riot in the streets until we get our way. We certainly aren't hopeless, we just have to try a little harder.

anoncowherd 13y ago
>> The Appeals Courts, the Supreme Court, the executive (can pardon) So basically you're saying the watchers watch themselves? But this is exactly the problem I was pointing out. It's just not going to work, ever, and the US is excellent proof of that. Started with a minimal government and a strong constitution, but then.. an Empire happened. >> We certainly aren't hopeless, we just have to try a little harder. Not through political means though. Writing to your representatives doesn't work all that well either. Neither does voting.
- zymhan 13y ago
  > So basically you're saying the watchers watch themselves? No, because judges don't hear appeals to their decisions. Of course if you think the entire system is broken, then there's not much I can do to convince you.
  - anoncowherd 13y ago
    The system is working fine, it's just not to our benefit.
    - zymhan 13y ago
      But it _does_ work to our benefit. Sure, innocent people are mistakenly jailed (and even executed), which is a travesty beyond words. But overall the system works, and throwing your hands up in defeat instead of trying to influence the system is certainly unhelpful. You won't start a revolution by kvetching in online comments, maybe you should try writing some letters sometime. They really do read them, and respond to them.
      - anoncowherd 13y ago
        >> But it _does_ work to our benefit. No it doesn't. It works to the benefit of the ruling class, which, coincidentally, is the group of people who set the system up in the first place, and still control it today. Sure, its members come and go, but the power structure stays in place. >> Sure, innocent people are mistakenly jailed Mistakenly? -Rarely, if ever. Most of the time they know exactly what they're doing. >> But overall the system works, and throwing your hands up in defeat What defeat? I thought you just said the system "works"? -Where's the defeat if it's working properly and thus, everything is fine? >> instead of trying to influence the system is certainly unhelpful. You won't start a revolution by kvetching in online comments, maybe you should try writing some letters sometime. They really do read them, and respond to them Wow, you're so naive. Check out the other reply to my comment above, where someone said he's figured that it doesn't work. When Obama or whoever gets elected through receiving and using millions/billions of dollars of campaign contributions (ie. "bribes"), who exactly do you think he represents?
- cryoshon 13y ago
  Unfortunately, the way that I have begun to see things is that voting and representative-writing are pressure release valves for the public's discontent. I have had poor results with both methods, though I have gained the all-important sensation of "doing something" while truly accomplishing precisely nothing tangible. In my view, the sublime difficulty is that voting, forming PACs to finance/bribe campaigns, and writing representatives are the only fully-recognized "legitimate" outlets for political discontent. These methods are absolutely ineffective in the face of money and power structures. Even the mildest in desire and most orderly in execution of protests aren't viewed as reputable by bystanders, typically aren't covered positively by media if at all, and thus aren't effective in creating change.
  - anoncowherd 13y ago
    >> I have had poor results with both methods, though I have gained the all-important sensation of "doing something" while truly accomplishing precisely nothing tangible. At least now you know it's a waste of time and effort. >> In my view, the sublime difficulty is that voting, forming PACs to finance/bribe campaigns, and writing representatives are the only fully-recognized "legitimate" outlets for political discontent. Yep, that's the way the system is designed. >> These methods are absolutely ineffective in the face of money and power structures. Indeed they are. By design. >> Even the mildest in desire and most orderly in execution of protests aren't viewed as reputable by bystanders, typically aren't covered positively by media if at all, and thus aren't effective in creating change. Well, who do you think the media serves? What group of people is it that decides whether some specific TV/radio-channel is allowed to operate, and for how long? What group of people would stand to gain the most from controlling the whole mainstream media?
cryoshon 13y ago
The courts and executive branches are always (always, always, always) going to side with the power of the government itself-- this is clearly demonstrated throughout history in every totalitarian government. In our system of government, this situation is guaranteed by the appointment of the ranking members of the judiciary branch by the executive branch. This guarantees loyalty from the judiciary-- loyalty to party lines, which is settled on top of loyalty to the government itself. Next, the executive branch's government agency appointments are vetted by the legislative branch, which is accountable to the corporate branch. The corporate branch can then cycle members via the legislative branch into the government agencies which are then intended to regulate the corporate branch. This allows for high profit margins, which can be used to fund candidacies in the executive and legislative branches, securing their loyalty on top of the already-established loyalty from lobbying. So you see, everything is perfectly checked and balanced-- against the voters having any political effect via the only legitimate outlet for their demands.
- zymhan 13y ago
  You have a fundamental misunderstanding of why the judiciary is the US is setup the way it is. Judges are appointed by the Executive, but they are essentially immune from any political pressure after they're appointed, as they don't have to get re-elected or re-appointed. The courts do not always side with the power of government, as has been shown multiple times (e.g. recently barring the FBI from throwing GPS trackers on cars without a warrant). Judicial nominees are typically confirmed very easily by Congress, so you definitely need some sources if you're gonna claim that corporations have undue influence in who gets appointed to be a judge. You've spun a conspiracy theory that is hardly supported by any facts, you've not cited a single source, or even referenced a real-world event to support your claims. You need to try harder if you want to convince people their government and their freedom is a lie.
  - cryoshon 13y ago
    If judges are in fact "immune to political pressure" then that's merely one less facet of the government that the public has any kind of oversight on. It's not really debatable that the current court is heavily pro-corporation/government power, though some blips against this trend can be observed, as you pointed out. In terms of sources: http://crooksandliars.com/susie-madrak/elizabeth-warren-warns-corporate-capt http://crooksandliars.com/susie-madrak/elizabeth-warren-warn... ; the quoted remarks by Senator Warren indicate that judicial nominees are actually not easily confirmed, and are sometimes already "captured" by corporate interest. It's very feasible that lobbyists could lobby the legislature in order to promote confirmation of judicial candidates who fit their agenda. Aside from lobbying the legislature to affect the judiciary's appointments, the judiciary can also be directly bought and sold: http://jonathanturley.org/2013/06/02/its-all-about-the-judges/ http://jonathanturley.org/2013/06/02/its-all-about-the-judge... ; most relevantly: “According to a recent investigation by the Center for Public Integrity, “conservative foundations, multinational oil companies and a prescription drug maker were the most frequent sponsors of more than 100 expense-paid educational seminars attended by federal judges over a 4 1/2-year period.” About 185 federal judges participated in these “educational” events which were sponsored by multinational corporations such as ExxonMobil, Pfizer and BP." I do not accept that the corruption that I outlined is a "conspiracy theory"-- it is a well-documented reality.