Police are somewhat effective at catching lower class and middle class citizens, as they have a system of conditions to look out for such as speeding, assault, etc. But government lacks this quality. For anyone to be accused of a crime, there has to be news media, special interest groups, or someone personally aware or affected by something who decides to sue.
Why not have a system of common crimes and mishandlings in government, and have politically neutral "police" who can regularly catch corrupt politicians, investigate fraud or mishandling, and charge for suspicious crimes which must be proven innocent in judicial court.
Name:
Anonymous2005-10-16 2:33
Because the government would have to vote for that to happen lmfao
Government corruption will never not exist, because humans are too fucking animal and stupid to have any pure moral opinion so that they can govern themselves. These things will get worse, not better, as the levels of separation between civilian and government grow. Once we reach the point where your idea DOES come into play, that government will be so far gone into corruption that the watchgroup would simply be another piece of propaganda to use against enemies and stage falls.
In the case that a nobody ultra-liberal state in Europe created this and it worked, all it would do would be to generate evil by forcing politicians to use worse tactics and highlight the fact that the government is run by pigs- forcing politicians to spend time unpigging themselves rather than governing.. And this would be in one of those small ones whose major economic export is fish.
Name:
Anonymous2005-10-16 12:45
corruption in government is little different from corruption anywhere else. the police can waddle around and look for people committing visible crimes, and they'll catch the visible criminals. that's really about all they can do.
most corruption takes the form of invisible crimes -- they get away with what they do because noone else knows they do it. either that, or everyone who knows they do it let them do it. once people know they do it, that's where the media furor and public outcry come into play.
unless you have an elaborate spy network that sees what government people do at all times and monitered by people who can administer swift judgement, there /will/ be corruption.
it's the role of the public to pay attention to their government in a democracy to ensure that it acts in their best interests at all time. adding special 'government police' just adds another layer that can potentially become corrupt on it's own.
Name:
Anonymous2005-10-17 15:20
how about forced total transparency?
Name:
Anonymous2005-10-17 23:21
The US did have a neutral "police" starting 1978. United States Office of the Independent Counsel. They were shut down June 1999.
Name:
Anonymous2005-10-21 16:00
Right before the Bush election. Just a coincidence, I'm sure.
Do you suppose that President Bush got elected, then traveled back in time to prevent the mandate for the independent counsel from being renewed? No wait, it was Karl Rove, wasn't it? That fucking dark sorcerer!
By what deranged schizophrenic logic can you blame George Bush for decisions of the executive office that happened while he was just a fucking governor, and Bill Clinton was the president?
I wish all the self-righteous partisan fascists like yourself, on both the right and the left, would die horribly and soon.
Name:
Anonymous2005-10-21 19:29
>>7
No one ever said HE did it, but if the GOP had control of the Senate and refused to renew it.. Then you could draw that point. But hey, maybe it was a bi-partisan decision not to investigate government corruption. I wonder how shit like DeLay gets leaked that indicts 30 Senators but not small-time briberies? Sounds like a prat fall. Whatever.
Name:
Anonymous2005-10-21 21:05
Many people thought that the Independent Council was too strong, so of like a fourth branch of the government.
And they did such useful things like investigating Clinton's sexual life.
>>10
Yes, Kevin Bass, the Wikipedia editor responsible for creating the horseshit that is the second article. I don't even feel like reciting the history and problems with the article; read the Talk pages.