alt Hacker NewsThe core issue is that on one hand, police needs power to protect the citizens, but at the same time the power might corrupt them.
Replies
That would be a fine argument, if anyone had proof that invasive search practices actually made peoples lifes noticeably safer.
And yet, almost every single time such practices are implemented, nothing about actual safety changes...but a whole lot about surveillance does.
"People willing to trade their freedom for temporary security will lose both.
-- Benajmin Franklin, paraphrased
> police needs power to protect the citizens
Those terms need to be clearly defined. SCOTUS has declared that the police actually have no duty to protect and to serve the people.
And with an overwhelming amount of evidence, the police operate with effectively no accountability and repeated demonstrate that they abuse their powers freely.
So yes, laws without teeth are pointless but the state's monopoly on violence should only be granted when it can be demonstrated to not be abused.
This is not the issue. The police are tools.
The question is whether the people who control the police are subject to democratic processes. They are not. We live in an oligarchy whose control over the government is exercised through two small private clubs who have written themselves into the law. To which it has been decided that infinite money can be donated, that money given without explicit quid pro quo is simply a gift, and that money given after something has been done is simply a "gratuity."*
It's an evil country, and the most lucrative middle-class profession is to generate daily the vocabulary to justify its evil acts.
I can tell you who doesn't ever get searched at the border. In fact, I bet you could tell me. Peter Thiel doesn't get searched at the border. Kamala Harris doesn't get searched at the border. Jeffrey Epstein never got searched at the border. Tom Cruise doesn't get searched at the border.
This is why state powers need judicial oversight.
There are some instances where powers need to be exercised in a hurry, but there should always be proper reporting and a paper trail, with stiff reprimanded for misuse or abuse of the system. Accidents can happen, but they should be infrequent and should follow protocol.
It would be great if citizens had more direct involvement in these cases too. I don't see why egregious abuses shouldn't be tried by jury.
Police and intelligence agency employees should be held to a higher standard than civilians (like military personnel are subject to UCMJ), and breeches of protocols should lead to harsher punishments imposed upon them. It would be fine to pay them more if it required more training and accountability.