Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Shadowlord]

Jesus christ.

[Strife26]

Obviously we put a black mark on the 'bad' cops.  They are forever blocked from advancing their career in any police system.  They are free to find another job.  'Good' cops  don't get that black mark and can be rehired to better positions.

Basically, fire everyone and rehire em as you see fit.  Not as bad as firing everyone and only hiring new blood...

How do you tell the difference between the bad cops and good cops?  We already have that now in theory - bad cops are supposed to be fired, while good cops stay.  The whole point of the blue line, though, is that all too often, neither side is willing to point out which one of them are good or bad, outside of exceptional circumstances like this.  Internal Affairs is considered the "enemy" and not to be trusted by "actual" officers. 

That said, if I recall properly (and my memory is a bit fuzzy), there are cases where this has worked on a local level - once or twice, entire police departments have been fired and replaced from other departments around the state, people who will set a good example for the newbies.  My problem is with it being applied as a nationwide solution, because there are no "other departments" to provide a seed stock to rebuild along proper lines in that case. 

Well, don't get rid of all of them. Just all the ones that can't bring up actionable dirt on other parts of the legal system :V

Ummm, I'm seeing a bit of a perverse incentive here.  "Either you give us a crooked cop or you get sacked."  It seems like a wonderful way to give them a vested interest in ratting out corruption, whether it exists or not.

What if we got some of those Ba'ath types who are out of a country to run? And out of the country they were out of the country too

[smjjames]

Lol, republicans are raising alarm about women in combat because...... get this... it could force all young women into the draft.

http://www.politico.com/story/2015/12/pentagon-women-in-combat-republican-reaction-216412

Also, if they don't feel pressure to do gun control with recent events, how far and how bad does the problem have to get before they feel pressure? http://www.politico.com/story/2015/12/gop-unmoved-on-gun-control-as-massacres-pile-up-216407

[Urist Imiknorris]

Didn't they just shoot down a bill to ban gun sales to people on terror watch lists or something?

I really wish I remember where I heard that.

[Baffler]

Maybe they think it would tip them off to the fact that they're being watched and force them to act immediately.

Or they don't want to give gun shop owners and whatever other random people might be selling guns access to the terror watch lists.

Or they don't want to do it because it would require that they institute background checks for everybody to enforce it.

Or they don't want to do it because it would require that everyone register their guns.

Or they don't want to do it because they would know that they'd get a background check and opt to get an illegal gun instead, which the feds would have no way of knowing about unless they were watching them most of the time, which they probably aren't.

In fact I have strong doubts that the democrats expected the bill to actually pass, and it was really just a way to make people look bad.

[Shadowlord]

The stated reason is that there's no due process in that list.

[smjjames]

Them thinking they got tipped off is certainly a legit concern though.

[SalmonGod]

Given what is known about the level of standards and track record with terrorist watch lists, I would be against any reduction in rights being tied to them.

[TheBiggerFish]

Given what is known about the level of standards and track record with terrorist watch lists, I would be against any reduction in rights being tied to them.

For instance, they had Nelson Mandela on a watchlist.

[Frumple]

The stated reason is that there's no due process in that list.

There's something morbidly hilarious about conservative opposition to something on those grounds, of all grounds.

Maybe it's a good sign, though! Perhaps I can use it to fool myself into thinking the political apparatus is becoming less inclined to shit upon the 5th & 14th from on high. It'd be a nice daydream...

[Powder Miner]

The stated reason is that there's no due process in that list.

I think that's probably the best possible reason for that.

[Urist Imiknorris]

Okay, that makes more sense.

[Loud Whispers]

Given what is known about the level of standards and track record with terrorist watch lists, I would be against any reduction in rights being tied to them.

For instance, they had Nelson Mandela on a watchlist.

His lads were a bit too fond of necklacing to not warrant eyes

[Strife26]

Nah, everyone knows that Nelson Mandela is pure and saintly and perfect.


But yeah, for the standard of narrow restrictions on a fundamental right, the terror watch lists, such as they are, are about equal to "if you have a six in your social security number, no guns for you"

[FearfulJesuit]

Hey, look, Congress accomplished something.

...back to your regularly scheduled gridlock...