This could easily be fixed with a rule that requires congressmen to recuse themselves from voting on spending for their own district, in the same way that judges must recuse themselves from cases if they have a conflict of interest.

Here's what happened...

Some asshole, lazy, pathetic guy named Clarence Thomas ended up on the Supreme Court of the United Stated. He sleeps, sits back, has never once asks a single question or speaks in five years. He along with Bush appointee rule on some insane Citizens United case, and overturn 100 years of campaign finance law. This same Thomas clown also once wrote that.. “the Constitution does not afford students a right to free speech in public schools.” This same asshole uses the pickup line, "Who has put pubic hair on my Coke?"

Citizens_United_v._Federal_Election_Commission
Cornell Law

The case was actually about a special interest group, funded by for-profit movie maker guy who aired Hillary hit movie 60 days before the election.

Instead of ruling on "Whether a broadcast feature-length documentary movie that is sold on DVD, shown in theaters, and accompanied by a compendium book is to be treated as the broadcast 'ads'" SCOTUS didn't rule on the actual case, but instead made a far reaching leap to rule somehow that corporations have First Amendment rights (a legal arrangement to protect shareholders from liability)... Also, not only do they have First Amendment rights, but they don't have to obey and campaign finance laws or contribution limits.

So an individual can only contribute so much, but if you put your money into any corporation, you can just donate as much as you want to run ads on TV as a special interest.

Two justices should have recused themselves. In fact, if Obama didn't fail to investigate any crimes committed recently, they would have followed up...

"A year after the decision, Common Cause asked the Department of Justice to investigate conflicts of interest on the part of two of the Justices in the majority. The organization noted that Thomas's wife was the founder and president of Liberty Central, a conservative political advocacy group that would be empowered to accept corporate contributions to run campaign advertisements. In addition, Scalia and Thomas had participated in political strategy sessions organized by David H. Koch and Charles G. Koch, who stood to benefit from the decision"

The FDA food safety czar is former Monsanto VP Michael Taylor. Huge conflict of interest.

I think I'd agree if their weren't so many conflicts of interest. For instance, suppose Netflix signs a contract with Comcast for x gigachips per month service. Now suppose Comcast QOSes the shit out of Netflix traffic in favor of Comcast content delivery. The connection should be regulated similarly to voice data.

It may not be entirely true, but I was always under the impression that internal affairs was there to investigate misconduct and that the majority of the police force really was at arms length with people from internal affairs. Might just be TV/movies corrupting my view.

But there have also been cases where other districts will investigate sensitive matters to remove any chance of favoritism when involving members of a police force. I mean they have to trust someone at some point, so why not another police force?

Then if it's really serious, corruption, murder, etc...feds usually do the investigation or at least participate in the decisions being made.

And then when it comes to trial, they've been known to hold trials in other districts because the public outrage is too high in the district where it happened so they couldn't find an untainted jury pool.

I say as long as you have someone whose fairly impartial making the decisions that decide whether someone else should investigate or not..or trial should be held elsewhere for impartiality, etc....you're doing the best you can hope to do given the sheer amount of people involved. You can't possibly look into every person to look for possible ties and therefore possible influences to their bias.

The only issue is, we have a justice system that strives to the minimum in actually rehabilitating people. They go no further than what it takes to bring someone into court, hear a trial even if it's there's evidence that they should be considering being left out, make a verdict and let the person loose again.....when there's something clearly wrong that could be fixed NOW to prevent problems later. Medical holds for treatment, mandatory state funded counseling, etc. In fact in my state, most of these extra facilities have been shut down and the people being helped by them have been released into the wild to repeat the process all over again....except in the end it's jail or being let go to repeat it yet again.

If the system only options weren't confinement or restricted movement, they might find the population a happier bunch.....

>> ^NetRunner:

>> ^Matthu:
Uh, yes there is... They can hand over the investigation to an impartial 3rd party who doesn't have a conflict of interest.

Sounds easy. A few questions though.
Who decides which 3rd party handles the investigation? The cops? The people making the accusation? This impartial 3rd party itself?
How is it funded? Does it get subpoena powers? Can it get warrants from judges? For that matter, can they investigate judges too? Politicians? Corporations? Your neighbors?
Are the police supposed to voluntarily comply with the recommendations? How does this help if all it can do is give toothless recommendations? Or is this supposed to be a compulsory thing? If it's compulsory, how do they compel the police? Do politicians grant them legal authority of some sort?
Is there any way for the officers to contest any of the findings? To appeal any of the decisions?
Who investigates the 3rd party if there are reports of corruption in how it operates? Can't be the police -- that'd be a conflict of interest. Do we need a 4th party to police the 3rd? A 5th to keep an eye on the 4th?

>> ^Matthu:

Uh, yes there is... They can hand over the investigation to an impartial 3rd party who doesn't have a conflict of interest.


Sounds easy. A few questions though.

Who decides which 3rd party handles the investigation? The cops? The people making the accusation? This impartial 3rd party itself?

How is it funded? Does it get subpoena powers? Can it get warrants from judges? For that matter, can they investigate judges too? Politicians? Corporations? Your neighbors?

Are the police supposed to voluntarily comply with the recommendations? How does this help if all it can do is give toothless recommendations? Or is this supposed to be a compulsory thing? If it's compulsory, how do they compel the police? Do politicians grant them legal authority of some sort?

Is there any way for the officers to contest any of the findings? To appeal any of the decisions?

Who investigates the 3rd party if there are reports of corruption in how it operates? Can't be the police -- that'd be a conflict of interest. Do we need a 4th party to police the 3rd? A 5th to keep an eye on the 4th?

>> ^bcglorf:
I suspect you aren't understanding me. An individual police officer committed a crime. The police force only has two options:
1.Investigate the crime.
2.Don't investigate the crime.
I am observing that there is a crowd on here that responds as follows:
1.Condemn the police for investigating(conflict of interest).
2.Condemn the police for not investigating(double standard).
When an individual police officer commits a crime, there is NOTHING the police force as a whole can do that doesn't confirm and further implicate them in some people's eyes.


That's an apologist answer and a straw man argument. It's not about them not investigating, it's about mitigating liability and damages through their political influence. That's why these two officers are facing misdemeanor charges instead of felony charges, which is exactly what you or I would face if we did the exact same thing.

I'd like for you to read the Christopher Commission's investigation of the mores and culture of the LAPD after Rampart and Rodney King. It's eye opening. That is if you can find it online.

Oh, and I think you're confused about the Internal Affairs Group. First that pertains to state and city police. I'm not sure if the TSA has an IAG, but the second cop seemed to be working for an airport police department so maybe he does. It's hard to keep the bureaucratic morass straight. Even if they did, the IAG for local police is under the purview of the police commission, and the people who make up the IAG are police officers who cycle in and out of the precincts, so there's an obvious conflict of interest there.

>> ^bcglorf:

Wouldn't it be great if the police force planned for that kind of requirement and had a specific department specifically for that purpose. They could call it something catchy like the Department of Internal Affairs....
<div><div style="margin: 10px; overflow: auto; width: 80%; float: left; position: relative;" class="convoPiece"> Matthu said:<img style="margin: 4px 10px 10px; float: left; width: 40px;" src="http://static1.videosift.com/avatars/m/Matthu-s.jpg" onerror="ph(this)"><div style="position: absolute; margin-left: 52px; padding-top: 1px; font-size: 10px;" class="commentarrow">◄</div><div style="padding: 8px; margin-left: 60px; margin-top: 2px; min-height: 30px;" class="nestedComment box"> Uh, yes there is... They can hand over the investigation to an impartial 3rd party who doesn't have a conflict of interest.
</div></div></div>
<div><div style="margin: 10px; overflow: auto; width: 80%; float: right; position: relative;" class="convoPiece"> bcglorf said:<img style="margin: 4px 10px 10px; float: right; width: 40px;" src="http://static1.videosift.com/avatars/b/bcglorf-s.jpg" onerror="ph(this)"><div style="position: absolute; margin-top: 1px; right: 52px; font-size: 10px;" class="commentarrow">►</div><div style="padding: 8px; margin-right: 60px; margin-top: 2px; min-height: 30px;" class="nestedComment box">blankfist
bcglorf, I'm not sure you completely understand what a conflict of interest means in terms of law. It has everything to do with impartiality.
If you sued me for stealing your TV, and the judge was a cousin of mine that would be a conflict of interest. If I was a cop and stole your TV, and the investigating party was my boss that would also be a conflict of interest.
I suspect you aren't understanding me. An individual police officer committed a crime. The police force only has two options:
1.Investigate the crime.
2.Don't investigate the crime.
I am observing that there is a crowd on here that responds as follows:
1.Condemn the police for investigating(conflict of interest).
2.Condemn the police for not investigating(double standard).
When an individual police officer commits a crime, there is NOTHING the police force as a whole can do that doesn't confirm and further implicate them in some people's eyes.
</div></div></div>

Ya man, that'd be awesome. Friggin' hell, videosifters should be running things. If they were, the world would be awesome.

Also, "This Department of Internal Affairs" should be made up entirely of cops and retired cops. I mean, obviously, they're the only ones who can judge crimes committed by police officers. Obviously regular humans are incapable of the empathy these angels of justice require.

>> ^Matthu:

>> ^bcglorf:
blankfist
bcglorf, I'm not sure you completely understand what a conflict of interest means in terms of law. It has everything to do with impartiality.
If you sued me for stealing your TV, and the judge was a cousin of mine that would be a conflict of interest. If I was a cop and stole your TV, and the investigating party was my boss that would also be a conflict of interest.
I suspect you aren't understanding me. An individual police officer committed a crime. The police force only has two options:
1.Investigate the crime.
2.Don't investigate the crime.
I am observing that there is a crowd on here that responds as follows:
1.Condemn the police for investigating(conflict of interest).
2.Condemn the police for not investigating(double standard).
When an individual police officer commits a crime, there is NOTHING the police force as a whole can do that doesn't confirm and further implicate them in some people's eyes.

Uh, yes there is... They can hand over the investigation to an impartial 3rd party who doesn't have a conflict of interest.


Wouldn't it be great if the police force planned for that kind of requirement and had a specific department specifically for that purpose. They could call it something catchy like the Department of Internal Affairs....

>> ^bcglorf:

blankfist
bcglorf, I'm not sure you completely understand what a conflict of interest means in terms of law. It has everything to do with impartiality.
If you sued me for stealing your TV, and the judge was a cousin of mine that would be a conflict of interest. If I was a cop and stole your TV, and the investigating party was my boss that would also be a conflict of interest.
I suspect you aren't understanding me. An individual police officer committed a crime. The police force only has two options:
1.Investigate the crime.
2.Don't investigate the crime.
I am observing that there is a crowd on here that responds as follows:
1.Condemn the police for investigating(conflict of interest).
2.Condemn the police for not investigating(double standard).
When an individual police officer commits a crime, there is NOTHING the police force as a whole can do that doesn't confirm and further implicate them in some people's eyes.


Uh, yes there is... They can hand over the investigation to an impartial 3rd party who doesn't have a conflict of interest.

blankfist
bcglorf, I'm not sure you completely understand what a conflict of interest means in terms of law. It has everything to do with impartiality.
If you sued me for stealing your TV, and the judge was a cousin of mine that would be a conflict of interest. If I was a cop and stole your TV, and the investigating party was my boss that would also be a conflict of interest.

I suspect you aren't understanding me. An individual police officer committed a crime. The police force only has two options:
1.Investigate the crime.
2.Don't investigate the crime.

I am observing that there is a crowd on here that responds as follows:
1.Condemn the police for investigating(conflict of interest).
2.Condemn the police for not investigating(double standard).

When an individual police officer commits a crime, there is NOTHING the police force as a whole can do that doesn't confirm and further implicate them in some people's eyes.

@bcglorf, I'm not sure you completely understand what a conflict of interest means in terms of law. It has everything to do with impartiality.

If you sued me for stealing your TV, and the judge was a cousin of mine that would be a conflict of interest. If I was a cop and stole your TV, and the investigating party was my boss that would also be a conflict of interest.

their agencies are launching a thorough investigation - and in NO WAY is that a conflict of interest.

The world view of some of you here is completely impenetrable. If the police go and arrest these two, it proves your world view by confirming the 'conflict of interest'. If the police do not go out and arrest these two, it STILL proves your world view.

The next time someone that has the same job as you is convicted for murder apply the same logic. Whether you condemn them or support them, it all just proves everyone with that job is the same...

http://texastough.com/

>> ^Matthu:

Rapists, murderers and other violent offenders should, just about, never come out. The problem, imo, is when you lock away small time pot dealers, or even cocaine dealers, for as long as rapists and murderers.
But there's a clear conflict of interest. From my understanding there is motive to incarcerate as many people as possible, since prisons are a private industry and prisoners are subject to slave labour while in prison. This sounds all well and good, the guy's a rapist, put him to work while he's locked up and maybe he can actually pay off that debt to society by building things.
But then the conflict of interest arises...

Rapists, murderers and other violent offenders should, just about, never come out. The problem, imo, is when you lock away small time pot dealers, or even cocaine dealers, for as long as rapists and murderers.

But there's a clear conflict of interest. From my understanding there is motive to incarcerate as many people as possible, since prisons are a private industry and prisoners are subject to slave labour while in prison. This sounds all well and good, the guy's a rapist, put him to work while he's locked up and maybe he can actually pay off that debt to society by building things.

But then the conflict of interest arises...