Strangely, this is kind of a good thing. It means that DHS is actually looking internally for criminals, and not ignoring them or assuming they don't exist.

The DHS wants rustlers, cut throats, murderers, bounty hunters, desperados, mugs, pugs, thugs, nitwits, halfwits, dimwits, vipers, snipers, con men, Indian agents, Mexican bandits, muggers, buggerers, bushwhackers, hornswogglers, horse thieves, bull dykes, train robbers, bank robbers, ass-kickers, shiat-kickers and Methodists.

Ever year?

fusillade762: Ever year?

It's not Ever year. It's Everclear
/190 
//used to drink it with navy guys back in the 80's

I've been upset since I found out I have a Homeland, instead of a country.

Ambivalence: Strangely, this is kind of a good thing. It means that DHS is actually looking internally for criminals, and not ignoring them or assuming they don't exist.

sort of kind of
plus we can assume that they are only catching a fraction of the criminals at DHS
we should probably create a new organization which is in charge of investigating DHS. They should get bonuses based on prison time for successful prosecutions.

namatad: Ambivalence: Strangely, this is kind of a good thing. It means that DHS is actually looking internally for criminals, and not ignoring them or assuming they don't exist.

sort of kind of
plus we can assume that they are only catching a fraction of the criminals at DHS
we should probably create a new organization which is in charge of investigating DHS. They should get bonuses based on prison time for successful prosecutions.

I've always said assumption is the root of all error. You can't safely quantify an unknown based on assumption. Extrapolation maybe, but not assumption. If DHS caught x% of its workforce in criminal activity (on a consistant basis) that may indicate there is always x% of criminals in their workforce. (for example)

It is relaxing to hear that the watchers are themselves being watched.

namatad: we should probably create a new organization which is in charge of investigating DHS

I always thought there should be more than one police agency, and they both have the ability to arrest each other as if the other is a citizen.

Make this whole "checks and balances" thing fractal or something.

This sounds like some sort of cunning sting operation.

simplicimus: I've been upset since I found out I have a Homeland, instead of a country.

Should have gone with "Fatherland". At least that way I wouldn't get it confused with the Department of Human Services all the time.

fusillade762: simplicimus: I've been upset since I found out I have a Homeland, instead of a country.

Should have gone with "Fatherland". At least that way I wouldn't get it confused with the Department of Human Services all the time.

Those were the days. I remember when I first heard the name. "Homeland? Seriously? Homeland?" Now it doesn't even register as the Orwellian name it is.

impaler: fusillade762: simplicimus: I've been upset since I found out I have a Homeland, instead of a country.

Should have gone with "Fatherland". At least that way I wouldn't get it confused with the Department of Human Services all the time.

Those were the days. I remember when I first heard the name. "Homeland? Seriously? Homeland?" Now it doesn't even register as the Orwellian name it is.

Fatherland wouldn't work work too well. We are all immigrants or children of immigrants, except for Amer-Indians, who are also immigrants.

impaler: namatad: we should probably create a new organization which is in charge of investigating DHS

I always thought there should be more than one police agency, and they both have the ability to arrest each other as if the other is a citizen.
Make this whole "checks and balances" thing fractal or something.

the place which I go is somewhat related to Heinlein's Fair Witness concept. Fully fund the Public defenders departments to the needed level
1) no police officer is allowed to talk to a citizen without a Fair Witness being present ever. they wouldnt need to be a lawyer, but they would be the first line. this would include patrols and traffic stops
2) they would be recording everything that officer does 100% of the time.

sucks, but the police have proven over and over that they can never ever be trusted alone
the reduction in lawsuit settlements alone would almost fund the new program

lol
like the people with the power would ever give it up

Subby, I wet my pants after 9/11. My convictions went out the window. I am willing to accept the most draconian or even worthless theater measures in stride because I love America. You don't even want to know how much I love this country and the Constitution I'm willing to subvert for it. If it weren't for liberals whining so much, we'd have a version of the TSA at every state fair, keeping our children safe.

I don't know why you hate America, but maybe you should move to Canada or something.

impaler: fusillade762: simplicimus: I've been upset since I found out I have a Homeland, instead of a country.

Should have gone with "Fatherland". At least that way I wouldn't get it confused with the Department of Human Services all the time.

Those were the days. I remember when I first heard the name. "Homeland? Seriously? Homeland?" Now it doesn't even register as the Orwellian name it is.

I remember having a serious case of the creeps when they named it DHS. I looked around, wondering why more people weren't alarmed by the ominous name. And I'm hardly a "wake up, sheeple" type.

Also, I wonder about the outcry had it been Obama who created "Homeland Security." Given that this is a nation that found controversy in him giving a motivational speech to elementary school children, I can't even imagine the DERPCON 1 levels of blogger patriot Fox diarrhea. As it stands, we're all pretty cool with it because hey, you were either with us or against us.

namatad: the place which I go is somewhat related to Heinlein's Fair Witness concept. Fully fund the Public defenders departments to the needed level
1) no police officer is allowed to talk to a citizen without a Fair Witness being present ever. they wouldnt need to be a lawyer, but they would be the first line. this would include patrols and traffic stops
2) they would be recording everything that officer does 100% of the time.

Too much work.

Instead of all that bullshiat, just pay cops enough that people worth hiring want to join. Like most all things in life, 100% is not an acceptable goal. There will always be a fail point in any system.

Thus the best solution is not the one that reaches the highest percentage of success, but rather the one that reaches the highest percentage of success with the least input.

A supercalifragilisticexpialidocious automatic machine gun robot with a supercomputer hooked inside to calculate bullet trajectories and hooked directly to the Pentagon's best real time map of the battle field would be really useful for guarding bases.

Instead, we just have guys with guns in towers. They're more fallible than the robot and mistakes can and do happen. But at the end of the day they cost $0.00 to utilize because they and their rifles are already there on site and they do a pretty decent freakin' job.

Making some kind of official police policers will simply result in a giant money vacuum and reams of red tape and won't prevent incidents like that jackass on the BART platform who shot the guy in the back. All we really need to do is UP the standards required of cops and reward people who meet those standards. Just like teaching. It's not quit throwing money at it till it goes away, but throwing money at it will be a lot easier and do more good than some insanely complicated Rube Goldberg system.

namatad: impaler: namatad: we should probably create a new organization which is in charge of investigating DHS

I always thought there should be more than one police agency, and they both have the ability to arrest each other as if the other is a citizen.
Make this whole "checks and balances" thing fractal or something.

the place which I go is somewhat related to Heinlein's Fair Witness concept. Fully fund the Public defenders departments to the needed level
1) no police officer is allowed to talk to a citizen without a Fair Witness being present ever. they wouldnt need to be a lawyer, but they would be the first line. this would include patrols and traffic stops
2) they would be recording everything that officer does 100% of the time.

sucks, but the police have proven over and over that they can never ever be trusted alone
the reduction in lawsuit settlements alone would almost fund the new program

lol
like the people with the power would ever give it up

i think that is a pretty clever idea. those who currently make a living as lawyers will make sure it never happens, supported by their clubs, groups and educators.

Feel safer yet?

For once, yeah. A little.

AlwaysRightBoy

fusillade762: Ever year?

It's not Ever year. It's Everclear
/190
//used to drink it with navy guys back in the 80's

Naw. It's "Ever hear". As in: Ever hear that we catch the drug smugglers and bad guys an' we don't even hafta leave the building!"

According to the report, a Border Patrol agent from Tucson named Yamilkar Fierros was given 20 months in prison for providing "sensor location maps, trail maps, and communications technology" to cartel members in exchange for more than $5,000 in bribes.

I believe the term "Cheap Bastard" applies. Unless those sensors move every couple of days, that information will be resold and the original briber will get his $5000 back pretty quickly. If you're gonna sell out, don't do it too low. Also have more information to sell or you will be the one the bad guys through to the wolves when it's time.