Happy New Year!
Queen of Good Things, Honest
scratching at .8, just hopin'
Zzzzzzzzzz
How about you all get back on the topic?
edited 19th Aug '13 6:52:21 PM by Madrugada
...if you don’t love you’re dead, and if you do, they’ll kill you for it.
Who Am I?
How does anyone feel about setting up a special court that would-be government whistleblowers could submit their information to.
"We learn from history that we do not learn from history."
![[up]](https://static.tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pub/smiles/arrow_up.png "[up]"){kind=icon}
I'd imagine it'd be difficult to pull off—how would you verify that the court is being impartial? Assuming they'd have specific judges and whatnot for that purpose (And not just reveal national secrets to anyone with the qualifications), there'd be a chance that those involved could become biased, and since the information couldn't be leaked to the public, there'd be no way to overrule any of it.
I suppose they could give the court both actual examples and fake ones, without labeling, and the court would have no choice but to be honest...
Fire, air, water, earth...legend has it that when these four elements are gathered, they will form the fifth element...boron.
NOT THE BEES
We already have three.
They're all hideously slanted, and one of them recently went through an outright corruption scandal.
edited 9th Sep '13 11:54:25 AM by Pykrete
The US military has more dirt to dish up than other militaries, right? I mean, just going by sheer size and presence.
scratching at .8, just hopin'
Such a court, if it could be implemented, would be awesome, but I don't know how we could keep it clean.
Share it so that people can get into this conversation, 'cause we're not the only ones who think like this.
HGW XX/7
Ask the military thread.
How about anonymous submission? So a whistleblower can go to the court without revealing himself?
The problem with such a court is that it would have to be, at the same time, unquestioningly loyal to the state (so it can be trusted to keep things secret) and yet incorruptibly protective of the individual whistleblower's privacy rights. And, if the court says "no, this should be secret", how is that appealed and how is it scrutinized?
On reflection, I'm not massively keen on a court replacing the usual "get on the phone to the press" method, because it means another secret court, further diluting the principle of open-ness of the court system in the state's favor.
edited 9th Sep '13 2:02:17 PM by Achaemenid
Schild und Schwert der Partei
scratching at .8, just hopin'
The thing is as long as big money buys big advertising, you can't trust the media to not be corrupt either.
Share it so that people can get into this conversation, 'cause we're not the only ones who think like this.
V
You can't trust anybody not to be corrupt. As much as you'd like to disagree, Every Man Has His Price.
Keep Rolling On
HGW XX/7
Further complicated by the fact that the absence of corruption in the legal sense is not equivalent to the absence of dishonesty. Case in point: the Guardian, or the various other "independent" news sources which nevertheless present and analyze the news as it conforms to their ideological agenda.
Frankly, if the only possibilities are "potentially corrupt media" or "potentially corrupt quasi-autonomous state apparatus", then I'd rather go with the former.
edited 10th Sep '13 11:40:25 AM by Achaemenid
Schild und Schwert der Partei