Hacker News Reader

Comment by ende | Hacker News Reader

I would like to call for the establishment of a Department of Liberty, with 50% of DHS and other intellifence and law enforcement agencys' funding being diverted into its formation. Its function would be twofold:

1) an army of civil rights defense attourneys to counter the DOJ, DHS, etc.

2) a force of federal agents who have the authority to interefere with any federal, state or local law enforcement activity, but completely lack the ability to touch citizens. Their sole mission would be to detain law enforcement officers suspected of abusing their power, raid illegaly acquired/held state confiscation staches, liberate detained civilians, confiscate/destroy/release government secret records, interfere with unlawful border patrol, and execute on the spot any law enforcement agent caught in the act of violating person's civil liberties.

They will watch the watchmen.

View on HN

execute on the spot any law enforcement agent caught in the act of violating person's civil liberties.

Yeah, there's no way that could go wrong.

> execute on the spot any law enforcement agent caught in the act of violating person's civil liberties.

Surely this rule would create a rather suicidal agency? Or is due cause no longer a civil liberty?

That last item was a bit hyperbole.

In theory that is why each agency has an office of inspector general. they are supposed to police abuse, fraud, and waste in these agencies. However however they still report to the head of that agency and ultimately the AG and president.

Not enough independence. Need an entity that reports to someone outside of the chain of command and has as much teeth as the executive.

That is called congressional oversight.

That's what the judicial system is for.

I'm not sure if GP's suggestion is actually viable (the whole "who watches the watchers" problem, and there is no way funding to the new department could match the existing departments - ie at best, it will not be that effective).

However, I've always thought that judicial system is a mean to check the legislative branch (rather than executive). The reasons being that judicial system has no mean to enforce/ prevent wrong doing (legislative can cut funding), and they also have no way to proactive prevent any wrong doings from happening (you can't do investigation, and anything that reaches the court necessitates a lawsuit).

The Judicial checks the Executive in that the Executive is tasked with brining people before the Courts. The Courts decide if that person should be punished in accordance with the laws, but they can also rule on the behaviour of law enforcement in accordance with the laws too.

I've wondered about that angle too. Maybe the Judicial branch should have its own enforcement arm. SCOTUS does have its own police force.

Sure, provided that you are independently rich.

So your solution to the problem of government overreach is to create a new government agency?

The only "department of liberty" is you, and me, and other citizens. We're sovereign under the U.S. system of law; empowered to make change in a variety of ways.

But we have to do it. There's no way around the fact that a democracy is only as good as its citizen activism. There are some things you can't outsource or delegate.

If only that were so, and if only that were enough. Sadly the steady rise of the militarized police state begs to differ.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com