It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
originally posted by: schuyler
Problem is, half the people won't agree no matter what.
1. You now have the right to a recall election of you can get your act together for that.
2. You can also indict a politician for crimes, which has been done many times. How many governors of Illinois are now in prison? Lots.
3. You can refuse to re-elect a person to office, effectively throwing him out.
But you want to hang them because of some trumped-up political B.S.? That's basically mob rule French Revolution style. Be my guess you wouldn't like a lynch mob coming for you.
It's an absurd, uncivilized idea and you have little support to do it. It's not going to happen.
originally posted by: mOjOm
a reply to: NoFearsEqualsFreeMan
Execution is a bit much and not the right way to go. We should be able to remove them from office however. If they committed a crime while in office they should then also be tried and punished accordingly.
"
originally posted by: enlightenedservant
a reply to: NoFearsEqualsFreeMan
1. "How would they prove corruption? As in, who would do the investigations? If there are no investigations, it would simply be a popularity contest or virtual witch hunt, punishable by death."
2. "And if there were investigations, if would have to be by an independent organization. Can't trust insiders to judge themselves or it would become another method of corruption (as in, vouch for me & I'll vouch for you). On the other hand, how could people with no access to classified information make completely accurate judgments? Death penalties shouldn't be left up to chance, probability, or kneejerk reactions."
3. "I think simply allowing "no confidence" votes would be fair enough. And maybe guaranteeing there will be no immunity for any crimes committed while in office. Many offices don't have recall procedures, so adding those would help to. But killing them is too extreme.
originally posted by: berenike
a reply to: NoFearsEqualsFreeMan
There also might be a problem getting 50% of the voters to turn out to oust a politician.
In some cases you'd be lucky to get 50% to vote the buggers in.
It occurs to me that rather than ensure 'clean' politicians your idea might just ensure more corruption as they go to greater lengths to cover up their crimes.
The Press could probably wave 'goodbye' to what little freedom they have left, for instance.
Not trying to put a damper on a good idea, I wish more of them could be held accountable. But it's discussions like this that highlight how difficult it can be.
originally posted by: WeRpeons
a reply to: NoFearsEqualsFreeMan
I would rather strip them naked and tar and feather them. Televise it live, It would make great prime time viewing!
originally posted by: Ceeker63
Death, is a bit harsh. However, holding a person accountable for them not doing what the people elected them to do. Should cause the politician to be removed from office immediately. This removal can be done with a vote of 50% or more. Once removed from office the politician would loose their pensions. There should also be term limits to not more than 3 terms in office.