400
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] Cleverdawny@lemm.ee 7 points 1 year ago

Checked the article, it's talking about an oversight committee, not a secret police force

[-] bstix@feddit.dk 75 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

You quote the first line in the article. Go read the rest.

It's fucking worse than a police force.

In the event that Gov Ops searches a person’s home, these rules mean that the person 1) must keep the entry a secret, 2) cannot seek outside help (unless necessary for fulfilling the request, the law says), and 3) could face criminal charges if Gov Ops deems them uncooperative.

[-] NOT_RICK@lemmy.world 40 points 1 year ago

Well that sure sounds like an unreasonable search

[-] Trigger2_2000@sh.itjust.works 22 points 1 year ago

x1,000,000,000. WTF is happening to our country?

[-] bstix@feddit.dk 3 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

There are 3 Americans.

  • One who is "patriot" republican
  • One who is stoned on weed.
  • One who doesn't give a shit about what the other two does.

Only one of them votes.

[-] jabathekek@sopuli.xyz 2 points 1 year ago
[-] SquishyPandaDev@yiffit.net 17 points 1 year ago

An important note from the article is that this committee has oversight over institutions who do business with the government, not just government employees. Received grant money, welp now Gov ops can take you down. Won't be surprised to see it expand beyond institutions and start encompassing individuals, allowing them to take out receivers of social benefits

[-] ghostdoggtv@lemmy.world 8 points 1 year ago

Americans, this is what a call to arms sounds like

[-] Cleverdawny@lemm.ee 2 points 1 year ago

And how this only applies to people working for the state government.

[-] dragonflyteaparty@lemmy.world 26 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

So those people don't deserve full protections of the constitution, privacy laws, lawyers if their stuff gets searched, and should be arrested if they don't comply...?

[-] Cleverdawny@lemm.ee 1 points 1 year ago

For their place of business? No, that's pretty clearly something they can set up within the terms of working for the state government or contracting for them.

[-] YeetPics@mander.xyz 2 points 1 year ago

Govt ≠ Business. Full stop.

[-] Cleverdawny@lemm.ee 1 points 1 year ago

???? Did you even read the article

[-] YeetPics@mander.xyz 1 points 1 year ago

???? Can you even read

[-] bstix@feddit.dk 12 points 1 year ago

And how the "special oversight committee " only works for roughly half of the state government but can still cause people to be fired for not obliging to the Republican will?

[-] Cleverdawny@lemm.ee 1 points 1 year ago

I hate to say it, man, but yeah, if you piss off the state government, and you work for them, they're gonna fire you

[-] bstix@feddit.dk 10 points 1 year ago

From the article:

But unlike other types of government watchdog groups, GovOps is partisan. Republicans dominate the body, and the group’s politics greatly influence the types of investigations it carries out. For example, Gov Ops launched an inquiry into diversity training programs at the University of North Carolina earlier this year.

Do you not understand how dangerous it is to democracy to have a partisan police force? If not then I uge you to read about the start of WW2.

[-] Cleverdawny@lemm.ee 1 points 1 year ago

Every democracy has partisan oversight groups. I'll get mad at their abuse, not their existence.

[-] ChaoticEntropy@feddit.uk 5 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Do you just enjoy playing devil's advocate?

Nobody of sound mind could look at this and just think "Yep, this makes sense. One party should have a secret partisan police who can victimise other political parties and force them to stay silent about it, and comply without question, otherwise be criminally charged. This definitely won't have any wider negative implications for society."

[-] Cleverdawny@lemm.ee 1 points 1 year ago

No you fucking don’t lmao

[-] ghostdoggtv@lemmy.world 5 points 1 year ago

If you think republicans aren't going to abuse a partisan police force then your concerns are void and you're sleepwalking through life.

[-] Cleverdawny@lemm.ee 1 points 1 year ago

I think it's likely they will, and that every police force is partisan, and that they've been abusing that for decades.

[-] bstix@feddit.dk 3 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Every democracy has oversight groups, or an ombudsman. It's not partisan

Imagine a similar situation in a European country having several parties and one party wanting the state budget to fund their investigation of the government. That shit would never see the light of day because there'd always be a majority against it. This only exists in USA because of the two party politics.

[-] CaptainPedantic@lemmy.world 23 points 1 year ago

Yeah it's an oversight committee in the same way that the "Committee of Public Safety" was concerned with public well-being.

[-] Ultraviolet@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago

Calling a secret police force something other than a police force is literally the most basic aspect of a secret police force.

[-] Cleverdawny@lemm.ee 1 points 1 year ago

Typically a secret police force has jurisdiction over more people than government employees and contractors.

this post was submitted on 03 Oct 2023
400 points (100.0% liked)

News

24269 readers
3523 users here now

Welcome to the News community!

Rules:

1. Be civil


Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.


2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.


Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.


3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.


Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.


4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.


Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.


5. Only recent news is allowed.


Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.


6. All posts must be news articles.


No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.


7. No duplicate posts.


If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.


8. Misinformation is prohibited.


Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.


9. No link shorteners.


The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.


10. Don't copy entire article in your post body


For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS