"...Democrats and their "Oh, everyone's a winner" crap...
Have you ever seen that? Really?
I doubt it.
My guess is that you, and others in this thread, base your comment (or ones like it) on some echo-chamber mythology you've absorbed. Or willingly slurped up.
I've had teachers, who in retrospect I realize were left of center, that were, with few exceptions, appropriately demanding in constructive ways. I can't ever remember seeing encouragement do damage. On the other hand I've seen (some) teachers, who in retrospect I realize were right of center, devastate kids in front of their peers, and, more importantly, erode that child's self worth. I am acquainted with, and have worked with, people who've never really gotten over either the poisonous assessments, or the twisted kudos, incompetent teachers often use to keep control in the classroom. How do I know? Because I see those people fall for the same bullsh*t at work from their pointy-haired managers. In school I was rarely caught in the crossfire because I'm smarter than the average bear and was fairly well behaved, but it made me feel terrible when I saw it and, if anything, it made me less likely be demonstratively smart where the teacher was liable to pit me against another student. In the workplace it's the sort of thing that tempts me to have a beer right after work.
Healthy education is not about competition, least not until kids are mature enough to manage their emotions well. Last thing you need is an authority figure such as a teacher sanctioning the pecking order, peck-to-death dynamic of the typical school environment.
As for this "Everyone's a winner" thing?
What's the alternative? Announcing losers? Highlighting their failures?
"Hey kids, let's look at the test scores. Oooooooo! Looook at the Losers! And you Cindy - why do you even bother? Guess you're gonna work in retail."
Sound helpful? Really? (Then consider what it'd sound like with a light ethnic, racial, gender, or class-based overtone thrown in.)
Most people when they really think about how life was as a child realize it takes a complete disconnect with reality to not naturally compare oneself to one's peers and notice one's relative ranking, then make an effort to improve or adapt.
My guess is, rather than education, that sort of disconnect is more likely rooted in one's upbringing or the onset of some religiously based dysfunction.
As for a "Chinese moonshot"? Should we give a rat's ass? How well did that last effort go? Seems it blew a lot of money to prove a geopolitcal point and then, once the point proven, left space efforts twisted and barely sustainable for decades as well as a bunch of engineering types burnt on the employment front. (much like with the cancelled collider) Let's go back to the moon when there's a positive expected value in scientific terms. Jingoism is a poor motive for science. But it's an easy (lazy) way to light a competitive fire under some butts.
"just because I say you can't arrest terrorists does not mean I support them killing..." - yes it does... obviously"
in a more honest world would read as:
"just because I say you can't arrest terrorists without reasonable evidence, without any sort of oversight, without any assurance of humane treatment, without recourse for mis-arrested innocents, or effective representation, or without even lip service to the idea that eventually we should disclose what we did to the taxpayers in whose name we've commited what many consider to be crimes, does not mean I support them killing..." - yes it does in my stunted, chest-thumping, opinion... obviously since you imply the uncomfortable idea that our opponents, be they islamic or democrat, have any sort of human qualities we ought to respect out of princible, even if only for the sake of any of our own soliders that might be captured."
What a tired, twisted, neurotic fan-boy, wannabe line of thought you trotted through it's paces in your post. Talking points so weak and old they can hardly muster a breath to blow the dust off themselves. Talking points so fetid with the ichor of some closeted fetish the suppressed ambiguity of one's attractions seems to drip from them.
Enjoy your life, though guessing from your post that'll only be possible in some feral manner which might leave you gasping "Rosebud" when the reaper shows up to draw the curtain on what I'm sure will be a life of spreading such happiness.
I like the way we were able to pull away from an exchange that looked like it was going to get ugly. I was in a combative mood, so I credit your response to turning it around. It was a pleasant surprise.
> Why do you think they are doing what they do?.....practice business the way that they do.
It's rooted in the way corporations are structured and the undue respect they are afforded in our culture/society/economy.
They have all the legal advantages of a person and then some.
Corporations were originally a reasonable instrument for managing risk - many large scale projects and endevours of compelling usefulness and that should not be entrusted to government would be impossible with out a corporation.
Once you get a project of a certain size then you need to somehow limit the liability of those managing and working on the project otherwise no sane individual would take the risk. (Not gonna be an air traffic controller if I'm gonna be personally liable for tens of thousands of lives - don't care what you pay me.)
The problem this society has run into is that various parties have gamed the system and now use corporate structures to avoid accountability, avoid competition, and write-off the expense of efforts to twist the system to their advantage.
In some ways you can't blame the corporation - they exist solely to make money. I can't think of any other reason for them to exist and, if I'm a stockholder, I'd have little tolerance for anyone arguing it should be doing anything else.
So where does the problem reside?
I'd place it squarely at the foot of class warfare, Upper against Middle against Lower.
Mainly it's been Upper class people coddling and covering ass for each other and twisting the political landscape. Then some of it is the middle class feathering it's nest once it's got a secure spot in the hierarchy and willing to break the law to climb further, or avoid falling off the ladder. Corporations executed regulatory capture of their government oversight and then the middle and lower classed realized that the easiest way to make a corporation pay any attention to grievances was to sue them. Enforcement of the law is eventually effectively outsourced now that the government under funds attempts to actually enforce the ALL the laws and relies on the threat of big judgments to keep things in check. Since laws are only intermittently enforced the legal system becomes a sort of casino. Vicious cycle ensues.
If all along people had kept their eye on just what was happening we would have been better off. If the "Establishment" and/or aristocracy had done it's only job, the one that might justify it's control of the system, i.e. keep the long term interests of the nation in mind and maintained, then we would have been a lot better off too. Despite the charitable efforts and reasonable stances of people like Buffet and Gates there are just too many barons figuring on how to roll the current system. Some sort of philosophical or intellectual poverty of some sort has brought us to the current state and have difficulty imagining how it's possible to pull out of this descending gyre.
As it is I say we should just admit that we live in a corporate controlled society and that corporatism is the natural next step and that we should strive towards developing the mechanisms to make the ascendant order fair and sustainable. Then everyone would be on their toes and knew where they stood. There'd be less chance of suckering people into committing to an action by waving the flag and then shifting the profitable results to Haliburton and the costs to the general public. Some of the trust we've relied on in the past would completely wither away. Everyone would be more likely to ask with clear eyes "What's in this for me? What are the risks? What is the expected value?" and then the myriad of abusers of our current system would realize how easy they once had it.
Am I really that worried? Eh. Times have appeared tough before, I'm sure, and civilization pulled through. So it's all to be taken with a grain of salt. But past performance in not necessarily a reliable indicator of future performance, so I do worry a bit.
So....
> Why do you think they are doing what they do?.....practice business the way that they do.
It's rooted in the way corporations are structured and the undue respect they are afforded in our culture/society/economy.
They have all the legal advantages of a person and then some.
Corporations were originally a reasonable instrument for managing risk - many large scale projects and endevours of compelling usefulness and that should not be entrusted to government would be impossible with out a corporation.
Once you get a project of a certain size then you need to somehow limit the liability of those managing and working on the project otherwise no sane individual would take the risk. (Not gonna be an air traffic controller if I'm gonna be personally liable for tens of thousands of lives - don't care what you pay me.)
The problem this society has run into is that various parties have gamed the system and now use corporate structures to avoid accountability, avoid competition, and write-off the expense of efforts to twist the system to their advantage.
In some ways you can't blame the corporation - they exist solely to make money. I can't think of any other reason for them to exist and, if I'm a stockholder, I'd have little tolerance for anyone arguing it should be doing anything else.
So where does the problem reside?
I'd place it squarely at the foot of class warfare, Upper against Middle against Lower.
Mainly it's been Upper class people coddling and covering ass for each other and twisting the political landscape. Then some of it is the middle class feathering it's nest once it's got a secure spot in the hierarchy and willing to break the law to climb further, or avoid falling off the ladder. Corporations executed regulatory capture of their government oversight and then the middle and lower classed realized that the easiest way to make a corporation pay any attention to grievances was to sue them. Enforcement of the law is eventually effectively outsourced now that the government under funds attempts to actually enforce the ALL the laws and relies on the threat of big judgments to keep things in check. Since laws are only intermittently enforced the legal system becomes a sort of casino. Vicious cycle ensues.
If all along people had kept their eye on just what was happening we would have been better off. If the "Establishment" and/or aristocracy had done it's only job, the one that might justify it's control of the system, i.e. keep the long term interests of the nation in mind and maintained, then we would have been a lot better off too. Despite the charitable efforts and reasonable stances of people like Buffet and Gates there are just too many barons figuring on how to roll the current system. Some sort of philosophical or intellectual poverty of some sort has brought us to the current state and have difficulty imagining how it's possible to pull out of this descending gyre.
As it is I say we should just admit that we live in a corporate controlled society and that corporatism is the natural next step and that we should strive towards developing the mechanisms to make the ascendant order fair and sustainable. Then everyone would be on their toes and knew where they stood. There'd be less chance of suckering people into committing to an action by waving the flag and then shifting the profitable results to Haliburton and the costs to the general public. Some of the trust we've relied on in the past would completely wither away. Everyone would be more likely to ask with clear eyes "What's in this for me? What are the risks? What is the expected value?" and then the myriad of abusers of our current system would realize how easy they once had it.
Am I really that worried? Eh. Times have appeared tough before, I'm sure, and civilization pulled through. So it's all to be taken with a grain of salt. But past performance in not necessarily a reliable indicator of future performance, so I do worry a bit.
Good luck to a company intent upon twisting arms and cajoling people's elected representatives into NOT acting in interests of their constituents?
You should be careful of what you wish for.
Then you go on to say "I'm smirking at the do-gooders and busybodies who are being hoisted on their own petards."?
Are you suggesting that if people get together and petition their representatives to enforce the existing laws and exercise common sense when spending their tax dollars only to have a corporation spend millions of dollars in a campaign to twist the law then those citizens are witnessing the results intended by a democratic system? or a free republic?
I guess you see people who'd like to see progress ("do-gooders") or pay attention to detail ("busybodies") as like those saps so long ago who felt we should have a say about how government runs or carefully read the Stamp Act - they just haven't been sufficiently shamed and mocked yet.
It isn't necessarially Power that corrupts - it's unaccountability that corrupts.
There are people who are in powerful positions that are uncorrupt because they know if they abuse their power it will be known widely and that there will be repercussions for what they have done. Doctors and EMTs or firemen for example, police for example. They have the power to heal or rescue or the power to kill and, while there are abuses, these professions are mostly abuse free (compared to what they could do).
On the other hand depending on the situation you can get lousy service at a retail store, or lousy service from billing at a cellphone company from a representative who has very little power. Why? Often they're never going to have to answer for their behavior. If they don't care if they're fired, either because the wages are too low, or because they can get another job easily, they have little incentive.
Just look at situations that are infamously considered ripe for corruption. They are often cases where there is a secrecy element, the transaction is complex, cases where there's no way for one party to prove bad behavior, or where there is such a backlog of other instances of violations that the one in question is unlikely to be reviewed. Manufacturers or producers who don't have spell out how something is made or what's in it can compromise on what they deliver. Contracts with sub-contractors, or complicated stock transactions are tool for corruptions. If you have no idea about engines or cars then dealing with a mechanic is fraught with the possibility of being duped. Traffic officers give out many questionable traffic tickets, but how many people have the time to show up in court and defend themselves? What all these examples share is that there is a significant lack of transparancy as an element.
The more the tools of avoiding accountability are refined in a particular situation the more corruption.
One may use power to insulate oneself from accountability, but the determining factor is level of accountability inherant in the situation.
Bill Gates has a heap of "Power", but he'd have to expend a lot of it if he decided to haul off and punch someone in a public place on a whim without suffering a lot of subsequent inconvenience and questioning. This actually happened to Patton, a famous general, in WWII - he slapped a regular soldier and wound up spending a lot of time apologizing and effectively got kicked upstairs. What he did was very transparent and there was a president that insisted he be accountable.
Who knows what happens in the murky world of espionage? What mechanisims do we have to hold intelligence services accountable? How would we know of injustice if people are held with out a hearing?
I'm glad the ACLU makes the effort to hold our government to account because it's unaccountability that corrupts.
"The best disinfectant is sunshine." - Louis Brandeis
Slashdot Mirror
"...Democrats and their "Oh, everyone's a winner" crap...
Have you ever seen that? Really?
I doubt it.
My guess is that you, and others in this thread, base your comment (or ones like it) on some echo-chamber mythology you've absorbed. Or willingly slurped up.
I've had teachers, who in retrospect I realize were left of center, that were, with few exceptions, appropriately demanding in constructive ways. I can't ever remember seeing encouragement do damage. On the other hand I've seen (some) teachers, who in retrospect I realize were right of center, devastate kids in front of their peers, and, more importantly, erode that child's self worth. I am acquainted with, and have worked with, people who've never really gotten over either the poisonous assessments, or the twisted kudos, incompetent teachers often use to keep control in the classroom. How do I know? Because I see those people fall for the same bullsh*t at work from their pointy-haired managers. In school I was rarely caught in the crossfire because I'm smarter than the average bear and was fairly well behaved, but it made me feel terrible when I saw it and, if anything, it made me less likely be demonstratively smart where the teacher was liable to pit me against another student. In the workplace it's the sort of thing that tempts me to have a beer right after work.
Healthy education is not about competition, least not until kids are mature enough to manage their emotions well. Last thing you need is an authority figure such as a teacher sanctioning the pecking order, peck-to-death dynamic of the typical school environment.
As for this "Everyone's a winner" thing?
What's the alternative? Announcing losers? Highlighting their failures?
"Hey kids, let's look at the test scores. Oooooooo! Looook at the Losers! And you Cindy - why do you even bother? Guess you're gonna work in retail."
Sound helpful? Really? (Then consider what it'd sound like with a light ethnic, racial, gender, or class-based overtone thrown in.)
Most people when they really think about how life was as a child realize it takes a complete disconnect with reality to not naturally compare oneself to one's peers and notice one's relative ranking, then make an effort to improve or adapt.
My guess is, rather than education, that sort of disconnect is more likely rooted in one's upbringing or the onset of some religiously based dysfunction.
I suggest some of you read Alfie Kohn's "No Contest: The Case Against Competition".
As for a "Chinese moonshot"? Should we give a rat's ass? How well did that last effort go? Seems it blew a lot of money to prove a geopolitcal point and then, once the point proven, left space efforts twisted and barely sustainable for decades as well as a bunch of engineering types burnt on the employment front. (much like with the cancelled collider) Let's go back to the moon when there's a positive expected value in scientific terms. Jingoism is a poor motive for science. But it's an easy (lazy) way to light a competitive fire under some butts.
Love the way you drop the critical bits.
..." - yes it does ... obviously"
..." - yes it does in my stunted, chest-thumping, opinion ... obviously since you imply the uncomfortable idea that our opponents, be they islamic or democrat, have any sort of human qualities we ought to respect out of princible, even if only for the sake of any of our own soliders that might be captured."
Just as an example:
"just because I say you can't arrest terrorists does not mean I support them killing
in a more honest world would read as:
"just because I say you can't arrest terrorists without reasonable evidence, without any sort of oversight, without any assurance of humane treatment, without recourse for mis-arrested innocents, or effective representation, or without even lip service to the idea that eventually we should disclose what we did to the taxpayers in whose name we've commited what many consider to be crimes, does not mean I support them killing
What a tired, twisted, neurotic fan-boy, wannabe line of thought you trotted through it's paces in your post. Talking points so weak and old they can hardly muster a breath to blow the dust off themselves. Talking points so fetid with the ichor of some closeted fetish the suppressed ambiguity of one's attractions seems to drip from them.
Enjoy your life, though guessing from your post that'll only be possible in some feral manner which might leave you gasping "Rosebud" when the reaper shows up to draw the curtain on what I'm sure will be a life of spreading such happiness.
"Commie"? Who are you - Archie Bunker?
Do you even know what Communism is?
If you had two neurons to rub together you'd realize ShieldWolf (or whatever his name is) is either a mere troll, or, more likely, a anarchist.
Thanks.
I like the way we were able to pull away from an exchange that looked like it was going to get ugly. I was in a combative mood, so I credit your response to turning it around. It was a pleasant surprise.
- J
Sorry - here's a better formated version.
So....
> Why do you think they are doing what they do?.....practice business the way that they do.
It's rooted in the way corporations are structured and the undue respect they are afforded in our culture/society/economy.
They have all the legal advantages of a person and then some.
Corporations were originally a reasonable instrument for managing risk - many large scale projects and endevours of compelling usefulness and that should not be entrusted to government would be impossible with out a corporation.
Once you get a project of a certain size then you need to somehow limit the liability of those managing and working on the project otherwise no sane individual would take the risk. (Not gonna be an air traffic controller if I'm gonna be personally liable for tens of thousands of lives - don't care what you pay me.)
The problem this society has run into is that various parties have gamed the system and now use corporate structures to avoid accountability, avoid competition, and write-off the expense of efforts to twist the system to their advantage.
In some ways you can't blame the corporation - they exist solely to make money. I can't think of any other reason for them to exist and, if I'm a stockholder, I'd have little tolerance for anyone arguing it should be doing anything else.
So where does the problem reside?
I'd place it squarely at the foot of class warfare, Upper against Middle against Lower.
Mainly it's been Upper class people coddling and covering ass for each other and twisting the political landscape. Then some of it is the middle class feathering it's nest once it's got a secure spot in the hierarchy and willing to break the law to climb further, or avoid falling off the ladder. Corporations executed regulatory capture of their government oversight and then the middle and lower classed realized that the easiest way to make a corporation pay any attention to grievances was to sue them. Enforcement of the law is eventually effectively outsourced now that the government under funds attempts to actually enforce the ALL the laws and relies on the threat of big judgments to keep things in check. Since laws are only intermittently enforced the legal system becomes a sort of casino. Vicious cycle ensues.
If all along people had kept their eye on just what was happening we would have been better off. If the "Establishment" and/or aristocracy had done it's only job, the one that might justify it's control of the system, i.e. keep the long term interests of the nation in mind and maintained, then we would have been a lot better off too. Despite the charitable efforts and reasonable stances of people like Buffet and Gates there are just too many barons figuring on how to roll the current system. Some sort of philosophical or intellectual poverty of some sort has brought us to the current state and have difficulty imagining how it's possible to pull out of this descending gyre.
As it is I say we should just admit that we live in a corporate controlled society and that corporatism is the natural next step and that we should strive towards developing the mechanisms to make the ascendant order fair and sustainable. Then everyone would be on their toes and knew where they stood. There'd be less chance of suckering people into committing to an action by waving the flag and then shifting the profitable results to Haliburton and the costs to the general public. Some of the trust we've relied on in the past would completely wither away. Everyone would be more likely to ask with clear eyes "What's in this for me? What are the risks? What is the expected value?" and then the myriad of abusers of our current system would realize how easy they once had it.
Am I really that worried? Eh. Times have appeared tough before, I'm sure, and civilization pulled through. So it's all to be taken with a grain of salt. But past performance in not necessarily a reliable indicator of future performance, so I do worry a bit.
So.... > Why do you think they are doing what they do?.....practice business the way that they do. It's rooted in the way corporations are structured and the undue respect they are afforded in our culture/society/economy. They have all the legal advantages of a person and then some. Corporations were originally a reasonable instrument for managing risk - many large scale projects and endevours of compelling usefulness and that should not be entrusted to government would be impossible with out a corporation. Once you get a project of a certain size then you need to somehow limit the liability of those managing and working on the project otherwise no sane individual would take the risk. (Not gonna be an air traffic controller if I'm gonna be personally liable for tens of thousands of lives - don't care what you pay me.) The problem this society has run into is that various parties have gamed the system and now use corporate structures to avoid accountability, avoid competition, and write-off the expense of efforts to twist the system to their advantage. In some ways you can't blame the corporation - they exist solely to make money. I can't think of any other reason for them to exist and, if I'm a stockholder, I'd have little tolerance for anyone arguing it should be doing anything else. So where does the problem reside? I'd place it squarely at the foot of class warfare, Upper against Middle against Lower. Mainly it's been Upper class people coddling and covering ass for each other and twisting the political landscape. Then some of it is the middle class feathering it's nest once it's got a secure spot in the hierarchy and willing to break the law to climb further, or avoid falling off the ladder. Corporations executed regulatory capture of their government oversight and then the middle and lower classed realized that the easiest way to make a corporation pay any attention to grievances was to sue them. Enforcement of the law is eventually effectively outsourced now that the government under funds attempts to actually enforce the ALL the laws and relies on the threat of big judgments to keep things in check. Since laws are only intermittently enforced the legal system becomes a sort of casino. Vicious cycle ensues. If all along people had kept their eye on just what was happening we would have been better off. If the "Establishment" and/or aristocracy had done it's only job, the one that might justify it's control of the system, i.e. keep the long term interests of the nation in mind and maintained, then we would have been a lot better off too. Despite the charitable efforts and reasonable stances of people like Buffet and Gates there are just too many barons figuring on how to roll the current system. Some sort of philosophical or intellectual poverty of some sort has brought us to the current state and have difficulty imagining how it's possible to pull out of this descending gyre. As it is I say we should just admit that we live in a corporate controlled society and that corporatism is the natural next step and that we should strive towards developing the mechanisms to make the ascendant order fair and sustainable. Then everyone would be on their toes and knew where they stood. There'd be less chance of suckering people into committing to an action by waving the flag and then shifting the profitable results to Haliburton and the costs to the general public. Some of the trust we've relied on in the past would completely wither away. Everyone would be more likely to ask with clear eyes "What's in this for me? What are the risks? What is the expected value?" and then the myriad of abusers of our current system would realize how easy they once had it. Am I really that worried? Eh. Times have appeared tough before, I'm sure, and civilization pulled through. So it's all to be taken with a grain of salt. But past performance in not necessarily a reliable indicator of future performance, so I do worry a bit.
I didn't say you were a "Booster" of Microsoft, just meant "deluded" participants in that market - but if the shoe fits....
btw; love your debate tactics there - once you've called me an "asshat" what more is there for me to say? Stunning display of rhetoric.
Good luck to a company intent upon twisting arms and cajoling people's elected representatives into NOT acting in interests of their constituents?
You should be careful of what you wish for.
Then you go on to say "I'm smirking at the do-gooders and busybodies who are being hoisted on their own petards."?
Are you suggesting that if people get together and petition their representatives to enforce the existing laws and exercise common sense when spending their tax dollars only to have a corporation spend millions of dollars in a campaign to twist the law then those citizens are witnessing the results intended by a democratic system? or a free republic?
I guess you see people who'd like to see progress ("do-gooders") or pay attention to detail ("busybodies") as like those saps so long ago who felt we should have a say about how government runs or carefully read the Stamp Act - they just haven't been sufficiently shamed and mocked yet.
I just saw this bit about sales numbers not lying. ("sales numbers do not lie...they didn't magically reach monopoly status")
I'm sure Nazi knick-knacks sold well in Germany at some point, that crack sells well in some neighborhoods, and Enron stock was once sought after.
Boosters in the midst of those markets were probably comforted by the sales figures too.
Don't you mean "bought a better idea?" or "embraced and extinguished competing ideas?"?
With Jackson not directing the Hobbit I think we should should suggest a director that has done interviews here: Ben Edlund!
He created The Tick and has worked on Angel, Firefly and Supernatural - He'd do a great job, he's sort of a proto-jackson too.
Maybe Slashdot could have a poll about who we'd like to direct the Hobbit?
It isn't necessarially Power that corrupts - it's unaccountability that corrupts.
There are people who are in powerful positions that are uncorrupt because they know if they abuse their power it will be known widely and that there will be repercussions for what they have done. Doctors and EMTs or firemen for example, police for example. They have the power to heal or rescue or the power to kill and, while there are abuses, these professions are mostly abuse free (compared to what they could do).
On the other hand depending on the situation you can get lousy service at a retail store, or lousy service from billing at a cellphone company from a representative who has very little power. Why? Often they're never going to have to answer for their behavior. If they don't care if they're fired, either because the wages are too low, or because they can get another job easily, they have little incentive.
Just look at situations that are infamously considered ripe for corruption. They are often cases where there is a secrecy element, the transaction is complex, cases where there's no way for one party to prove bad behavior, or where there is such a backlog of other instances of violations that the one in question is unlikely to be reviewed. Manufacturers or producers who don't have spell out how something is made or what's in it can compromise on what they deliver. Contracts with sub-contractors, or complicated stock transactions are tool for corruptions. If you have no idea about engines or cars then dealing with a mechanic is fraught with the possibility of being duped. Traffic officers give out many questionable traffic tickets, but how many people have the time to show up in court and defend themselves? What all these examples share is that there is a significant lack of transparancy as an element.
The more the tools of avoiding accountability are refined in a particular situation the more corruption.
One may use power to insulate oneself from accountability, but the determining factor is level of accountability inherant in the situation.
Bill Gates has a heap of "Power", but he'd have to expend a lot of it if he decided to haul off and punch someone in a public place on a whim without suffering a lot of subsequent inconvenience and questioning. This actually happened to Patton, a famous general, in WWII - he slapped a regular soldier and wound up spending a lot of time apologizing and effectively got kicked upstairs. What he did was very transparent and there was a president that insisted he be accountable.
Who knows what happens in the murky world of espionage? What mechanisims do we have to hold intelligence services accountable? How would we know of injustice if people are held with out a hearing? I'm glad the ACLU makes the effort to hold our government to account because it's unaccountability that corrupts. "The best disinfectant is sunshine." - Louis Brandeis