I see the point you and 240 are making, Oz. But what I'm saying is that we give too much credence to our checks and balances system, as if it isn't corrupt itself. That's why I make the point about the judges. Right now, the buck stops with the judges. Who's checking behind them? So we get a review panel...who's watching the review panel? See what I mean? You end up with committee and sub-committees like we have in washington...who are doing absolutely nothing.
You have hawks watching them, from BOTH parties, who 1) go to prison for leaking it, and 2) look very very good when they do find an anomaly in the warrants.
So they are very motivated to 1) Not leak anything, and 2) look for mistakes/shadiness.
"The more people watching, the more opportunities for corruption" doesn't make sense here, because if corrpution occurs at the beginning of the chain (exec branch), and it is viewed by 2 to 4 DIFFERENT people, ANY of which who sees an error will blow the whistle, you pretty much eliminate any chance for breaking the rules.
When you are required to write down every warrant, and you know that anything you write down will be viewed by people very eager to catch you breaking the law... are you going to break the law?
