[ericmay]

> US lacks some sort of Federal "inspectorate of police"

I don't think this is true, or at least it's not entirely true.

Various states and law enforcement agencies have an office of the inspector general which at least should provide some oversight. We also have the courts and individual officers and agencies can be sued in the court of law which also provides a means of oversight. You seem to be suggesting that everything is corrupt, corrupt local authorities, corrupt feds captured by the party. I think that level of perceived corruption is not reflected in operational reality.

Some states or local police organizations do in fact look at past police records for applicants. There's a bit of variation here, but it's probably a bit better organized than, say the EU where outside of other bureaucratic hurdles I don't believe there is any real way to stop some German citizen who should be banned from being a police officer from moving to Estonia and being a police officer. Though perhaps I'm wrong and there is an EU-wide database that all countries and their police forces use?

I know the UK isn't in the EU, but I just bring that up as I think it may be a bit closer of an example.

[tialaramex]

Piscis primum a capite foetet

[ericmay]

Catchy, I suppose, but ultimately without much meaning.

[tialaramex]

Huh? It's a widely recognised proverb, you might as well say that "What's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander" is without much meaning. You could insist it's wrong if you like, or that it somehow doesn't apply but meaning is its whole thing.

[ericmay]

I would say that goose phrase is also without much meaning. It's just a phrase. Like ok, you said a phrase? So what?

Let's bring up the Iran war - you could say a few things about how it's wrong or something and I can just reply de oppresso liber.

Ok? That's not a discussion, it's a drive-by, feel good zinger.

[tialaramex]

You claim that "de oppresso liber" doesn't mean anything? Seems to me that it's meaning was pretty clear. Actually in this context I'd say there are two distinct meanings, both the "Regime change" bullshit from the start of this war and boots on the ground for a US combat unit. Seems like a poor comeback to any "War is bad" rhetoric because in my experience all such rhetoric sort of builds in a just cause assumption and that's really all you'd be going for with this phrase.

But then you say it's not a discussion, nobody said anything about it being a discussion.

[ericmay]

That’s how the cookie crumbles