My change for the FBI -- Your Opinion?
After 40 years of very careful study, I would like to see the following changes:
FBI Director nominees SELECTED and Director Approved by the U.S. Senate. Congress may offer up nominees. President has NO firing or hiring authority over ANYONE in the FBI. Director of FBI has a FIVE YEAR term.
Congress or Senate may appoint ad hoc Special Investigator AND his senior staff for any Congressional, Senatorial, OR Internal FBI investigation.
The Director, SOLELY, has hiring and firing authority, subject to legal review by the U. S. Judicial system. However, I recommend the Director have a committee from the FBI to sanction hiring and firing.
The U.S. Attorney General may continue to task the FBI.
The FBI then becomes the Senior Investigative Authority for ALL other U.S. Government activities. Appropriate liaisons continue with other entities: Secret Service, CIA, U.S. Marshals, etc.
Do you like this? Not like it? If not, how would you change?
The Senate SOLELY would have authority to remove the Director and only by a 2/3 majority, meaning about 66 votes or more for our present 50 States.
I am aware an Amendment to the Constitution would be needed to implement this (as far as I know).
Did NOT ask whether my proposal is CURRENTLY LEGAL, rather looking for opinions on ethical resurrection, covering all bases, anti-corruption, less job fiddling and coercion for FBI employees & c.
And enhanced professionalism... Yes or No?
- Anonymous1 decade agoFavorite Answer
Well thought out plan. I think house/senate oversight is about the only thing that keeps us off of the fascist track. I think it should be more exhaustive overhaul. All of the presidents advisors should be elected or have house/senate oversight. Maybe this is too much but the reality is I think executive branch is way overpowered at this point and some correction is in order. The occupation of Iraq against the vast will of the majority of americans is evidence of this becuase it hijacks the economy and lives of our people.
- Anonymous4 years ago
There are times when a person on death row will be found innocent. If DNA evidence prove that the person is guilty beyond any reasonable doubt then I would be in favor of a death sentence. In 1979 in Tn an 8 yr old girl was abducted, raped and stabbed with a pocket knife after she told her abducter ''Jesus loves you''. He was executed in 2000. His many many appeals costed no telling how many dollarsof taxpayer money. I understand that he was kept alone in prison away from other prisoners because the details of his crime were so hideous that he was sure to have been murdered by other prisoners. Would it have been better to have let him live in this confined state of existence for life. Maybe. He had no remorse. He was mentally ill to a degree. He had suffered abuses as a child and was subjected to horrible things. Still he was guilty of the crime and as I said he had no remorse whatsoever. I believe that I could have pushed the button that killed him. A lot of people would have. He won't hurt anyone else ..that is for sure.
- Dr. LuvLv 51 decade ago
the problem is that you are violating contitutional practices. I understand you are covering the checks and balances but also you can't force one branch of government to give up powers to another without constitutional changes. As it stands now you are giving congress executive powers which is unconstitutional.
- 1 decade ago
I think that the President should have hiring and firing authority with Congressional approval.
- How do you think about the answers? You can sign in to vote the answer.
- Anonymous1 decade ago
- Anonymous1 decade ago