[jdimov10]

Oh, and other countries' intelligence services would never think of violating any laws, heaven forbid...

You know how your government keeps convincing you of the supremacy of the "rule of law" and how "nobody is above the law", etc., etc... I think it's beyond obvious to anyone with half a brain that these are boogie-monster fairy tales.

When most people speak of law, what they mean is "rules that everyone must follow". When the lawmakers speak of law, they mean "rules we've been told to make everyone follow". Of course, the people and entities that these laws come from are above the law almost by definition. The amount of hypocrisy surrounding "justice" systems around the world is tremendous - it has always been. But people mostly like it this way - it's worked for a few thousands of years and is likely to work for a few thousand more.

[x2398dh1]

You're taking the concept of, "knowledge," and the concept of, "government" and mixing them together into a very swirly, confused, nihilistic statement. Are laws written down on paper simply that they will be broken by the government, but not by the people? While that may almost inevitably happen over the decades and centuries of a republic existence, that is certainly not the intent of laws, at least in a western republic such as Germany or the US. Governments breaking laws is not, "above the law," - it is actually, by definition, breaking the law, when the Government breaks the law, which is the opposite of what you're saying. You're saying that everyone knew when those laws were written, that they would actually be breakable by the government. That's not true. The lawyers who bring and win cases against the Government don't know that...in fact, they know the opposite to be true. Now, as to the question of the conduct of individual politicians who believe they can break the law, that is a third question - is it OK for politicians to break the law to achieve a certain end? Well...sometimes yes, sometimes no...you can't just make a blanket statement saying that 100% of the time every time a politician has broken a law that it has been morally corrupt. There is a such thing as bad laws. Overall, I think your heart is in the right place in terms of wanting better moral conduct, but you are very confused on what Governments are, and you should perhaps consider delving further into historical literature on the subject.

[sneak]

http://www.hasjamesclapperbeenindictedyet.com

There are two sets of laws. One for lawmakers, the ultra-wealthy, politicians, judges, military, and cops (the protected class who can carry weapons); and another one for you and I.

[lern_too_spel]

Almost nobody has been indicted from a Senate hearing, whether they were high level bureaucrats like Clapper or ordinary private citizens, and there have been lies and half-truths in almost all of them. In this case, Clapper admitted his mistake answering this question which he likened to many similar questions about whether the NSA was intercepting Americans' communications and creating dossiers on them, which it was not.

[reacweb]

I disagree. These are not fairy tales. These are what we shall tend for, even if we live in an imperfect world.

Stating that the constitution is bogus does not imply that we shall throw it out, but that we shall fix it. the NSA should not violate the law to make its job. Maybe the law shall be fixed, maybe behavior of the NSA shall change, probably both.

[PavlovsCat]

Everything "works". Even our sun going supernova "works". The question is, towards what end.

[ceejayoz]

> Even our sun going supernova "works".

Our sun can't go supernova.

[nier]

Had to look this up as it isn’t my core competency. According to current knowledge our sun is too small for a supernova explosion. It might become a red giant (5 to 6 billion years) and then a white dwarf.

[happy_tentacles]

Sad faith - get super bloated, kill all the live in vicinity, then shrink to a shadow of former self for the remainder of the life time of the universe.

NO, supernova would be so much more spectacular. At least it might give a standard candle for others observing this galaxy, become a measuring stick for the universe, and spill some heavier elements for whatever comes next.

--

Should privacy laws end where atmosphere of our planet ends? If the Outer Space take of Bundesnachrichtendienst is true, we would be for an overhaul of quite few laws once more humans get beyond law earth orbit.

[Pica_soO]

We need too make a obelisk, engraved upon which stands: "Stealing other systems gas-giants and feeding them to your own sun is okay. I spilled some resources at the start." God

[PavlovsCat]

Same different: the inability of our sun to go supernova "works", as does the wilful miscomprehension of my point - the question again is, towards what end.