[a3n]

The rule of law is government's fundamental contribution to civilization. It may not be sufficient, but it's definitely necessary. In context, it's sacred.

Most government employees, particularly members of the military, directors of agencies (Alexander is both), cabinet secretaries, judges, members of Congress and the President, take an oath of office. The first or second thing in the oath is usually an affirmation to protect and defend the Constitution. In the President's oath, it's one of only two things: do your best at being President, and protect and defend the Constitution.

I swore that oath when I joined the Navy. I was only in for six years, I've been out more than thirty years, but I still consider myself bound to that oath. I've long been disenchanted by my government, but I still hope for the Constitution's health and longevity. It may be "just a goddam piece of paper," but it symbolizes our commitment to each other.

I'm tired of watching the NSA and the rest of the government treat the Constitution as just a piece of scrap paper.

Yes, decades in jail are appropriate for fundamental crimes of such depth and sweep.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Search?search=oath%20o...

[leokun]

There's a lot of personal anecdote in your reply but little justification for why decades of jail are appropriate responses. It just seems like you think if you feel it intuitively that everyone else should just accept it. Sorry, I don't agree, and you're not very convincing.

[a3n]

"The rule of law is government's fundamental contribution to civilization."

"Most government employees, particularly members of the military, directors of agencies (Alexander is both), cabinet secretaries, judges, members of Congress and the President, take an oath of office."

Yes, most of my post was anecdotal. Those two points above are my case. I'm sorry it's not good enough.

[leokun]

It's not good enough because taking an oath and breaking it does not automatically equate to the horrors of imprisoning people for long, live changing lengths which is a pretty fucking horrible thing to do to individuals and their families. Especially not if they had good intentions. And not only that I don't agree with the first claim regarding "rules of law" and "civilization". It sounds like some historian's quote from the 19th century completely unaware of a century's worth work in the social sciences.

[testitor]

when is ignorance of the law ever an excuse for citizens? yes officer I didn't know the speed limit.. does that work for you? or yes sir I didn't know you would object to fondling your ass! No harm no foul right?

[leokun]

At no point did I ever make any kind of argument about ignorance of the law. Do you see that in my post? Perhaps point it out, because you're reading something that isn't there.

[wavefunction]

>>good intentions

Prove it. I mean, how are you going to prove this? Exactly. Which is why "good intentions" doesn't mean anything to anyone with sense in their head, especially not a legal court.