There are a couple of points worth highlighting here. The first is that yes, the rule of law is illusory. It exists only because people believe in it. This is

There are a couple of points worth highlighting here. The first is that yes, the rule of law is illusory. It exists only because people believe in it. This is the major problem with imposing democracy on any other country and why it seems doomed to failure: other countries don't have a citizenry that believe in the rule of law. Many such countries are dictatorships and/or corrupt so "democracy" means nothing. Elections only mean something if the officials in charge of them respect the process and the outcome. Otherwise they're just a charade. There are actually two problems with the US that I see and they're probably inter-related. The first is that historically the US citizenry has distrusted its (or any) government. It's why things like the Second Amendment exist (debate how you like the exact meaning of "militia"; it's irrelevant to this point). It's why the Constitution is enshrined in a form hard to modify. It's why there is a dual-sovereignty system to hopefully balance the Federal government (originally limited with enumerated powers) and the states. It's why there are three branches of government. But increasingly the government of the US has grown to distrust its citizens. Perhaps this was always the way. Perhaps because I'm a foreigner here but I feel the presumption of guilt in almost everything government related (eg just look at ill-defined laws with potentially huge penalties like FBAR). I see that same distrust behind mass surveillance efforts like these (whatever form PRISM, etc ultimately takes). But there's another aspect: politically and culturally the US is two nations under one roof. That division seems to grow wider and more bitter with each passing day. Nothing seems sacred in these scorched earth partisan battles to the point where the belief has set in that the ends justify the means. This is what I see as so dangerous about the "living document" judicial philosophy in constitutional law. The idea is that the Constitution basically says whatever you want it to say if you twist it far enough under the guise of "the founders if they were here today would've intended..." As important as, say, the right to privacy is there is no such right enumerated in the Constitution. If you want one, there is a legislative process for getting one (ie a constitutional amendment) but deciding one was intended (by a judge or panel of judges) seems like a slippery slope no matter how well-intended. The road to Hell is paved with good intentions. Take elections as an example of this. In the US elections are largely organized by the states. Redistricting is a politically driven fiasco based on maps of household political views. The Republicans seem intent of disqualifying likely Democrat voters in the guise of scrubbing electoral rolls of "felons". The Democrats aren't above bribing the homeless to vote. Both sides seek to make voting difficult in areas that traditionally vote the other way by limiting polling places and times. Now compare this to Australia, which has the AEC (Australian Electoral Commission). The AEC is a Federal agency that doesn't seem subject to the same partisan politics that US election agencies are. Part of this I'm sure is because voting in Australia is (technically) mandatory. This system means the AEC's ambit is how to give everyone access to the ability to vote (a process that has never taken me more than 5-10 minutes) rather than the partisan pull of getting the "right" people to vote (depending on the particular leaning of its appointed leadership). But part of it is that culturally the election process itself is not something you politicize. That's simply way too dangerous. So I see Assange's point: the rule of law is on shaky ground in the US. I remember seeing an interview with Dick Morris (Clinton-era strategist) who allegedly asked Clinton at one point (regarding the then upcoming 1996 election) "what's the point of winning if you don't have a mandate?" to which Clinton replied "what's the point of having a mandate if you don't win?" True or not, I think that sums up the problem: the ends now justify the means in the bitter battle between left and right. The scary part is I don't know how you turn this around at this point with the citizenry largely complacent. If you gain enough support, the least you could do is have a "vote against the incumbent" strategy since getting booted out of office seems to be the only things politicians fear. Obama I think should be a wake up call for many: there is a vast gulf between Obama the candidate (eloquent and compelling) and Obama the president (who seems to have doubled down on Bush-era policies and launched a war on "theft" at the behest of the intellectual property industry).