There is the notion of equitable estoppel, that would *perhaps*, depending on the facts, apply which stops a defendant, who for instance concealed or committed certain acts of fraud, from raising the statute of limitations defense.
The paper is _the_ reminder of the promises we owe to future selves and generations. Its value lies in the People's strength to enforce it by exercising the obligations and rights it describes.
In some (EU) countries, as a public officer/agent you can actually get prosecuted (civil or criminal proceedings per case), in cases of blatant or willful incompetence. (Think of the levels of gross wanton disregard/negligence.)
(There is also the legal vehicle of insubordination.)
The bar is high, of course, and yet people have historically managed to get prosecuted, lose their jobs, and go to prison.
I think the problem in the U.S. is, ironically, the power of police unions in a fragmented police force (city, territory, county, etc.) ecosystem, coupled with the lack of unified, express state and federal statutes to enforce a standard of care and competence.
Add to that that peace officer-specific state statutes (e.g., describing manslaughter while on duty) are written in such a way that, as a matter of law, it becomes a herculean task to tick all the boxes to successfully preserve a conviction on appeal. It is truly troubling. (I am hopeful, as this can be solved by the U.S. legislature, which I think we have a lot of reasons to demand to be done.)
100% this: if you go every axis of what differentiates staff from senior one will see deep down it is about asking questions: either yourself or helping others ask the right questions (e.g. mentoring, impact/are we solving the right problem, etc.)
It used to be illegal to bribe. Used to... Make a law impossible to enforce, and you suddenly transform the act to a totally legal one, at the expense of people losing trust in the system (specifically the U.S. Supreme Court and Congress). And at some point, the system breaks.
I had the same question, but I can only speculate at the moment.
The cynical part of me thinks in a similar line: create an artificial differentiation and push people to upgrade.
If anyone has any real clues that they can share pseudonymously, that would be great. Not sure which department drove that change.
Georgia and Ukraine are tightly connected in this through the same precursor events. The "West" is simply deaf. Multiple analysts had brought these concerns since before Crimea.
(Disclaimer I am from the West -- trying to be objective here and focusing on the non-NATO side.)
The diplomatic relationships since Russia Federation's birth have been problematic and idiosyncratic. Russian people wanted recognition of their value. West decided to not follow similar approach with other past enemies countries -- and this was due to the cold war. Somehow Russia's "Monroe" doctrine is surprising now to us, despite all the warnings by political science and diplomats since 2014. (at least/off the top of my head: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8X7Ng75e5gQ and https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JrMiSQAGOS4&t=2893s) And our own similar reactions and actions.
It is known that Putin made multiple attempts to establish partnerships and ensure Russia was part of the West. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/nov/04/ex-nato-head-s...
I would say all sides need to take a breather and attempt an honest discussion among equals -- if it's not too late.
Edit: to augment the sibling comment.