rowyn

Rabidly reposting. Your analysis (& analogies) are absolutely correct. The only people the gov't would TRY this against ARE (former) military -- because only military would put up with it AT ALL, and only FORMER military are sufficiently "forgettable" and "politically irrelevant" for the gov't to abuse this way without fear of consequences. Seriously-- try this against any riot- or demonstration-prone group of citizens. Is it now NECESSARY to set bulldozers and/or cities on fire to get the federal government to pay attention to its own injustices? And is that really the message US citizens want to send, by expressing outraged sympathy for other causes whose primary means of communication is violent protest, but remaining silent & unmoved by THIS cause, simply because (thus far) those affected have chosen NOT to fight back outside the legal system? Seriously. These people are veterans of a decade-long counterinsurgency. People don't get shot at, attacked with IED's, and fully experienced in fighting AGAINST an insurgency, without learning how to CONDUCT an insurgency in the process. This is NOT a constituency that can safely be regarded as "harmless" and "tolerant of limitless abuses..."