>The pro government types won’t come near this.
>For good reason.
Because it would cause them to have to defend the indefensible; unfortunately there are plenty of people who will defend, and rationalize, such overstepping of authority. This case is more of a losing deal for them ONLY because the damage was so immediate and observable, compared to some of the stuff that’s been pushed about by “the powers that be” (usually the judicial & legislative) this guy may have gotten a better deal (a very quick death, comparatively) than what we will be getting with things like the NDAA, declaring the continental US a war-zone, and asserting the ability to target and execute (without trial) a *suspected* terrorist... well, I can easily imagine a brutal and possibly very-protracted conflict.
This all brings me back to the point: those in authority must be held accountable for their actions. The mere position of authority is not to be a shield against the consequences of one’s decisions.
No joke.
I'd find the link, but I just don't have time or energy to go back and look.