Your response is irresponsibly unbalanced. We have had precious few significant terror attacks on our country from our own citizens. When looking out for who might be suspected of such activities in the future, you want those in charge of the public safety to write anyone who served in the military off the list of potential suspects merely because they are veterans, even though the most horrific such attack in our history was perpetrated by a veteran?
No, I don't expect veterans to be written off just because they are veterans, but by the same token I don't like the idea of them being singled out for special attention either.
Don't you see that playing the veteran card at this table is going to be trumped by simple logic?
logic is flawed
How about fighting for respect for veterans by insisting they be given timely and competent medical treatment for damages suffered while in service, and effective training for actual skills in demand in the private sector so they can get jobs? To suggest that another shithead like McVey lurking in the ranks of those in service today should be allowed to progress down a path leading to using unique skills he acquired in the military against American citizens because of his service to the country is unsupportable. That you take this as an affront to all veterans is another example of your hypersensitivity to how veterans or those in still in military service are perceived.
Could have, would have, should have is no argument, there are just as many civilians out there that can and do handle the ANFO that was used in Oak City, yet they are not singled out as the vets were.
I agree we treat veterans without the regard their service has earned them. But that service does not absolve them of being susceptible to doing wrong once out of the service. You seem to think it does. And that is where we differ. These "kids" volunteer from all walks of life, but the number who come from areas that are economically depressed or families that are at the low end of the income spread are significantly higher than used to be the case when there was a draft. Further the lowering of the admission standards of late has added risk that when soldiers return to civilian life, and times are tough, that some (McVey showed it doesn't take many) might return to a life of subversion and crime, only now they are mentally and physically equipped to do more damage than before they were trained by the military. Including them in the group being watched is prudent. Not to do so would be recklessly irresponsible, based on the facts.
Jim the problem is not with the service men and women, it's with the fact that they were singled out. There are far more disgruntled people on the outside of the military than there are on the inside.