While I believe you're very much correct in your first statement, I do disagree with your other statements. Some of us believe that the best way of protecting

While I believe you're very much correct in your first statement, I do disagree with your other statements. Some of us believe that the best way of protecting our service members is by not putting them in harms way in the first place. This also entails after service privileges. We should be spending infinitely more on our service members, not less (in terms of healthcare, education, housing, everything.) Instead, were spending an incredibly large amount of money on corporate welfare for things that will probably be either useless, or worse than useless (in that they are dangerous to our troops, for just one example, the infamous A-10 vs JSF debacle. One is a proven way of saving US lives on the ground, the other is a giant waste of money.) Second, we may also feel that the service members (our friends and family) are here to protect the People, not the Government, and thus enforce the ideals behind the Constitution. This entails protecting our (I would go so far as to say everyone's, but I know that's a rather radical interpretation) freedom, from illegal search and seizure that the NSA has very obviously been violating all of our rights, including our soldiers. Secrecy of communications is one thing, but the NSA (and the military) has shown that they care less about that, than they do in actually spying on everyone. The US military's communications system is such a clusterfuck that you often times have troops that are within a mile (in 3d space, so this very much applies to aircraft), that cannot communicate with one another. Maybe I took your comment out of context, but I believe that we should take care of and protect our troops. But that doesn't mean we subvert the ideals of the country that our troops are theoretically fighting for.