I work in the military as a health care provider.
One of the biggest problems for military specific PTSD patients is the feeling that no one around them understands. And in most cases, they are right. No one really does understand, nor could they.
Once someone is medically retired they lose the connection of having buddies around them who've been through the same or at least similar experiences. There aren't many people in civilian life to connect with.
I think using a Second Life style interface for soldiers and veterans (especially veterans for the reasons I've mentioned above) is a great idea. It provides an opportunity for people to connect with others who have similar experiences. I think it would probably be even more effective to have a game where people are actually doing something rather than just sitting around talking to each other; many veterans will reject something like this as just another "group therapy" session.
Now a PTSD only Halo server or something would be great. You could even have separate servers for guys blown up in Iraq, Afghanistan, etc. You could have an "I hate MRAPs but I still have my legs" server. The possibilities are endless. If you allowed the soldiers/vets to make their own designations they would probably scandalize those who've never been in the military
"The privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in cases of rebellion or invasion the public safety may require it."
The ability to suspend habeas corpus usually means martial law.
From wikipedia (Martial Law):
The martial law concept in the U.S. is closely tied with the right of habeas corpus, which is in essence the right to a hearing on lawful imprisonment, or more broadly, the supervision of law enforcement by the judiciary. The ability to suspend habeas corpus is often equated with martial law. Article 1, Section 9 of the U.S. Constitution states, "The privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion, the public Safety may require it."
In United States law, martial law is limited by several court decisions that were handed down between the American Civil War and World War II. In 1878, Congress passed the Posse Comitatus Act, which forbids military involvement in domestic law enforcement without congressional approval. On October 1, 2002 United States Northern Command was established to provide command and control of Department of Defense homeland defense efforts and to coordinate defense support of civil authorities. .
You can argue that the right to declare martial law wasn't explicitly given to congress, but I think I can argue with much more effectiveness and precedent that it was implicitly given in the clause regarding Habeas Corpus.
By your writing style you are from the US.
1. You sent us there. If you don't like the government of the country then do something about it, but don't complain that the soldiers who swear to go wherever your government sends them are "glorified mercenaries". Verbally attacking the soldiers themselves is just childish.
2. Moral absolutism is comforting, especially when you're sitting in a comfortable chair in your favorite free-trade coffee shop talking to people who think just like you do. It doesn't work when people are trying to kill you. Try it some time on a dirt street with an open air sewer running through the middle and bullets cracking around you.
3. "So how many of these 'sand niggers'"... "did you 'put down' and then took pictures of so that you can masturbate to them later?" Umm, yeah, now people want to listen to you. Does it really seem highly likely to you that this practice *ever* took place? For the sake of argument say there was one person sick enough to do this. Do you really think it's likely that the practice is common enough to justify accusing a poster in an online forum of such a thing? Or do you think that what you said amounts to a fallacious (and ridiculous) ad-hominem/appeal to emotion...
Try getting out of your coffee shop a little more and you will see that there is a whole world of people who disagree with you with very good reason. And that doesn't even count the ones who would kill you on sight because you are American.
Is it possible that software is not like anything else, that it is meant to be discarded: that the whole point is to always see it as a soap bubble?