However, in an American revolution, the "occupying force" is local. They have no country to go *back* to. There is no cost too high to defeat the insurgency.

1. An insurgency can force concessions, as long as the rulers can afford to make them.
2. An insurgency can result in splitting the country.

Definitely. We lost a lot of the skills, and recreating them would require:

1. Time to learn
2. Space to work in

3d printers are usable with a lot less skills. Today they can only do plastic, and at a high cost per unit. But that technology will improve.

People who call the constitution "living document" typically seem to be trying to kill it. It is a living document, but it is supposed to be amended through due process.

Also, they charge ~$3k for an all you can study semester. So if you're filling the checkbox you can finish faster.

I got my M.Ed in 3 semester.

You do realize that anyone who works in the Defense Industry, military, or other US Government contracting positions could lose their job over clicking that, right?

Actually, they probably didn't. This is not a well known fact, and considering all of the US's enemies already have that information, it is not obvious to people who don't have a clearance that looking at it would be a problem.

Seriously, this is Israel, the penultimate security state.

The IDF is staffed with conscripts. Almost everybody is between the ages of 18 and 22. Almost all officers are in their early twenties. It is not the most competently run organization in the world, to say the least.

Smart criminals would be able to hack this system. However, most serious crimes are committed by people too stupid to find safer ways of making money.

Using google to find information is a lot of what they need to learn.

Tablets can run programming languages, drawing programs, word processing, etc. Why can't they create content on it?

Not if you belong to an organization that doesn't follow the Geneva Convention itself.

Can you give me a case where an interrogation would be required?

http://www.fas.org/irp/eprint/interr.pdf

Only if admissible in court. When the interrogation is for a military objective (for example, Osama bin Laden's location), I don't think anybody is overly concerned about eventual trial. It is more important to win the war.

Torture, by itself, only makes the victims say whatever they think the torturer wants them to say.

However, if the interrogator already has some information, s/he can teach the victim that lying causes pain in a way that saying the truth doesn't. If victims don't know the exact extent of the interrogator's knowledge, they'll be afraid to lie.

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

I think the fifth amendment applies to criminal cases, not to military intelligence gathering.