The only difference between that video and the countless videos we've seen of raids in Iraq is that the civilian population was composed of white kids from Utah.

I watched the interview video too, and it sure does sound like a setup. The only caveat I'd point out is that, from all I've heard, drugs are an integral part of raves, and I can believe that the interviewees shaded the truth a bit. But because we all know the nature of the event from tradition going back to the '60s, the fact that a permit was issued anyway and then the <st>soldiers</st>SWAT team assaulted the event, makes it a setup. They could've refused the permit, but they chose to issue it.

We all tend to judge the present in terms of the past. We fret that the President might declare martial law before deploying the military against American civilians...forgetting that we've watched the current President for seven years ignoring the law by redefining it to suit his purposes, through signing statements, self-serving opinions from tame lawyers, or by simply telling us to pound sand. Why assume that a defacto state of martial law would be preceded by a formal declaration?

And why assume that the forces deployed against civilians would necessarily come from the official armed forces of the US Government? The force deployed against that rave might have been under the command of a state or local government rather than the Pentagon, but in terms of personnel, uniforms, heavy weaponry, armored vehicles, circling Blackhawks, and demeanor and tactics, how were they anything other than a military force? Where did they get their training and equipment?