Look, I understand the passion, I really do. But please, peaceful and non-violent is always a better way to go. I would also like to ask, why isn't the U.S. Army over there liberating U.S. children from torture? Isn't that their job? Or is that a Marines thing? Where's the Marines? If the U.S. Marines marched up, it would be completely non-violent. Who are the Marines so busy protecting these days they can't protect U.S. children?
Why aren't they in there? I dunno. Lack of oil perhaps? Defense industry opportunities?
Oh yeah... sure... Completely non violent. With the marines. Sure. News flash: Marines are trained to kill... If somebody in a position of authority wanted the place shut down they would use the legal system, not the military.
Non violent is always a better way to go. It is preferable to violence. One of these days, however, somebody with nothing to lose is going to attempt to take violent action against these programs (out of frustration if nothing else). It won't be me. But it will happen eventually.
When the legal system supports/permits wrongdoing, the only way to do right is to circumvent/fight the system. We don't exactly live in a pure democracy, we live under a representative democracy... and those representatives are vulnerable to corruption (see K street). If laws were truly made by the people, I might be of a different opinion, but as it is, policy is dictated by the highest bidder. Under what premise are such policies/legislation deserving of my respect or obedience?
So yes. I support any action to take down programs, legal or not. Preferably, non violent (or at least not lethal).
Edit: I should note that legal options should always be the first resort. However, in dire circumstances, when legal options fail...