According to nearly a dozen retired officers and current military lawyers, as well as scholars who teach at West Point and Annapolis, an intense if quiet debate is underway inside the U.S. military community about what orders it would be obliged to obey if President-elect Donald Trump decides to follow through on his previous warnings that he might deploy troops against what he deems domestic threats, including political enemies, dissenters and immigrants.
Archived at https://archive.is/He9O6
“There’s a reason you separate military and the police. One fights the enemies of the state. The other serves and protects the people. When the military becomes both, then the enemies of the state tend to become the people.”
-Commander Adama
Trump literally calls anyone who disagrees with him an “enemy of the state”, so yeah, we’re way past that.
The reason is that one is trained to (supposedly) keep the peace and prevent and investigate crimes. The other is trained to kill people. Military methods are incompatible with effective police work.
Ironically the American military is better at it than the police are. They usually only kill someone if they were being fired at first. It’s called rules of engagement. American police have zero concept of it.
Not exactly, read more US history, especially in situation when the military was called in to remove demonstrators. Look up the Bonus Army and no fucks were given even though the protestors were WW I veterans. Douglas MacArthur and George Patton were involved too. Disgusting piece of history.
You know that happened over 100 years ago right? Things have changed since then. If you wanted to make a good case, then you should have brought up Kent State because that one is very valid for criticism.
deleted by creator
Kent State was national guard. I would have brought up something like drone strikes or the infamous “collateral murder”.
Largely because they’ve spent two decades trying to police Afghanistan.
Wait…which is which?