The advocates said it was important to draw a distinction between the personal political preferences of service members, many if not most of whom voted for Trump last November, and the higher principle that military personnel should not get involved in politics or politically motivated missions that blur lines of responsibility with civilian agencies
I’m not seeing much principle on this assignment, fignuts.
To the marines, though, “cover me” meant open fire immediately, which they did, unloading more than 200 M16 rounds into a house where the police had a tip about a possible domestic abuser. By sheer luck, nobody was hurt.
That was 1992, not now. But it shows what a poor fit our military is for policing. What a mess.
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.
I beg to differ that one protects the people. The Supreme Court has ruled that police don't have an obligation to protect you and also they only have to have a "good faith" knowledge of a law they are attempting to enforce.
I hope they don't get over it.
I hope they realise what they are doing is illegal before it gets to the point that they do anything to the protesters.
And that any of them that do anything to the protesters never forget and never get over it.
No they won't. They're a bunch of terrorists. Fuck em. If they are casualties I'm this event, then they deserved it the moment they invaded California.
If anyone here is active duty/reservist/national guard, remember:
Disobey illegal orders. If you obey an illegal order, you will be held responsible in a court martial when the day comes. The officers who ordered it will not be held responsible, if history is to be a guide. Punishment will only fall directly on the shoulders of the lower enlisted ranks and their NCOs.