this post was submitted on 27 Oct 2024
-49 points (8.5% liked)
conservative
1051 readers
456 users here now
A community to discuss conservative politics and views.
Rules:
-
No racism or bigotry.
-
Be civil: disagreements happen, but that doesn't provide the right to personally insult others.
-
No spam posting.
-
Submission headline should match the article title (don't cherry-pick information from the title to fit your agenda).
-
Shitposts and memes are allowed until they prove to be a problem. They can and will be removed at moderator discretion.
-
No trolling.
founded 2 years ago
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
What assets which are equipped to kill civilians and accessible to DoD intelligence would be described in any way other than "soldiers"? The difference seems like semantics to me. And we have the Third Amendment, which has been used to justify the military not interfering in the affairs of the civilian population. Providing intelligence to law enforcement is one thing, but sending men to kill people is a huge escalation.