The US Army issued a stark rebuke of former President Donald Trump’s presidential campaign over the incident on Monday at Arlington National Cemetery, saying in a statement on Thursday that participants in the ceremony “were made aware of federal laws” regarding political activity at the cemetery, and “abruptly pushed aside” an employee of the cemetery.
Just means they can be deployed against traitors, not that they have the authority, or consider themselves to have the authority, to make the judgement on who is and is not traitorous.
Civilian control of the military is a good thing. But it also means that any thought of the military as a safeguard against any tyranny that worms its way in through civilian institutions is… misguided.
May seem sad, but in fact good if really works this way.
Since I’m in Russia and here shit went wrong (EDIT: after the last time shit went right) since Yeltsin using military to “resolve” a constitutional crisis in 1993 (not really a crisis, just when the Supreme Court says both Yeltsin and his opponents in the parliament should resign and have new parliament and presidential elections, that apparently is a crisis, because he’s the president, thus the boss and should be able to make all decisions ; that unironically was the main argument in support of Yeltsin, ex-Soviet people have a very weird idea of law and order, where the boss deciding something is “dura lex sed lex”, while referring to codified laws is “legal illiteracy”).
What about “foreign and domestic”?
Just means they can be deployed against traitors, not that they have the authority, or consider themselves to have the authority, to make the judgement on who is and is not traitorous.
Civilian control of the military is a good thing. But it also means that any thought of the military as a safeguard against any tyranny that worms its way in through civilian institutions is… misguided.
May seem sad, but in fact good if really works this way.
Since I’m in Russia and here shit went wrong (EDIT: after the last time shit went right) since Yeltsin using military to “resolve” a constitutional crisis in 1993 (not really a crisis, just when the Supreme Court says both Yeltsin and his opponents in the parliament should resign and have new parliament and presidential elections, that apparently is a crisis, because he’s the president, thus the boss and should be able to make all decisions ; that unironically was the main argument in support of Yeltsin, ex-Soviet people have a very weird idea of law and order, where the boss deciding something is “dura lex sed lex”, while referring to codified laws is “legal illiteracy”).