>>11658624
I think so.
>>11658622
That's a good question. Being army myself I have very little knowledge about the legal side of things, to include the intricacies of the Code of Military justice. However, knowing that officers take an oath to the constitution, if you can convince leadership that the constitution itself is in danger and that there's a real and present threat either "foreign or domestic", then they would be obligated to act.
Could be why a lot of pentagon officials are being cleaned out, to make way for those that agree the constitution is under attack from an enemy.
>>11658577
Also I got double sevens on my post, that's gotta be worth something right? Haha