> Uhhh.. yes.. it's pretty common for the army to be temporarily disbanded for using tanks against the government (ie. orchestrating a coup).
There you go. The tanks weren't removed, the organization was disbanded. Having tanks is not an indicator that an organization will attempt a coup, if having tanks is useful to the normal function of that organization.
At this point, you're making my points for me, so either it's evident to you at this point, or you aren't going to get it (as you're consistently misinterpreting the point), or you're trolling. In any case, I don't see this continuing productively past this point, since I'm just repeating myself.
You're just making a different point than the OP. He was arguing that there's no evidence that these tools have been used outside of the accepted bounds of the CIA. That's obviously false given the Senate hacking (which itself was over the CIA not liking the results of governance over another tool in their arsenal: "enhanced interrogation").
But going back to the temporary disbanding, how in practice do you think that would work? You can't just jail or execute all of the military. Wouldn't it stand to reason that the very weapons used against the government would be locked up until you could figure out who those 'domestic enemies' are that the Oath to the Constitution talks about? Yes the very existence of these tools isn't a problem, these tools being in the hands of those who have proved that they are systemically incapable of legally using these tools is a problem. You therefore remove those tools from their arsenal, going so far as to disband them entirely if necessary (ie. if their use of these tools threatens the country on a whole and you can't trust them to truly give the tools up completely).
I don't have a problem with the use of these tools in general by intelligence agencies, I have a problem with the CIA's access to these tools.
There you go. The tanks weren't removed, the organization was disbanded. Having tanks is not an indicator that an organization will attempt a coup, if having tanks is useful to the normal function of that organization.
At this point, you're making my points for me, so either it's evident to you at this point, or you aren't going to get it (as you're consistently misinterpreting the point), or you're trolling. In any case, I don't see this continuing productively past this point, since I'm just repeating myself.