wouldn’t training to violate the law constitute a legal conspiracy to violate the law and therefore be actionable? Since conspiracy is an offense?
In criminal law, a conspiracy is an agreement between two or more persons to commit a crime at some time in the future.[1] Criminal law in some countries or for some conspiracies may require that at least one overt act must also have been undertaken in furtherance of that agreement, to constitute an offense. There is no limit on the number participating in the conspiracy and, in most countries, no requirement that any steps have been taken to put the plan into effect (compare attempts which require proximity to the full offence). For the purposes of concurrence, the actus reus is a continuing one and parties may join the plot later and incur joint liability and conspiracy can be charged where the co-conspirators have been acquitted or cannot be traced. Finally, repentance by one or more parties does not affect liability but may reduce their sentence.
This is the definition from Wikipedia - but it concurs with the training I’ve had in the past. The training would be considered an overt act if it involves considering approaches of using the armed forces against civilians. It would then be actionable. If the training does not involve use against civilians the it would not be, but they are walking a very fine line.
Since there is no evidence of a plan to commit a specific crime, the training is no different from teaching a group to use lock-pick tools. I don’t see a crime, at least not in the technical sense.