See paragraph 3.3(a)(2)( c).
a. Secretary of Defense Approval.
(1) he Secretary of Defense may approve any type of requested permissible assistance described in Paragraph 3.2.
(2) he decision to approve requests for these types of permissible assistance described in Paragraph 3.2. to law enforcement agencies and other civil authorities are reserved to the Secretary of Defense:
( c) Assistance in responding with assets with potential for lethality, or any situation in which it is reasonably foreseeable that providing the requested assistance may involve the use of force that is likely to result in lethal force, including death or serious bodily injury. It also includes all support to civilian law enforcement officials in situations where a confrontation between civilian law enforcement and civilian individuals or groups is reasonably anticipated. Such use of force must be in accordance with DoDD 5210.56, potentially as further restricted based on the specifics of the requested support.
First off this is only relevant to Defense Intelligence; it doesn’t cover deploying the 82nd airborne to shoot trump voters.
3.3 starts with “subject to paragraph 3.1” which describes the already-existing laws they are required to follow, such as Posse Comitatus. 3.3 also says anything that might potentially be lethal requires SecDef approval.
All of this is further restricted by DOD policy 5210.56 which has what seem to me are extremely sensible rules regarding use of force during investigative / law enforcement duties. https://www.esd.whs.mil/Portals/54/Documents/DD/issuances/dodd/521056p.PDF?ver=PIvIb3eht0obgolnD0UCEw%3D%3D
This document is replacing the previous policy from 1982 under president Reagan which is very similar but with less detail. https://www.esd.whs.mil/Portals/54/Documents/DD/issuances/dodm/524001r.pdf
None of this looks unusual or inflammatory to me. Would you rather the DOD NOT have written policies limiting the use of force?
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.
Oh FFS. Don’t get your panties in a wad. This is a nothingburger.
🤔
Every citizen must own guns by any means ncassary to get those guns to protect themself from the federal government. Yes, 100% of every household in America needs to own multiple guns for defence against the government and every government agency, not random citizens nor citizen groups.
