Without further context, this reference to lethal force might seem alarming. But the concern over this provision ignores two critical facts.
No Change in DoD Policy
First, the added language makes no change in Department policy. While Directive 5240.01 is specifically aimed at Defense Intelligence Components, there is a more general directive—Directive 3025.18—that governs all support to civil authorities provided by the Department of Defense. This umbrella directive, which applies equally to Defense Intelligence Components and has not been updated since 2018, includes language that is very similar to the language that is currently stirring controversy....
....A Procedural Safeguard, Not a Source of Authority
Second, on its face, the provision in question—whether in the umbrella directive or the newly revised one—constitutes a procedural safeguard rather than a grant of power. Section 3.3 of Directive 5240.01, as a whole, establishes what level of approval must be obtained before various types of activities may be carried out. Subsection (a)(2) provides that assistance to civilian law enforcement authorities that may involve the use of lethal force requires the highest level of approval before it can be provided—that is, the Secretary of Defense must personally sign off on it....
BTW, everyone seems to have forgotten under which president it was (hint, not Biden) that people were snatched off the street by Federal officers in unmarked vans
Mr. Dazzle wrote: ↑Sat Nov 02, 2024 12:29 pm
BTW, everyone seems to have forgotten under which president it was (hint, not Biden) that people were snatched off the street by Federal officers in unmarked vans
Plus the president who was in power that wanted the military to shoot the protesters in Lafayette park. It was only the threatened resignation of the then AG William Barr and General Milley that made him forget about it and move on to his next brainwave.
Most people, in any context, assume that 'the other guy' has the same motivation as you. So the president with a proven record of tear gassing protestors*, unmarked van snatches and the desire to shoot people thinks everyone else wants to do the same
*So he could have a cheesy photo op no less. Probably the most on brand thing he's ever done
**rather than rely on snopes to lie to you about what they want you to believe is true, read for yourself: https://www.esd.whs.mil/portals/54/docu ... 24001p.pdf
Remembering that snopes et.al. rely on semantic tricks and lies by omission to "debunk" factual information.
As you say, read for ourselves. And read around too.
"In a rare move, the DoD pushed back by offering comment to journalists given the spread of the rumor. “The policies concerning the use of force by DOD addressed in DoDD 5240.01 are not new, and do not authorize the DOD to use lethal force against U.S. citizens or people located inside the United States, contrary to rumors and rhetoric circulating on social media,” Gough said in a statement to The Associated Press."
So it's an update of a memo originally from 2007. Not leaked, but published.
The DoD say 'no change'. Well, all MRD, they would. But in the case of a government imposing against the will of the people (if Trump's side don't get the result they want), do you honestly think that a rampant rampaging government would be restricted and restrained by the contents of a memo?
Noggin wrote: ↑Sat Nov 02, 2024 7:23 am
But hey - be as condescending as you like
JackyJoll wrote: ↑Sat Nov 02, 2024 10:24 am
I think discussion works better when we use terms that the other participants understand.
So serious. Doesn't anybody recognise a joke any more unless it's accompanied by a series of ?
On a serious note: DNC is integral to the subject matter, just as integral as GOP to refer to the Republicans. I was surprised that anybody following the thread could be unaware of the meaning.
I thought he'd become bored of using puerile nicknames and had resorted to abbreviations instead.
Last edited by cheb on Sat Nov 02, 2024 2:39 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Mr. Dazzle wrote: ↑Sat Nov 02, 2024 11:06 am
Most polls put Harris (just) ahead and have done for a few months now, yet everyone is sure it's going to be an overwhelming Trump victory which HAS to be cheated away.
I suppose the polls are corrupt too
Like Horse (I think) asked, how much does Harris have to win by for people to believe it?
No, they're just probably wrong. Or at least accurate within certain parameters that are never quoted by those who want to prove something with them.
cheb wrote: ↑Sat Nov 02, 2024 2:37 pm Or at least accurate within certain parameters that are never quoted by those who want to prove something with them.
To be fair, I've seen poll results where they've stated something like "X ahead, but error margin means 'who knows'".
My point is that the whole "they're gonna have to really steal it this time!" argument doesn't seem to be backed up by any data.
I'm sure you can find loads of people who say "everyone I know loves Trump". You can find just as many people who say the opposite. All it demonstrates is that people tend to associate with similar people.
Mr. Dazzle wrote: ↑Sat Nov 02, 2024 11:06 am
Most polls put Harris (just) ahead and have done for a few months now, yet everyone is sure it's going to be an overwhelming Trump victory which HAS to be cheated away.
I suppose the polls are corrupt too
Like Horse (I think) asked, how much does Harris have to win by for people to believe it?
The polls have been meaningless since they claimed Clinton would beat Trump by a landslide. The only difference this time is they're all saying "it's too close to call" so they don't look like complete fucking idiots when the other person wins.
Mr. Dazzle wrote: ↑Sat Nov 02, 2024 4:05 pm
My point is that the whole "they're gonna have to really steal it this time!" argument doesn't seem to be backed up by any data.
I'm sure you can find loads of people who say "everyone I know loves Trump". You can find just as many people who say the opposite. All it demonstrates is that people tend to associate with similar people.
You expect a political discussion to be backed up with data? That goes for any side in the debate, most of the time you could switch the party names about and it would read the same. Torries have ruined the NHS? Try the SNP in Scotland or Welsh Labour.
Mr. Dazzle wrote: ↑Sat Nov 02, 2024 4:05 pm
My point is that the whole "they're gonna have to really steal it this time!" argument doesn't seem to be backed up by any data.
I'm sure you can find loads of people who say "everyone I know loves Trump". You can find just as many people who say the opposite. All it demonstrates is that people tend to associate with similar people.
There are videos out there showing the machines refusing to let people vote for Trump & then changing the vote to Harris when they push the Trump option. There don't seem to be any showing the opposite.
I know voter fraud is the thing in Ca because I was asked three times to register to vote & was told "they changed the law" after I pointed out that I have a green card.
Mr. Dazzle wrote: ↑Sat Nov 02, 2024 12:29 pm
BTW, everyone seems to have forgotten under which president it was (hint, not Biden) that people were snatched off the street by Federal officers in unmarked vans
Because the Governors of Wa & Or refused to enforce laws when they were burning down police stations etc. (As did Walz in Minnesota)
and let's not forget Harris was promoting a fund to bail the rioters out...
ZRX61 wrote: ↑Sat Nov 02, 2024 4:25 pm
There are videos out there showing the machines refusing to let people vote for Trump & then changing the vote to Harris when they push the Trump option. There don't seem to be any showing the opposite.
Edit: it's just a comedy childish argument which is both overly complicated and overly simple. If you had the ability to hack the computers why would you not count certain votes, switch votes on the screen, burn ballots etc? You'd just change the outcome at the end
Noone records who votes for who, deliberately, so you'd just keep the same number of total votes and lie about where they went.
ZRX61 wrote: ↑Sat Nov 02, 2024 4:25 pm
There are videos out there showing the machines refusing to let people vote for Trump & then changing the vote to Harris when they push the Trump option. There don't seem to be any showing the opposite.
I know voter fraud is the thing in Ca because I was asked three times to register to vote & was told "they changed the law" after I pointed out that I have a green card.
That seems a ridiculously complex way to rig an election, hundreds, if not thousands, of people involved in the conspiracy.
Wouldn’t it be much simpler to hold a normal election and ‘they’ could then announce any result they wanted?
?
