DoD Directive 5240.01 has been Renewed - Includes Lethal Force against Civilians?

Article at ZeroHedge outlines the DoD Directive 5240.01.

It cancels the old version and apparently adds some new "material".

Deals a lot with terrorism and intel gathering and includes some "Civilian" details and Civilian law enforcement.

Somebody can explain this and what's "New" (if anything).

Article stresses "just in time for the elections" !! Like maybe dealing with civil unrest?

Is this dangerous?? ☠️☠️


DOD DIRECTIVE 5240.01
DOD INTELLIGENCE AND INTELLIGENCE-RELATED ACTIVITIES
AND DEFENSE INTELLIGENCE COMPONENT ASSISTANCE TO
LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCIES AND OTHER CIVIL
AUTHORITIES


ZeroHedge Article:

U.S. Military Now Authorized to Kill Americans on U.S. Soil?


Just ahead, intriguingly, of the November elections, the U.S. military has granted itself permission to unleash “lethal force” on the civilian population in cases of “national security” emergency.

Via GreenMedInfo:

“As the U.S. prepares for one of the most controversial and closely watched elections in its history, a concerning update to DoD Directive 5240.01 has quietly been put into effect. Reissued on September 27, 2024, this directive governs the Department of Defense's (DoD) intelligence activities and now includes provisions authorizing lethal force in certain circumstances when assisting civilian law enforcement. While the directive forbids assassination, it opens the door to lethal interventions under "national security" conditions….

The reissuance of DoD Directive 5240.01 repealed previous versions, including the 1982 DoD 5240.1-R. While the update might seem routine, the changes regarding the use of lethal force in domestic operations are significant.

In the 2016 version, the directive primarily focused on intelligence collection and ensuring civil liberties protections for U.S. persons. It emphasized strict oversight and the need for authorization before collecting U.S. person information.

However, the 2024 version expands the military's role, particularly in assisting civil law enforcement, and authorizes lethal force under specific conditions, raising questions about its use during potential civil unrest surrounding the election.”

(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.”

Good. Folks shouldn't be violent if they don't get their way. If they are violent, they should be punished. But this administration has been very soft on repercussions against anyone breaking the law, aside from republicans and people named Trump. Good news, we might get a new DOJ soon, and one that might uphold the laws we have already.

a reply to: xuenchen

Good post. Joe Biden has been complaining all week about Donald Trump wanting to use the military against the "enemy from within" , if Americans elect him as our president.

What's going on here?

originally posted by: WeMustCare
a reply to: xuenchen

Good post. Joe Biden has been complaining all week about Donald Trump wanting to use the military against the "enemy from within" , if Americans elect him as our president.

What's going on here?

Yup, I was afraid of Biden's comments. Often times they start "pre-blaming" before they initiate their own plans!!!

This could be dangerous!!! ❗️

I wasn’t aware the US had a policy against lethal force against civilians.

I think that lethal force against law breakers has been used no matter the party in power.

We could argue whether or not it’s always justified, or force equal to the threat. But to my knowledge it’s always been the case.

We also have one of the highest incarceration rates. I’d argue we could probably focus that attention better than men in jail for not paying child support (so they lose their jobs and now can’t pay while we pay for them to be incarcerated and likely derailed after), or people for weed possession.

The new material is the ability to use lethal force against civilians in “certain circumstances”.

That IS the new material.

Now then. What certain circumstances is the question.

originally posted by: network dude
Good. Folks shouldn't be violent if they don't get their way. If they are violent, they should be punished. But this administration has been very soft on repercussions against anyone breaking the law, aside from republicans and people named Trump. Good news, we might get a new DOJ soon, and one that might uphold the laws we have already.

I’m hoping your meaning here is “not killed” by US soldiers at the behest of a DoD edict.

But yeah, violence should not be tolerated and should be punished.

originally posted by: SteamyAmerican
The new material is the ability to use lethal force against civilians in “certain circumstances”.

That IS the new material.

Now then. What certain circumstances is the question.

New?

a reply to: BasicResearchMethods

Yes. People have been killed by government forces from time immemorial.

However, your link to Kent State has no bearing on this particular thread topic.

Next?

a reply to: WeMustCare

What's going on here?

Us or them. D or R. This smells of it just don't matter. It's gonna be crack down time either way.

originally posted by: SteamyAmerican
a reply to: BasicResearchMethods

Yes. People have been killed by government forces from time immemorial.

However, your link to Kent State has no bearing on this particular thread topic.

Next?

So the shooting of protestors by the National Guard has nothing to do with a discussion about "new" powers for the US military to use lethal force againts civiilans.

Uh. OK.

a reply to: CriticalStinker

This is about using active duty military for lethal law enforcement.

a reply to: xuenchen

I wonder if it differentiates between national guard and the military.

Military would be unconstitutional.

That said, I don’t see this getting repealed even if there’s a change in admin. Trump recently suggested using the national guard and or military against the enemies within. Not sure if he’s suggesting civilians or government.

a reply to: BasicResearchMethods

I mean in a roundabout way? Sure.

If ya wanna go that route, why not Bill Cooper?
Or countless other exercises is execution of dissent.

But this thread is about the new DoD policy.

a reply to: xuenchen

On first look over, it seems to authorize Defense Intelligence Components(personnel) who are assisting agencies like FBI to carry weapons during that assistance.

It's kind of like if Joe the DIA agent was tracking someone who entered U.S. and FBI took over. The FBI says "Hey Joe, you know what this guy looks like and habits and what not, give us a hand arresting him." Then Joe says, "Sure, give me a gun."

Is there any more discerning info about what “specific conditions” allow for lethal force here?

Is it for folks that would blast a presidential candidate?

School shooters?

Someone off their meds?

Civil unrest? Protests? Sit-ins? What about BDS for Israel?

Illegal immigrants in apartment buildings that won’t go?

What about someone in contact with the alleged victim of Walz that I follow on social media?

Is that considered a condition, even if not an immediate “threat”.

Just curious. Seems pretty broad for “specific”.

originally posted by: BingoMcGoof
a reply to: WeMustCare

What's going on here?

Us or them. D or R. This smells of it just don't matter. It's gonna be crack down time either way.

A SEVERE Crackdown on the U.S. Mainstream Media is coming too.

After editing Harris in a positive way, they edited House Speaker Mike Johnson in a negative way. He said this today about Columbia Broadcasting System...

"CBS has been under fire for selectively editing their interviews to PROMOTE Democrats and UNDERMINE Republicans. Yesterday, they chose to cut FIVE important minutes out of my nearly 15 minute interview. You can be the judge as to why," Johnson posted on X before providing examples.

Continued at: www.foxnews.com...

They're going down hard!

wonder if this has anything to do with the UN declaring it's self as the New World Dick Tators?

and biden not saying blank you!

originally posted by: BernnieJGato
wonder if this has anything to do with the UN declaring it's self as the New World Dick Tators?

and biden not saying blank you!

Not sure I follow.

How would a renewed DoD credo in writ play into anything to do with the UN?

I mean I know there are some “patriots” that fantasize about sky-blue helmet target-practice, but are you suggesting this might supplant the need for UN in the states? I could’ve sworn the UN already had set up shop in certain states outside NYC.

Strikes me as the government issuing an alarm ahead of the fire that will surely ensue somehow.

originally posted by: FullHeathen
a reply to: xuenchen

On first look over, it seems to authorize Defense Intelligence Components(personnel) who are assisting agencies like FBI to carry weapons during that assistance.

It's kind of like if Joe the DIA agent was tracking someone who entered U.S. and FBI took over. The FBI says "Hey Joe, you know what this guy looks like and habits and what not, give us a hand arresting him." Then Joe says, "Sure, give me a gun."

Almost like the paragraph (c) was a "sneak-in" !! ☠️😊