Posted on Oct 21, 2024
DOD Modifies Military Use of Force Policy: DOD DIR 540.01 — Ronald W. Chapman II
213
7
6
1
1
0
Tension Between the New Directives and Posse Comitatus Act (PCA) [CONCERNING CHANGE]
Potential Erosion of PCA Protections: Critics argue that the expanded authority granted by Directive 5240.01 could undermine the PCA by allowing for more direct military involvement in domestic affairs, particularly if "national security" is broadly defined. This expansion raises alarms about potential overreach and erosion of civil liberties. The Defense Secretary can make the call and he/she works for the POTUS. military involvement occurs without full compliance with PCA principles.
Legal Compliance Measures: While the directive emphasizes compliance with existing laws, including the PCA, its provisions may create scenarios where military engagement is justified under national security pretenses, thereby challenging traditional interpretations of the PCA.
The Secretary of Defense holds the authority to approve modifications to the directive, particularly in scenarios that may involve significant military resources or lethal force. Before approving any changes, the Secretary reviews various factors, including legality, risk, and appropriateness of the military's involvement in domestic matters. However, Component Heads can act immediately for up to 72 hours before obtaining formal approval. This introduces a time-sensitive response mechanism while still maintaining a level of oversight.
I can remember when no one could fine the Secretary of Defense when he was in the hospital.
The Posse Comitatus Act (PCA) is a federal law, not a part of the U.S. Constitution. Enacted in 1878, the PCA specifically restricts the use of federal military personnel to enforce domestic laws, aiming to maintain civilian control over law enforcement and prevent military involvement in civilian affairs.
It begs the question why they have made these changes. The new version became effective on September 27, 2024.
Potential Erosion of PCA Protections: Critics argue that the expanded authority granted by Directive 5240.01 could undermine the PCA by allowing for more direct military involvement in domestic affairs, particularly if "national security" is broadly defined. This expansion raises alarms about potential overreach and erosion of civil liberties. The Defense Secretary can make the call and he/she works for the POTUS. military involvement occurs without full compliance with PCA principles.
Legal Compliance Measures: While the directive emphasizes compliance with existing laws, including the PCA, its provisions may create scenarios where military engagement is justified under national security pretenses, thereby challenging traditional interpretations of the PCA.
The Secretary of Defense holds the authority to approve modifications to the directive, particularly in scenarios that may involve significant military resources or lethal force. Before approving any changes, the Secretary reviews various factors, including legality, risk, and appropriateness of the military's involvement in domestic matters. However, Component Heads can act immediately for up to 72 hours before obtaining formal approval. This introduces a time-sensitive response mechanism while still maintaining a level of oversight.
I can remember when no one could fine the Secretary of Defense when he was in the hospital.
The Posse Comitatus Act (PCA) is a federal law, not a part of the U.S. Constitution. Enacted in 1878, the PCA specifically restricts the use of federal military personnel to enforce domestic laws, aiming to maintain civilian control over law enforcement and prevent military involvement in civilian affairs.
It begs the question why they have made these changes. The new version became effective on September 27, 2024.
DOD Modifies Military Use of Force Policy: DOD DIR 540.01 — Ronald W. Chapman II
Posted from ronaldwchapman.com
Posted 1 mo ago
Responses: 2
Military Cleared To Use Lethal Force On Civilians
(2)
(0)
SPC Jeff Daley, PhD
COL Randall C. Your perspective and experience on this subject is evident and appreciated. While I do not have your years of experience I have concerns about what I gained from reading Directive 5240.01. Your intelligence review in putting these concerns to rest is appreciated. My research is as follows:
The recent changes to DoD Directive 5240.01 have sparked significant debate regarding their implications for civil liberties and government overreach. Here’s a breakdown of the key changes and the concerns surrounding them.
## Key Changes in Directive 5240.01
1. **Expanded Military Role**: The updated directive broadens the circumstances under which the Department of Defense (DoD) can assist law enforcement, including provisions for the use of lethal force in specific situations deemed as "imminent threats" or "national security emergencies" [1][2]. It weakens the Posse Comitatus Act (PCA).
2. **Lethal Force Authorization**: While assassination is explicitly prohibited, the directive allows for lethal actions under certain conditions, raising alarms about potential misuse during civil unrest or protests [1][2].
3. **Approval Process**: Any intelligence-sharing or military action that could lead to lethal force must be approved by the Secretary of Defense, however,
**Component Heads can act immediately for up to 72 hours before obtaining approval [1][2]. ** This reminds me of when Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin was out of pocket for several days before he was located at the hospital.
4. **Shift from Civil Liberties Protections**: The previous version from 2016 emphasized civil liberties protections and strict oversight, focusing on intelligence collection without mention of lethal force. The new version represents a significant shift toward a more militarized approach to domestic law enforcement [1][5].
## Concerns Raised
- **Civil Liberties**: Critics argue that the expanded definitions of "national security threats" and the allowance for military involvement in civilian law enforcement could infringe on citizens' rights and lead to excessive use of force [1][5]. This is particularly concerning in light of upcoming elections, where civil unrest may be anticipated.
- **Historical Context**: The Posse Comitatus Act restricts military involvement in domestic law enforcement, aiming to maintain a clear separation between military and police functions. The changes to Directive 5240.01 appear to blur these lines, prompting fears about a potential militarization of domestic policing [2][5].
- **Speculative Timing**: Some speculate that these changes are strategically timed with the upcoming elections, suggesting that the government may prepare for potential unrest related to election results [5]. This speculation has fueled concerns about government overreach and the potential for military force against citizens.
## Conclusion
The revisions to DoD Directive 5240.01 represent a notable shift towards increased military authority in domestic situations, raising serious questions about civil liberties and government overreach. While proponents may argue that these measures are necessary for national security, critics warn that they could pave the way for excessive state power and eroding democratic freedoms. As discussions continue, it remains crucial for citizens to engage with these developments critically and advocate for transparency and accountability in government actions.
Citations:
[1] https://greenmedinfo.com/content/dod-directive-524001-stealth-expansion-military-intelligence-powers-life-or--0
[2] https://ronaldwchapman.com/blog/dod52401
[3] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZZ3_f_iaBVE
[4] https://dodsioo.defense.gov/Portals/46/DoDM%20%205240.01.pdf
[5] https://www.cip.uw.edu/2024/10/18/rumors-defense-department-directive-5240-01/
[6] https://www.newsmax.com/newsmax-tv/andy-harris-dod-national-security/2024/10/16/id/1184340/
[7] https://www.mypatriotsupply.com/blogs/scout/the-world-s-most-lethal-weapon-is-about-to-be-turned-on-the-american-people
[8] https://www.researchgate.net/publication/384734176_The_Silent_Shift_How_the_Pentagon's_New_Rules_Redefine_Intelligence_Lethal_Force_and_Domestic_Law_Enforcement
The recent changes to DoD Directive 5240.01 have sparked significant debate regarding their implications for civil liberties and government overreach. Here’s a breakdown of the key changes and the concerns surrounding them.
## Key Changes in Directive 5240.01
1. **Expanded Military Role**: The updated directive broadens the circumstances under which the Department of Defense (DoD) can assist law enforcement, including provisions for the use of lethal force in specific situations deemed as "imminent threats" or "national security emergencies" [1][2]. It weakens the Posse Comitatus Act (PCA).
2. **Lethal Force Authorization**: While assassination is explicitly prohibited, the directive allows for lethal actions under certain conditions, raising alarms about potential misuse during civil unrest or protests [1][2].
3. **Approval Process**: Any intelligence-sharing or military action that could lead to lethal force must be approved by the Secretary of Defense, however,
**Component Heads can act immediately for up to 72 hours before obtaining approval [1][2]. ** This reminds me of when Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin was out of pocket for several days before he was located at the hospital.
4. **Shift from Civil Liberties Protections**: The previous version from 2016 emphasized civil liberties protections and strict oversight, focusing on intelligence collection without mention of lethal force. The new version represents a significant shift toward a more militarized approach to domestic law enforcement [1][5].
## Concerns Raised
- **Civil Liberties**: Critics argue that the expanded definitions of "national security threats" and the allowance for military involvement in civilian law enforcement could infringe on citizens' rights and lead to excessive use of force [1][5]. This is particularly concerning in light of upcoming elections, where civil unrest may be anticipated.
- **Historical Context**: The Posse Comitatus Act restricts military involvement in domestic law enforcement, aiming to maintain a clear separation between military and police functions. The changes to Directive 5240.01 appear to blur these lines, prompting fears about a potential militarization of domestic policing [2][5].
- **Speculative Timing**: Some speculate that these changes are strategically timed with the upcoming elections, suggesting that the government may prepare for potential unrest related to election results [5]. This speculation has fueled concerns about government overreach and the potential for military force against citizens.
## Conclusion
The revisions to DoD Directive 5240.01 represent a notable shift towards increased military authority in domestic situations, raising serious questions about civil liberties and government overreach. While proponents may argue that these measures are necessary for national security, critics warn that they could pave the way for excessive state power and eroding democratic freedoms. As discussions continue, it remains crucial for citizens to engage with these developments critically and advocate for transparency and accountability in government actions.
Citations:
[1] https://greenmedinfo.com/content/dod-directive-524001-stealth-expansion-military-intelligence-powers-life-or--0
[2] https://ronaldwchapman.com/blog/dod52401
[3] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZZ3_f_iaBVE
[4] https://dodsioo.defense.gov/Portals/46/DoDM%20%205240.01.pdf
[5] https://www.cip.uw.edu/2024/10/18/rumors-defense-department-directive-5240-01/
[6] https://www.newsmax.com/newsmax-tv/andy-harris-dod-national-security/2024/10/16/id/1184340/
[7] https://www.mypatriotsupply.com/blogs/scout/the-world-s-most-lethal-weapon-is-about-to-be-turned-on-the-american-people
[8] https://www.researchgate.net/publication/384734176_The_Silent_Shift_How_the_Pentagon's_New_Rules_Redefine_Intelligence_Lethal_Force_and_Domestic_Law_Enforcement
DoD Directive 5240.01: The Stealth Expansion of Military Intelligence Powers in Life-or-Death...
As the U.S. nears a pivotal election, the quiet expansion of DoD Directive 5240.01 may grant military intelligence unprecedented authority to assist law enforcement in life-or-death domestic scenarios, raising concerns about civil liberties and government overreach
(0)
(0)
COL Randall C.
SPC Jeff Daley, PhD,
Since the “Key changes in Directive 5240.01” you listed are basically copy and pastes from the articles, I’ll address the articles in general.
Every one of those resources you mentioned (well, maybe not the 5th one) are doing one or more of the following:
• Ignoring the applicability of the directive;
• Cherry-picking words and ignoring the content/context;
• Grossly mischaracterizing what is said; or are
• Flat-out wrong in their assertation either because they are knowingly lying or they are ignorant.
For example, the greenmediinfo.com bases the entire article on how DoD stripped out many of the civil liberties that were in the “2016 version” of DoDD 5240.01. The only problem is the “2016 version of DoDD 5240.01” doesn’t exist. The author compares two related, but VERY different documents - DoD Manual 5240.01* and DoD Directive 5240.01. DoDM 5240.01 is still very much alive and applicable. Is it a deliberate lie or is the author just ignorant that if you compare an apple to an orange you will have differences?
Every single article reads as if the authors have no idea how DoD Directives and Instructions are written. Another possibility is they deliberately ignore that structure in the hope the audience won’t be able to tell the difference and just accept their comments as accurate.
(At this point I was going to reiterate the first, second and third items I already stated previously, but will just direct you to reread it*)
The authors jump completely over the scope of applicability as well as the scope of permitted actions (the first and second items in the previous statement) in their headlong rush to condemn it.
A few final comments (foot-stomps):
• The Directly applies to all “Defense Intelligence Components (DIC) when providing intelligence assistance to law enforcement agencies or other civil authorities.”
• Paragraph 3.2 spells out the permissible assistance. Specifically, it spells out what is permissible. DCI – intelligence assistance – Federal department/agency (including LEA) or state LEA – when lives are in danger. It doesn’t say ‘national security threat’ or ‘military forces’. It gives a list of permissible DCI intelligence assistance when lives are in danger.
• There has been NO change to the DoD Directive on the use of force (DoDD 5210.56)
If the articles were about the concern for civil liberties regarding sharing of intelligence, I can see rational arguments being made regarding any expansion due to an imminent threat to life – Who defines “imminent danger”? What happens to the intelligence information after the threat has passed? Etc.
------------------------------------------
* DoD Manual 5240-01 - https://dodsioo.defense.gov/Portals/46/DoDM%20%205240.01.pdf
* Link to previous statement - https://www.rallypoint.com/shared-links/746e6913-9e79-4f9f-9bc8-d506b456538a?urlhash=8889015
* DoD Directive 5210.56 (Arming and the Use of Force) - https://www.esd.whs.mil/Portals/54/Documents/DD/issuances/dodd/521056p.PDF
Since the “Key changes in Directive 5240.01” you listed are basically copy and pastes from the articles, I’ll address the articles in general.
Every one of those resources you mentioned (well, maybe not the 5th one) are doing one or more of the following:
• Ignoring the applicability of the directive;
• Cherry-picking words and ignoring the content/context;
• Grossly mischaracterizing what is said; or are
• Flat-out wrong in their assertation either because they are knowingly lying or they are ignorant.
For example, the greenmediinfo.com bases the entire article on how DoD stripped out many of the civil liberties that were in the “2016 version” of DoDD 5240.01. The only problem is the “2016 version of DoDD 5240.01” doesn’t exist. The author compares two related, but VERY different documents - DoD Manual 5240.01* and DoD Directive 5240.01. DoDM 5240.01 is still very much alive and applicable. Is it a deliberate lie or is the author just ignorant that if you compare an apple to an orange you will have differences?
Every single article reads as if the authors have no idea how DoD Directives and Instructions are written. Another possibility is they deliberately ignore that structure in the hope the audience won’t be able to tell the difference and just accept their comments as accurate.
(At this point I was going to reiterate the first, second and third items I already stated previously, but will just direct you to reread it*)
The authors jump completely over the scope of applicability as well as the scope of permitted actions (the first and second items in the previous statement) in their headlong rush to condemn it.
A few final comments (foot-stomps):
• The Directly applies to all “Defense Intelligence Components (DIC) when providing intelligence assistance to law enforcement agencies or other civil authorities.”
• Paragraph 3.2 spells out the permissible assistance. Specifically, it spells out what is permissible. DCI – intelligence assistance – Federal department/agency (including LEA) or state LEA – when lives are in danger. It doesn’t say ‘national security threat’ or ‘military forces’. It gives a list of permissible DCI intelligence assistance when lives are in danger.
• There has been NO change to the DoD Directive on the use of force (DoDD 5210.56)
If the articles were about the concern for civil liberties regarding sharing of intelligence, I can see rational arguments being made regarding any expansion due to an imminent threat to life – Who defines “imminent danger”? What happens to the intelligence information after the threat has passed? Etc.
------------------------------------------
* DoD Manual 5240-01 - https://dodsioo.defense.gov/Portals/46/DoDM%20%205240.01.pdf
* Link to previous statement - https://www.rallypoint.com/shared-links/746e6913-9e79-4f9f-9bc8-d506b456538a?urlhash=8889015
* DoD Directive 5210.56 (Arming and the Use of Force) - https://www.esd.whs.mil/Portals/54/Documents/DD/issuances/dodd/521056p.PDF
(1)
(0)
COL Randall C.
SPC Jeff Daley, PhD - Boy ... I REALLY need to do a 'proofing' when I write a longer comment/reply (since you usually can't edit them after posting). Just noticed this word salad - "...spells out the permissible assistance. Specifically, it spells out what is permissible."
(1)
(0)
1
1
0
The puppeteer pulling strings on POTUS? This isn't a good change of events.
(1)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google