2024

[jfish26]

Well the biden/harris DOD did just change a technically to make it legal to kill American citizens on American soil sooooo

Kyle Rittenhouse is probably diamond-hard.

[KUTradition]

Yeah it's not looking good for the corrupt establishment. That's what happens when you squander tax dollars on illegals and foreign wars while the cost of living just keeps getting worse and worse. The people have had enough and have realized the media is not on their side

Hey, it’s not as bad as Argentina. We did a great job, ya xenophobe!

i guess you fuckers missed this the first time i posted it

https://www.economist.com/special-repor ... lsrc=aw.ds

seriously, do better…this country deserves better

[jhawks99]

Well the biden/harris DOD did just change a technically to make it legal to kill American citizens on American soil sooooo

Kyle Rittenhouse is probably diamond-hard.

So, the NYC Cops can't control them. That have superior weapons than the US Military, but 400 bubba and his compensator are going to take care the problem.

[JKLivin]

KUTradition, who is currently on your ignore list, made this post.

[twocoach]

Yeah it's not looking good for the corrupt establishment. That's what happens when you squander tax dollars on illegals and foreign wars while the cost of living just keeps getting worse and worse. The people have had enough and have realized the media is not on their side

Yeah, they've had "enough" so they are going to.vote for a guy whose tariffs are estimates to cost the average American an additional $4000 each. Well done, that'll do it.

Fucking morons. The media has bent over backwards to keep wholly unqualified Trump in the race.

[RainbowsandUnicorns]

Well the biden/harris DOD did just change a technically to make it legal to kill American citizens on American soil sooooo

"change a technically"? What the fuck does that mean?

As far as your claim, you're a fucking moron.

[randylahey]

Read up on the DOD directive 5240.01 if you need answers. And explain why they would make that change 2 weeks before an election

[Overlander]

KUTradition, who is currently on your ignore list, made this post.

Cute.

[Overlander]

Read up on the DOD directive 5240.01 if you need answers. And explain why they would make that change 2 weeks before an election

Holy Fuck.
You might be the stupidest person in the history of message boards.

“Cryptogon.com”
“News-Analysis-Conspiracies”

[TDub]

Read up on the DOD directive 5240.01 if you need answers. And explain why they would make that change 2 weeks before an election

Holy Fuck.
You might be the stupidest person in the history of message boards.

“Cryptogon.com”
“News-Analysis-Conspiracies”

the scary/sad part is that there is some real strong competition for that spot....just on this board.

[JKLivin]

KUTradition, who is currently on your ignore list, made this post.

Cute.

Leave me alone, I leave you alone.

[KUTradition]

KUTradition, who is currently on your ignore list, made this post.

so, a pussy and a liar?

do better, seriously

[RainbowsandUnicorns]

Read up on the DOD directive 5240.01 if you need answers. And explain why they would make that change 2 weeks before an election

"As far as your claim, you're a fucking moron".

[KUTradition]

13 former Trump officials sign open letter backing John Kelly's criticism of the former president

Kelly told the New York Times that Trump meets the definition of a fascist and also said he observed the former president on multiple occasions praising Adolf Hitler…

[KUTradition]

13 former Trump officials sign open letter backing John Kelly's criticism of the former president

Kelly told the New York Times that Trump meets the definition of a fascist and also said he observed the former president on multiple occasions praising Adolf Hitler.
…
“We applaud General Kelly for highlighting in stark details the danger of a second Trump term. Like General Kelly, we did not take the decision to come forward lightly,” the letter said. “We are all lifelong Republicans who served our country. However, there are moments in history where it becomes necessary to put country over party. This is one of those moments.”…

[Shirley]

I wonder if I don't need to pay more attention to Charlamagne:

[japhy]

Read up on the DOD directive 5240.01 if you need answers. And explain why they would make that change 2 weeks before an election

"As far as your claim, you're a fucking moron".

From the: "Every Screeching Accusation Is A Projection Department".

Just as former president Donald Trump told Fox News last week that he wanted to use the U.S. military to “handle” what he called the “enemy from within” on Election Day, an obscure military policy was beginning to make the rounds on social media platforms favored by the far right.

The focus? Department of Defense Directive 5240.01.

The 22-page document governs military intelligence activities and is among more than a thousand different policies that outline Defense Department procedures.

The Pentagon updated it at the end of September. Although military policies are routinely updated and reissued, the timing of this one—just six weeks before the election and the same day Hurricane Helene slammed into the Southeast—struck right-wing misinformation merchants as suspicious.

They latched onto a new reference in the updated directive—“lethal force”—and soon were falsely claiming that the change means Kamala Harris had authorized the military to kill civilians if there is unrest after the election.

That’s flat-out not true, the Pentagon and experts on military policy told The War Horse.

“The provisions in [the directive] are not new, and do not authorize the Secretary of Defense to use lethal force against U.S. citizens, contrary to rumors and rhetoric circulating on social media,” Sue Gough, a Department of Defense spokesperson, said Wednesday night.

But as Trump doubles down on his “enemy from within” rhetoric, DOD Directive 5240.01 continues to gain traction among his supporters as ostensible proof that Harris, not Trump, wants to use the military against American citizens.

By early last week, “5240.01” began to spike on alt-tech platforms such as Rumble, 4chan, and Telegram, as well as on more mainstream platforms like X, according to an analysis by The War Horse and UC Berkeley’s Human Rights Center.

On Ron Paul’s Liberty Report, a YouTube show, the former Texas congressman told viewers that the policy meant that the country is now a “police state.” Republican Maryland congressman Andy Harris told Newsmax host Chris Salcedo last Wednesday that he was concerned the Defense Department was pushing through policies without congressional oversight.

“This is exactly what the Democrats said Trump would do. And they’re doing it,” he said. “This means that after an election, they could declare national emergency and literally call out the Army in the United States.”

Former Trump national security adviser and retired Army Lieutenant Gen. Michael Flynn tweeted the policy update out to his 1.7 million followers, just as he shared the week before a video suggesting the military had manipulated the weather to focus Hurricane Helene’s deadly fury on Republican voters in the South.

This Wednesday, Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. got into the act in a tweet criticizing Kamala Harris’ response to a story that Trump wanted “the kind of generals that Hitler had”:

“It’s particularly ironic since Biden/Harris have just pushed through DoD Directive 5240.01 giving the Pentagon power—for the first time in history—to use lethal force to kill Americans on U.S. soil who protest government policies.”

By Wednesday evening, his post on X had 5.6 million views.

Joseph Nunn, a lawyer with the Liberty & National Security program at the nonpartisan Brennan Center for Justice, and a leading expert on domestic uses of the military, had a clear response to the social media storm.

“There’s nothing here,” he said. “People like Michael Flynn should know how to read a DOD directive.”

Contrary to claims online, DOD Directive 5240.01, which had last been updated in 2020, does not grant any new powers to the military. That’s not how military directives work. Like them or not, all military policies are subject to U.S. law; they do not create new legal authorities.

Directive 5240.01 has a narrow focus: It only addresses military intelligence, and the section that has circulated online specifically deals with intelligence assistance to civilian law enforcement.

The paragraph that contains the term “lethal force” refers to a requirement that the Secretary of Defense—the highest level of the Defense Department—must now authorize military intelligence assistance to civilian law enforcement when lethal force might be involved.

“This is not an independent source of authority,” Nunn said. “We really should look at this as an administrative safeguard that is being put in place.”

Military intelligence has long been authorized to provide assistance to federal law enforcement agencies, as well as state and local law enforcement when lives are endangered, under limited circumstances. That could include providing technical expertise or helping with international anti-terrorism or counter-narcotics operations, for instance.

“A reference to lethal force in a directive like this doesn’t mean they’re planning to have snipers on rooftops in covert ops,” said Nunn, who has written on limiting the role of the military in law enforcement. “The nature of law enforcement will sometimes involve the use of lethal force.”

In its response to The War Horse, the Pentagon said the directive’s update was “in no way timed in relation to the election or any other event.”

“Reissuing 5240.01 was part of normal business of the Department to periodically update guidance and policy,” the DOD’s Gough said.

The Defense Department has issued or revised 10 other directives and instructions since it updated “5240.01” at the end of September, ranging from a policy on space-related military activities to guidance on public affairs’ officers use of military vehicles.

“It’s not unusual to update DOD regulations,” says Risa Brooks, a political science professor at Marquette University and a former senior fellow at West Point’s Modern War Institute. “It doesn’t signal some nefarious agenda.”

The update to “5240.01” brings the policy in line with other Defense Department directives. One of those is known as DOD Directive 5210.56—an entirely different Defense Department directive than the one updated last month. It lays out rules when troops across the military can use lethal force outside of military operations, limiting it to “imminent threat of death or serious bodily harm” or to protect critical national security assets.

Posts online, including the one that Flynn shared, claim that Directive 5240.01 runs afoul of a legal statute known as posse comitatus. The Posse Comitatus Act, which dates back to Reconstruction, generally forbids military troops from acting as domestic police. Civil liberty experts consider it an important civil rights protection against possible military overreach.

Despite the conspiracy claims spreading online, the directive clearly states that military intelligence units assisting civilian police must consider the Posse Comitatus Act.

“The updated issuance remains consistent with DoD’s adherence to the Posse Comitatus Act, commitment to civil rights, and support of other safeguards in place for the protection of the American people,” Gough said.

Spreading misinformation about the military can be particularly damaging “to the relationship between the military and the public,” Brooks told The War Horse.

“This sort of politicization, this idea of sowing mistrust in the military in order to gain partisan advantage, is really corrosive,” Brooks said. “There’s a motive. There’s something to be gained by spreading these rumors.”

Ironically, however, Rep. Harris, the Republican congressman, was right about one thing when he claimed that if Kamala Harris wins, she “could declare national emergency and literally call out the Army in the United States.” That’s because any president, regardless of party, has the power to mobilize military troops against American citizens in certain circumstances. Only one candidate—Trump—in this year’s presidential election has outright suggested it.

But that presidential power isn’t granted by a random military policy. It’s granted by the Insurrection Act.

A law nearly as old as the country itself, the act gives a president essentially unilateral authority to temporarily suspend the Posse Comitatus Act and call on military troops to suppress domestic rebellions. The law effectively leaves it up to the president to decide what constitutes a rebellion.

“There are essentially zero procedural safeguards in the Insurrection Act,” Nunn says.

During his first administration, Trump and his allies reportedly considered invoking the Insurrection Act both during the 2020 Black Lives Matter protests and again after he lost his re-election bid. And legal experts say that any follow through on Trump’s increasingly frequent threats to use the military domestically, including against “radical left lunatics,” would likely come through an invocation of the Insurrection Act.

Republicans are saying that the real misinformation is being peddled by Democrats. They claim the Harris-Walz campaign is taking out of context Trump’s comments from his Oct. 13 interview with Fox News’ Maria Bartiromo, with some suggesting he was referring to undocumented migrants or to only deploying the military in a national security crisis.

Here is the full quote from Trump when Bartiromo asked if he “expected chaos on election day” from “outside agitators,” including “Chinese nationals,” “people on terrorist watch lists,” “murderers,” and “rapists”:

“I think the bigger problem is the enemy from within, not even the people who have come in, destroying our country—and by the way, totally destroying our country, the towns, the villages, they’re being inundated.

“But I don’t think they’re the problem in terms of Election Day. I think the bigger problem are the people from within, we have some very bad people, we have some sick people, radical left lunatics.

“And it should be very easily handled by, if necessary, by National Guard, or if really necessary, by the military, because they can’t let that happen.”

And here is the service Señor Randall provides. If he wasn't plumbing the depths of alternate reality we might have to, if we wanted to know what the fuck goes on down there at the bottom of the fever swamp.

Now, maybe it's better not to know how rube the denizens of the swamp are. But then again maybe it is a good thing. Maybe we need to know what the crazed miscreants like Flynn are feeding the rubes.

And in closing, thank you for your debt service rubes.

[twocoach]

Read up on the DOD directive 5240.01 if you need answers. And explain why they would make that change 2 weeks before an election

They have been making updates and changes to that document since at least 2008. Here is when they posted some updates to it back in 2016

https://www.aclu.org/documents/dod-manu ... activities

Here is a breakdown of the recent changes. What does your tinfoil hat website that put this on your radar have a problem with?

https://irp.fas.org/doddir/dod/m5240_01_fs.pdf

Major changes to the manual include updated definitions for “collection” and “publicly available
information” and new rules for DoD intelligence components regarding retention of U.S. person
information (USPI); hosting or participating in shared data repositories; and conducting physical
searches.

• Definition of “collection”: One of the key changes to the manual is how we define “collection.”
“Collection” is defined in the revised procedures as occurring “upon receipt,” which differs from the previous version of the manual, which defined “collection” as occurring when the information was “officially accept[ed] … for use.”
This is an important clarification that ensures that all of the protections in the guidelines, including protections governing the retention of USPI, apply to information upon receipt. This framework establishes better accountability of the information maintained by DoD and is consistent with how agencies define collection for all federal records. Because information is deemed collected upon receipt, while information must be promptly evaluated, the retention periods that could apply to unevaluated information are longer than the 90-day period that applied under the previous guidelines, where information could be held for a longer period until it was affirmatively evaluated for use by DoD. As discussed below, the retention periods specifically account for different types of collection activities.
• New rules governing the protection and evaluation of information for permanent retention: The procedures now establish maximum evaluation periods that are based on how information is collected. The procedures require that, at the end of the maximum evaluation period, USPI and information that may incidentally include USPI is deleted from intelligence databases unless affirmatively determined to meet the criteria for permanent retention. The procedures include other enhanced safeguards and protections that apply during the evaluation period. These include access rules and query rules
beyond those included in the old procedures.
• Special collection: To address those collections where privacy and civil liberties interests may be heightened, the manual now includes a new collection category of "special circumstances" collections. Special circumstances collections require consideration of additional handling safeguards based on the volume, proportion, and sensitivity of the USPI, and the intrusiveness of the collection method. These new “special circumstances” rules require an accountable senior intelligence official to make specific decisions about the intelligence value of the collection. The new rules also enhance the protection of USPI as the manual requires new considerations and protections if special circumstances exist.
• Shared repositories: The manual creates new rules for shared data repositories when a DoD intelligence component is the host of or a participant in a shared repository, and it provides guidance for dissemination of USPI within and outside the DoD to meet intelligence community information sharing requirements. These provisions reflect post 9/11 policy recommendations and Executive Branch policy decisions to enhance the sharing of information across the intelligence community.
• Publicly available information: Obtaining publicly available information is one of the least intrusive collection methods available to DoD intelligence components. The manual clarifies the definition of “publicly available” and adds context to several of its provisions by providing a more detailed characterization of what “publicly available” means, recognizing the policy issues raised by the Internet and new technology.
• New physical search rules: The manual also incorporates new rules regarding physical searches to reflect changes to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act since 1982, including the requirement to obtain a FISA warrant for nonconsensual physical searches within the United States and for targeted collection of U.S. person information outside the United States.

[twocoach]

I wonder if I don't need to pay more attention to Charlamagne:

I agree with everything he said there. CNN has lost their way bending over backwards to try to seem "fair and impartial". They nitpick every weird thing of Harris while ignoring a huge volume of outrageously dangerous comments made by Trump.

[randylahey]

I wonder if I don't need to pay more attention to Charlamagne:

I agree with everything he said there. CNN has lost their way bending over backwards to try to seem "fair and impartial". They nitpick every weird thing of Harris while ignoring a huge volume of outrageously dangerous comments made by Trump.

For the first time in years they are doing real reporting. Their ratings had suffered so much they had to start. They are just finally again asking fair and honest questions of democrats that average Americans want to know answers to. The media has grilled trump much harder the past decade than what harris is finally seeing