Dept of defense: effective sept 27 (for upcoming civil unrest)

[5GallonBucket]

This is the hidden content, please

• Sign In
• or
• Sign Up

 

I tried to copy and paste the section that catches my attention, but it wouldn’t let me.

read section 3.3, especially 3.3 c

kathleen hicks deputy secretary of defense….another dei hire🤔

 

like to get @tvc184 thoughts

 

[5GallonBucket]

Sorry. It’s actually 3.3. 2c

[UT alum]

2 hours ago, 5GallonBucket said:

This is the hidden content, please

• Sign In
• or
• Sign Up

 

I tried to copy and paste the section that catches my attention, but it wouldn’t let me.

read section 3.3, especially 3.3 c

kathleen hicks deputy secretary of defense….another dei hire🤔

 

like to get @tvc184 thoughts

 

Is any woman or minority a DEI hire to you?

[5GallonBucket]

1 hour ago, UT alum said:

Is any woman or minority a DEI hire to you?

Go figure

No.

dont get upset and try to peg someone a certain way when one questions a hire for something your party created.

I just want the most qualified no matter race or gender(which there is only 2)

 

[thetragichippy]

2 hours ago, UT alum said:

Is any woman or minority a DEI hire to you?

Depends on the hiring method....When Biden said his VP would be a woman of color.......BAM, DEI hire

If a company hires a woman of color based on their qualifications, that would NOT be a DEI hire......

I think the difference is caveman simple

[tvc184]

5 hours ago, 5GallonBucket said:

Sorry. It’s actually 3.3. 2c

What do you want to know, the apparent intent?

[5GallonBucket]

20 hours ago, tvc184 said:

What do you want to know, the apparent intent?

Is this different than prior policies…..intelligence gathering….to now adding direct lethal involvement.
 

I just found it worrisome.  I know national guard has been called in in the past….la riots, Detroit 67

 

[tvc184]

23 minutes ago, 5GallonBucket said:

Is this different than prior policies…..intelligence gathering….to now adding direct lethal involvement.
 

I just found it worrisome.  I know national guard has been called in in the past….la riots, Detroit 67

 

I “think” the intelligence gathering is the authority to pass on intel information to local authorities. Prior to 9-11 and even now, some of the possible critical information isn’t readily shared. Some of these DoD memorandums mentioned in the section that you cited go back to 2005 so in that era. Having been in federal task force operations in my career, I have been given extremely limited intelligence due to my position at the time. I believe that this opens it up a bit to share a little more information a little easier. 

 The deadly force appears (after reading additional linked documents) to be authorized to protect DoD and federal institutions/properties. It also says to support state/local law enforcement at their request.

Certainly the National Guard has state policing authority under the governor (unless activated into federal duty by the president). I don’t think this DoD document authorizes the DoD to independently act with National Guard authority if that was your question. 

[thetragichippy]

1 hour ago, tvc184 said:

I don’t think this DoD document authorizes the DoD to independently act with National Guard authority if that was your question. 

I just had a faaaaaar right guy try and tell me this was authorizing the federal government to use lethal force on "perceived" threats.....

I would not be surprised if this guy has a fall out shelter under his garage

[tvc184]

2 hours ago, thetragichippy said:

I just had a faaaaaar right guy try and tell me this was authorizing the federal government to use lethal force on "perceived" threats.....

I would not be surprised if this guy has a fall out shelter under his garage

Might be a safe bet! 🤣🤣🤣

[tvc184]

On 10/18/2024 at 4:22 PM, thetragichippy said:

I just had a faaaaaar right guy try and tell me this was authorizing the federal government to use lethal force on "perceived" threats.....

I would not be surprised if this guy has a fall out shelter under his garage

Here you go if you want a Youtube video about it. I am sure the black helicopters are circling this guy and he has a bomb shelter….

Bear in mind, I am on his side of the fence. I believe the federal government is corrupt and they have their interest way more than an our interest at heart. What does this directive (by an only assistant secretary) give the president or a governor that doesn’t already exist? 

So let’s play our favorite game, what if.

 What if, as the guy implies, the government (Democrats) are preparing to steal the election and they are preparing for a possible armed backlash. Basically, the government knows it will start massive protests and potentially an attempt to overthrow the government.

Okay.

 The guy in the video even agrees that it is to assist the local or state police. If the local or state police need help, the governor already has a 100% authority to send in the National Guard, which is any effect is the United States Army, but who have not been federalized. Remember that many of the troops who fought in the Gulf Wars were National Guard units. 

So there has almost always been (for over 100 years) the authority to bring in federal troops but under the direction of the governor. In fact the Washington DC police chief testified under oath that he contacted Nancy Pelosi three times to get the DC National Guard in place before January 6, 2021. So they could have had federally trained troops on the ground but did not however that is a different topic.

Remember that the Kent State massacre where four students were killed by the National Guard, was the Ohio state governor calling in the military to quell the riots. It wasn’t the federal government.

Less than two weeks later the same thing happened at Jackson State College (now University) where two Black students were killed and 12 injured but by the state police (much lesser known than Kent State, almost certainly due to race). Again it was not the federal government but the state which brought in manpower and they again could have had the governor call in the National Guard.

So assuming that this is an attempt to justify the use of force by the military, that already exists.

This guy and others might be thinking of the Posse Comitatus Act which prohibits the use of the US military as state civilian law enforcement. That is why the National Guard is under state control and they CAN act as civilian state law enforcement. The Posse Comalitatus Act does NOT however prevent the use of the US military in open rebellion. Basically if a civil war or open rebellion starts, the US military has the authority to be used by the president. He/she doesn’t need the permission of a directive by the Assistant Secretary of Defense. That is ludicrous.

So if the governor can already call in federal troops under the name of the National Guard and the president already has the authority to use the military to put down an open rebellion… what does this DoD directive by an assistant secretary authorize that doesn’t already exist?

Anyway, here is the short video of at least one person who may be referred to as a source.

 

 

[5GallonBucket]

On 10/19/2024 at 10:53 PM, tvc184 said:

So if the governor can already call in federal troops under the name of the National Guard and the president already has the authority to use the military to put down an open rebellion… what does this DoD directive by an assistant secretary authorize that doesn’t already exist?

So what was the purpose of putting the directive out there then?

[tvc184]

3 hours ago, 5GallonBucket said:

So what was the purpose of putting the directive out there then?

Re-issuing an expired (-ing) directive.

 The directive is in the name of the Deputy Director of Defense… the DDoD. Does the president really teally 

Remember Trump tax cuts expire in 2025. If they extend them, do we ask why the tax cuts are being extended?

I didn’t find any reference on n the directive to using simply using deadly force. 

 The directive says, deadly force can be used and in the next sentence it says….. IF IF IF …. Directive 5210.56 is followed.

I wonder how many people actually read directly 5210.56. The use of force directive has been in place for several years. 

[5GallonBucket]

6 hours ago, tvc184 said:

Re-issuing an expired (-ing) directive.

 The directive is in the name of the Deputy Director of Defense… the DDoD. Does the president really teally 

Remember Trump tax cuts expire in 2025. If they extend them, do we ask why the tax cuts are being extended?

I didn’t find any reference on n the directive to using simply using deadly force. 

 The directive says, deadly force can be used and in the next sentence it says….. IF IF IF …. Directive 5210.56 is followed.

I wonder how many people actually read directly 5210.56. The use of force directive has been in place for several years. 

Gotcha. I just assumed something like that(safety procedures) wouldn’t expire necessarily but needed updates.

learned something new

[tvc184]

1 hour ago, 5GallonBucket said:

Gotcha. I just assumed something like that(safety procedures) wouldn’t expire necessarily but needed updates.

learned something new

👍🏼
 

I have no clue what their protocol is but when we got a new chief (5 times in 37 years) of police, all previous directives or orders in our Directive Manual were basically null and void.

Of course policies, procedures, regulations, directives, etc. don’t just go away like we had no rules. The new chief orders that all previous orders stand in place until reviewed but the new chief has to review and reissue all policies, directives and so on. Basically you sign that you will follow his orders, not the orders of a chief of police 20 years ago. Within a couple of months we would have a new Directives Manual with each order individually signed for. I would have about a three inch thick binder with all new orders. 

[tvc184]

1 hour ago, 5GallonBucket said:

Gotcha. I just assumed something like that(safety procedures) wouldn’t expire necessarily but needed updates.

learned something new

In a similar way, think of Biden’s first day in office where he issued new executive orders such as shutting down thousands of square miles of the Gulf of Mexico to oil exploration, ending the Keystone Pipeline project which was well on its way to completion, rescinded the closed border and many other directives. 

[5GallonBucket]

55 minutes ago, tvc184 said:

In a similar way, think of Biden’s first day in office where he issued new executive orders such as shutting down thousands of square miles of the Gulf of Mexico to oil exploration, ending the Keystone Pipeline project which was well on its way to completion, rescinded the closed border and many other directives. 

👍

[Big girl]

On 10/17/2024 at 12:48 PM, UT alum said:

Is any woman or minority a DEI hire to you?

Yep

[baddog]

1 minute ago, Big girl said:

Yep

Nope.