In France, protesters have gone to jail together with people who posted ongoings on social media that conflicted with the official government tagline.
Could this happen in America?
This crossed my desk today, and I found a good analysis on this subject, for your consideration.
The Rebel Patient™ is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.
How I read this: With the elections coming up, let's not give the Feds any reason to join with local law enforcement to do what they want for 72 hours before getting official permission to use deadly force against Americans, due to a perceived “imminent threat”.
The below analysis also discusses that the “Department of Homeland Security has a definition for ‘expansion of what constitutes domestic terrorism’. The DHS has flagged individuals questioning COVID-19 origins, vaccine efficacy, or election integrity as potential threats.”
They may target Americans who exercise their freedom of speech, complain about getting the next jab, question its effectiveness, protest against election results, and/or post on social media about anything the government disagrees with.
We have already covered two stories on “Feds” showing up to ask questions about social media posts, and have a discussion about what to do if the FBI shows up at your door. See below.
I have included my highlights on page 13, as well as the entire 22-page document.
Imagine waking up to discover that the U.S. military has quietly been granted the authority to assist in domestic law enforcement activities—includingthe use of lethal force against U.S. citizensin certain circumstances. Now consider that this change was enacted just weeks before an election, already surrounded by concerns about unrest, civil liberties, and potential government overreach. This is the reality of DoD Directive 5240.01, reissued on September 27, 2024.
Quick Summary
New provisions: The updated directive expands the circumstances under which the DoD can assist law enforcement, including the use of lethal force.
Assassination explicitly forbidden: While assassination is banned, the new language allows for lethal actions under “imminent threats.”
Concerns about civil liberties: The expanded definition of “national security threats” is raising alarms, particularly given DHS’s broader definition of domestic terrorism threats.
High-level approval required: Any intelligence-sharing that could lead to lethal force must be approved by the Secretary of Defense, but Component Heads can act immediately for up to 72 hours before obtaining approval.
Introduction
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, albeit with stringent restrictions on how such interventions are to be authorized.
This directive, reissued under the authority of the Secretary of Defense as per standard Department of Defense procedures, carries significant weight in shaping military operations and intelligence activities. While DoD Directives are typically internal policy documents, the implications of this particular update extend far beyond the walls of the Pentagon, potentially affecting civilian life and constitutional rights.
A Quiet Update With Loud Implications
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.
The Differences Between the 2016 and 2024 Versions
1. Focus of the 2016 Version
The 2016 version of the directive did not mention the use of lethal force. Instead, it focused on:
Civil liberties protections: Ensuring strict oversight for operations involving U.S. citizens.
Intelligence collection restrictions: Limiting when and how U.S. person’s information (USPI) could be collected.
Privacy safeguards: Protecting privacy rights and preventing unauthorized data collection.
The 2016 directive centered around intelligence gathering, with no mention of lethal force.
2. New Provisions in the 2024 Version
The 2024 update introduces a dramatic shift, particularly regarding domestic operations. Section 3.3.a.(2)(c) now explicitly permits lethal force in cases of imminent threats or national security emergencies, provided the action complies with legal oversight, specifically DoDD 5210.56, which governs the use of deadly force by DoD personnel.
Key updates include:
Use of lethal force: The directive allows military intelligence components to assist law enforcement in operations that involve lethal force.
Conditions for force: The directive specifies lethal force can be used under conditions involving imminent threats.
Legal oversight: Any use of lethal force must comply with DoDD 5210.56, ensuring proper legal frameworks are followed.
Framing the 2024 Directive as a Restriction, Not an Expansion
Although the directive expands the DoD’s powers, some interpret it as more restrictive than it appears. Section 3.3 places tight limitations on when intelligence-sharing can occur and requires approval from the Secretary of Defense before any action involving lethal force is taken. The requirement for high-level approval may serve as a check on potential misuse of military force.
The 72-Hour Provision: A Time-Sensitive Response Mechanism
Paragraph 3.5 introduces a 72-hour provision, allowing Component Heads to provide immediate intelligence assistance in time-sensitive circumstances without prior approval from the Under Secretary of Defense for Intelligence and Security (USD I&S) or the Secretary of Defense (SECDEF).
Key points:
Immediate action: Component Heads can act in situations where time constraints prevent obtaining prior approval.
Relevance to lethal force: This applies in scenarios where lethal force might be necessary to prevent imminent harm.
72-hour limit: The authority is valid for up to 72 hours, after which formal approval is required.
Immediate reporting: Component Heads must report their actions to the USD I&S and SECDEF.
Approval required for continuation: Any further assistance must be formally approved beyond the initial 72 hours.
Why Timing Matters: Implications for the 2024 Elections
The timing of this update—just six weeks before the election—raises concerns. With debates surrounding election integrity, civil unrest, and political manipulation, the expanded powers granted by the directive could lead to military intervention in domestic affairs if civil unrest arises.
The expanded role of the military in domestic affairs, as allowed by the updated directive, raises several civil liberties concerns:
Right to protest: There are fears that expanded authority could suppress legitimate protests.
Privacy rights: Increased military involvement in domestic intelligence gathering could infringe on privacy.
Due process: The military’s role in law enforcement could bypass standard due process protections.
Freedom of speech: The broad definition of “national security threats” could target individuals for their political beliefs.
Civilian control: The expanded military role could erode civilian oversight of the military.
Constitutional Crossroads: Fundamental Rights at Stake
The recent reissuance of DoD Directive 5240.01 represents a significant legal shift that could potentially compromise core Constitutional protections that we hold dear. This directive opens the door to scenarios that may threaten these freedoms:
Challenging the Posse Comitatus Act: This Act traditionally limits the powers of the federal government in using military personnel for domestic law enforcement. The new DoD directive, by permitting the use of lethal force through military assistance in civilian law enforcement, may push the boundaries of these limitations.
Potential First Amendment Concerns: Natural health advocates and others exercising their First Amendment rights, such as questioning the government’s response to COVID-19 or the integrity of elections, have been labeled as potential domestic extremists and/or terrorists by some agencies. This directive could expand those classifications into scenarios involving lethal force interventions, potentially chilling free speech under the guise of national security.
Fourth Amendment Considerations: This directive also allows intelligence sharing between military and law enforcement under emergency conditions, raising questions about the right to privacy and the potential for expanded surveillance.
Due Process Implications (Fifth Amendment): The possibility of military use of lethal force in domestic scenarios introduces concerns about how due process protections might be maintained before potentially life-altering decisions are made.
These Constitutional considerations underscore the far-reaching implications of the directive and highlight the urgent need for public scrutiny and debate.
Conclusion: A Shift Toward Militarization of Domestic Affairs
The 2024 update to DoD Directive 5240.01 represents a significant shift in the military’s role in domestic law enforcement. While proponents argue that high-level approvals add oversight, critics see it as an expansion of military power in domestic affairs.
As the election approaches, maintaining a balance between national security and individual rights becomes ever more crucial. The implications of this directive may reshape the relationship between military power and civilian governance in the U.S. All the more reason why the conspicuous absence of reporting on the subject is further concerning, and why open, public debate on this change of DoD policy should be engaged as soon as possible. We hope this article contributes towards that goal.
My Source: https://m.beforeitsnews.com/entertainment/2024/10/dod-directive-5240-01-the-stealth-expansion-of-military-intelligence-powers-in-life-or-death-domestic-scenarios-2680723.html
Thanks for reading The Rebel Patient™! This post is public so feel free to share it.
This violation of the First Amendment happened yesterday. It is not the first time “FBI agents” harassed a private individual on their home property for alleged “posts”.
These are the best articles that I could find on the topic of what to do if the FBI shows up at your home, both from law offices. The key takeaway points are not to let them inside without a warrant, don’t talk to them without an attorney present, and stay calm (put them on video). If you have a home security camera at your front door, be sure they are on camera and you are not blocking it.
Thank you for reading, sharing, and supporting my writings! God bless you and keep you! May His face shine down upon you and bring you His peace and love! 💗
The Rebel Patient™ is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.
Isn’t that just convenient timing?! Let’s add that Jamie Raskin has been running around making sure he’s heard and on videos, saying they plan on disqualifying Trump if he were to win, on signing day! Also, they will be prepared for “civil war” conditions when they do!! That’s BLATANTLY inciting violence! Why isn’t the FBI showing up on his doorstep harassing him?!? Oh wait! Because it’s called a DOUBLE STANDARD! They’ve wanted and pushed the narrative of civil war since they began systematically dividing this nation based on racism, and it’s grown to include antisemitism, unjabbed, and a laundry list of other issues! Unfortunately, they’ve done a good job at it! As in Jan6, they’ll send their weaponized agencies to pose as his supporters and create another “insurrection”. The writing is on the proverbial wall, and this newest action is not a surprise at all! They’re taking necessary steps to ensure this happens! If we even get to the actual election, it’ll be what’s waiting. I continue to be amazed at the utter blindness of the sheeple!
OK you've explained the problem, but what are we going to do about it?
We're constantly behind the curve on things
like this, and left-wing civil rights groups like the ACLU are not going to care until it's their people who are getting hurt and killed by
the very same government SS that they
accuse Trump of promoting.
Isn’t that just convenient timing?! Let’s add that Jamie Raskin has been running around making sure he’s heard and on videos, saying they plan on disqualifying Trump if he were to win, on signing day! Also, they will be prepared for “civil war” conditions when they do!! That’s BLATANTLY inciting violence! Why isn’t the FBI showing up on his doorstep harassing him?!? Oh wait! Because it’s called a DOUBLE STANDARD! They’ve wanted and pushed the narrative of civil war since they began systematically dividing this nation based on racism, and it’s grown to include antisemitism, unjabbed, and a laundry list of other issues! Unfortunately, they’ve done a good job at it! As in Jan6, they’ll send their weaponized agencies to pose as his supporters and create another “insurrection”. The writing is on the proverbial wall, and this newest action is not a surprise at all! They’re taking necessary steps to ensure this happens! If we even get to the actual election, it’ll be what’s waiting. I continue to be amazed at the utter blindness of the sheeple!