Jeff Clark says yes the new Military Directive to use force on civilians in the US is real and is dangerous. He wrote this 18 page brief of what it means to the US and what could happen and what we have to do. First two pages of the document below. Document attached, dig in Anons
Directive 5240.01: A Threat to American Liberty By: Jeffrey Clark
Summary:The Pentagon adopted, just a month and a half ago, a new directive in the run-up to the 2024 presidential election thatauthorizes military-intelligence agents to use lethal force against the American people in connection with political unrestthat, in many instances, would be protected First Amendment activity.
Mainstream media and progressive media defending the Biden-Harris Administration have tried to waive away concerns about this new directive, which puts American civil liberties at grave risk (especially of the conservative/populist variety).The new directive does revise an older directive but, as explained below, the changes reduce protections for liberty and for activity designed to lead to political or policy change.
Additionally, drones can be used toexercise such force, as can secret contractors and security personnel, who may not even be aware they are acting under the direction of military authorities. Cover plans and obscured contracts can be used to augment military-intelligence assets.
Congressional oversight, stricter media scrutinyto bring these important matters to the attention of the American people, and Executive Branch reform depending on the outcome of the 2024 election are all justified here.
Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty.1
Introduction
One reason why the treaty power was granted to the President (subject to the check of the Senate to concur by a two-thirds majority of the Senators present) is intelligence-based. In other words, theFramers thought it essential that the President could make use of intelligence—i.e., of spying and related analysis—to negotiate and make such treaties. John Jay, perhaps the least known of the authors of the Federalist Papers, well knew this truth and he made it central to his defense of the Treaty Clause, U.S. Const., art. II, § 2, cl. 2, in Federalist 64.
In making it part of the defense of the Treaty Clause, Jay set forth a broader rationale for the use of intelligence gathering and spycraft tools. Jay’s theory was thatspying should be externally focused, so that it could help arrange foreign affairs to the exclusive benefit of the United States of America.
It seldom happens in the negotiation of treaties, of whatever nature, but that perfect SECRECY and immediate DESPATCH are sometimes requisite. …
The [constitutional] convention have done well, therefore, in so disposing of the power of making treaties, that although the President must, in forming them, act by the advice and consent of the Senate, yet he will be able to manage the business of intelligence in such a manner as prudence may suggest. …
But as to internal affairs, Jay does not emphasize that spying is required…
With that background in Constitutional theory and its objectives concerning intelligence, it becomes clear the structural incentives implied by Pentagon Directive 5240.01, released just a few months ago, represent risks too great to be tolerated in a free society.To demonstrate that Pentagon Directive 5240.01 reflects dangerous innovations in the use of intelligence, turning the eyes and power of the state against American citizens at home, this paper is divided into the following sections:
Part Iexplains what Pentagon Directive 5240.01 (hereafter “The 2024 Directive”) provides and how it changed as against a prior version of the directive as issued in 2016. See DOD DIRECTIVE 5240.01: DOD Intelligence and Intelligence-Related Activities and Defense Intelligence Component Assistance to Law Enforcement Agencies and Other Civil Authorities (Sept. 27, 2024).
Part IIresponds to the attempts by the Pentagon and othersto defend The 2024 Directive as “no big deal,” as par for the course.
Part III explains how various parts of The 2024 Directive could be abusedand how it might essentially constitute “retconning” of activities that the intelligence community may have already made use of.
https://americarenewing.com/issues/directive-5240-01-a-threat-to-american-liberty/