clay_pidgin@sh.itjust.works 3 weeks ago
First off this is only relevant to Defense Intelligence. 3.3 starts with “subject to paragraph 3.1” which describes the already-existing laws they are required to follow, such as Posse Comitatus. 3.3 also says a thing that might potentially be lethal requires SecDef approval.
All of this is further restricted by DOD policy 5210.56 which has what seem to me are extremely sensible rules regarding use of force during investigative / law enforcement duties. www.esd.whs.mil/Portals/54/…/521056p.PDF?ver=PIvI…
This document is replacing the previous policy from 1982 under president Reagan which is very similar but with less detail. www.esd.whs.mil/Portals/54/…/524001r.pdf
None of this looks unusual or inflammatory to me. Would you rather the DOD NOT have written policies limiting the use of force?
the_toast_is_gone@lemmy.world 3 weeks ago
What assets which are equipped to kill civilians and accessible to DoD intelligence would be described in any way other than “soldiers”? The difference seems like semantics to me. And we have the Third Amendment, which has been used to justify the military not interfering in the affairs of the civilian population. Providing intelligence to law enforcement is one thing, but sending men to kill people is a huge escalation.