All Episodes
Previous Next
Oct. 14, 2024 - Ron Paul Liberty Report
26:12
DoD Permission To Use Lethal Force Against AMERICANS?

Just in time for the election! A new Defense Department directive spells out the scenarios whereby the Defense Secretary can put US troops on US soil in situations where lethal force may be required. Also today: Biden rushes US troops into Israel's war on Lebanon...without Congress! Finally: Record low numbers are registering for Selective Service...we wonder why!

|

Time Text
Authorities Weigh In 00:06:59
Hello, everybody, and thank you for tuning in to the Liberty Report.
With us today, we have Daniel McAdams, our co-host.
Daniel, good to see you.
Good morning, Dr. Paul.
How are you this morning?
Good, ready and rare to go.
Yes, Monday morning.
You better check.
Maybe all the problems have been solved.
Maybe we have nothing to talk about.
Back to bed.
Big choice is, what do we talk about today?
Are they going to do anything good?
We keep looking for those good things.
You know, if you think about it, we haven't had too many opportunities to say, you know what's happening?
But we'll find something that's a good news story.
If nothing else, what I usually resort to is saying, that is so bad, so evil, that'll wake up the people.
But sometimes that doesn't even happen.
But we want to start off with a headline from Zero Hedge.
It's a pretty hot headline.
U.S. military now is authorized to kill Americans on U.S. soil.
That can't be possible.
Then I thought, after we talked about this a little bit, I said, well, you know, it's a big deal.
Except I'm afraid they've been doing that for a long time.
When you think of the abuses, civil liberties and all the dumb policies have, how many died at the hands of stupid government policy over COVID?
But that's over the top.
You can't say that they have a responsibility.
And that's on American soil.
But what if we went to how many deaths have been killed by our foreign policy?
Civilians, Americans, and foreigners?
A couple.
But right now, this is a step.
It's bold.
It's bold.
Now authorized, and there's been some changes made in the law that says this.
So I think this is a bad thing.
I think it's another one of those point in history that it was acknowledged and it will get worse.
And to me, that is it's now official to have a police state.
You know, if we're not going to even pretend that we're not supposed to have a police state, we're not supposed to have the Army policing our neighborhoods.
That's what local policies were like in states and the whole works.
But this is this more, you know, canceled it out.
This would open up the door for the careless use and if more frequent and legal.
It'll be legal now, so nobody will have to worry about that.
Send in the troops.
We need you to shoot a couple of these people.
They're opposing our policies.
They're demonstrating against COVID rules or something they'll come up with.
So I think it's very, very dangerous.
And hopefully people wake up.
Maybe people will say, well, this was just a political stunt for the campaign or something like that to act tough.
But I tell you what, sometimes they come up and nobody warned us that they were going to do this.
It wasn't discussed in the Congress and it's been sitting there.
The main thing that most people should have known about is that you're not supposed to use the federal military to enforce laws.
Yeah, honestly, when you first sent it over, I started over the weekend.
I was looking at it and I thought, surely this is a hysterical exaggeration.
This guy, you can actually put up that first link if you can in a second when you get back over there.
But I thought for sure this was someone just kind of, you know, a little bit too conspiratorial.
So here it is.
Now, Zero Hedge picked it up from Armageddon Pros, which is a substack which they often run.
It says, U.S. military now authorized to kill Americans on U.S. soil.
Just ahead, intriguingly, of November elections, and that was my second thought.
The military has granted itself permission to unleash lethal force on the civilian population.
Again, I thought this has got to be an exaggeration.
So I went and looked and actually go to the next one because this explains what it is.
Now, it's not a law, it's a DOD directive.
So this is, you know, the whole administrative state where they take over.
They don't pass laws.
They are laws unto themselves.
Go to the next one if you can, because this is what they're talking about.
And I went in and I read this secondly.
And it talks about a reissued DOD directive that was reissued just on September 27th, 2024.
It governs the Department of Defense intelligence activities and now includes provisions authorizing lethal force in certain circumstances.
And it supplants the 2016 version, which did not mention that.
So I read all of this too, which is someone else's analysis.
I said, okay, this sounds even more troubling.
I want to go look at the document itself.
And so go to the next one.
I actually went and looked at the DOD directive.
It's DOD Directive 5240.01, DOD intelligence and intelligence-related activities and defense intelligence component assistance to law enforcement agencies, et cetera, et cetera, and other civil authorities, September 27th.
Now go to the next one.
I'm just going to get to this really quick so I can, just so people, this is on their own website.
Now, this is section 3 of that directive: assistance to law enforcement agencies and other civil authorities.
Now, go to the next one.
Now, this is levels of authority.
This is section 3.3.
Defense intelligence components may provide personnel to assist a federal department or agency, including a federal law enforcement agency or a state or local law enforcement agency when lives are in danger in response to such a request for such assistance in accordance with the following approval authorities.
Now, here are the authorities.
I'm sorry to get so far into the woods here, but go to the next one.
Now, you go down here to section C assistance in responding with assets with potential for lethality.
And I underlined this, I highlighted it, or any situation where it is reasonably foreseeable that providing the requested assistance may involve the use of force that is likely to result in lethal force, including death or serious bodily injury.
I'm sorry to bog the discussion down with that, Dr. Ball, but I really wanted to hone in on this as their actual document.
It's not just someone's analysis.
You know, both parties have used it, one party more than the other, and that is the use of violence like a target assassination.
A really, really bad guy.
And that was very bad.
It is very bad.
But this is something that's much broader.
This deals with like routine policing activity.
So I think it's a very, very dangerous thing.
Support Troops, Support Authoritarians? 00:05:00
But, you know, mixed in this is the weaponizing of the Department of Justice.
I mean, you say, well, that's just politics.
Yeah, you go after them on the IRS, send them after there, and I know.
But at times, that gets really carried away away.
People get in prison.
How about the people who are in prison over January?
That was my first thought, exactly.
I mean, that people died from that, and they will die.
And there will probably, you know, there'll probably be complications from all this.
But then again, you know, the regulations can be well-intended, but people make a mistake.
What about well-intended medical care and universal medical care coming from the federal government?
They've made a few mistakes over the years, but no, people have lost the confidence and they sort of yielded to the government.
And I hope, but it was reversed to a degree over the COVID thing.
And I'm just hoping they try to prevent this from getting any footing, though.
But it shouldn't go by, but it should be reversed.
The people should know about it.
That's why I'm hoping that, you know, once again, maybe the benefit of all this, it's calling attention to something that, you know, that they hesitate not for a minute.
The far left and the authoritarians, this is just a practical tool.
It's a useful tool.
And that's how you preserve democracy.
Yeah.
I think sometimes, you know, people, especially on the right, they get a little caught up in the jingoistic support the troops, support the troops.
They start waving the flags, and they think support the troops means support all the wars that the neocons put the troops into.
Well, this kind of will, I think, bring it home to them to understand these troops are going to be deployed against you, and there's not a darn thing they can do about it.
And we've watched, and we've talked about for the last three and a half years, longer than that even, the militarization of really every aspect of government, you know, and we've seen what's happened with the Defense Department, the politicization and militarization of it.
The big question is, what would put the most fear into the hearts of an American citizen?
An IRS agent knocking on their door or soldiers standing out front and knocking on the door or even knocking.
Or a weaponized drone.
You know, when it gets so broad and different ways of doing things, I try to simplify for my thinking.
It is you have people who are authoritarians and people who have heard of and should follow a set of rules called natural law and natural behavior and more peaceful means and changing things voluntarily.
But no, there's more people who are just willing to go along with this and the authoritarians.
This is just authoritarianism, a variety of it.
And they're doing it all the time, whether it's the IRS agents, Department of Justice, January 6th, people, imprisonment, and that to me is a sad set of affairs.
The only tool we have is combating the bad ideas with good ideas.
And fortunately, when people are exposed to the principles of liberty, they're very excited about it.
All they need is encouragement.
Yes, but how do you do it?
Well, you have to change people's mind.
That's the challenge.
I imagine the founders had a lot of second thoughts when they were thinking of taking on the British Empire.
And yet they did that without a gigantic army.
The size of the army didn't matter.
So that's why we should keep plugging away.
Well, here's what does matter, though.
It's directives versus laws.
Are we a country of laws or of administrative directives?
Now, this is a DOD directive.
Now, if you go to the Next clip.
This is the law.
This is part of U.S. code.
This is what the law says about deploying troops in potentially lethal situations against Americans.
This is called the Posse Comitatus Act.
And you mentioned before the show, you wonder how much young people know about this.
It may be a fact that they don't, unfortunately, but this is 18 U.S. Code 1385.
And let's read it together.
Whoever, except in cases and under circumstances expressly authorized by the Constitution or Act of Congress, willfully uses any part of the Army, Navy, the Marine Corps, the Air Force, or the Space Forces as a posse comitatus or otherwise to execute the laws shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than two years or both.
So doing these things are illegal.
I would suggest a member of Congress should ask for clarification on this.
What I would do is if I were a reporter and able to interview the candidates, and we were interviewing the two candidates for president, what is your position on posse comitatis?
Yeah, exactly.
Assassination Limits 00:07:00
Yeah.
And assassination.
Yeah, exactly.
To find when it's okay to assassinate Americans or non-Americans.
Well, we'll see, but you're right.
I mean, this seemed tailor-made for the January 6th type of thing.
Let's move on to the next one.
This is another big story, and it really kind of ties for the top story of the day.
And over the weekend, there was a lot more flaring up in Lebanon and Israel, a lot more fighting going on, a lot more people killed, a lot more slaughters.
Some Israelis were hit in a military facility over the weekend.
The response from the Pentagon was: okay, we're going to go ahead and get even further involved.
Now, you've got the anti-war.com write-up.
I've got the Zero Hedge write-up.
They're both essentially the same.
But put this next enough.
Here's the long and short of it.
And this is what's very important to keep in mind.
Some 100 troops will deploy in Israel to man anti-air batteries.
So on Saturday, we are among the first outlets, this is HEDS, to report that the U.S. is preparing to deploy FAD anti-ballistic missile systems in Israel.
And I underline this.
A major development which will put American troops directly in harm's way or boots on the ground in the showdown with Iran.
And it was reported on the New York Times.
So these 100 Americans are not observers like we had in Vietnam or advisors or anything.
These are 100 Americans who will be involved in shooting these missiles into Iran or into the air to protect against Iran, but whatever the case, actively engaged in combat against Iran or Lebanon.
You know, they pretend that we really don't have troops there at all.
And we'll never put troops on the ground, you know, sending in the troops.
But, you know, we put these special forces in, we put CIA agents in there and all the technology that we offer for them.
So we're very much engaged.
We can't escape the moral responsibility of what happens in so many of these places.
And this, though, is really qualifies for these are troops on the ground.
You know, they're in there.
In combat.
And in combat, shooting.
Oh, yeah, it's a little sophisticated.
They're not driving a tank, but they're driving something probably a lot more deadly.
And it sort of immunes them from looking at what exactly they're doing.
Oh, we're just looking at a screen here and telling people what to do, and we're directing these missiles.
But It's a representation of the permission that the people will allow our government to have to intervene every place in any place, and they don't really, the people so often aren't well versed in the Constitution, but there's a lack of interested in it.
There's been a conditioning over the decades, many decades, that the interpretation of the Constitution is not all that important.
You have to be not, you can't be unflexible.
You have to be flexible.
And, you know, the Constitution was made to be flexible.
Can't you amend it?
Yeah, but why do you have to wait so long?
So, what a tragedy.
But they've made these plans.
Matter of fact, they tested them a couple years ago over there.
But now it looks like now they're bolding and making an assumption.
And so you wouldn't expect anybody in the mainstream media.
In the old days, you'd have a progressive in the mainstream media.
But we don't have them.
We have progressives, but they're closer to what we're doing.
They have no place to go, so they come see us, and we understand.
America is sending these troops into harm's way into combat.
Put the next one on this is from the same article.
And I just, I highlighted this part because you can't emphasize it strongly enough.
This means that at least 100 American soldiers will be placed in positions likely to be targeted by another potential barrage of ballistic missiles from Iran.
At a moment, Israel is preparing its own counterattack in the wake of the October 1st strikes, which witnessed about 200 missiles sent on Israeli territory from the Islamic Republic.
Each full missile battery and associated systems cost American taxpayers a little bit of money, Dr. Paul, some $800 million to $1 billion.
So it's money, but it also, if you're sitting on a weapon that's firing against another country, you're a target.
These guys are sitting duck targets.
A lot of people die over this, and you say, well, what would it be like if you guys couldn't, you prevented us from getting involved there?
I mean, are you just going to let Israel be annihilated?
You know what?
I don't believe that.
I believe they would be more responsible to themselves, and they might make a bigger effort to get along with their neighbors.
And that's been known to happen.
I mean, it isn't a natural thing for the different religions and beliefs in the Middle East to fight to the death's end.
And that's what our money does.
So our money, the fact that I don't want to send money to Israel, and I don't want to send money to the Palestinians or anybody, that everybody would be better off, be less killing.
And I just think that that'd be a lot better world instead of bankrupting our country.
And how many people have died over our interventionist foreign policy?
It's so sad.
I don't even want to think about it.
But if you think about how many members of Congress hold stocks in the military-industrial complex.
Oh, they do.
I don't know if I knew about it.
They're making out like bandits on this.
That's important.
I wanted to just do a couple of tweets on this, Dr. Paul, just to give an idea of, first of all, it's putting American troops in harm's way, but it's also depleting our own defense needs.
If you put, I'll skip over that.
I want to put on the first Brian Berlett.
Now, Brian Berletic is a very astute observer.
He's a former U.S. Marine.
It's a tweet here.
There you go.
So this is a couple of important things about it.
Pentagon confirms one fad battery to deploy to Israel.
One battery has between six and nine launchers for a maximum of 72 missiles.
At two missiles per incoming target, one battery at full strength can be used against 36 incoming targets.
I would add here that the Iranians sent over 200.
So essentially, in a battle like we had a few, a week, a couple of weeks ago, it will be useless.
It's unlikely that one battery, Brian, continues, together with Israel's existing air defenses, will be enough to prevent a large-scale massive barrage from inflicting heavy carnate damage.
Finally, he says successive waves of missile will not only exhaust both Israeli and U.S. interceptors, it will leave the U.S. depleted for years to come.
Involuntary Draft Debate 00:05:39
And that's important, Dr. Paul.
We do not manufacture many of these missiles.
We are using the ones that we need for our own self-defense, and we are giving them.
We give a lot to Ukraine.
Now we're giving a lot to Israel.
We're at the point where we can't defend ourselves.
Even say the Chinese did decide we're going to take over America.
We would just say, okay, guys, sorry, come on in.
And you have to wonder, are they purposely destroying our country when you think of what's happening on the borders and all?
Or are they just dumb?
And maybe there's a combination, a combination of both.
I think that the whole thing is so bad that more people should wake up.
But did this campaign, the presidential campaign, help us understand this?
No, no.
They don't.
I wonder why they didn't call us to be on the panel today.
Well, they're watching the show.
They can't call us.
They're too busy watching the show right now.
Taking notes.
Yeah, I see.
They're eyeing up their opposition.
You never know.
We've got to keep trying.
But the last one we want to talk about, we kind of put them together in this way because the first two kind of lead to the last one.
You have the military possibly shooting Americans in America.
You've got the military going and fighting for another country in a combat zone.
And then actually skip to the responsible statecraft article.
And that's this one, Dr. Paul.
I'll just use the original.
If you can move ahead.
So you've got these two things going on.
And then you have U.S. military draft sign-ups plunge in two years.
Of men in the U.S. who turned 18 in 2023, fewer than 40% signed up for the draft.
That's down from more than 60% in 2020, Dr. Paul.
They are not rushing to sign up for the draft.
No, that's good.
And I think that's a good sign.
But, you know, the whole thing is, though, if you want to be picky about how you define involuntary servitude, we've had a lot of that.
Because I think when you look at the draft, that is a pretty darn good example of involuntary servitude.
And that is something that should have been recognized, that when we got rid of slavery, we should have gotten rid of it.
As a matter of fact, they don't use the word slavery.
I think it's always used involuntary servitude.
And it's involuntary.
But another one that people, I know we know people who would not be offended by using the title.
That's what the IRS is all about.
Yeah, true.
Because I think psychologically and economically, the government owns us because they own our production.
Everything we produce is owned by the government, and you have to get permission to use it.
Then you get involved in regulations and all the politics.
It provides a lot of jobs, though.
Billions and billions of people work and participating in satisfying the special interest.
So this is a motivation that I think is so dangerous because it's a mess.
But it's good.
It's good that people are not signing up, which means that they announced it was going to be mandatory.
Well, the mandatory, fortunately, has turned into be voluntary.
Not everybody signs up for it.
So we get the statistics that a lot less people are doing that.
And I think that's great.
But it gives them more emphasis to go and be bolder in their involuntary servitude.
I mean, we won't be bashful about that because we want patriots.
We want patriotic people who are willing to fight and die for some other country that most Americans graduating from high school have no idea where these countries are.
But oh, I'm a patriot.
I'm going to go and be obedient.
I think that they ought to be obedient to the guidelines that we're supposed to follow and the guidelines that have been given to us.
They're, of course, with the guidelines of the Constitution.
Of course, I use a guideline called natural law, and that would make all the difference in the world.
Absolutely.
Well, I would give them a little bit of a clue.
If you want guys to maybe sign up for this, not that they should, stop being involved in foreign wars.
Don't tell them that they may have to kill Americans.
You might be surprised.
And also, don't make the army and the military so woke.
And, you know, the increase was or the decrease of people signing up is directly related to the more war in Ukraine.
Yeah, yeah, yeah.
But what happens if there's a war in the Middle East or in Taiwan?
Oh, there is a little fighting going on in the Middle East, I guess.
Well, I'm going to close out, Dr. Paul.
First, I want to thank a couple of our live chat donors.
We've got Steve Explos saying thank you guys for keeping me sane during 2020 and beyond.
He sent in $20 and we appreciate that.
Doubting Thomas sent us 20 saying RPLR kept me sane during COVID.
You mentioned COVID earlier.
Thanks guys for the money.
We really appreciate it for keeping the show going.
I encourage the rest of you who want to keep the show going to ronpaulinstitute.org and make a tax-deductible donation.
Thanks a lot for watching the show.
Over to you, Dr. Paul.
Very good.
And I too thank our viewers for tuning in, many on a regular basis, and helping us get the message out because I happen to believe that's the strongest tool we have.
It's the message.
Promoting Peace and Prosperity 00:01:20
It's the ideas that we expose and expel that.
And that is so necessary.
But most of the people, we're not going to be on the main street media and getting on the news.
If we are, I'm afraid it might be a negative.
So the whole thing is, is we still have some freedom.
If we could do our program, we can reach people.
Some days we reach a lot of people.
And that's what we get excited about.
And we think it's so important because I think the ideas are much more important.
I keep thinking about our American Revolution.
Just think of the amount of money and the weapons and the strength of the colonists and their army compared to the British Empire.
And who would have predicted, oh, that'll be, it'll be over in a couple years, and we're going to have this new constitution, and things will get a lot better.
Well, right now, we've sort of whittled away of that which became better, and now we are struggling to keep what we have left, but we also have to struggle to make sure the next generation, the current generation, know and understand exactly what true liberty is all about.
And I think that is the reason that we promote our little program because we want to promote peace and prosperity.
Export Selection