@eigenrobot - i'm still not losing any sleep over this tbh my guess is

basically the claim is that it looks like a requirement or process for getting political approval for DoD assistance to civilian law enforcement so one might see this as somehow restraining military involvement in law enforcement but actually, civil disturbance gets a carveout?

going through honestly what's most striking is how much of this i assumed was. uh. already policy. "my tee shirt" etc and maybe they're just reiterating old policy, idk the general vibe is they're trying to tamp down on low-level scheming by requiring white house approval

there are a bunch of further carveouts or preemptive authorizations "when lives in danger" as well but this is all regarding intelligence sharing rather than shooting civilians afaict

mostly it seems like a nothingburger on a first and inexpert pass yeah ofc this could probably be abused by a malign administration but that was already true of our other laws, at a certain point rulers gonna rule

ofc the weakness of my analysis is that everything is buried in layers of jargon and cross-references and it's totally plausible to me that very carefully worded components of this subtly undermine civilian protections so i have one last exercise to conduct

turns out chatgpt has plenty of exploits in mind

i didn't find this super compelling because i imagined that most of this shit couldve been done earlier anyway GPT's take is that the new directive makes military takeover of civilian institutions easier, operationally, but imposes a greater degree of political oversight