My point is that there are differences between security and law enforcement, and promulgation of regulations that are binding on members of a command vs promulgation of regulations that have the force of law for all persons.
My point is that there is a difference between officers and NCOs having the authority to see that regulations are enforced, and officers and NCOs having the ability to promulgate legally binding regulations.
My point is that, as written, the law uses terms that are used differently, and have very different meanings, depending on context. The law is poorly worded, since it fails to clarify which definitions it intends.
With regard to that last point:
For instance, is a senior staff director something like a YA2, who technically only has to supervise two civilian employees but is an O-5 equivalent, or an SES-15, or a deputy or undersecretary level staffer?
Is the commander just a person in charge of some unit, of any size from company on up, or somebody with court martial convening authority? Or somebody with TACON/TACOM authority?
If we were discussing ROE, unit level commanders and battalion level commanders don't normally get to designate and define hostiles - they have to match parameters to guidance put out by a higher authority. IE not all commanders have similar authority.