(LifeSiteNews) — There has been more talk about freedom in America recently among both conservatives and liberals. Conservatives are remembering the life of one who stood for freedom, while liberals are demanding the freedom to publicly demonize that individual and those similar to him.
But one freedom which non-government-employed Americans do not have and almost never discuss is the freedom to know the actions, technologies, methods, and employees of or cooperators with law enforcement, intelligence community, and security entities in America (for the remainder of this article, “law enforcement activities” will be used to describe all of the aforementioned).
Previous articles discussed similar subjects – especially the idea that Americans who do not know law enforcement activities are almost necessarily deprived of their right to a free and fair vote. Americans vote for or against candidates who sometimes state their intentions on new or current laws, but potentially even more important is the right to vote for or against how laws are enforced and the actions of the intelligence community and national security entities. But, again, many of those methods, technologies, and sources are kept secret from Americans.
Recent events show the existence of bad people within the government and other public entities. Publicized comments celebrating the death of Charlie Kirk by only a few people express the obvious intentions of vengeance sought after by some. There was reportedly a nurse who said Charlie Kirk “should have been tortured.” Members of the U.S. military also reportedly celebrated Charlie Kirk’s death, claiming he was racist and sexist.
Now, consider the significance of a nurse in America publicly saying that a person “should have been tortured.” Likewise, consider the significance of U.S. military members celebrating the murder of an innocent American. Nurses could easily follow through with a desire to torture or kill another without anyone knowing. And, U.S. military members often go on to law enforcement jobs – including secret police jobs – after they have completed military service. Those people publicly expressed their desire for vengeance towards a person who criticized them or their false beliefs.
The FBI has used destructive tactics against Americans in the past, and those methods were not discovered until the harm was already done. Would the previously described people and the many others with similar desire for vengeance who did not publicly voice their opinions secretly harm and torture Americans if they had the opportunity to do so?
This is not to say that so-called “conservatives” do not have a desire for vengeance. There are likely many such conservatives – although possibly not as many as could be found among liberals due to conservatives being more inclined towards following the Ten Commandments.
And this leads to the main point of the article: both conservatives and liberals should be demanding to know the activities, and especially the secret methods and technologies, of law enforcement.
Previous articles described the potential for secret, silent, and invisible technologies that could be used to harm or kill a person, all while making it appear as though the targeted person merely experienced a medical event like a heart attack or brain aneurysm rupture. Would the above-mentioned people who supported torturing and/or killing innocent Americans because of their opinions use such secretive technologies to harm those they disagree with?
Additionally, there is a type of torture that is sometimes described as “touchless torture” in which government employees use surveillance technologies and coordinate with everyday citizens to make a targeted person feel as if almost every occurrence in public is pre-planned, falsified, and acted out. The targeted person apparently experiences severe suffering as a result.
Another potentially secret law enforcement or investigative method that is often not discussed is the use of plain-clothed informants to continually (potentially for several years) use verbal hints and suggestions and non-verbal hints and suggestions of accusations toward a targeted person. This might be done to get “probable cause” out of a person by getting them to say things like, “I did not” do whatever the hints, suggestions, and non-verbal accusations are meant to communicate.
Such a method is similar to the use of loaded questions during the questioning of a person by law enforcement; however, the communication in this method might be done somewhat covertly in public or other settings, often non-verbally through the use of cooperators from a targeted person’s family or other social settings.
When law enforcement claims they do not know if a crime was committed, they could use such a method of non-verbal communications or verbal hints, suggestions, and innuendos to, basically, put words in an innocent person’s mouth and then provoke them to say those words. They could also use non-verbal threats toward the targeted person to attempt to get them to admit to doing something they did not do.
While the context of his quote is different, the concept is similar to a statement by Republican Senator Ted Cruz. Commenting on hinted intimidation or something similar by a different government employee, Cruz said, “That’s right out of a mafioso coming into a bar, going, ‘nice bar you have here, it’d be a shame if something happened to it.’”
There are such cases of people wrongly admitting to committing a crime, and the above-mentioned method might have been used to provoke such false admissions. One reference describes torture as being an obvious cause of false confessions; the article does not mention “touchless torture” and the use of non-verbal threats of violence, but those methods seem to be a possibility.
There is still much more that Americans should be informed about regarding law enforcement and intelligence community activities; Americans should be informed on hoaxes or similar schemes committed by government entities and their collaborators.
Finally, U.S. federal law allows for people – including “undercover personnel” – to be given new identities in new locations. Undercover personnel, of course, likely includes U.S. government employees.
An important point is that establishing a “new identity” in America at the present time almost necessarily requires falsifying the death of the person/people and their real identity – especially if other government employees with surveillance capabilities are those who might retaliate against the person getting a new identity. Without a faked death of the person, others (again especially those in law enforcement or the intelligence community with advanced surveillance capabilities) will likely continue to try to find the person they want to retaliate against.
Thus, it seems that falsified deaths and false funerals are a possibility.
Some might say that this is a good idea to “protect people.” However, it could also cause serious harm – including harm to the individual who rashly and wrongly decides to have their death faked and realizes that there was no threat of harm to begin with. Or there is the easily impressionable person who wrongly thinks they will be a local hero, not realizing the horrendous consequences of such a decision.
It is not clear what the solution is for this problem. Such a practice should be made illegal, though, in part because falsified deaths combined with government hoaxes are contrary to what it means to be a free country. Maybe federal and local governments should be required to publicize the number of falsified deaths committed every year.
The methods and technologies described above are only a few potentially secret and harmful law enforcement activities. But American freedom implies knowledge of all law enforcement and investigative methods, technologies, and sources to prevent such harms from occurring.