1. Should anyone be withdrawing or appropriating funds from your accounts for the purpose of funding ICE activities in Minnesota or elsewhere?
Answer: The answer is an unequivocal no. My case is about the preservation of Americans' long term human rights, and I do not believe that awards extended to me for the support of this objective should be routed to ICE under any circumstances.
2. What are we seeing in Minnesota? Why is there such a conflict unfolding between state and federal authorities?
Answer: There is a divergence between state and federal policy in Minnesota, and this extends to other states as well, that demonstrates that Americans' short term human rights will no longer be defended by the federal agencies we have depended upon in the past. The FBI, the DHS, the CBP, and the DOJ are not going to be able to protect our short term civil liberties.
Americans need to understand the severity of the circumstances, and they need to comprehend that this represents a substantial change that will require their attention, their concern, and their adaptation.
Federal policy will outweigh state policy in the near future.
3. Is it going to be illegal for Americans to take videos of ICE agents on duty?
Answer: There will be draconian responses to active filming of ICE agents and other federal officials, in my opinion.
4. Why?
Answer: Because those videos are overwhelmingly democratizing and they can be distributed immediately, with no time delay whatsoever. AI-generated video that falsely depicts a certain event takes a few hours to produce, although that time interval is decreasing.
5. What are the larger forces that are driving this change in federal conduct?
Answer: We're experiencing a global climate crisis which has reached a critical inflection point. And very few people are openly discussing the seriousness of this situation. Specifically, the federal government has decided not to address it publicly. Instead, we're seeing radical shifts in law enforcement policies that will be having profound effects on the whole of the nation and on others.
6. Could we address the climate crisis in an open and transparent manner?
Answer: In the short term, there has been a determination that we're simply out of time.
In the long term, we are going to need the military leadership to actively speak to the public on a regular basis in order to depoliticize the issue. The American people will need to understand that, in the future, we will all share a responsibility for stewardship of the environment to a much greater extent than has been accepted heretofore.
The reality is that our Constitution, as well as the founding documents of many other nations, enshrined our individual rights, but did not delineate our responsibilities to the earth as a whole.
In the future, we will grasp that our sovereignty is in fact dependent on our fulfillment of our responsibilities in a larger environmental context.
And unless we learn to speak openly about this, then humanity itself will become irrevocably and needlessly diminished.
7. Should we have endeavored to address environmental concerns differently in the past?
Answer: If we could, we would go back to the 1970's and 1980's and set a new direction. Yes, clearly.
We needed the support of military leadership, religious leadership, community leadership, state leadership and federal leadership -- on all levels.
And yes, this coordination would be achievable -- as I hope it still will be.
8. You have said that you acknowledge the immense difficulty of the FBI's mission and objectives.
Answer: I do. I am not at liberty to state what the mission and objectives are at this moment in time. But they are tremendously difficult.
At the same time, my case is intended to allow me to uphold and preserve the long term human rights of Americans, and, by extension, all those who are affected by our long term human rights.
So, I cannot diminish that cause by allowing misappropriation of funds for ICE, DHS, CBP, the FBI or others who are focused on difficult short term goals that have been set by those who oppose human sovereignty.
That would subvert, distort, and diminish all that good people have been working toward with regard to this matter.
9. You have substantive goals for the long term freedom of Americans. Are they expensive?
Answer: Yes. Freedom is not free. We are going to need to invest in the long term future of the nation through preservation of our access to our truthful history, our truthful present, our sustainable environment and our accountable future. In so doing, we can also rescue free speech, freedom of the press, the right to free and peaceable assembly, the right to private property, access to education, the right of self-determination and sovereignty, and many other foundational liberties in the long term.
Again, our freedom and our responsibilities are inextricably intertwined.
We want a future that is free from programs of knowingly falsified law enforcement reporting by the FBI and others.
And that will require thoughtful and insightful and trustful and cooperative engagement among good people, myself included.
10. Thank you for speaking with us this morning.
Answer: You are quite welcome.
Lane MacWilliams
No comments:
Post a Comment