1. What do you feel about the FBI's utilization of unlawfully recorded "targets of interest" in the agency's effort to discredit them? Some of those recordings allegedly involve the privately expressed anger of "targets of interest."
Answer: The privacy violations in which the FBI is routinely engaging are clearly unconstitutional. The agency is currently skirting its constitutional obligations to the American people by training contractors to exercise unwarranted surveillance facilitated by Pegasus software, among other means of privacy incursion. After law-abiding American citizens are unlawfully recorded, that information is purchased back from contractors by the FBI.
2. So the FBI is finding refuge in the excuse that it is simply aggregating information about law-abiding American citizens, but not surveilling them directly?
Answer: In many cases, yes. It needs to be stated, however, that when the FBI coerces a false witness statement from someone alleging crimes as serious as "espionage," "terrorism," or "abuse of the vulnerable," the agency is falsely justifying direct surveillance.
3. But what about unlawfully recorded anger on the part of "targets of interest"?
Answer: My understanding is that the FBI often re-edits the recorded dialogue of "targets of interest" to attempt to make them sound dangerous or unstable, thereby attempting to justify previously initiated unlawful surveillance.
4. Do "targets of interest" have the right to their anger?
Answer: Privately expressed? They certainly do. It's important to understand that people have human limits. If you send one thousand men to kill one individual woman, her private anger over that injustice may help her survive. No one should attempt to deprive her of her righteous indignation, in my opinion.
5. But anger is not always reasonably expressed.
Answer: By definition. A "target" may state in a private expression of anger that she intends to "get" her stalker, when what she is trying to say is that she intends to bring him to justice in a way that respects the rule of law in its entirety. We do employ idiomatic language, particularly when angry. But I think that, when a "target of interest" is publicly expressing her commitment to the rule of law, we need to understand that she is sincere in her adherence to reason and due process as manifested by a nation of laws. "Targets of interest" are, as a group, peaceable people who cannot fathom why they have been unjustly targeted by an inhumane program of surveillance, harassment and harm.
6. Are you a peaceable person?
Answer: In every way, shape and form. I support democracy, the rule of law, rational and reasoned due process based on tangible evidence. I support peer-reviewed medical treatment, the scientific method, civil discourse, a free press, free speech, freedom of assembly, the right to privacy and the Constitutionally protected civil liberties and human rights of all Americans.
7. And is your husband a peaceable person?
Answer: Yes, just as determinedly as I.
8. Yet you feel that anger is an important emotion for "targets of interest"?
Answer: Anger, privately expressed, can allow "targets of interest" the chance of survival.
9. Why?
Answer: Their alternative is depression, and depression in the absence of social support can have disastrous consequences.
10. At a certain point, most "targets of interest" begin to feel overwhelmed by the FBI's implemented "gang stalking" approach.
Answer: They do. The FBI deploys an intentional program of slander and defamation, social isolation, career harms, property divestment, and physical assault against "targets of interest." Almost all of them will experience severe impacts on their quality of life.
11. Under such circumstances, it would be impossible for "targets of interest" not to experience frustration and despair at times.
Answer: True. Even so, it is necessary for "targets of interest" to continue to express an ongoing commitment to the rule of law.
12. Even though others are violating the law in preying upon "targets of interest"?
Answer: Especially so. The far right is attempting to falsely portray "targets of interest" as dangerous and unstable people whom the FBI must closely surveil and limit.
13. Can you give an example of this false portrayal?
Answer: I can. Quora featured a post this morning from former NSA Intelligence Analyst Karen Stewart in answer to the question, What do targeted individuals think about their experiences? Most of her answer expresses the "shock and disbelief" of "targets of interest." But at a certain point, Ms. Stewart states that "Anyone/everyone involved is guilty of crimes against humanity and war crimes and they ALL need to be executed from top to bottom." Later, she expresses a hope that "eternity" for these individuals should "start soon." I reprint the entire post herewith:
Shock, disbelief that SO many people are so greedy, stupid, vile as to take money to harass innocent people “becuz da Gubment say so”. Mad as hell. And beyond furious government is so very corrupt as to design a SECRET COWARDLY psyop campaign, saying INNOCENT people are “threats” merely to bilk the government (Fed and State) out of billions upon billions of dollars (massive fraud) forever, to base an UNNEEDED POLICE STATE ON. Humans NEED food, water, and …Justice to live. Anyone/everyone involved is guilty of crimes against humanity and war crimes and they ALL need to be executed from top to bottom. Conspiracy to deprive of rights, conspiracy to torture, conspiracy to murder and human trafficking are at the core. The program has drawn out the secret/covert sociopaths and psychopaths in society and they need to be tried in a military tribunal (immediate justice, no delays after sentencing). (Imagine a society almost totally free of sociopaths and psychopaths?) Without such sick people, this program could not have succeeded. And all officials… police, local authorities, civilians, Federal, military who participated should be considered rabid dogs as well to be dealt with similarly. As far as mercy, give them exactly as much mercy as they gave us. Zero. I cannot speak for all victims, but this is what I feel. Deuteronomy 27: 24–25, Cursed is he who smiteth (murders) his neighbor secretly; cursed is he who smiteth his neighbor secretly for money. Cursed = damned to hell. Let their eternity there start soon.
14. Is Ms. Stewart's expression illegal?
Answer: Potentially. A lawyer or law enforcement officer would need to weigh in on the specifics of Ms. Stewart's language. But from my perspective, this post can be interpreted as encouraging others to commit violence, and because of this, I find it completely unacceptable.
15. You have said that sometimes the FBI directs certain individuals, even "targets of interest," to post in a manner that seems unstable or dangerous in an effort to discredit "targets of interest" as a whole.
Answer: That is my distinct impression.
16. What about former NSA Intelligence Analyst Karen Stewart's post on Quora this morning?
Answer: I have never seen Ms. Stewart espousing any form of violence online or elsewhere previous to this morning.
17. Does it seem uncharacteristic to you?
Answer: It does.
18. What are the risks present?
Answer: Any "target of interest" who responds to Ms. Stewart's post is likely to be classified by the FBI as supporting violent action, when in truth, that is unlikely to be the case.
19. What would you like to emphasize?
Answer: Law-abiding "targets of interest" need to consciously and consistently and publicly explain that they are peaceable people who are committed to the rule of law in all circumstances. They need to hold fast to the principles of peaceable civil engagement upon which all democracies depend.
20. Why do you feel so strongly about this conduct?
Answer: Because "targets of interest" need advocacy from those allies within our government who support true democracy -- and they are present. We are exceptionally fortunate to have President Joseph R. Biden as our Commander-in-Chief at this point in our nation's history, when our democracy is being put so clearly to the test. And President Biden's administration is laboring valiantly to save our democracy from those who would unmake it. We need to make it clear that we, as law-abiding "targets of interest," stand with reasoned, rational civil discourse in illuminating the truth of this matter.
21. It will take courage for Americans to face the truth of the FBI's corruption of the "target of interest" program.
Answer: It will, but our democracy has no alternative. We need to have the courage to face the truth of the FBI's engagement in falsified law enforcement reporting for anti-democratic objectives, because no organization can address its own wrongs entirely by itself. In the public sphere, we need to set aside our private anger over these abuses of the public trust and publicly reconfirm our commitment to defend one another's civil liberties and human rights as law-abiding American citizens. It is the generosity of spirit present in our determination to defend one another's civil liberties that renders us worthy possessors of democracy's inheritance.
22. And what is that inheritance?
Answer: A government of the people, by the people and for the people.
No comments:
Post a Comment