The Unz Review: An Alternative Media Selection
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 BlogviewRon Paul Archive
Sentence First, Crime Later?
🔊 Listen RSS
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>

Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • BShow CommentNext New CommentNext New ReplyRead More
ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
AgreeDisagreeLOLTroll
These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Troll, or LOL with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used three times during any eight hour period.
Ignore Commenter Follow Commenter
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments
List of Bookmarks

Attorney General William Barr recently sent a memo to law enforcement officials announcing a new federal initiative that would use techniques and tools developed in the war on terror, such as mass surveillance, to identify potential mass shooters. Those so identified would be targets of early interventions, which would include the disregarding of Second Amendment rights, as well as the imposing of mandatory counseling and involuntary commitment.

The program would likely match data collected via mass surveillance with algorithms designed to identify those with mental problems that would lead them to commit violent crimes. So, this program would deprive Americans of respect for their rights not because they committed, or even threaten to commit, a violent act but because their tweets, texts, or Facebook posts trigger a government algorithm.

In order to enhance the government’s ability to conduct mass surveillance, Barr has been trying to force tech companies to allow the government to have a “backdoor” for accessing electronic information. This would allow the government to read all messages — even those that are encrypted, making it all but impossible to escape the government’s watchful eye.

Many mental health professionals admit that diagnosing mental health issues involves a degree of subjectivity. So how can we trust a government-designed computer algorithm to accurately identify those with mental health problems? The answer is we can’t. Barr’s program will no doubt result in many individuals who are not a threat to anyone being deprived of respect for their rights. The program will also fail in detecting future mass shooters.

Some mental health professionals argue that holding certain political beliefs is a sign of mental illness. Not surprisingly, federal agencies like the FBI agree that those expressing “anti-government extremism”— like supporting a constitutional republic instead of a welfare-warfare state — are potential threats.

A recent internal FBI memo warned that a belief in “conspiracy theories” is a sign that someone could be a domestic terrorist. “Conspiracy theorist” is an all-purpose smear used against anyone who questions the government’s official narrative on an event or issue. Tying a belief in “conspiracy theory” to terrorism is an effort to not just stigmatize but actually criminalize dissenting thoughts on matters such as foreign policy, climate change, gun control, and the Federal Reserve.

Some people support using political beliefs as a basis for labeling someone as “mentally disturbed” because they think it will mainly affect “right-wing extremists.” These people are ignoring the FBI’s history of harassing civil rights and antiwar activists, as well as the recent controversy over the FBI labeling “black identity extremists” as a threat.

A government program to monitor electronic communications to identify potential mass shooters puts all Americans at risk of losing their liberty due to their political views or a few social media posts. All those who value liberty must oppose this dangerous program.

(Republished from The Ron Paul Institute by permission of author or representative)
 
Hide 9 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
    []
  1. MarkinLA says:

    The big problem is that a real balanced algorithm might target left wing nut-jobs as well as those on the right. That part of the algorithm would have to be fixed.

  2. KenH says:

    as well as the recent controversy over the FBI labeling “black identity extremists” as a threat.

    But somehow it’s not a controversy to label white identity extremists a threat. What Barr is proposing violates the 1st, 2nd, 4th and 5th amendments but the Constitution is becoming an afterthought. But I have little faith in the partisan courts to strike Barr’s pre-crime down.

    Either way we’re an East German Stasi state now.

    • Agree: Achmed E. Newman
  3. Barr’s father was born Jewish, and later converted to Catholicism. His mother is of Irish ancestry. Barr was raised Catholic. The second of four sons, he grew up on the Upper West Side, and attended a Catholic grammar school, Corpus Christi School, and then the non-sectarian Horace Mann School.
    Born: May 23, 1950, New York City
    Parents: Donald Barr
    Spouse: Christine Moynihan Barr
    Education: Columbia University, The George …
    William Barr – Wikipedia
    https://en.wikipedia.org › wiki › William_Barr

  4. Calvin says:

    Well Ron I’m afraid I might be caught in that net cuz I don’t like them som bitches…

  5. KenH says:

    Libertarians always lecture how mass immigration and racial diversity leads to greater freedoms but once again Barr’s plan to deal with potential mass shooters proves the opposite. Some of these mass shootings are blowback against multiculturalism by whites who (rightly) feel betrayed and abandoned by the political establishment. In order to deal with it Barr the mischling is willing to ignore the Constitution that libertarians claim to revere and resort to government authoritarianism.

    • Replies: @Achmed E. Newman
  6. Durruti says:

    A government program to monitor electronic communications to identify potential mass shooters puts all Americans at risk of losing their liberty due to their political views or a few social media posts. All those who value liberty must oppose this dangerous program.

    Greetings to you, Dr. Ron Paul, America’s finest Statesman.

    You write, “Americans at risk of losing their liberty” – and I understand your point, I would emphasize that we have -already- lost our Liberty, and our Citizen-control of our Nation. The Republic was assassinated, in a hail of bullets, (along with our last Constitutional President, John F. Kennedy, on November 22, 1963).

    Since that time in Dallas, the butchery of the Liberty sailors, the slaughter of 9/11 – with the imperialist follow up of assault on Iraq, and the current efforts to destroy Syria, and Russia, and occupy the Ukraine, ethnically cleanse the Palestinians (who are Prisoners – denied all Liberty- in their own land), and the continual brainwashing of the American People, and the scandal of the Shadow Government of MOSSAD, Epstein, Maxwell & company, with at the same time, 72 Congress Traitors were in the Zionist entity, selling their Country, do I need a verb?

    Yes, we Americans have been sentenced first, to a lifetime of slavery. The Criminals are in control.
    [notice how the Mainstream Media have eliminated Tulsi Gabbard, a Veteran, – after slandering her?]

    God Bless you Ron Paul, and your son, Senator Rand Paul. May he recover from his injuries.

    Durruti alias-Dr. Peter J. Antonsen

  7. @KenH

    Libertarians always lecture how mass immigration and racial diversity leads to greater freedoms …

    I’ve agreed with you on almost every comment of yours, Ken, but on this one: Which libertarians always lecture us on this? OK, I know Reason magazine Libertards, but do real, actual Libertarians and Constitutionalists say this ever? Since we’re writing under a Ron Paul post, how about this gentleman?

    Granted, Ken, Dr. Paul doesn’t seem to really understand the concept that we are not importing a whole lot of people that could ever even UNDERSTAND the Constitution (not just on language skills, but nearly-genetic inclinations to 3rd-worldliness). However, I’ve never read him say anything like “mass immigration and racial diversity lead to greater freedoms…”

    • Replies: @KenH
  8. KenH says:
    @Achmed E. Newman

    I’ve agreed with you on almost every comment of yours, Ken, but on this one: Which libertarians always lecture us on this?

    Thanks Achmed and I did have the Reason crowd in mind along with the Koch Bros. and some younger libertarians I saw on youtube over the years making this claim in response to concerns about mass third world immigration. No doubt not all libertarians believe this but it seems a sizable enough number do so I’m assuming the worst, rightly or wrongly.

    Interestingly, it was Jewish libertarian Murray Rothbard who began polemicizing against multiracialism and forced racial integration in the Rothbard-Rockwell Report in the 1-2 years before his death. And it is promising that LewRockwell.com has been running articles about demographic change and the increasing anti-white political climate in America and the West the last several years whereas they used to avoid those subjects like the plague and stuck mostly to economics and foreign policy.

    I don’t think Ron Paul (or Rand or Ru) has ever linked multiculturalism and mass immigration with greater freedom but he hasn’t rebuked that position either to the best of my knowledge. But where the Pauls’ fail us is in pushing the notion that a nation full of mutually hostile racial groups can be united by a truly free market, abolishing the Federal Reserve and a gold standard.

    • Replies: @Achmed E. Newman
  9. @KenH

    Agreed, Ken, and I can tell you that some of the Constitutionalist sites that 15 years ago did not mention anything racial or “xenophobic” have come a long ways since then, per my recent readings after a long time away. They are starting to realize that the turmoil brought on by racial/ethnic differences is a nice distraction for TPTB (I haven’t used that term in a while) to clamp the police state down AND that almost all the newcomers are not on their (the Constitutionalists) side, politically-speaking.

    I personally told Ron Paul to mention illegal immigration if he wanted to win our state’s primary in 2012. He at least stated that he was “all for the rule of law…”, but that wasn’t good enough an answer and he didn’t do well enough to win, either.

Current Commenter
says:

Leave a Reply - Comments on articles more than two weeks old will be judged much more strictly on quality and tone


 Remember My InformationWhy?
 Email Replies to my Comment
Submitted comments become the property of The Unz Review and may be republished elsewhere at the sole discretion of the latter
Subscribe to This Comment Thread via RSS Subscribe to All Ron Paul Comments via RSS