When Governments Break Laws: Who Watches The Watchers?

When the government breaks its own laws, it sets a dangerous precedent that undermines the very fabric of society. The consequences of such actions can be far-reaching and detrimental, eroding the trust between citizens and their elected officials. In the case of the Proud Boys, who were charged with sedition for conspiring to overthrow the federal government, the FBI's handling of evidence and surveillance of defence lawyers brought to light a culture of law enforcement operating with impunity. This dates back to the post-9/11 era, where former President George W. Bush's administration systematically disregarded civil liberties in the name of national security. The lack of accountability for government officials who break the law has fostered a generation of federal agents who lie, cheat and steal without repercussions. This double standard, where harsh penalties are imposed on ordinary citizens while government officials often evade punishment, demands attention and reform to uphold the principles of equality and justice.

Law enforcement breaking the law to preserve national security

In a similar vein, the Chinese government's National Security Law, passed in 2015, requires citizens and organizations to "provide support and assistance" to the country's intelligence organizations. This has been criticized as a violation of human rights and has been used to target individuals and organizations that the Chinese government deems a threat to national security.

In the US, the Department of Justice has been accused of pursuing defendants in Jan 6-related matters with "zeal", while an FBI agent admitted to being asked to alter evidence and destroy 338 items of evidence in the case against five members of the Proud Boys, who are on trial for sedition. This case has brought to light a culture in federal law enforcement that believes it need not "abide the Constitution or federal laws or even societal norms when it engages in prosecutions or surveillance for national security purposes".

The consequences of the government breaking its own laws are far-reaching. When lawbreakers go unpunished, it sets a precedent for others in government to follow suit, trampling on human liberty and setting a path towards tyranny.

The government prosecuting thoughts

The line between permissible and impermissible prosecution of thoughts is subtle. On the one hand, individuals are free to think and express their thoughts as long as they do not incite imminent violence or cause immediate harm. For instance, wishing harm upon a cruel supervisor or expressing hatred towards a politician would not typically result in legal consequences.

On the other hand, thoughts and intentions are crucial in determining criminal responsibility and culpability. If an action is driven by hateful or discriminatory thoughts, it may be considered a hate crime or discriminatory action, even if those thoughts are not explicitly expressed. Additionally, speech and thoughts can be used as evidence in a criminal case, such as when online conversations and internet search history are used to establish intent or motive.

The prosecution of "thought crimes" becomes even more complex when the government is accused of breaking its own laws. In the case of the Proud Boys, who were on trial for sedition, an FBI agent admitted to altering evidence and spying on defense lawyers. This raises concerns about governmental overreach and the need to hold law enforcement accountable to prevent the trampling of personal liberty and the establishment of a tyrannical system.

Furthermore, the case of Gilberto Valle, the "cannibal cop," sets a dangerous precedent where individuals can be convicted based on their online thoughts and expressions, even without committing a physical crime. This blurs the line between freedom of speech and criminal incitement, raising questions about whether the government is acting as "thought police."

In conclusion, while the government has the responsibility to uphold the law and protect its citizens, the prosecution of thoughts is a delicate matter that requires a careful balance between protecting free speech and addressing legitimate threats. The government must ensure that any limitations on free speech and thought are justified and do not infringe on the natural right to think and express oneself freely.

FBI-manufactured plots

In the years following 9/11, the FBI has been accused of manufacturing plots to catch terrorists. In a 2017 review of several recent terrorism cases in Kansas and Missouri, it was found that the most sensational plots invoking the names of Islamic State or al-Qaida were largely the invention of FBI agents carrying out sting operations.

In one case, 25-year-old Robert Lorenzo Hester Jr. was indicted for participating in an Islamic State plan to cause mass casualties in a bombing attack on a train station in Kansas City. The two men leading Hester were actually undercover FBI employees who suggested the time, place, and type of attack, and loaned Hester $20 to buy materials for a bomb. However, there were no actual bombs, and Hester did not buy all the materials.

In another case, Terry L. Loewen, a 58-year-old Kansas man, was arrested as he tried to use his employee badge to bring a fake bomb onto the tarmac of a Wichita airport. This arrest followed a months-long sting operation in which two FBI agents posed as his co-conspirators and led him in a supposed plot they devised with phony explosives.

The FBI has defended its use of sting operations, arguing that they are just one tool for thwarting terrorist attacks and that suspects are given many opportunities to back out before their arrest. However, some have questioned whether the FBI is catching real terrorists or tricking troubled individuals into volunteering for long prison sentences.

According to a report by the Center on National Security at the Fordham University School of Law, nearly two-thirds of the 126 Islamic State-related cases prosecuted by federal authorities since 2014 involved undercover agents or informants. This has led to concerns that the FBI is creating crime rather than solving it and that the government is breaking its own laws.

The government breaking its own laws

When the government breaks its own laws, it sets a precedent for further lawlessness and tyranny. This was evident in the aftermath of 9/11 when the then-President George W. Bush authorised federal agencies to spy on Americans without warrants and the CIA to torture foreigners to obtain information about potential threats to the nation. Since no one was held accountable for these actions, a generation of federal agents has emerged, displaying behaviours of lying, cheating, and stealing without facing any consequences.

Instances of the government breaking its own laws can also be seen in the case of the Proud Boys, where an FBI agent admitted to altering evidence and destroying 338 items of evidence, as well as illegally surveilling communications between one of the defendants and his legal team. The government's prosecution of the Proud Boys for conspiracy, a "thought crime", further illustrates its willingness to infringe on citizens' natural right to think and express opinions, even those critical of the government.

Another example is the FBI's use of sting operations, where agents target individuals based on gender and ethnicity, enticing them into fake plots, providing fake explosives, and then arresting them. While the FBI claims to be stopping potential criminals, critics argue that this is a violation of due process and an entrapment of innocent people, as the plots are FBI-manufactured and no harm was intended or done.

The consequences of the government breaking its own laws are far-reaching and detrimental to the very fabric of democracy and the rule of law. It undermines trust in the justice system, infringes on civil liberties, and sets a dangerous precedent for future abuses of power.

The government portraying itself as the victim

Playing the victim, or self-victimization, is the fabrication or exaggeration of victimhood. This can be done to justify abuse to others, to manipulate others, as a coping strategy, or for attention. In a political context, selective portrayal of different groups or individuals as victims is used by the media to appeal to the sympathy of and mobilize both the political left and right.

In the case of the US government versus the Proud Boys, the government portrays itself as the victim. Five members of the Proud Boys are on trial for sedition, a conspiracy to overthrow the federal government by the use of force. During the trial, an FBI agent admitted that she was asked to doctor and destroy evidence, and that her colleagues had spied on the defense lawyers. The government pursued the defendants with zeal, but the attorneys for the Proud Boys lost the argument, as most courts simply defer to the government.

In this case, the government should be prosecuting its own. The FBI agent was asked to materially alter government records and destroy evidence. The FBI also surveilled the communications between one of the Proud Boy defendants and his legal team without a search warrant. This is a manifestation of a culture in federal law enforcement that believes it need not abide by the Constitution, federal laws, or societal norms when it engages in prosecutions or surveillance for national security purposes.

This attitude goes back to the weeks after 9/11 when then-President George W. Bush began his systematic shredding of the Constitution by unleashing federal agencies to spy on all Americans without warrants and the CIA to torture foreign persons. Since no one in the federal government after 9/11 has been prosecuted for spying on Americans or for torture, it is no wonder that a generation of federal agents has come of age lying, cheating, and stealing.

Frequently asked questions