We all want to be safe. None of us wants to be a victim of violence, but what are we willing to give up in an effort to secure that safety? And once we’ve paid the price for the promise of safety, will we find it worth the cost?
Whether you’ve read the book Minority Report by Phillip Dick or watched the movie, you should be familiar not only with the idea of precrime, but also its dangers. Once the purview of science fiction, Congress is now trying to bring this violation of due process to the United States.
of or relating to law-enforcement efforts and strategies to deter crime by predicting when and where criminal activity will occur.
Pre-crime
It all sounds wonderful. What if we could predict when and where crimes would occur and stop them before they happened? What if we could deter criminals from actually engaging in these crimes? Wouldn’t it be worth almost any cost? Believe it or not, this is not the first time we’ve tried these types of things.
In an effort to deter the harmful effects and related crimes of the overuse of alcohol, we gave the federal government the authority to prohibit its manufacture with the 18th Amendment.
After one year from the ratification of this article the manufacture, sale, or transportation of intoxicating liquors within, the importation thereof into, or the exportation thereof from the United States and all territory subject to the jurisdiction thereof for beverage purposes is hereby prohibited.
U.S. Constitution, Amendment XVIII, Section 1
If you know your history, you probably remember this attempt to deter unwanted behavior didn’t work well. That is why it was repealed in 1933 with the 21st Amendment, but not before its unanticipated outcomes of organized crime and violence. So Congress, in 1934 enacted the National Firearm Act in an effort to deter gun violence. It was thought by those in Congress that certain types of firearms were used primarily by the criminal element of our country, and by regulating them it would decrease violence. Sadly, that didn’t work either. It was tried again with the 1994 Assault Weapons Ban, though it also failed to decrease crime.
Not limiting themselves to crime and violence, the federal government went on to find all sorts of things they wanted to regulate in an effort to deter some ill. From pharmaceuticals to recreational drugs, from lightbulbs to toilets, and from building codes to vehicle safety, Congress has time and time again tried to deter what they see as bad outcomes by regulating and infringing on the rights of innocent Americans. Now, some in Congress want to go a step farther.
To develop a national strategy to prevent targeted violence through behavioral threat assessment and management, and for other purposes.
H.R. 838
This means Congress wants to develop a national strategy to prevent certain types of violence through behavioral threat assessment and management. So what is this behavioral threat assessment and management?
identifying individuals who are exhibiting patterns of concerning behavior that indicate an interest, motive, intention, or capability of carrying out an act of violence;
H.R. 838 Sec 3(2)(A)
How could the federal government identify individuals that are exhibiting patterns of concerning behavior? Well, there are two things they would have to do.
First, the federal government would have to observe each and every American, record and study their patterns of behavior, determine what their interests and intentions are, and determine their motives and capabilities. No part of your life would be off limits, since it could include patterns of concerning behavior. Where you go, what you do, how you spend you money; all of these would be necessary inputs to your behavioral threat assessment. Taking it to its logical conclusion, what you buy on Amazon, what you search for on Google, who you emailed yesterday, who you called or texted, what you watched on Netflix, all would have to be collected and analyzed to develop your behavioral threat assessment. Otherwise, I would expect some to claim they could miss identifying dangerous behavior. In short, this is a version of communist China’s “social credit” system targeted against the American people.
Second, no behavioral threat assessment and management strategy would be complete without determining what constitutes interest, motive, or intention of carrying out violence. Would being unconvinced that man is the major contributing factor to global climate change be considered motive for carrying out an act of violence against the planet? Would using something other than their preferred pronoun be considered an act of violence against someone? Would voting for the wrong person be considered intention of carrying out an act of violence? In short, who gets to determine what is an intention to violence?
In the meantime, while this all deals with assessment, what about the management?
(B) investigating and gathering information from multiple sources to assess whether an individual described in subparagraph (A) poses a threat, based on articulable facts; and
R. 838 Sec 3(2)(B) & (C)
(C) the subsequent management of such a threat, if necessary.
Will you be investigated, have your privacy not only invaded, but shared amongst others in an attempt to determine what you may do? Based on what? What some person in government thinks might someday lead to “violence”? Have you watched the news lately? Some consider free speech violent. Possessing a tool to defend yourself is considered violent by some. Even exercising your beliefs in public are used as examples of violence to some people. Do you really think none of these people work in the federal government? Might some take this opportunity to suppress those who disagree with them?
From there, of course, the management of this “threat” is developed. Not something you have done, possibly not even something you have planned. Just a “pattern of behavior” that someone else finds concerning. You will be “managed” based on the assessment of some government employees who may or may not have an agenda of their own. History shows us that when we give those in government a power, they tend to exercise it to the absolute limit of what they can get away with.
‘They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.’
Benjamin Franklin remarks during negotiations with the King.
Are you willing to give away your rights to be secure in your person, house, papers, and effects for the promise of being kept safe? Will you sell your right to be considered innocent until proven guilty for a bowl of promises that the criminal will not get you? Will you hand over your personal sovereignty just because some in government think they can protect you better than you can protect yourself? Will you sell your children’s heritage of liberty just so you can think you’ll be safe?
If the answer to any of those questions is “yes”, then you deserve neither liberty nor safety.
