Opinion
Featured Image
 Shutterstock

(LifeSiteNews) — Consider the following scenario: U.S. lawmakers discover that certain technologies like radio frequency energy (sometimes described as “directed energy” or “directed energy weapons”) or other invisible technologies which can go through buildings and homes and can be secretly used from long distances away can now be used by government law enforcement entities covertly to torture others.

In this scenario, lawmakers also recognize the ability of government behavioral scientists and psychologists to develop covert schemes or procedures to intentionally inflict suffering on a targeted person without resorting to direct physical violence, sometimes referred to as “no-touch torture.”

Thus, Congress recognizes the ability of government employees to torture others without touching them and without even being near them. Congress then makes a federal law against torture which is written as follows:

Whoever outside the United States commits or attempts to commit torture shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 20 years, or both, and if death results to any person from conduct prohibited by this subsection, shall be punished by death or imprisoned for any term of years or for life.

The reasonable American might wonder why Congress, when given the opportunity, specified that torture was a crime only outside the United States. The same person might also conclude that by making a law against torture only outside the United States, Congress might have essentially legalized torture by public officials inside the United States. This principle is summarized in the phrases “anything that is not forbidden is permitted” and no crime, no punishment without law.

The above scenario is not completely hypothetical; the hypothetical part is that Congress has not publicly recognized that directed energy weapons and systems and behavioral sciences could be used to torture without touching or restraining a person.

The non-hypothetical part is that, in 1994, Congress and President Clinton enacted a federal law against torture, but it only applies to actions outside the United States, using the same wording provided above:

Whoever outside the United States commits or attempts to commit torture shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 20 years, or both, and if death results to any person from conduct prohibited by this subsection, shall be punished by death or imprisoned for any term of years or for life. (Emphasis added)

The U.S. Department of Justice explains that the federal law on torture only applies to acts of torture committed outside the United States:

Section 2340A of Title 18, United States Code, prohibits torture committed by public officials under color of law against persons within the public official’s custody or control. Torture is defined to include acts specifically intended to inflict severe physical or mental pain or suffering. (It does not include such pain or suffering incidental to lawful sanctions.) The statute applies only to acts of torture committed outside the United States. (Emphasis added)

The same law defines torture in the following way:

“torture” means an act committed by a person acting under the color of law specifically intended to inflict severe physical or mental pain or suffering (other than pain or suffering incidental to lawful sanctions) upon another person within his custody or physical control

Under the color of law “refers to the appearance of legal authority or an apparently legal right that may not exist.” U.S. federal law importantly defines “severe mental pain or suffering” as well, and includes “procedures calculated to disrupt profoundly the…personality”:

“severe mental pain or suffering” means the prolonged mental harm caused by or resulting from—

(A) the intentional infliction or threatened infliction of severe physical pain or suffering;

(B) the administration or application, or threatened administration or application, of mind-altering substances or other procedures calculated to disrupt profoundly the senses or the personality;

(C) the threat of imminent death; or

(D) the threat that another person will imminently be subjected to death, severe physical pain or suffering, or the administration or application of mind-altering substances or other procedures calculated to disrupt profoundly the senses or personality

It is believed that torture is used by government employees when investigating or questioning a person. Thus, the law is likely referring to law enforcement, intelligence community, and/or military officials. In other words, because the law only made such torture unlawful outside the United States, the law could be interpreted to be permitting law enforcement, the FBI, intelligence community, or other government employees to use methods which cause severe mental suffering or pain during their investigations or other operations on Americans inside the United States.

Before continuing by providing examples, it is necessary to refute the claim that “there is no federal law against torture because there are state laws against torture.” That response is insufficient. There are many crimes which are forbidden by state and federal laws; homicide laws are an example. Additionally, it appears as though there are multiple states that do not have sufficient laws against torture. Making torture a federal crime should not have been problematic and instead suggests the possibility of government officials using torture.

READ: World Economic Forum pushes digital globalism that would merge the ‘online and offline’

Examples of ‘No-touch torture’   

The same U.S. federal law on torture importantly describes “severe mental pain or suffering” to include “procedures calculated to disrupt profoundly the senses or personality.” Such torture likely refers at least in part to psychological torture. Psychological torture is “understood as the intentional infliction of suffering without resorting to direct physical violence, in what is known as ‘no-touch’ torture.” No-touch torture can be committed covertly.

Many people might think “torture” only involves a person restrained and continuously physically harmed. The type of torture described above, involving “calculated procedures to disrupt profoundly…the personality,” is less well-known. It might include continuously coordinated (“calculated”) schemes, often with gaslighting within one’s community, meant to provoke the tortured person to anger, sadness, depression, and so on.

The coordinated gaslighting schemes work on human emotional reflexes (“fight or flight” and anger, sadness, fear, etc.) that are nearly impossible to stop by the targeted person. Then-Senator Biden and President Clinton might have legalized such no-touch torture in a 1994 law supporting a law enforcement method described as “community oriented policing.”

No-touch torture was used by East German government officials to covertly torture those who spoke out against the government; the technique was specifically labeled “decomposition of personalities” or Zersetzung. Secret police employees and everyday citizen collaborators could torture the targeted person through gaslighting or psychological schemes without touching the target.

While it is said to ultimately destroy the tortured person’s personality, the ultimate goal is to get the targeted person out of society (or “off the streets” as is sometimes said by law enforcement), potentially contributing to death by causing a person to no longer want to live. Thus, if a law enforcement entity wanted to get a person “off the streets” without being identified as the cause, they might use such gaslighting, Zersetzung, or similar no-touch torture methods.

There are many possible examples. First, consider how basic knowledge of human behavior and psychology could be used to torture others. Most are aware of the common experience of throat-clearing or coughing (“cough, cough”) used as a hint or suggestion and non-verbal communication. Now, say some students don’t like their teacher or professor. They decide that anytime their teacher or professor says any word which has a double meaning indicating profanity or a crime, one or more students will “cough cough” or “a-hem” with a throat clear.

Meanwhile the students keep a straight face as if they are paying attention and not doing anything nefarious; such students might even pretend to maintain a friendly relationship with the teacher.

After sensitizing the teacher to the throat clearing or “cough cough” non-verbal hint, other noises like pen-clicking, yawn, sniffling, and so on will have the same effect. The noise innuendos continue for days, months, and years, as the students pass the method on to future students.

Over time such targeted teachers might become sensitized to the above noises. The targeted teacher experiences distress at the many noise stimuli and might experience a “disruption” (using the word in the federal law) in their personality as a result of being sensitized (experience mental suffering) to noises. After being sensitized, the slightest pen-click or cough while speaking could cause reflexive anger or distress.

The profound disruption in personality might result in the teacher going from being sociable, popular, positive, and active in society to being easily provoked, preferring to be away from others, and so on. This result is especially expected if the teacher’s or professor’s co-workers, family, and friends participate in the same innuendos, hints, and suggestions. (Workplace mobbing is a similar phenomenon.) It might result in the targeted person quitting teaching or worse.

Consider another example with advanced technologies known as directed energy technologies which can “see into” a person’s home and covertly make a person feel pain and other sensations from a remote and secret location. Say law enforcement wants a person “off the streets” without being recognized as the cause. They set up a surveillance system with such radar technology which can see where the person is and what the person is doing inside their house at every moment of their life.

They also utilize other directed energy technologies which can cause noises. Microwave gun-like technologies which rapidly heat water or other materials and can be used from long distances could rapidly expand materials. Such rapid expansion could then cause the materials to make noises. Gaslighting the targeted person would then be possible – causing plastic bottles, milk cartons, wood floors, ceilings, refrigerators and other appliances to make noises is a theoretical possibility.

Similarly, the radar technology which “sees into” homes could be used by law enforcement entities to have neighbors make noises, say, every time the targeted person moves toward a door to exit the house (thus using Pavlovian conditioning and negative stimuli to attempt to keep the person restrained in the house).

Such noises might at first be ignored by the targeted person but he would eventually notice these unlikely coincidences; the targeted person would then feel like he was  “being watched.” When this gaslighting continues over months or years, the result would likely be a profound disruption of personality as mentioned in the U.S. federal law which makes such torture illegal only outside of the United States. (Of course, another potential result is the targeted person seeing a psychiatrist and ultimately being prescribed anti-psychotics which are used in other settings as chemical restraints.)

Then there is also the possibility of using directed energy weapons and systems to cause bodily sensations. Say, for example, law enforcement uses such technologies to cause continuous muscle twitches in the thighs or arms. At first, the targeted person might think such twitches are merely random, but over time a person would recognize that there is likely another source causing such twitches. The continuous causing of muscle twitches could contribute to a profound disruption in personality.

Finally, consider how investigators, law enforcement, the FBI, or others might use covert hints, suggestions, and similar covert strategies to get an innocent person to incriminate themselves wrongly, (which would also have the potential effect of getting the targeted person off the streets). One way that law enforcement could set someone up is by putting details of a crime committed, or a potential crime if it is not known whether a crime was committed, into the targeted person’s mind, and then getting them to say those details.

Such a suggestion might seem impossible at first, but not when one considers the above examples, advanced technologies, and more basic knowledge of human behavior and psychology. It was previously described that humans can communicate with others without using words with non-verbal communications. The game “Charades” is an example of how humans can communicate without words and in a sequential manner to communicate full sentences.

It is also known that humans can experience the feeling of being accused of something due to those non-verbal communications; the throat clearing and “cough cough” mentioned above are only a few examples. Now, in investigations, it is common to hear about police or others using “leading questions.” A leading question suggests the answer that is desired by the questioner; thus, it is not really a question but is instead a set up.

Local plain-clothed police, the FBI, and collaborators in the community (“community oriented policing”) could bombard a person with continuous non-verbal communications, or non-verbal hints of leading questions with accusations, in a charade-like or sequential manner. This is especially easy for them to do if they have others, like family members of a targeted person, collaborate and use the same hints and suggestions through non-verbal communications.

Again, over days, months, and years, a person can determine when others around them are hinting at things through non-verbal communications of accusations.

Law enforcement could continuously use plain-clothed employees in public to do such non-verbal communication. If this is continuously done over several months and years, the targeted person is eventually going to recognize the hinted/suggested false accusation. Again, this is especially true if family, friends, or others in the community are participating in the same hints of false accusations.

And false accusations cause a person to experience distress and anger. Over time, the hints and suggestions of false accusations might become torturous. People who are bullied experience similar false accusations.

In attempt to stop the hints and suggestions which cause mental suffering, a person might respond to the hints and suggestions and say he did not commit the action he believes the hinters are hinting at. And that is precisely how investigators could provoke false self-incrimination; use the hints to get details into the target’s mind and then cause distress to get him to utter the details.

There are other situations in which the targeted person feels so tortured that he might even falsely admit to something he did not do. Most people have been in situations where another person wants them to say something that they do not want to say. It often occurs that one person wants another person to say he was wrong about something. The constant pestering by one person might lead the other person to say, “I am going to say I was wrong, but not because I am wrong, but only to get you to be quiet.”

The torturous Zersetzung and similar strategies could lead to the same false confessions. This is especially true if the police, FBI, or others use hints and suggestions of violence. The same non-verbal communications described previously could also be used for such hints and suggestions of violence.

Much of the above discussion is mentioned because it is known that the police, FBI, prosecutors, and other government officials might commit serious evils against others, and people who are potential targets (the righteous people Jesus mentions who become targets of evil people) should be aware of such potential strategies. A study entitled “Government Misconduct and Convicting the Innocent: The Role of Prosecutors, Police and Other Law Enforcement” describes that many people have falsely confessed to a crime due to the threat of violence only to later be exonerated. It must  be kept in mind that such threats of violence need not be spoken directly at the target. Hints, suggestions, non-verbal communications and other no-touch torture strategies mentioned above could achieve the same purpose.

Entities like the FBI and potentially local law enforcement have been shown to overstep their authorities and harm Americans. Thus, there is a need for federal laws against torture inside the United States.

READ: EU official compares ‘disinformation’ to a ‘virus,’ calls for stricter online censorship

6 Comments

    Loading...