Proactive Decisions - How Far Will You Go?
It's Too Late to Wrestle with Ethical Quandaries When They Suddenly Arise
It seems clear that some senior members of federal law enforcement (e.g. FBI), agencies (e.g. IRS), Intel (e.g. CIA), and political communities (e.g. autocratic mayors and governors) have decided that they will commit criminal acts.
There’s no way to impute intent or motive. We can speculate that they are so ideological that they believe the ends justify some illegal and unethical means. It’s possible that their lust for power launched them down a slippery slope.
Perhaps they feel there’s a line somewhere that they’ve delineated and beyond which they won’t progress. And perhaps they mean it and will honor it. And perhaps they’ll do whatever they think they can get away with.
Once transgressions are normalized, whether for selfish or “justifiable” reasons, illegal behavior accelerates. Going just a bit further; “unmasking” an unfriendly neighbor to monitor their activities, concocting a crime to confiscate a bit of property, lodging specious charges to weaponize the legal system, placing someone on a “no-fly” list, triggering an audit, scurrilous “red-flagging”, denying building permits, and countless other opaque and plausibly deniable approaches may prove too tempting to those with authority and nefarious inclinations or even just petulance.
Each of these remedies was originally designed with virtuous intent, and each can be easily abused. Anyone who is not adamant in resisting the inclination to abuse awesome powers will be tempted to do so, particularly as such conduct is normalized and even celebrated when the target is considered undesirable by the ‘elite.’
Of course, it’s not just federal, state, and local law enforcement and regulatory folks who can do so.
We’ve seen military members removed from positions, doctors refuse to provide care in some cases, and businesses that comply with questionable demands for information.
This will likely accelerate as the public grows quickly aware and alarmed at the rapid creep of arbitrary and autocratic authorities. While we will hopefully never reach the point of people disappearing at 2 am hauled off to an American analog to the Lubyanka, there will be a concerted effort to send clear messages of grave consequences to those who might be bold enough to persist after Twitter bans and other ‘sanctions.’
The pressure will be extreme, implied, and perhaps explicit.
Twenty-year careers and retirement benefits will be threatened. Carefully accumulated personal assets will be jeopardized by legal defense costs and seizure, or simply an administrative denial of rights. Employment will become tenuous when companies are instructed to handle employees who are problematic in the public forum, or when companies are targeted to intimidate the owners, or when family members are terminated to avoid blowback.
Therefore each person should consider, discuss with their family, and decide individually where their thresholds are. How far they’re willing to push, and how much consequence they’re willing to endure.
We’ve seen counterpoints offered this week by Lt Col Scheller and SSG Bronson.
and
Scheller explicitly addresses this topic. He considered and understands the possible cost, and proceeded with considerable moral courage. (Tell me that Bronson isn’t like a character taken directly from a Kurt Schlicter novel…..)
Here are some examples:
Military commissioned and non-commissioned officers will have to decide what constitutes unlawful orders. Will they accept being ordered into action against citizens? It would likely start as riot/crowd control and then suddenly and unexpectedly turn into kinetic action.
Judges will have to decide whether they’ll rubber stamp unreasonable government demands or even allow a “process” to play out rather than summarily dismissing civil or criminal actions.
Business owners will have to decide how they’ll handle regulatory harassment and demands for private information or action against employees or clients/customers.
LEOs will have to decide whether they’re willing to process red-flag laws or participate in other weapons confiscation schemes.
Members of federal and state agencies will have to decide whether they’re willing to be used as functionaries in extra-judicial action.
Considerable pressure will be brought to bear. There will be comfort and illusory safety in capitulating and becoming enablers/enforcers in the action. There will be discomfort and cost in refusing to do so - particularly as it becomes normalized.
The problem is that it’s almost impossible to decide in the moment. That’s why these sorts of ethical decisions are traditionally trained and rehearsed - so that they’re instinctive.
So how will a young infantry squad leader respond when, during a ‘riot control’ mission they’re suddenly told to open fire (we know Bronson’s answer) - or even if they’re fired upon by an agent provocateur? How will a police officer who’s nearing retirement react when told to confiscate weapons from a local resident? How will an IRS field agent handle an audit which seems to have scant justification? How will low-level federal law enforcement agents react when they learn of a colleague who’s coaching others to falsify testimony against a ‘rabble-rouser?’
How will you react when you’re instructed to do something that crosses your personal line?
How will you react when you’re subject to action which you know is extra-legal?
The time to decide is before it happens.