Weaponizing Neuroscience

‘); googletag.cmd.push(function () { googletag.display(‘div-gpt-ad-1609268078422-0’); }); document.write(”); googletag.cmd.push(function() { googletag.pubads().addEventListener(‘slotRenderEnded’, function(event) { if (event.slot.getSlotElementId() == “div-hre-Americanthinker—New-3027”) { googletag.display(“div-hre-Americanthinker—New-3027”); } }); }); } if (publir_show_ads) { document.write(“

Government national security employees describe the technologies as being able to detect, as early as possible and in real-time, an event of national concern that presents a risk to the United States or the infrastructure or key assets of the United States.

That ends the hypothetical scenario.

Would it be accurate and reasonable to suggest that those government employees and their technologies are a threat to Americans and should be punished for those technologies?

The hypothetical technology and the government employees operating the technology are able to remotely, secretly, forcefully, and physically affect the human brain; would it be reasonable to suggest that those government employees are a physical threat to Americans?

Unfortunately, at least some of the previous scenario might not be merely hypothetical.

In 2010 during the Obama-Biden Administration, U.S. government national security officials and scientists published a document entitled, “Research Directions in Remote Detection of Covert Tactical Adversarial Intent of Individuals in Asymmetric Operations” on plans for new surveillance technologies. Government scientists presented the plans at an international conference in the United Kingdom, also in 2010.

The article describes that the U.S. government (and “other governments”) planned to develop technologies which literally determine peoples’ unspoken intentions.

The plans included potentially developing brain surveillance technologies (measuring “electrical activity of the… brain” is brain surveillance) which were suggested to be used on Americans (“civilian economy” use),

The U.S. government scientists summarize the article as follows:

The U.S. Government expects to support R&D programs with the objective of producing theoretically founded designs of a prototype system for remote detection of covert tactical adversarial intent of individuals in asymmetric operations. The Government also expects to provide broad support for academic and industrial efforts in remote detection of adversarial intent and in areas (such as linkage of these systems with databases, media, and human input) that are useful for larger systems of systems. Other governments have expressed similar plans.

Again, the article was written in 2010, during the Obama-Biden Administration; at that time, the Obama-Biden Administration “expects” and had the “objective” to produce a system for remote detection of human intentions which are “useful for larger systems of systems.” The paragraph, in the context of the article, apparently implies potentially mind-reading “systems of systems.”

Throughout the article, the U.S. government scientists elaborate:

We attempt to highlight sensing technologies that we believe can measure useful data for assessing adversarial intent… Some potential sensor domains and expected contributions are as follows…

E-Field: Passive free-space electrodes (capacitively coupled) can detect electrical activity of the heart, brain, muscles, and hidden electronic devices.

“E-field” could refer to electrical field or electromagnetic field technologies. (Other medical research describes electric fields that can manipulate the human brain; this is also known as transcranial alternating current stimulation.)

Putting it together, the U.S. government stated that “potential sensor” technologies and “expected contributions” might include “detect[ing] electrical activity of the… brain” to determine peoples’ secret intentions.

The U.S. government scientists also might imply using the same technology to “elicit specific responses.” Thus, forcefully interrogating the brain with remote technology might be implied.

Another technology is mentioned by the U.S. government scientists which has the potential to be used for mind reading (“remote detection of covert… intent”). It is hyperspectral imaging which detects “subsurface blood-flow.” The government scientists do not specify their intent to use such technology on the brain, but infrared and near-infrared technologies are usually included in hyperspectral imaging technologies, and hyperspectral imaging can be used on the human brain.

The rest of the U.S. government document continually describes the U.S. government plans to develop remote threat detection technology which involve “neurophysiological” science components (the brain and the rest of the body), “cognitive neuroscience,” (again, the brain), and “psychophysiological psychology” (the brain, emotions, and how those relate to human behaviors).

U.S. government scientists conclude by suggesting the remote detection of covert intent technologies and their planned “larger systems of systems” could have dual uses in the civilian economy, including “crowd control, antidrug and anticrime operations, border security, and ensuring the security of government and private personnel and property.”

In other words, such potentially remote and secret brain or neurological surveillance systems were suggested to be used by law enforcement and/or investigation entities like the FBI.

A potentially significant fact is that on December 13, 2016, after the Obama-Biden Administration lost the election to Donald Trump, Congress and President Obama enacted “National Neurological Conditions Surveillance System” laws. (130 STAT. 1076-1079)

It seems reasonable to suggest that Congress and State governments should be specifying in laws that such technologies and methods are unlawful. Congress and State governments should likely also provide severe punishments, potentially including punishments which apply retroactively (in part because physical force is used in brain manipulating technologies and many types of unwanted physical force are “crimes of violence”) for the use of, production of, conspiring to use, knowingly allowing others to use, and any other prohibition applicable to such technologies or methods.

Image: Gratis Graphics

If you experience technical problems, please write to helpdesk@americanthinker.com

American Thinker