First, I’d like to express thanks to Cargosquid at United Conservatives of Virginia for this take on this atrocity that has been leaked out. Also, I’d like to thank the person/s at DHS who leaked this document to the public.
Let’s start from the beginning of the document. The document itself outlines the scope of the purpose of it and the efforts on behalf of the United States government to target so-called “rightwing extremists.”
(U) Scope
(U/FOUO) This product is one of a series of intelligence assessments published by the Extremism and Radicalization Branch to facilitate a greater understanding of the phenomenon of violent radicalization in the United States. The information is provided to federal, state, local, and tribal counterterrorism and law enforcement officials so they may effectively deter, prevent, preempt, or respond to terrorist attacks against the United States. Federal efforts to influence domestic public opinion must be conducted in an overt and transparent manner, clearly identifying United States government sponsorship. Emphasis mine.
By its own admission, the scope of this operation extends from the highest echelons of Federal government to the most local of agencies. This is obviously intended to frighten or intimidate those who fall under the definitions included in this document. If you read carefully, you’ll notice the term, “violent radicalization” used extensively in this document. My question to the DHS and the Obama administration is what about Bill Ayers? It seems to me he’s a prime example of violent radicalization of the most virulent kind. Also, please note the sentence I have emphasized above. Why would the DHS attempt to influence domestic public opinion anyway? Isn’t it chartered to protect the Homeland?
(U) LAW ENFORCEMENT INFORMATION NOTICE:
This product contains Law Enforcement Sensitive (LES) information. No portion of the LES information should be released to the media, the general public, or over non-secure internet servers. Release of this information could adversely affect or jeopardize investigative activities.
Well, whoop di doo!! That’s kind of the point isn’t it? Yes, this will jeopardize investigative activities and I’m dang proud that it will. The investigation of law abiding pro-life, pro-Constitution conservatives is an abomination and should be jeopardized.
(U) Warning:
This document is UNCLASSIFIED//FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY (U//FOUO). It contains information that may be exempt from public release under the Freedom of Information Act (5 U.S.C. 552). It is to be controlled, stored, handled, transmitted, distributed, and disposed of in accordance with DHS policy relating to FOUO information and is not to be released to the public, the media, or other personnel who do not have a valid need-to-know without prior approval from DHS.
Like everything else the US government does, this effort to deny information was a BIG, FAT FAILURE (that’s a technical term by the way.) Wow, do we really want these yahoos at DHS charged with protecting the Homeland?
As a note, this is just from the first page of an eight page document. There are more tidbits that are of interest to us “extremists.”
Guys, here’s the kicker!!! Guess what? The government does not have concrete information that the so-called rightwing extremists are planning any violent, or illegal act. What do they have? I’ll let you read it for yourself.
(U) Key Findings
(U//LES) The DHS Office of Intelligence and Analysis (I&A) has no specific information that domestic rightwing terrorists are currently planning acts of violence, but rightwing extremists may be gaining new recruits by playing on their fears about several emergent issues. The economic downturn and the election of the first African-American president present unique drivers for rightwing radicalization and recruitment.
Aside from the condescending tone of this particular section, the government admits that “we don’t have anything yet, but we’re looking.” Oh, just so you know, here’s the DHS definition of Rightwing extremism.
*(U) Rightwing extremism in the United States can be broadly divided into those groups, movements, and adherents that are primarily hate-oriented(based on hatred of particular religions, racial or ethnic groups), and those that are mainly anti government, rejecting federal authority in favor of state or local authority or rejecting government authority entirely. It may include groups and individuals that are dedicated to a single issue, such as opposition to abortion or immigration.
There it is folks. Look at the emphasized phrase. Does that no describe most of conservatives? Who among us does not prefer state or local authority in most matters? Oh, are you pro-life or anti- illegal immigration? Yes, you’re a rightwing extremist too…
I’ll have more, MUCH more tonight and tomorrow. Remember, this is only from the first two pages of the document.
If folks "prefer state or local authority in most matters", they might be conservatives. But if they combine that with support of violence against people who believe otherwise, they might well be right-wing extremists.
ReplyDeleteIf folks prefer federal authority in most matters, they might be liberals. But if they combine that with support of violence against people who believe otherwise, they might well be left-wing extremists.
Dead innocents don't care whether the bomb that killed them was triggered by the left hand or the right.
Good points, but there was no mention of the combination of the two. In fact, the document specifically divided the two, I believe it was, hate groups, antigovernment, reject federal authority in favor of state or local authority, and those who reject federal authority outright. I might be inclined to your view, but the division of the three is specifcally included under the definition of rightwing extremism.
ReplyDeleteYou're right. As the blanket DHS definition is worded, almost anyone - including most liberals - could be labeled a right-wing extremist.
ReplyDeleteWhy? Even the most ardent liberal is likely to have at least one issue where they believe the federal government has no business or should be superceded by state or local powers.
The DHS document's premise that being "antigovernment" or "rejecting federal authority in favor of state or local authority" makes one a right-wing extremist reminds me of the old saw about grade inflation - if everyone's above average, what's average? If virtually everyone in the country can be labeled a right-wing extremist, does the definition mean anything other than a blanket call to watch us all?
You may be conservative; you're not an "extremist". But the DHS' definition? I think most people anywhere on the political spectrum will agree that's extreme.
Thank you for your insightful and thoughtful comments.
ReplyDeleteI don't like to think of myself as extremist, that's why I take issue with this report, or any so-called intelligence assessment that is so broadly painted as to leave much of the determination in the hands of law enforcement. That's why I fear another Ruby Ridge. Of course, I'm not a white supremacist,but under this definition, almost anyone of us could be determined to be a lone wolf rightwing extremist.