The Department of Homeland Security is apparently the newest tool in the Obama Administration's power grab. The newest national threat assessment identifies the biggest threats to our nation as "rightwing extremists." Among these groups are groups that are "primarily hate-oriented..., and those that are mainly antigovernment, 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" (pg. 2). Thank God Thomas Jefferson is not still alive, I fear he would be getting the early morning "knock, knock" by federal agents. Among those growing class of dangerous "rightwing extremists" are radicalized veterans returning from war. Yes, there is some apparent conspiracy among vets to bring down the government they have risked their lives to protect.
This is one of the most alarming things I have read in quite some time. To make such a broad stroke of the brush. Apparently all the radicals are on the left also. Those anarchists out there…no problem. Remember those millions of people that “organized” in support of immigration a few years back, no problem. The socialists who want the downfall of our country, no problem. Radical Islam, no problem. Look to all of the protests around the world where it is the leftwing radicals causing major mayhem, yet it’s the “rightwing extremists” who are the real threat. What political propaganda. And to think the Department of Homeland Security is pushing this agenda forward….
8 comments:
Scooby, I was willing to grant that placing the Census in the White House was bad on policy matters and that the Obama Administration needed to be called out for creating the appearance of impropriety (with the real possibility of actual impropriety) by politicizing the issue. But, I have to really disagree with you on this.
First, this assessment was likely started under the Bush Administration. It would be amazing to me if the first thing that Obama's people did after being confirmed was to tell everyone to stop what they are doing and come up with this report. Likely the research that went into this was at least months, if not years, in the making.
Second, even if the threats contained in the report are hyped, then turn-about is fair play after eight years. In the past eight years, anti-war protesters, vegans, and other "left-wing" groups were painted with a similarly broad brush. I could go on, but I think that Glenn Greenwald said it much better than I could. While politicizing and hyping threats to national security is not good policy, it's not like this is a one-way street along which Republicans were too ethical to tread.
Last, lest you mock the potential for veterans to do harm to this country, let us not forget that the second worst terrorist attack to occur on our homeland soil was perpetuated by veterans. Both Timothy McVeigh and Terry Nichols were veterans and McVeigh, according to Wikipedia, was a decorated soldier who received the Bronze Star during his service in the first Gulf War.
Mike3350 - You raise some good points but here is where I think the points fall short.
First, assume for a moment you and Greenwald are accurate...so what? So, you celebrate that which you condemn when your team is in power? Is this the change we should believe in? I, like many on the right, strongly oppose any notion that to disagree is unpatriotic. We should ALL agree with that. So, I simply don't buy this argument as a justification.
Second and BIG distinction...There is growing evidence that the current administration takes it to a whole other level. For example, if accurate, this suggests the Department of Commerce and Department of Homeland Security are being used to further political agendas. Yes, IF this is right. Unless I missed something, FISA, etc were never used for domestic political tools (or at least in any large way). if you find evidence they were, you and I are on the same page they are disgraceful. Politics are politics - we might all hate it, but to use federal agencies to possibly further political agendas in this way is on a whole different level. Again, is the Civil Rights movement really so far in our history that we forget? We are STILL trying to get the FBI to turn over documents about how their power was abused to investigate people like MLK and this is the sort of thing we see? The most pressing threats are about those CRAZY people who have an opinion on federal versus state power? Anti-abortionists? Immigration Reform? It is so convenient these are the KEY threats to Obama’s power. The anti-abortionists (in contrast to those Pro-Abortionists) are merely a proxy for social conservatives with really gay marriage being the defining issue.
Finally, the McVegh example is another misplaced one. Isolated examples do not a trend make. After that case, how many other events happened by militias or ex-military? How many other arrests were made for planned actions by these groups? HUGE resources were put into investigating militias and similar organizations in the post-Oklahoma Bombing and we saw little emerge from it. Thus, no evidence this was much more than an isolated bunch of nuts. So was this really a problem of VETS being prospective terrorists or the run-of-the-mill anti-government folks that both the LEFT and RIGHT have? We have several examples of college kids shooting up campuses...national threat from college students, no. I would assume that 99% of all murders - large and small scale are committed by non-military so what does that say about the real threat? While the single biggest example of domestically grown terrorism was done by ex-military folks, the single biggest period was done by radical Islam and they don't even appear in the report.
You know those crazy anti-abortionists. You know, the **crazy** old men and women praying the rosary. Or **gasp** even worse, mothers with their children...You know how dangerous those people are. To appear in a document like this as some major threat is a joke. Again, when the word Islam is NO where to be found. When push comes to shove, I'd be on the side of the old ladies and vets any day! The former will kept me well fed and the latter well protected.
When push comes to shove it is your government that is determining what is acceptable- and that is unacceptable.
Scooby, I have to disagree with you that somehow, in their first 80-odd days the Obama administration somehow has taken the politicization of homeland security to a new level. For example, both the FBI and the Department of Defense monitored the actions of left-wing groups rather heavily under the Bush administration (the first is the article that Greenwald cites in his post, the second I found along with this one about the government spying on student groups). The latter included a veteran's organization -- the difference between the veterans that you cite and the one's spied on by the DoD? These vets were organized for peace and an end to the war.
I agree that there are policies that should remain as unpoliticized as possible. I do not think that it is wise policy for any administration to paint with broad brushes any domestic or foreign threat. But, my reason for referencing the backlash (and Greenwald's post) is that the voices of the right that are now in an uproar were silent when this type of surveillance was happening to left-wing groups under the Bush administration. Nevermind the acceptance that right-wing groups have given to persecuting anyone with ties to Islam as a radical (e.g. Glenn Beck all but calling Rep. Keith Ellison terrorist and all of the hoopla that surrounded the fact that Ellison took his oath on the Qur'an rather than the Bible). Therefore, I think that we are in agreement that it is wrong to politicize threats to domestic security; but, I would ask that you agree with me that the reaction of the right now that the focus is centered on them is hypocritical when, for years, similar scrutiny has applied to left-wing groups -- particularly anti-war groups -- and they said nothing, or worse, argued that members of those churches, veterans groups, and colleges were "treasonous" to put it in the words of one truly famous right-wing spokesperson.
I also agree with you that anecdotal evidence does not a trend make. However, I found the comment in your original post:
Yes, there is some apparent conspiracy among vets to bring down the government they have risked their lives to protect. to be a flippant commentary having the subtext that veterans should never be placed under government scrutiny. I only brought up McVeigh and Nichols to point out that there was a specific example when this comment proved to be false. I was not making the argument that all veterans groups (or only right-wing ones) should be spied upon by the government, only that there are cases when veterans have conspired to "bring down the government they have risked their lives to protect." I have a similar problem with what you say in your response:
You know, the **crazy** old men and women praying the rosary. Or **gasp** even worse, mothers with their children...You know how dangerous those people are. To appear in a document like this as some major threat is a joke.I don't think that it is a joke when extremist groups have bombed abortion clinics and killed people in the past. Does that mean that all anti-abortion advocates are worthy of scrutiny? Of course not, in the same way that not all anti-war groups are, not all Islamic organizations are, not all anti- or pro-immigrant groups are. But, please do not pretend that all anti-abortion advocates are peaceful protesters with rosary beads or children that advocate for their ideas through peaceful means and decry it as a "joke" that someone would think otherwise when there are many cases to the contrary.
Mike3550 - I think you are taking my comments and sentiments out of context. I would NEVER suggest that federal, state, or local authorities not place individuals or groups of individuals under investigation when indications of criminal activity are raised. This would be immoral, unethical, and illegal. You will not see any comment to that effect in my post or replies.
What I am raising issue is quite specific - identifying these issues as larger national security threats. To identify these in a DHS report like this clearly identifies these groups as some of the most pressing domestic crime/security problems. This is quite different than what you suggest. Just like the government should investigate similar intelligence against left groups.
We could go around in circles about this - but there few political causes that don't drive folks on the outer fringes of the cause to take illegal action. How many abortion bombings shootings have happened in the last decade? Neither of us likely know because these are so few. I hate to break this news to you....The vast majority of abortion protesters are in fact peaceful and yes, quite literally are old ladies praying the rosary. I've been to a few to see them.
Finally - the Glenn Beck comment just doesn't hold water. I am not sure when folks will realize he and his kind are entertainers. They speak for the right as much as Gooberman and Matthews speak for the left.
In all seriousness - thanks for the thoughtful comments. I posted this for comments and I got them. Thanks.
FYI:
Homeland security chief apologizes to veterans groups.
I saw that, thanks for post.
Get back to taking care of that baby. I think I saw something about postpartum women as an emerging threat in that report also. Quite frankly, that is the scariest of them all in my opinion!
Scooby - I think that I understand where you are coming from. I didn't mean to take your comments out of context -- I was only telling you the context that they appeared to have when I read them. I would whole-heartedly agree that we need to roll back the massive increase in domestic surveillance that has been accomplished in the past two decades and particularly after 9/11. For the right and the left. Chasing boogeymen doesn't help to protect us against real threats whether they are internal or external.
I'll grant that Glenn Beck is an entertainer and, thus, his comments should be taken with a grain (or pound) of salt. What terrifies me is that a representative of the United States is saying similar things with relative impunity. The discrimination against Muslims and the unwillingness of people to call those who do it scares and saddens me and I hope it doesn't erupt into something vicious in the future.
I also want to thank you for the discussion. It was nice to have an honest debate with someone with whom I disagree without it becoming a flame war. It is, I believe, the best of what the internet has to offer!
Post a Comment