Wash. Post ignores report on left-wing groups in citing claim that DHS report is "politically biased"
SUMMARY: In an article about "widespread criticism" of a DHS report detailing potential increases in right-wing extremism, The Washington Post reported the claim that the report is "incomplete and politically biased," but did not note that DHS previously issued a similar assessment of left-wing extremism.
An April 16 Washington Post article about" widespread criticism of a leaked domestic intelligence report warning local law enforcement agencies to be on guard for right-wing extremist groups seeking new recruits amid the nation's economic troubles" reported that American Legion national commander David K. Rehbein said the report was "incomplete and politically biased." However, the article did not mention that the Department of Homeland Security also issued an assessment on January 26 of left-wing extremism, concluding that "a number of emerging trends point to leftwing extremists maturing and expanding their cyber attack capabilities over the next decade with the aim of attacking targets in the United States."
Additionally, the Post did not note that the DHS assessment cited a 2008 FBI report -- authored during the Bush administration -- as evidence that "some returning military veterans from the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have joined extremist groups." In the July 2008 FBI report, titled "White Supremacist Recruitment of Military Personnel since 9/11," the FBI's Counterterrorism Division determined with "[h]igh confidence" that "[m]ilitary experience is found throughout the white supremacist extremist movement as the result of recruitment campaigns by extremist groups and self-recruitment by veterans sympathetic to white supremacist causes." The 2008 report further stated that a "review of FBI white supremacist extremist cases from October 2001 to May 2008 identified 203 individuals with confirmed or claimed military service active in the extremist movement at some time during the reporting period," and that "[a]ccording to FBI information, an estimated 19 veterans (approximately 9 percent of the 203) have verified or unverified service in the ongoing wars in Iraq and Afghanistan."
By contrast, the Los Angeles Times reported in an April 16 article that "Homeland Security officials dismissed accusations that the report was politically motivated, noting that a similar assessment issued in January focused on concerns that left-wing extremists were poised to increase their use of cyber attacks over the next decade." The Times also noted that the "Homeland Security document cites a 2008 FBI report that said some troops returning from Afghanistan and Iraq had joined extremist groups." From the Times:
The Homeland Security document cites a 2008 FBI report that said some troops returning from Afghanistan and Iraq had joined extremist groups.
The prospect that someone trained in military methods might carry out independent attacks or help form terrorist cells is described as "the most dangerous domestic terrorism threat in the United States."
Veterans groups have expressed dismay at the report's language, and accused the Department of Homeland Security of political bias.
[...]
[Homeland Security Secretary Janet] Napolitano, who as a U.S. attorney was involved in the case against McVeigh, said her department honored veterans and employed thousands of them.
But she defended the report as part of an ongoing effort to warn of emerging domestic threats.
"We don't have the luxury of focusing our efforts on one group," Napolitano said. "We must protect the country from terrorism, whether foreign or homegrown."
Homeland Security officials dismissed accusations that the report was politically motivated, noting that a similar assessment issued in January focused on concerns that left-wing extremists were poised to increase their use of cyber attacks over the next decade.
The department routinely issues intelligence warnings to state and local authorities, a role it was assigned in response to criticism that the federal government had failed to do so in the months preceding the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks.
From the April 16 Washington Post article by staff writer Ed O'Keefe, headlined "Napolitano Defends Report on Extremism":
The report drew sharp criticism from Republican lawmakers, conservatives and veterans groups, who said it unfairly targeted returning military veterans and gun rights advocates without citing specific threats. The report said the return of military veterans facing challenges with reintegrating into their communities "could lead to the potential emergence of terrorist groups or lone wolf extremists capable of carrying out violent attacks."
To characterize men and women returning home after defending our country as potential terrorists is offensive and unacceptable," House Minority Leader John A. Boehner (R-Ohio) said in a statement. "The Department of Homeland Security owes our veterans an apology."
American Legion National Commander David K. Rehbein sent a letter to Napolitano calling the report incomplete and politically biased. The secretary plans to meet with Rehbein next week when she returns from a series of trips, according to her statement.
Aides said privately that the secretary regrets that critics have construed the report's language to suggest that the department perceives a threat from veterans, noting that the department's various agencies employ thousands of military veterans and that some of Napolitano's deputies once served in uniform.
"We are on the lookout for criminal and terrorist activity but we do not -- nor will we ever -- monitor ideology or political beliefs," Napolitano said in the statement. "We take seriously our responsibility to protect the civil rights and liberties of the American people, including subjecting our activities to rigorous oversight from numerous internal and external sources."
The left wing did not throw a package over the fence onto the WH lawn recently. The lot of those protestors -- the one's at the White House -- should be scooped up and jailed. Yes, you have a right to protest -- no, you can not throw things on the WH lawn and make the Secret Service get involved without going to jail.
Well they need to arrest Sen. John F. Kerry; (D) MA first. Remember, he allegedly threw his medals over the WH fence.
Okay. Fair trade.
Yeah, it's equivalent to throw medals over a fence or throw a suspicious package over a fence. In la-la land, that is.
And he's said he didn't throw them over the fense. It was just another lie to make Kerry's military credentials, outstanding ones, look worse than they should have.
Left leaning extremists aren't judged likely to threaten people. Right leaning ones are much more likely to hurt people or property, based on expert assessments.
You're lying now. Kerry threw HIS ribbons, but OTHER soldiers MEDALS over the fence. Look it up, I'll help, Boston Globe June 17, 2003.
As far as Left Wing Extremists hurting people, I guess you didn't read the DHS reoprt on that. If the expert assessments of which you didn't link are speaking of PETA and ELF, then I'll give you they may be non violent. On the other hand the DHS report speaks of anarchist groups that are violent and use arson and bombings as a tactic. The case that comes to mind is the burning of Malibu homes a couple of summers ago. There were no fatalities but how did the Left Wing Exttemists know for sure?
Just in case you think I blow smoke up your skirt...
DHS Left Wing Extremists report
Left wing extremists, I've got no use for them either. Just like I've got no use for right wing extremists, which is what this report is about. It's not about conservatives in general, it's about extremist groups. WTF is the problem with people?
exactly. why are all these people defending any of these groups or even arguing about this as if decent, law abiding people have any horse in this race whatsoever. the operative word is extremists, they don't speak of far left or far right, liberal or conservative, it is about nuts, extremists, wackos. why anyone would try to get in the middle of playing one against the other baffles my mind. let law enforcement do it's job with these idiots.
JAmesb, for once, OK, maybe for a few times, I'm in agreement with you here.
If someone has a dog in this fight about being an extremist, and want to defend them, then have at it, but for 99.9% of our population, this just doesn't fit into their daily lives. But we can see what 1 person can pull off, or 13 people can pull off, which is why that 0.1% is important to watch out for.
"It's not about conservatives in general"
Exactamundo.
The word "conservative" DOES NOT APPEAR IN THE DHS REPORT. NOT ONCE.
Actually, it's still you who is lying. You said "Remember, he allegedly threw his medals over the WH fence."
He didn't throw anything over the White House fence. The fence was at the Capitol. He didn't throw any of his medals over the fence either. And what did I say?
"And he's said he didn't throw them (his medals) over the fence." I was right, not lying. You were wrong, and lying.
Kerry said what he did in 1971 was unpopular and polarizing: "I threw my ribbons over; I threw the medals of two veterans who asked me to throw them over, after the ceremony, completely separate. And I'm the one - if I had something to hide - I'm the one who made it known exactly what happened. To me, it's one and the same [ribbons, medals], and I'm proud of it."
At the end of the interview, Kerry said he didn't want to throw medals or ribbons over the fence to begin with. "I thought we ought to lay them on a table and put them in front of people in a way that wouldn't be as challenging to many Americans. Other veterans felt otherwise. They took a vote ... they voted to throw. I threw my ribbons. I didn't have my medals."
http://archive.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2004/4/26/100423.shtml
Yes, and I bet you were one of the nuts who called the "shoe-throwing" reporter a hero. As I recall, the secret service had to get involved with that one too.
Nope. Guess what? I didn't agree with that either. I don't think anyone should harm our President, regardless of who that is. And he wasn't harmed. He showed his cat like reflexes and hit the deck as the shoe went over his head.
While I appreciate the generalization and the narrow-mindedness -- No. I understand the man's frustration as his country was levelled and is being ransacked by contractors, their own government and our government -- some purposefully, some through neglect.
But no, you don't get to throw shoes at the heads of government officials.
Chalk this up as one more manufactured controversy from the Troglodytes. Wasn't it just a few short years ago that the Bush administration's justice department was following and harassing anti-war groups? How soon we forget.
And, can we stop pretending that every person who serves in the military is perfect? We know that recruiting standards were lowered to provide cannon fodder for Bush's Iraq fiasco... so it is not beyond imagination that a few of them might someday turn to criminal activity after returning to the U.S. In fact, if you bother to check, I think you'll find that some already have.
Come on. You're going to have to back this charge up with some links.
http://www.truthout.org/article/documents-show-secret-fbi-unit-targeted-antiwar-group
http://www.aclu.org/privacy/gen/38835prs20090225.html
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/11/18/AR2008111803487.html
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/10/17/AR2008101702898.html
http://www.capitolhillblue.com/node/14059
Five links and only the first kook link even touches what you assert. The next three links deal with LOCAL or STATE police forces, not the FEDERAL government. The fifth comes from a former disgruntled NSA employee who was found to be psychologically unbalanced and was fired. Tice wont be happy now that Barry O'Gump has EXPANDED the warrantless wiretapping:
Barry expands Bush's wiretapping
I'm not saying it didn't happen, but not on the level that I think you're asserting.
From the second link:
"The federal government has facilitated the growth of a network of fusion centers since 9/11 to expand information collection and sharing practices among law enforcement agencies, the private sector and the intelligence community. There are currently 70 fusion centers in the United States. "
Thanks for admitting that it did happen. That was my only assertion.
I will never say never. I admit that I just don't remember this in the news. I don't remember it on this forum and this is right in the wheelhouse for MMfA.
I wonder what the ACLU's view is of Obama's expanding of the wiretap's? My guess is that this topic will slowly and silently disappear. Even though I supported the wiretap's, I thought it was a major rallying cry for the left and was used to great effect on this forum.
Don't mean to butt in on this conversation (well, actually that's exactly what I meant to do when I wrote this), but Obama is NOT considered infallible by most lefties. The wiretapping, reluctance to indict former Bush administration personnel, and various bailout missteps are among the faults that are directly addressed by liberals every day.
Would give links, but I'm at work and most reference websites are forbidden and inaccessible. Check Crooks and Liars, Counterpunch, Capitol Hill Blue, and any of the more mainstream lefty blogs for examples.
QFT, Neon. All you have to do is listen to (or visit) Democracy Now! or Thom Hartmann and you will hear plenty of apprehension and criticism of Obama's policies coming from the left.
Exactly. The righties seem to think that because they approved of, and stamped everything that Bush did as being OK, that lefties are the same with Obama. It's not true.
Guess what? The ACLU is ALL over the Obama administration already for the wiretapping issue, and are trying to get the administration to say that they've stopped it, or to show transparency as to what is going on. They are threatening legal action.
It's amazing isn't it? That the ACLU is just, you know, doing what they say that they do. Protecting you, me, and the Constitution of the United States. They have been highly critical of the Obama administration thus far, and have stated, on occasion, that Obama has been slightly better than Bush, but not much as far as issues that were brought up during Bush.
That explains why the right is currently silent on the ACLU, on of their favorite bogeymen. As long as the ACLU is directed against a democrat they are happy.
I'm firmly on the side of the ACLU against whoever they're talking about if you ask me. They are purely a defender of the Constitution, and that's it.
Why don't they defend 2nd amendment rights?
Examples?
sigh!
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=aclu+defends+2nd+amendment
Hit & Run > The ACLU Defends Gun Rights - Reason Magazine
The ACLU Defends Gun Rights | NowPublic News Coverage
ACLU Defends Teacher Suspended for Facebook Gun Photo - Democratic ...
ACLU of Nevada Supports Individual’s Right to Bear Arms | ACLU of ...
Militia report unites ACLU, Republicans - Topix
SnarkyBytes » ACLU Defends Gun Owner!
From your first article you linked:
" Since it does not believe the Second Amendment imposes any limits on the government's authority to restrict possession of guns, the national ACLU has never challenged gun control laws."
It looks as if Texas and Nevada are at odds with National...
My questions regarding the National ACLU still stands.
I'm not sure what you expect, personally. Are they supposed to adopt the NRA stance that pretty much any restrictions are unacceptable, or what? Are they supposed to object if people aren't allowed to buy high-capacity assault rifles, or have to go through a background check, or mental health check, or what? The language of the Second Amendment doesn't apply to anything like that. As long as people are able to acquire guns for self-defense or hunting purposes, then what complaints should the ACLU put forward?
The links show they clearly have defended 2nd amendment rights. Your contention was proved wrong.
First of all, you are wrong. I did not make a contention. I asked a question.
The quote I provided shows the national ACLU does not support 2nd Amendment rights.
Therefore Mags contention that the ACLU supports the Constitution is in error. The ACLU, as a national group, (proved by your link,) only selectively supports portions of the Constitution..
If he had said, "The Nevada branch of the ACLU... or the Texas Branch of the ACLU...", then he might be a little more accurate. But since he didn't, on the whole, he is in error.
Just because you asked a question doesn't mean you didn't make a contention. You're taking a page from that snot-nosed punk that got owned by Barney Frank at the Kennedy School. Don't be disingenuous, now. Or do, I guess, since you couldn't be a nutty rightwing cheerleader without it.
The quote you provided, if it's to be believed, actually shows that the ACLU would defend the second amendment if they believed it was under attack. Now, as to why they won't defend your interpretation of the second amendment... well, that's anybody's guess.
Now you are nitpicking. But let's play.
Given the reference to "a well regulated Militia" and "the security of a free State," the ACLU has long taken the position that the Second Amendment protects a collective right rather than an individual right. For seven decades, the Supreme Court's 1939 decision in United States v. Miller was widely understood to have endorsed that view.
which brings us to point 3, the nevada branch, the texas branch, hey, guess what? They are still the ACLU! That had to have been the weakest part of your counterpoint.
Snooop,
Just quickly...
Regarding your first point - how can a question be wrong? To say say a question is wrong is laughable.
Secondly, you provided links that show a couple of State offices of the ACLU have defended Second Amendment rights. That is correct. I acknowledged that.
Finally your quote by the ACLU saying, "... We do not, however, take a position on gun control itself. In our view neither the posession of guns nor the regulation of guns raises a civil liberties issues." proves that the national ACLU only selectively defends the Constitution.
It is as plain as the nose on mrherbert's face.
Finally, it's no big deal. Everyone, (except for kool-aid drinkers who deny reality,) including the national ACLU itself, already knows and accepts it.
ps. Even mrherbert agrees with me.
how can a question be wrong? To say say a question is wrong is laughable.
Yes or no - have you stopped beating your wife?
Exactly. A lot of the left is less than thrilled with some of Obama's decisions. However, I'm still holding out hope that he'll be less of a disaster than the cretins who infested the White House for the past 8 years.
Maybe he won't start an unnecessary war, at least. And, there is a slim chance that we'll get some kind of HealthCare reform, which has been off the table for 15 years.
"I don't remember it on this forum and this is right in the wheelhouse for MMfA. "
I didn't remember it either, which makes MMFA's search feature so useful:
Kessler dismissed "paranoid conspiracy theories" that military recently spied on anti-war groups; missed NBC report on leaked Pentagon database
Why don't you think it was in the news, TBone?
Actually, I have heard reports that the ACLU is planning on fighting the Obama administration on this point. Sorry to burst the conspiracy bubble, but the ACLU does not take cases based on ideological concerns, it is solely concerned with protecting EVERYONE's constitutional rights.
Not that it matters or anything, but FIXED NEWS reported yesterday that the recent DHS report was actually requested by the Bush White House and was simply not completed until now. Kind of takes the air out of the right wing talking heads theory that this was evidence the Obama administration was attacking conservative freedoem of expression and speech.
http://thinkprogress.org/2009/04/15/fox-dhs-bush/
achris,
The objection to the report is not that it was ordered but rather they hyperpartisain characterizaton of decent, honest Americans as possible right wing extremists. No evidence is given, just pure partisain hackery.
It's the result of the report not the request that is in question.
Interesting how a report is released on radical left-wingers, and somehow, decent, honest liberals are able to easily figure out that the DHS isn't refering to them.
Pete,
As I mentioned elsewhere. The report on radical left wingers is careful to identify them as willing to break the law and actually identifies those groups.
However, there is no identification of an right wing extremist group or differentiating between law breakers and honest Americans. Everyone who who holds conservative views on the limit of Federal authority, abortion, or immigration is marginalized as right wing extremists.
You would think that with a department full of lawyers, the all inclusive nature of the defintion would have been vetted and revised. But because the DHS has now ben politicized, that is not the case.
* (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 religious, racial or ethnic groups), 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.
So you can see why that decent honest people would object to be labeled as right wing extremists by our government when they are not in any way or form extremists.
Lawyers aren't going to object to clear language. If you can misinterpret "it may include" as "everyone", then you're pretty much beyond hope.
Now that is funny. The defintions are clear and you are the one who is misinterpreting it.
Your snarky comment tells me you are now trying to save face rather than admit the obvious.
I'm not misinterpreting anything. The word "may" distinctly means there is a possibility. If everyone in those groups was considered an extremist, that word would not be there, because that would be a certainty.
My comment is snarky because you're acting like an idiot. No lawyer is going to look at that wording and change it because some partisan jackass might claim it's prejudicial to everyone who holds those views.
Brab, you gratuitious name calling aside, you are wrong again.
Here is a quote from the AP regarding the wording in the report.
"A Homeland Security official says the department's office of civil rights and civil liberties objected to some of the language in the now-contentious right-wing extremism report, but the agency issued it anyway."
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5jZZHEwYiYIf0cDyF0s0Fjmf54R-gD97JQFAG0
"However, there is no identification of an right wing extremist group or differentiating between law breakers and honest Americans. Everyone who who holds conservative views on the limit of Federal authority, abortion, or immigration is marginalized as right wing extremists."
That's the context of your remark about lawyers.
"No lawyer is going to look at that wording and change it because some partisan jackass might claim it's prejudicial to everyone who holds those views."
Note the word "prejudicial". Also note the word "everyone". The wording does not suggest that everyone who holds a certain view is an extremist. Those millions of people are not marginalized because it's not saying that all of them are radicals. Your comments about how it expanded to single-issue groups itself admits that, since obviously everyone who holds a conservative opinion is not a member of a single-issue group.
As far as I can tell, that's not the concern here. I don't see anything to suggest that any attorneys were worried about anyone holding the bizarre impression you do. The wording here suggests that they're concerned about the part about veterans, which still seems odd to me because the report said that they were talking about a small percentage of that group. If that's the case, it would make sense that the report was published anyway, since those concerns were addressed by the wording later in the document.
"Everyone who who holds conservative views on the limit of Federal authority, abortion, or immigration is marginalized as right wing extremists."
WRONG. You brought "conservative" into it, not the DHS.
The word "conservative" does not appear ANYWHERE in the report.
Similarly, the word "liberal" does not appear in the report on left-wing extremists.
Pete,
I know the word "conservative" does not appear in the report. I never said it did. Sometimes you have to read for understanding, as in this case.
Would you characterize someone who is against abortion, against illegal immigration, and against big government as a conservative? Now be honest...
Yes, but I wouldn't categorize them as extremist, which is the point of the report
ID, you make my point. The DHS report does just that.
Someone who is in a single-issue group against abortion may be an extremist.
Someone who is against abortion is probably a conservative.
There's such a huge difference between these two concepts.
Don't forget, the report said "immigration", not "illegal immigration". That's because they're not talking about mainstream conservatives.
Brab,
Why you will not admit what is so obvious is beyond me.
By your interpretation you also may be a right wing extremist because of your views on immigration. As others have said, the DHS definition doesn't say, "illegal immigration", but only "immigration". Since you have opinions regarding "illegal immigration" you now fit into their definition.
Don't you see, you are included as a possible suspect.
Many liberal Catholics I knkow contribute to the local "Right to Life" group. Obviously it is a single issue organization. Does that make them potential radical right wing extremists? By the DHS definition is certainly does.
Using the word "may" is of course a sloppy cya method by whoever wrote this assessment to provide wiggle room which so many herewillingly are trying to use to defend this nonsense.
I invite everyone to substitute the words "left wing" where they see 'right wing" and tell me what they would think if the Bush Administration issued the same report.
* (U) Leftwing 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 religious, political, or income groups), and those that are mainly progovernment, rejecting state or local authority in favor of federal authority, or accepting federal government authority entirely. It may include groups and individuals that are dedicated to a single issue, such as supporting abortion or immigration.
Better watch out. Big brother DHS is watching you...
Are you an extremist, AA? Why didn't this bother you when Bush issued the same report?
So is your point now that the report says that anyone belonging to a single-issue group could be an extremist, as opposed to everyone who holds a certain view is an extremist? Have you backed off of that now?
I don't remember you being this concerned with governmental judgment during the Bush administration. Do you? It seems to me that we were supposed to trust the president. And it would seem obvious that members of a mainstream group would not be considered to be a threat because...they're mainstream. It's a shame that people who are not extremists would somehow feel offended by a report that clearly discusses extremism, but all I can recommend is for them to grab a tissue and move on. It's not about them.
Your bit about immigration is horribly confused. What's radical about believing that illegal immigration is a problem? That isn't a hate-oriented position. That's a key term that you don't seem to recognize. If your views aren't hate-oriented, then the report probably isn't about you.
And that makes one wonder why you are so upset about the report.
"Would you characterize someone who is against abortion, against illegal immigration, and against big government as a conservative?"
Based only upon those three beliefs, I would not be willing to pigeonhole someone.
I consider myself a liberal and I am against illegal immigration. I differ greatly with conservatives on what we should do about it.
In addition, I believe your question is moot as it relates to your grievance because, as you have quoted yourself:
"It may include groups and individuals that are dedicated to a single issue, such as opposition to abortion or immigration."
A SINGLE issue... not three... ONE.
That is funny. I bet you belong to one or many single issue groups.
Maybe you support Planned Parenthood. Maybe you support the ACLU. Maybe you support Acorn. Maybe you support the United Negro College Fund. Maybe you support Aids Research. Maybe you give to MMFA. Maybe you give to La Raza. Maybe you pay dues to a union. Maybe you contribute to PAC. Maybe you give to Unicef.
I think you get my point. You could support and/or give to all of these organizations and each one, more or less, could be considered a single issue group.
So even if an organization is dedicated to a single issue, the finding does not differentiate between legitimate single issue groups and right wing extremist groups.
Planned Parenthood has never issued death threats like some groups on the extreme, far, out there right have. AA, are you a right-wing extremist? If not, why are you worried?
Were you protesting when Bush was watching the anti-war groups?
In addition...
"Everyone" = "may include"????
"As we confront international threats, we cannot forget terrorists who operate in our own country using violence to intimidate and coerce Americans. They are also a deadly threat, as we came to understand in Oklahoma City on April 19, 1995.
"On that date, a 20-foot Ryder truck, parked next to the federal building, exploded, killing 168 men, women and children. Prior to 9/11, it was the worst bombing disaster in the continental United States. We will never forget Oklahoma City.
"Along with domestic terrorists, hate crimes remain a concern. Our annual report on hate crime statistics included over 7,600 criminal incidents committed in 2004, resulting from antagonism over race, religion, sexual orientation, or disability. Religion was the motivation in 16.4 percent of the crimes reported.
"Reporting is up 6.7 percent from 2003. While this is an improvement, we need to do better at tracking and reporting. It is the same groups preaching hate and intolerance here in our country that plant the seeds that grow into terrorism. We are focused on that. It is an area where the ADL has always excelled in tracking, training, and gathering information.
"In Oklahoma City, Aryan Nations member Sean Gillespie targeted a woman because of her religion. Unable to find her, he firebombed the Temple B'nai Israel synagogue. When he was arrested and interviewed by FBI agents, he told them he would kill blacks, Jews, abortion doctors, and homosexuals if he could get away with it. On Aug. 30 of this year, Gillespie was convicted and sentenced to 39 years in prison.
"I mentioned our new priorities earlier. But civil rights and hate crimes remain one of our highest priorities because I believe it is important that the civil rights of all of us are protected. Since 2003, we have disseminated raw intelligence reports and strategic intelligence assessments on right-wing extremism to our law enforcement partners."
Are these the words of someone in a Republican administration or a Democratic one?
Brab,
Your's is a straw dog argument.
Nowhere have I argued that there should not be intelligence reports on either left wing extremists or right wing extremists. You should know that by now.
And yes it is very easy to figure out that you'e posted a speech without listing a link.
Remarks by
Robert S. Mueller, III
Director, Federal Bureau of Investigation
Anti-Defamation League
New York, N.Y.
November 3, 2005
It's linked in the thinkprogress story you were already told about.
If you don't think there's a problem with a Republican appointee talking about rightwing extremists, then you shouldn't see the problem now. Here's the key line "Since 2003, we have disseminated raw intelligence reports and strategic intelligence assessments on right-wing extremism to our law enforcement partners."
How is that different from what was just released?
Gads you are exasperating. I've told you many times over yesterday. See below my posts to Snoopy.
Catechism of the Catholic Church
A little something for your next confession.
IT isnt hyperpartisan or partisan at all just because YOU and a few other rightwingers dont like the conclusions. It seems like a whole lot of the right just thinks if the SAY something it magically becomes true
Napalitano stands by her assessment.
Janet stands by her report
The difference in the reports is in the labeling of the groups in question. The DHS assessment goes further than labeling RW extremists but impugns returning veterans not on their data but by the SPLC report that they don't even footnote in the DHS report. Where did they get their data? The proof will be in the pudding. The first time I hear Barry O'Gump refer to ANY group as "Left Wing Radicals", I'll personnaly be the first to apologize.
A point that goes unmentioned is that these "reports" are merely summaries of more detailed, comprehensive studies...which are classified and which were commissioned under the Bush administration.
...which were commissioned under the Bush administration...
exactly!
However, this morning, Fox News’s Catherine Herridge revealed that the report, along with an earlier report on radicalized left-wing groups, was actually “requested by the Bush administration” but not completed until recently:
snoop,
As I said earlier, the objection is not who ordered it, buth blatant partisainship of the output, for which Napolitano is responsible.
As I mentioned in a thread yesterday. The report on left-wing extremist groups is careful to identify those as leftist extremists as those who are prone to break the law while nothing is mentioned about law breaking in the report about right wing extremists. In other words, Napolitano lumps anyone who is in favor of less federal government, or opposes abortion, or immigration, (typical conservative positions,) as right wing extremists. No proof, no explanation given. No differentiation between people of good will and lawbreakers. It is simply stated as fact. If you hold those conservative views, you are automatically labeled as a right wing extremist. That is what many of us fine so objectionable.
The report on the left is careful to make the distinction that the extremists must be willing to break the law and goes on to identify the leftist organizations they consider extreme just so they are clear. There is not one organization mentioned in the report, only obsolete references to decade old occurances.
The differences between the two reports is readily apparent. The report on right wing extremists is a clear attempt by Napolitano to use the office of DHS to marginalize opponents of the Obama agenda as extremists and potential threats to our country.
sorry for the confusion. The sentence that begins with "There is not one organization mentioned in the report,... " should read...
"There is not one organization mentioned in the right wing extremist report, only obsolete references to decade old occurances."
The report on left-wing extremist groups is careful to identify those as leftist extremists as those who are prone to break the law while nothing is mentioned about law breaking in the report about right wing extremists.
You should read the report, it specifically differentiates between people of good will and lawbreakers. In every main discussion the report specifically mentions militias, violent christian identity organizations and white supremecists whether discussing immigration, abortion or unemployment. And I would like to point out that the left report also relied on obsolete references to decades old occurances.
I am refering to the definitions given in the respective reports:
* (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 religious, racial or ethnic groups), 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.
vs.
(U//FOUO) DHS/Office of Intelligence and Analysis defines leftwing extremists as
groups or individuals who embrace radical elements of the anarchist, animal rights, or environmental movements and are often willing to violate the law to achieve their objectives. Many leftwing extremist groups are not hierarchically ordered with defined members, leaders, or chain of command structures but operate as loosely-connected underground movements composed of “lone wolves,” small cells, and splinter groups.
— (U//LES) Animal rights and environmental extremists seek to end the perceived
abuse and suffering of animals and the degradation of the natural environment
perpetrated by humans. They use non-violent and violent tactics that, at times,
violate criminal law. Many of these extremists claim they are conducting these
activities on behalf of two of the most active groups, the Animal Liberation Front
and its sister organization, the Earth Liberation Front. Other prominent groups
include Stop Huntingdon Animal Cruelty; and chapters within the Animal
Defense LeagueUSPER, and Earth First!USPER....
You can see the right wing definition is so broad as to include anyone who happens to have conservative views while the left wing definition hones in on those who would might actually be a threat.
Why would the DHS make one report so broad and the other much narrower. The answer is easy. The first defintion is an attempt to marginalize Obama's ideological foes as extremists.
Here's a few parts you left out of the right report:
(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.
(U//FOUO) Growth of these groups subsided in reaction to increased government scrutiny as a result of the 1995 Oklahoma City bombing and disrupted plots, improvements in the economy, and the continued U.S. standing as the preeminent world power. (U//FOUO) The possible passage of new restrictions on firearms and the return of military veterans facing significant challenges reintegrating into their communities could lead to the potential emergence of terrorist groups or lone wolf extremists capable of carrying out violent attacks.
(U//FOUO) Proposed imposition of firearms restrictions and weapons bans likely would attract new members into the ranks of rightwing extremist groups, as well as potentially spur some of them to begin planning and training for violence against the government. The high volume of purchases and stockpiling of weapons and ammunition by rightwing extremists in anticipation of restrictions and bans in some parts of the country continue to be a primary concern to law enforcement.
—
(U) A recent example of the potential violence associated with a rise in rightwing extremism may be found in the shooting deaths of three police officers in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, on 4 April 2009. The alleged gunman’s reaction reportedly was influenced by his racist ideology and belief in antigovernment conspiracy theories related to gun confiscations, citizen detention camps, and a Jewish-controlled “one world government.”
That's just the first few pages. You are using a footnote on page 2 to claim the entire report is purposely broadened when the entire report is quite specific in scope. The left report IMHO was broad as well. It only mentioned a couple of groups by name though the scope of the report clearly alluded to more. Again, read the entire report, not just a footnote.
THANK you snoopy. anotheramerican has got to be paranoid, lying, or even less intelligent than he seems, in order to make the case that the report on rightwing groups is about anything other than extremist groups. Maybe his ability to connect and synthesize information to draw inferences just isn't working today. But as your ample documentation demonstrates, the report does not paint conservatives in general as extremists.
Snoop,
It was left out because it was immaterial to the discussion at hand. But since you brought it up. Your quotes only again show the hyperpartisain nature of the report and Napolitano's attempt at marginalizing opponents of the Obama agenda.
Look at the exmple given of the deranged man who shot three Pittsburgh police.
This gunman's racist views are not right wing. Racism is clearly evident on the left. One needs only look at Louis Farakkan or the Uhuru movement in Oakland to see racism on the left.
The Jewish conspiracy theory is primarly held by those on the left. Look at Obama's failed nominee to National Intelligence Council and his anti-Jewish bias.
This man falls into the extreme left more than he falls into the extreme right.
Yes, this man was obviously deranged. To classify him as a right wing extremist is pure leftist propaganda.
The other paragraphs are pure conjecture. the partisain report offers no proof, just a leftist view of the world. Add that to the definition and it is clear Napolitano is trying to marginalize ideological opponents of Obama's agenda.
aa in a nut's hell:
This white guy who thought Obama was gonna take away his guns and hated blacks and Jews was obviously a left-winger, because some black people are racists, so therefore white people aren't. Also I can think of one example of a guy on the left who pointed out that Israel has been violent to Palestinians, so anti-Semitism is obviously liberal too. Never mind that he was a gun nut.
After my brilliant defense against the DHS's misguided thinking that Poplawski was a rightwing extremist, I'm sure you'll agree that I may dismiss all the other points you mentioned summarily.
So Stormfront is a left-wing website, or what? Holy crap.
God, the guy was clearly a rightwinger, just like the one who purposely targeted a church because he said they were liberal was a rightwinger. And the fact that there is already a report on leftwingers just flys right on by you as you use claims about leftwing racism to further dismiss this report. I wish I didn't have to go to work right now, I could really have some fun watching some more bobbing and weaving.
(not a real job, BTW. just working a concession stand at the park to make a few extra bucks. According to unemployment my wife's $1000 a month is too much for us to qualify for anything other than UI payments.)
THIS statement is utterly ridiculous
The Jewish conspiracy theory is primarly held by those on the left.
It is a baseless assertion ludicrous on the face of it. That SOME lefties hold to this theory as WELL as and more porminantly rightwing organizations like the KKK does NOT make it primarily of the left. YOUR hyperpartisanship is showing
So the only difference I can see here is the phrase "and are often willing to violate the law to achieve their objectives". So, if the right-wing report contained this phrase you would have been okay with it?
ID,
The report should have included your phrase above plus it should have identified any groups engaged in illegal activity with regards to abortion and immigration. It was careful to have done so in the leftist exetremist assesment.
The parts of the report maligning veterans should be deleted.
The report should be recinded and rewritten and the principle agents responsible, including Napolitano, should be given a chance to resign and if refused Obama should fire them for producing such a biased report and politicizing the department.
Big brother has turned in to Big Sister and her name is Napolitano.
Are you saying that right-wing extremist groups are not targeting vets? That's all it said.
You certainly had no problem with Bush politicizing almost every government agency especially the justice department. Again, what is wrong with the report saying that groups will target vets, is it untrue?
I guess you think Shep Smith is part of the left-wing conspiracy on this one as well, eh:
http://mediamatters.org/countyfair/200904150046?show=1
"impugns returning veterans"
Really? How so? By pointing out the obvious truth that some of them will be targets for recruitment by Neo-Nazi militia groups? Is that fact even debatable?
Maybe you have some evidence that indicates that there are NO veterans in these groups? If you do, please share it.
nerzog,
I fined it rather amusing you ask for evidence of NO veterans in these groups when the DHS does not have any group to identify.
You are asking Tbone to provide proof about membership within groups that the DHS cannot even provide proof they exist.
You might as well be asking for proof that little green liberals do not exist in the Adromeda galaxy.
ps. It's that galaxy on the far left of us.... hehehe
I didn't know you were TbS. He can't defend his own posts?
Classic. Absolutely classic.
Craig,
I only pointed out the silliness and illogic of nerzogs post. I did not try to answer for Tbone.
I find it rather telling that Brab congratulates you on your rip off of one of my replies. It shows both you and he are lacking in discernment.
When I used that reply, I was the one who originally challenged Pearlene for proof. To be used in proper context, nerzog would have had to make the same reply. You doing so only shows juvenile snarkiness.
You and brab also are mysteriously slient regarding the illogic of nerzog's post I pointed out. I understand that. There is nothing to defend. Like many here, when you can't defend something, you have fallen into that juvenile response of snarkiness in an attempt to deflect the real issues.
"When I used that reply, I was the one who originally challenged Pearlene for proof. To be used in proper context, nerzog would have had to make the same reply. You doing so only shows juvenile snarkiness."
Are you serious? So because it's not the exact same pattern of posting, it's "juvenile"?
"You and brab also are mysteriously slient regarding the illogic of nerzog's post I pointed out. I understand that. There is nothing to defend. Like many here, when you can't defend something, you have fallen into that juvenile response of snarkiness in an attempt to deflect the real issues."
I didn't take Nerzog's question literally. I thought the point was that there's always a possibility of veterans being recruited, so it was ridiculous to suggest that there was some slander of veterans by saying that it could happen.
Especially since McViegh was a veteran. THAT is pretty solid evidence it could happen
Sorry, your logic eludes me. I'll just have to accept that you know when it is and isn't appropriate for one commenter to reply to another and hope I don't screw up.
One day, God willing, I'll have a snarkiness that is as mature as yours.
Absol friggin lutely, Tbone! You go, man!
I mean, where they heck does the DHS come off making claims that veterans would EVER join right-wing militias or wish to do harm to the U.S. govt??
Ohhhhh, riiiiight: TIMOTH MCVEIGH
You could make the same claim that veterans might join left-wing militias
The National Memorial Institute for the Prevention of Terrorism maintains a terrorism database. According to its files, as the Baltimore Sun reported on Sunday, fully 22 of the 25 terrorist attacks inside the United States since 2003 are believed to have been the work of environmental extremists.
http://www.papillonsartpalace.com/nto.htm
Care to point out the ex-vets in those groups, AA?
That is a pretty broad definition of terrorism. Show us how many people DIED in those terrorist attacks. As far as I know no one has EVER died in so called environmental terrorism
Napolitano Apologizes for Offending Veterans After DHS Eyes Them for 'Rightwing Extremism'
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/first100days/2009/04/16/napolitano-apologizes-offending-veterans-dhs-eyes-rightwing-extremism/
"To the extent veterans read it as an accusation ... an apology is owed," she said during an on-air interview on FOX News Thursday, a day after veterans' groups and members of Congress blasted her for the report, which they said libeled members of the armed forces.
"This was an assessment, not an accusation," Napolitano continued. "It was limited to extremists those who seek to commit violence within the United States."
Which is exactly how it reads. It said that veterans are targets of recruitment, which really shouldn't be controversial.
You know what else I found interesting?
The number of hits you get when you do a search in the report for the word "conservative."
From that same report:
"It wasn't an apology in my view," said Pete Hegseth, chairman of Vets for Freedom. "It was one of those non-apology apologies. She was sorry that veterans were offended. She should either apologize for the content of the report as it stands or they should rewrite the report and reissue it."
Hegseth, an Army veteran who served in Iraq, said the report represents a "gross misunderstanding and oversimplification" of the country's service members. He did not call for Napolitano's ouster, but said he would accept her resignation.
"If she volunteered to step down, that'd be very honorable of her," Hegseth said. "It would be a recognition of what she did."
IMHO She should be fired.
Why should she apologize for saying that veterans are targets for recruitment by extremists or might turn to violence if they can't reintegrate into their communities? There's no generalization there. It makes perfect sense. The idea that this sort of thing can't be brought up because Pete Hegseth has a tizzy over it is absolutely ludicrous.
Also from the report:
"I hate libruls," said some guy who wants his name on FOX News' website. Nuthin' they say is ever going to be good enough for me. By the way, I'm a veteran, so I don't have to say anthing connected to reality, because anybody who criticizes me hates Ammurrukuh."
aa, don't go pretending your opinion is humble.
Did you feel the same way when Bush's people put out a similar report? Where were Boehner's tears then?
I do believe I posted elsewhere the difference between that report and this one.
"It wasn't an apology in my view," said Pete Hegseth, chairman of Vets for Freedom. "
AA, how disingenuous of you, to quote a CONSERVATIVE, PRO IRAQ veteran as proof of how military folks feel about the DHS report.
HOW is this report about right wing EXTREMISTS is talking about conservatives?
Do YOU want to blow up plan parenthood clinics, killing innocent people? Do YOU want to shoot and kill doctors who do their jobs, by performing abortions? Do YOU consider gays, blacks, Jew's and Hispanics inferior and want to kill them?
STOP with your insanity over this report!
YOUR goal, along with Hegseth's is to have Napolitan removed from office. Not because of the DHS report, but any dent you can make in the Obama administration's popularity, you're for it!
This conservative fake outrage about this report is about as pathetic as those d*mn tea parties.
Give me a break. This report was originated under your hero, Bush W and last year’s report on right-wing extremism came to the SAME CONCLUSION about recruitment of army vets: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0409/21300.html
At least she apologized to those who were offended.
I don't recall the outrage when BUSH released a similar finding.
In the report, as stated in the report, that returning vets might be targets for recruitment. That is all.
Is that what it says in the report? Because I think I read that in the report. I wonder if any of these wingnuts read the report. I wonder if any veterans read the report. But I think you're right about the report.
We do owe our veterans an apology, but not for anything started in the DHS report. We should apologize for the way we've treated them for years and for ignoring their needs when they put down their arms and attempt to return to civilian life.
"Their leftwing assessment identifies actual terrorist organizations, like the Earth Liberation Front and Animal Liberation Front," House Judiciary Committee Ranking Member Lamar Smith, R-Texas, said Wednesday. "The rightwing report uses broad generalizations about veterans, pro-life groups, federalists and supporters of gun rights. That's like saying if you love puppies, you might be susceptible to recruitment by the Animal Liberation Front. It is ridiculous and deeply offensive to millions of Americans."
I looooove puppies! Maybe that's why I'd be more likely to kidnaps beagles than to bomb family planning clinics and shoot at doctors.
No, it's not. Read the report instead of listening to people talk about it.
And what problems do you have about keeping an eye on right wing extremist groups that, in the past, have been prone to violent acts in our nation's history? Do you really want to jump into bed with the KKK, Neo Nazis, militias, and other such fringe groups that this is talking about? What about the abortion protesters who bombed clinics, and shot doctors? I mean, it's not as if there hasn't been violence before. That being said, keep an eye on the left wing extremist groups as well. As in, know what they're doing. You can't stop their rhetoric, or their freedom to speech, but you can keep an eye on them.
Check out the Southern Poverty Law Center as well, since a lot of the information reported in this DHS report was also reported on by them as well.
I don't know what's more a waste of time:
Defending this idiotic report, which was not only issued from the narrowist of slices in our Intelligence Community (a slice so narrow, perhaps just a single person, and one that involves only the supposed analysis of Intel, and not the collection of it), but also that narrow unimportant slice involves leftover Bush administration political hacks, they wrote this idiotic report!
Or just as much a waste of time, is defending it obliquely, by citing another stupid report that refers to "cyber-attacks" by the "leftwing"... can people get any more imaginative and stupid and senseless than that?
Who is being informed by such stupid and abstract and imaginative reports as these? No one is.
Who is being protected in any way from anything, protected by Law Enforcement authorities, by idiotic reports about "extremism" and "radicalization" such as these reports are? No one is being protected or looked out for by this nonsense, no one at all.
Foolish talk about "extremism" and "radicalization" is the idiot talk of the Bush administration... it's the idiotic appearance of saying and doing something, where in truth nothing is being said or done.
The report is for law enforcement officials, as it plainly states on the first page. If they arrest somebody before that person commits violence because the report helped direct them to what to look for, great. If they don't, no worse than present conditions.
It's not so much that the report needs defending as that the wingnuts want to take it out of context and score points (I know, shocking), and that requires a response.
This report was not hyped by Democrats in the Obama administration. They weren't trying to use it for a political purpose. But the wingnuts are, and if you ask me, it's a fight worth having. Do we want to let them say "Obama's painting his opponents as extreme," and let that be the public narrative?" I don't.
Trying to downplay the report does not take away it's offensive nature.
You are simply upset that Napolitano got caught. Don't blame the Republicans for pointing out this Obama scandal of politicizing the DHS by Napolitano.
Napolitano got "caught". It's a scandal now. Jeebus.
When liberals complain about Bush's politicizing everything from NASA to PBS to the Justice Department to - wait for it - DHS, then they are deranged. But when Obama's DHS issues a perfectly understandable and timely report on right wing extremism, that's grounds for immediate dismissal and a formal apology by Obama.
You've spent the last four years here demonizing anyone who criticized Bush, but you expect to be taken seriously with this over-the-top whining.
The report isnt offensive. There is NO scandal just rightwingers SNIVELING. You guys really think if you say something it just becomes true. Rational people are not so easily led
Obama will make left and right wing extremists jealous as his policies will do far more damage to this country in the end. He is going to go down as the worst president in our history is my prediction. And him releasing those CIA documents is bad news as many officials have said, and will like Cheney said "make our country less safe". How dumb can he be, when america gets bombed again I can see liberals standing up and saying it bush's fault, oh my god. Wake up liberals and quit lying about bush to advance your agenda. Pray to my almighty god that we can take the back congress and stop obama
I thought you cons didn't like the back congress.
But I will pray to almighty god that you take it.
In my experience with both types, people on the left, extremists excluded, are typically more the, live and let live types. People on the right, extremists excluded, are typically more the, my way or no way types.
With the exception of the KKK, American Nazis, skinheads and other white supremacists - humanities excrement pile from birth - the extremism starts when rights get curtailed and taken away and dictators take over and make over a government in their image. This is what the fascists did in Germany, Italy, and, most recently, in several Central and South American countries, whose dictators and repressive regimes the US always backed over the suffering of the people mainly to accrue corporate profits for US owned companies.
In come the leftists, to out the brutal regimes, give all kinds of good stuff to the long suffering populace and get treated as saviors. They nationalize all the big corporations so they can't take advantage of the people anymore, give people better schools, jobs, living conditions and health care, than after a while, people being people and since absolute power corrupts absolutely, the next thing you know, they're as bad as the right wingers and you're back where you started. Then the right, sore because they lost their source of money, power, and privilege, which is exploiting the people and environment, retake the government and start the killing all over again. Then the left...on and on.
The point I'm making, is which form of government we the people want to live under? Apparently, tired of the right wing demigods, the people voted in the left this time around. The right is sore, hence the right wing hate coming over the airways. We're fortunate we live in a country where we get to vote for our form of government with out it being forced upon us at the point of a gun. However, this time the right is out and out rabid and paranoid and it's positively palpable that the hard core base, which is the afore mentioned excrement of humanity, of Fox News and AM radio is being fed a daily spew of rhetoric designed to push these deranged, mentally fragile people over the edge. Look at the Pittsburgh cops case. How many more of these will there be in the coming months? How many will be planned as opposed to being spontaneous? None, I hope. But, I wouldn't be surprised to see the cowards come out of the closet and finally get some balls.
I have no doubt that Rush, Hannity, O'Reilly, Coulter, et. al would love to see Obama dead and I'm sure it wouldn't break their hearts if his wife and kids were killed either. Coulter already has no problem expressing her opinion that people should die for no other reason than because they don't think or act the way she thinks they should. They just can't say it out loud because it would be considered a threat to the president and they'd be jailed. No way could they get out of that one. No more money, houses, travel, high life and notoriety for them. But, get some dumb ass white supremacist flunky who thinks what they have to say is coming from the mouth of God to pull the trigger or toss the bomb and voila. He's going to sit in prison through 20 years of appeals, eventually get the chair or an intravenous drip, and they get to go on TV or radio, act shocked and saddened and laugh all the way to the bank with their next book deal and renewal package.
Considering, I think I'd go with the leftists any day. The rightists are the real nightmare in this country. Think witch hunts, slavery, genocide of Native Americans, Jim Crow, McCarthyism, Watergate, Iran-Contra, murdering US military men and women for corporate profit in Iraq, illegal wire tapping, torture... all while conservatives were on duty. Yes, I know. The Dems used to be the conservative party while the Repubs were the liberal party. Doesn't matter. The shift happened, its over. A conservative is a conservative no matter the party or historical time frame.