Tuesday, April 14, 2009

Right Wing Extremism: Homeland Security Threat

Jeffrey Jena: "Enemy of the State? Me?"
_______________

Here's the report from the Department of Homeland Security, "Rightwing Extremism: Current Economic and Political Climate Fueling Resurgence in Radicalization and Recruitment."

The report offers this definition of "rightwing extremism":

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.

"Disgruntled Military Veterans" are of particular interest to the government.
(U//FOUO) DHS/I&A assesses that rightwing extremists will attempt to recruit and radicalize returning veterans in order to exploit their skills and knowledge derived from military training and combat. These skills and knowledge have the potential to boost the capabilities of extremists—including lone wolves or small terrorist cells—to carry out violence. The willingness of a small percentage of military personnel to join extremist groups during the 1990s because they were disgruntled, disillusioned, or suffering from the psychological effects of war is being replicated today.
— (U) After Operation Desert Shield/Storm in 1990-1991, some returning military veterans—including Timothy McVeigh—joined or associated with rightwing
extremist groups.

— (U) A prominent civil rights organization reported in 2006 that “large numbers
of potentially violent neo-Nazis, skinheads, and other white supremacists are now
learning the art of warfare in the [U.S.] armed forces.”

— (U//LES) The FBI noted in a 2008 report on the white supremacist movement that some returning military veterans from the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have joined extremist groups.

We must be wary of our returning military veterans.

Sure, they risked their lives, serving our country.

Now, they may be apt to turn their skills on us!

They are the potential enemy!

Very nice. Way to respect our vets! Truly disgusting!

I think it's important to be clear about the emphasis of this report.


Yes, it's offensive that the "Rightwing" is being singled out as a group deemed dangerous and potentially violent.

It's highly offensive to single out returning members of the military as risky characters. Extremely offensive.

It should be noted that the report's focus is on "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."

That definition makes me more than a bit uneasy. It could be broadly interpreted and used to harass good people. For instance, I support states' rights. Does that make me dangerous?


Still, there's no question that there are extremists that pose a threat to the safety of the public.

The report notes the extremists to watch "may include groups and individuals that are dedicated to a single issue, such as opposition to abortion or immigration."

Yes, there have been abortion clinic bombings. Abortionists have been targeted. Some have been murdered.

It's reasonable for law enforcement to pay attention to potential risks and dangerous figures and groups.

What troubles me about this is that it seems to open the door to harass law-abiding citizens with conservative views.

Because I oppose abortion and support Wisconsin Right to Life, am I a "Rightwing extremist"? Does Homeland Security consider me a threat?

Am I a threat because I criticize Obama and his radical policies on this blog?


The report provides this "outlook":
DHS/I&A assesses that the combination of environmental factors that echo the 1990s, including heightened interest in legislation for tighter firearms restrictions and returning military veterans, as well as several new trends, including an uncertain economy and a perceived rising influence of other countries, may be invigorating rightwing extremist activity, specifically the white supremacist and militia movements. To the extent that these factors persist, rightwing extremism is likely to grow in strength.

(U//FOUO) Unlike the earlier period, the advent of the Internet and other informationage technologies since the 1990s has given domestic extremists greater access to information related to bomb-making, weapons training, and tactics, as well as targeting of individuals, organizations, and facilities, potentially making extremist individuals and groups more dangerous and the consequences of their violence more severe. New technologies also permit domestic extremists to send and receive encrypted communications and to network with other extremists throughout the country and abroad, making it much more difficult for law enforcement to deter, prevent, or preempt a violent extremist attack.

I don't make bombs. I have no guns. I have no criminal record. I don't participate on radical websites. So I don't think I fall in the government's category of Right-wing extremist high risk individuals.

But maybe I shouldn't feel at ease. Maybe I should be concerned that government is monitoring me. This report could be used to infringe on my rights.

After all, that's the sort of paranoia that the Leftists babbled about when President Bush was in office. Russ Feingold milked that fear. It landed him a lot of face time on Meet the Press and other Sunday morning shows. He became the darling of the radical Left.

I don't want to respond to this report like the Leftist loons responded to the Bush administration. I'm not alarmed.

However, I would feel better if I could see the government's report on Left-wing extremism.

I assume there is one. The government can't just be calling the Right-wing a threat. That would be a blatantly political move.

I hope it's not the case, but maybe there isn't a report on Left-wing extremism.

Maybe Leftist radicals, extremist community organizers, Bill Ayers and his comrades, wacky preachers, and other subversive, violent types aren't seen as a threat because they've been assimilated into the Democrat Party and the Obama administration.

10 comments:

Anonymous said...

"I hope it's not the case, but maybe there isn't a report on Left-wing extremism."


I have no doubt that homeland security and the FBI have reports on radical environmental groups, anarchists and an assortment of leftist trends they deem dangerous. I also suspect that this is not the first report on trends on the right.

Let's not forget the Murrah building bomber is exactly the type of veteran they think is a target for recruiting. And abort-foe Eric Rudolph did more bombing than domestic terrorist Bill Ayers.

The reports themselves probably don't have a lot of influence. So many reports are written and issued. That's the reason we weren't prepared for the 9-11 attacks. I'm not saying that was a failure. I'm saying that s-loads of reports are written by analysts and most of them never amount to much of anything.

Repack Rider said...

Tim McVeigh was a returning military vet, and was our country's biggest mass murderer. It's not exactly a secret that gang members have joined the military to get training for when they return home.

After the OKC bombing, how stupid would the DHS have to be not to pay attention to the Tim McVeighs of the world?

I am a US Army veteran (E-5), and I know that no matter how much you love your country, war changes you, and rarely is the change for the better. I HOPE the DHS pays close attention to the returning men and women who now will live with horror every day for the rest of their lives, because some of whom will not be able to deal with it, and they pose a danger to both themselves and society.

Ron Russell said...

This statement coming out of Homeland, is an attempt to deflect attention away from their short-coming and a lack of any effort to control illegals in this country. Violence is far more common on the left than on the right and these people at Homeland recognize this I'm sure. Like I said, smoke and mirrors. This was a good post and we need to find out the source of this document.

Mary said...

"they pose a danger to both themselves and society."______________



That's quite a startling statement. It's hard for me to believe that you're a vet.

Millions and millions of Americans fought in World War II. That generation managed to function quite well after the War.

Anonymous said...

This report is left-wing propaganda. The DHS has been politicized. Welcome to the United Socialist Republic of North American States.

Mary said...

I think the timing of the report's release, sending it out to law enforcement just days before the Tea Party demonstrations, was an intentional effort to intimidate the American citizenry.

Anthony N. Emmel said...

YEs, it is truly disgusting. I'm a vet myself (US Army 1988-1990) and I think that the name Department of Homeland Security is tooo much like Sicherheitsdienst (SD) ("security service"), Sicherheitspolizei (SIPO) ("security police"), or KGB (transliteration of "КГБ") the Russian abbreviation of Committee for State Security.

Anonymous said...

I always find it interesting how whenever a vet is liberal or, whenever a vet disagrees with the conservative view, or is against a war on this site Mary has always said she does not believe they are vets.

Mary said...

Mary has always said she does not believe they are vets.Wrong.

Karen Tabler said...

http://mytheological.blogspot.com/

What if the attack on the twin towers was an inside job- an act of “false flagging”?
If the attacks of September 11 had been an “inside job”, puppeteered by the neoconservatives in the White House (“Bilderberg Group”) what would have been the motive? Could it have been to justify the need for the creation of the “Department of Homeland Security”- which has rapidly becoming a militarized menace to American liberties? That's a startling thought, if the attack of 911 was an "inside job."
“The Homeland Security Act signed by President Bush on November 25, 2002 creates the new Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and grants it momentous responsibilities and powers. It is earnestly hoped that DHS will provide needed coordination to government anti-terrorism efforts. The new Department will have wide-ranging authority to compile, analyze, and mine the personal information of Americans.”

Is the Federal Bureau of Investigation worried that corrupt U.S. officials (secretly promoting a New World order via the “Bilderberg Group”) have treasonously crossed the nation’s political border to intentionally expose Americans to serious risk? Are they now the silent minority in control?

What of our border crossings? With suspicions of corrupt U.S. officials allowing the further infiltration of illegal immigrants to enter the country, the FBI should be concerned that terrorists and materials could be used in a “false flag” terrorist attack. Slipping in, in such a disguised manner - they could initiate a “Code Red” lockdown, imprisoning all U.S. citizens.

If you’re a corrupt security official and you’re allowing illegal immigration to come into the country, you’re not going to know who you’re letting in.
Corrupt security officials (secretly sheltered within the New World Order) willing to betray the United States- represent a potentially grave national security threat.

Whether it’s a truckload of illegal immigrants or whether it’s components of a weapon of mass destruction, who will know what those are. We have no assurance that our borders are safe, that our borders are secure when the very source of our security organizations have been compromised.

The first line of defense for the security of a free American lies in scrutiny and examination of the “forces used for our protection”- with certainly that the forces employed- do not become the means of our own destruction.