Dept of Homeland Security most worried about... U.S. Veterans

So I'm sort of surprised nobody brought this issue up in the past couple of weeks. If you have and I missed it, I apologize.

Homeland Security has FBI initiate surveilance on returning veterans to combat 'rising right-wing extremism".

John McCain demands apology by Homeland Security for implication that veterans to be suspected of joining right-wing paramilitary groups.

Janet Napolitano: Look, I'm sorry if you're thin-skinned and took offense, but I don't trust our veterans and I want them surveiled. They're a threat.

Okay, I'm all about not extrapolating minority or singular representatives into a disparagement of a group as a whole. I do not condemn all muslims as hate-fueled extremists. I do not believe all Mexicans are either 1) soldiers for drug-cartel armies or 2) violent nationalists intent on creating the state of Azatlan. I do not even believe Chinese nationals of a highly technical background here on H1B visas are all spies for the PRC. I reject these common generalizations, despite repeated anecodatal evidence of isolated or minority incidences of such.

So why is the Obama administration ready to put the spotlight on veterans because of the lone actions of Timothy McVeigh? While truly horrific, there has never been any evidence that the man acted in concert with anyone other than Terry Nichols. Yet they're all now under the watchful eye of Janet "Big Mama" Napolitano. What is it with Democratic administrations and their need for invasive cabinet members with no respect for the rights of their citizens and a need to humiliate and disparage members of the opposition party? For that matter, why does their lady with the big stick, the electric cattle prod and the scrying eyes into the lives of law abiding citizens always have to be named "Janet"? First Reno, now Napolitano.

What's more, why isn't Obama getting out in front of this one and distancing himself from her approach? Is he willing to write off veterans as "hopelessly unrepentant Republicans"? How long before Janet declares being a Republican enough to make you suspicious of engagement in domestic terrorism and involvement in right-wing extremist groups? Oh that's right, the Republican party IS a right-wing extremist group, given to acts of domestic terrorism. Right, I forgot that... :wall:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Don Corleone

So why is the Obama administration ready to put the spotlight on veterans because of the lone actions of Timothy McVeigh?

---

A couple of thoughts:

These memos were authorized and mostly authored under the previous administration. You don't produce these reports quickly.

DHS also produced a report on the danger of left-wing extremists, but for some reason this is getting less airplay.

Timothy McVeigh authored the worst domestic terrorism attack in our history, and the second-most-lethal terror attack in the U.S.A. of all time. He operated in a decentralized network of like-minded authors and ideologues. I don't know that it's advisable to write that off.

The election of a melanin-rich President has demonstrably raised the "chatter" among far-right extremists and hate groups. I don't doubt that Stormfront is having a field day, what with both darkies and Jews corrupting the White house. Note that the ******** who killed three cops was motivated by these same people.

Anyway, I haven't read the report, so I should probably shut up now.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lemur

Timothy McVeigh authored the worst domestic terrorism attack in our history, and the second-most-lethal terror attack in the U.S.A. of all time. He operated in a decentralized network of like-minded authors and ideologues. I don't know that it's advisable to write that off.

---

hmmm...this sounds similar to arguments I have heard about muslims after the LARGEST and DEADLIEST terror attack in the US. Feeling a bit hypocritical?
Sure, he was a soldier, and he was rightwing. Look how many terrorists are leftwing, and how many are occupations other than soldiers. Should we track all leftwing people and all people of those other occupations?
Considering that most domestic terrorism is commited by the left, I think it is complete hypocracy to cry for political profiling on the basis of one attack.

Where did I say that Oklahoma City was the only act of right-wing terrorism in modern history? And where did I defend either Muslim terrorists or leftwing terrorists? As I noted in my post, a report from DHS was also issued about leftwing extremists, but it somehow failed to ignite the outrage machine.

Anyway, if you want other examples of extremist rightwing violence, I'm happy to oblige:

Article on anti-abortion violence, including bombings, shootings, assault and anthrax threats.

1995 attempt to destroy an Amtrack train by rightwing extremists.

Daniel Cowart.

I could go on, but the abortion bombings/shootings alone should occupy a good hour of reading. I'm not going to even bother with the purely racial stuff, the church burnings and shootings and such.

To argue that the left has exclusive provenance over terrorism is misguided and factually disprovable, no matter how many times Michelle Malkin and Ann Coulter say it. Political extremists of all stripes stand ready to kill someone to bring their better world.

Again, I have not read the report, so it may contain some truly offensive stuff. I don't know. I'm just trying to inject some relevant facts into this discussion.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lemur

Where did I say that Oklahoma City was the only act of right-wing terrorism in modern history? And where did I defend either Muslim terrorists or leftwing terrorists? As I noted in my post, a report from DHS was also issued about leftwing extremists, but it somehow failed to start the outrage machine.

Anyway, if you want other examples of extremist rightwing violence, I'm happy to oblige:

Article on anti-abortion violence, including bombings, shootings, assault and anthrax threats.

1995 attempt to destroy an Amtrack train by rightwing extremists.

Daniel Cowart.

I could go on, but the abortion bombings/shootings alone should occupy a good hour of reading.

To argue that the left has exclusive provenance over terrorism is misguided and factually disprovable, no matter how many times Michelle Malkin and Ann Coulter say it. Political extremists of all stripes stand ready to kill someone to bring their better world.

Again, I have not read the report, so it may contain some truly offensive stuff. I don't know. I'm just trying to inject some relevant facts into this discussion.

---

lol, I don't think you read my post. :P I never said you said that it was the only act, or that you were defending leftwing or muslim terrorists. I simply said that the notion of profiling rightwing people is ridiculous when the majority of domestic terrorist acts are committed by the left. I am not for political profiling at all, but I am simply pointing out he hypocracy of the idea of profiling conservatives or war vets, esp when the same people would say it is a crime against humanity to profile muslims or liberals. I believe that is why people find it offensive.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by peverblue

I simply said that the notion of profiling rightwing people is ridiculous when the majority of domestic terrorist acts are committed by the left. I am not for political profiling at all, but I am simply pointing out he hypocracy of the idea of profiling conservatives or war vets, esp when the same people would say it is a crime against humanity to profile muslims or liberals. I believe that is why people find it offensive.

---

Does it matter even slightly to you that political profiling is an equal-opportunity employer? That the Earth Liberation Front probably receives as much attention as Stormfront, and rather less than Al Qaeda?

If you think profiling is a useless tool, that's fine, but I don't see where hypocrisy enters into it. I linked to the report about leftwing radicals, the one that nobody cares about or even noticed.

-edit-

And you did say that "most domestic terrorism is commited by the left," an assertion I would love to see backed up. And Don titled this thread "Dept of Homeland Security most worried about... U.S. Veterans," another assertion I would like to see sourced.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lemur

Does it matter even slightly to you that political profiling is an equal-opportunity employer? That the Earth Liberation Front probably receives as much attention as Stormfront, and rather less than Al Qaeda?

If you think profiling is a useless tool, that's fine, but I don't see where hypocrisy enters into it. I linked to the report about leftwing radicals, the one that nobody cares about or even noticed.

-edit-

And you did say that "most domestic terrorism is commited by the left," an assertion I would love to see backed up.

---

I have nothing against tracking groups, but it is the idea of monitoring or profiling people based on a political view point that has in no way been proven to lead to violence that I have a problem with. Monitor Stormfront? Fine. Monitor ELF? Fine. Monitor Al Quaeda? Fine. Montior or be invasive of the privacy of conservatives because they are conservative? Big no. Same for liberal and muslim.

As to your edit, I have read it is several books (I mean reputable history books), though they were dated by several years. I am in Hungary now though, and my library is in the States :P, so I will have to find something for you online. I will do that tomorrow, as I gotta get to bed now.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by peverblue

I have nothing against tracking groups, but it is the idea of monitoring or profiling people based on a political view point that has in no way been proven to lead to violence that I have a problem with.

---

And does the report in fact recommend this?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lemur

A couple of thoughts:

These memos were authorized and mostly authored under the previous administration. You don't produce these reports quickly.

---

I believe the issue and umbrage that's being taken is with the conclusion, that veterans need to be surveiled, not with the report itself. Only a fool would argue that we have no threat from right-wing extremism in this country (or, as you accurately highlight further in your post, left-wing extremism).

Quote:

---

DHS also produced a report on the danger of left-wing extremists, but for some reason this is getting less airplay.

---

Right. But somehow DNS managed to avoid making sweeping generalizations of urban university students or some other broad group which has been cited as fertile ground for the extremists. My objection is not the report highlighting right-wing extremism, it's the core assumption by Napolitano, and apparently Obama, that somehow our fighting men and women, after years of service in a hellhole like Iraq, should surrender their civil rights and be surveiled constantly, because they're pre-disposed to this sort of behavior.

Quote:

---

Timothy McVeigh authored the worst domestic terrorism attack in our history, and the second-most-lethal terror attack in the U.S.A. of all time. He operated in a decentralized network of like-minded authors and ideologues. I don't know that it's advisable to write that off.

---

Nobody is writing it off. But did Julius and Ethel Rosenburg's ACP loyalties (assuming they were even guilty in the first place) justify McCarthyism? Napolitano stands ready to brand our nation's veterans as terrorists, based solely on the activities of two despicable individuals who dishonored their uniforms.

Quote:

---

The election of a melanin-rich President has demonstrably raised the "chatter" among far-right extremists and hate groups. I don't doubt that Stormfront is having a field day, what with both darkies and Jews corrupting the White house. Note that the ******** who killed three cops was motivated by these same people.

---

Again, not arguing against the presence of right-wing nutjobs in this country, nor the wisdom of law enforcement burying its collective head in the sand.

Arguing that the men and women who have spent years toiling, sweating, bleeding and in some cases dying in the service of our country deserve a hell of a lot better treatment than "Welcome home, you don't mind if we go through all your personal communications and wiretap you, do you? We have to make certain you're not the next Timothy McVeigh, being a right-wing-kook, erh I mean veteran as you are".

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Don Corleone

My objection is not the report highlighting right-wing extremism, it's the core assumption by Napolitano, and apparently Obama, that somehow our fighting men and women, after years of service in a hellhole like Iraq, should surrender their civil rights and be surveiled constantly, because they're pre-disposed to this sort of behavior.

---

Hmm, this would all be a lot easier if we could see the actual text of the report. I don't want to sound overly skeptical, but it's possible that the people making a big deal about this are the same folks who brought you Flag Pin, Fairness Doctrine, The Bow and The Handshake. I am not saying that this is on the same level of pettiness as those pseudo-scandals, but it's undeniable that there is a class of people who are actively searching for something to get outraged about.

From your third link in the OP:

"The report is not saying veterans are extremists, far from it," she told CNN's John King Sunday on State of The Union. "What it is saying is returning veterans are targets of right wing extremist groups that are trying to recruit those to commit violent acts within the country. We want to do all we can to prevent that." [...]

"But when you read the report, what it was saying is that, look, we have a threat of terrorism within our own shores and one of the groups being targeted to see if they will be aligned with that are some of our veterans," she said.

Napolitano also said the report's language is "is consistent with other reports that have been issued before."

That, on the face of it, seems reasonable. If we know that veterans are being targeted by hate groups, should we stand idly by or try to do something about it?

-edit-

My Google-fu is weak today. Is the report available to the public? Never mind, found it.

Here's the "Potential Indicators" from the leftwing report. Sounds like geeks should be outraged:

Potential Indicators

The following highlight a range of signposts that may expose leftwing extremists’ intent—either domestically or abroad—to develop more robust cyber attack strategies:

• Increasing number of statements by leftwing extremists advocating the use of cyber attack techniques.
• Increasing number of communiques published on leftwing extremist websites claiming credit for cyber attacks.
• Suspicious cyber attack activity or increased frequency, creativity, or severity against traditional primary, secondary, and tertiary targets of leftwing extremists.
• Evidence that leftwing extremist groups or activists are recruiting or attempting to acquire the services of individuals with cyber capabilities.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lemur

Hmm, this would all be a lot easier if we could see the actual text of the report. I don't want to sound overly skeptical, but it's possible that the people making a big deal about this are the same folks who brought you Flag Pin, Fairness Doctrine, The Bow and The Handshake. I am not saying that this is on the same level of pettiness as those pseudo-scandals, but it's undeniable that there is a class of people who are actively searching for something to get outrage about.

From your third link in the OP:

"The report is not saying veterans are extremists, far from it," she told CNN's John King Sunday on State of The Union. "What it is saying is returning veterans are targets of right wing extremist groups that are trying to recruit those to commit violent acts within the country. We want to do all we can to prevent that." [...]

"But when you read the report, what it was saying is that, look, we have a threat of terrorism within our own shores and one of the groups being targeted to see if they will be aligned with that are some of our veterans," she said.

Napolitano also said the report's language is "is consistent with other reports that have been issued before."

That, on the face of it, seems reasonable. If we know that veterans are being targeted by hate groups, should we stand idly by or try to do something about it?

-edit-

My Google-fu is weak today. Is the report available to the public?

---

Uhm, you dismiss certain topics as though the Obama administration ever adequately addressed them, or somehow even if true, they're no big deal. Refusing to wear the American flag pin was Obama's right, his denial of that refusal however was untruthful. Just because the Fairness Doctrine, in its original form, doesn't find it's way word for word back into the rulebooks of the FCC doesn't mean that they won't follow the spirit of the law at license renewal time. Don't know what the Handshake was, but even Don Imus, no right-wing idealogue in anybody's book outside the DailyKos inner circle, said the president bowed to the Saudi King, probably in an attempt to be polite, but it was a huge protocol screw-up.

As for your rebuttal, are you really surprised? Did you expect JN to come out and say "That's right, I said our veterans are a hidden threat amongst us and need to be watched constantly". What you quote is her public interpretation (read spin) of the report's conclusions. It says nothing about how she truly feels when the cameras are off, let alone what the report she authored actually said.

And even by her words in that interview, do you agree that she should do "Whatever she can" to prevent the targeting (mind you, she didn't say successful recruitment, just targeting) of veterans by extremist groups? "Whatever she can" includes reading every one of their emails, line-by-line, to make certain they're not from a right-wing hate group. They've done nothing to warrant that surveilance, but it meets the letter of what she says above. Do YOU think that's fair, or a good idea?

If she had said "I'll do whatever I can to make certain right-wing extremist groups can't spread their messages of hate", or "I'll do whatever I can to see to it that those who espouse the use of violence to further their poltical goals are exposed", we wouldn't be having this conversation.

She swung a machete. She said she would do whatever she could to see to it that veterans are kept under the magnifying glass. Shame on her.

Here's the report. It's 10 pages. I don't think it would have taken more than a couple of days for DHS to write a 10 page report, but you may know about the authoring of government reports than I would.

Actual report. Here is the passage that I assume is causing offense:

Disgruntled Military Veterans

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.

• After Operation Desert Shield/Storm in 1990-1991, some returning military veterans—including Timothy McVeigh—joined or associated with rightwing extremist groups.
• 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.”
• 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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Don Corleone

It says nothing about how she truly feels when the cameras are off, let alone what the report she authored actually said.

---

Well, there's the relevant part of the report. And I don't understand the first part of your sentence: if the words she actually spoke are meaningless, how are we to divine her intentions? Why link to that article at all? Confusing.

I don't see anything about the FBI targeting veterans as a whole in this document. There are qualifiers that are being ignored: "a small percentage of military personnel," "some returning military veterans," and so forth. Does "a small percentage" and "some" equal all?

Okay, let's put it out there for everyone to assess... here's the offending paragraph:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DHS officials afraid of our veterans

U) Disgruntled Military Veterans
(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.

---

Note the lack of citation of the "prominent civil rights organization" or the report itself. How potentially large? On what basis did they come to this conclusion? What right-wing terrorist groups did they associate with? The NRA? The GOP? The Boy Scouts?

Frankly Lemur, this report reads like dozens of PIRG screeds I've read, published by career students who hate the establishment and those who participate in instutions they themselves cannot understand, like the military and its veterans. Unfortuantely, it's probably typical of what we can expect from DHS and the Justice Department for the next 4 years... a 10 page report that expresses the opinions of its leaders with little facts to justify them.

Don, I don't mean to get in the way of your hot-burning outrage, but it's no more vague than the left-wing report, and these documents are not classified. So sources aren't listed and hard data is withheld. Are you suggesting that these reports are the sum total of all knowledge that the FBI has about extremist groups? What are you suggesting, beyond a general sense of incompetence and futility with the current administration?

-edit-

Oh, and I reformatted the same passage much more prettily than you. Don't you remember your third-grade teacher yelling "Neatness counts"?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Don Corleone

What right-wing terrorist groups did they associate with? The NRA? The GOP? The Boy Scouts?

---

Why are you assuming that an unclassified security report begun under the Bush Administration would target those groups? Why are you jumping to conclusions in this fashion? Let's stay grounded here, and pay attention to what is actually written. If you're going to go haring off on the Unspoken Agenda, I don't know how we're going to have an intelligent discussion.

-edit of the edit-

Missed a spot:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Don Corleone

"Whatever she can" includes reading every one of their emails, line-by-line, to make certain they're not from a right-wing hate group. They've done nothing to warrant that surveilance, but it meets the letter of what she says above. Do YOU think that's fair, or a good idea?

---

By your logic, "whatever she can" could also include shooting veterans, imposing martial law, destroying the Constitution, arresting half the population and imprisoning all veterans of any war after WWII in Guantanamo, Cuba. Do you think that's what she meant, or are you tearing off into a rhetorical tower? Again, why don't we stick to things people actually said or wrote. Much easier that way.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lemur

Don, I don't mean to get in the way of your hot-burning outrage, but it's no more vague than the left-wing report, and these documents are not classified. So sources aren't listed and hard data is withheld. Are you suggesting that these reports are the sum total of all knowledge that the FBI has about extremist groups? What are you suggesting, beyond a general sense of incompetence and futility with the current administration?

-edit-

Oh, and I reformatted the same passage much more prettily than you. Don't you remember your third-grade teacher yelling "Neatness counts"?


Why are you assuming that an unclassified security report begun under the Bush Administration would target those groups? Why are you jumping to conclusions in this fashion? Let's stay grounded here, and pay attention to what is actually written. If you're going to go haring off on the Unspoken Agenda, I don't know how we're going to have an intelligent discussion.

---

Okay, speaking of unfounded assertions:

1) Where is your evidence that this report was begun under the Bush administration? You state that as an apriori fact, yet your sole suggestion on the matter thus far was that a report by DHS takes "a long time" to write, though we both agree the report we're citing is vague and fluffy, and reads more like a "why I don't trust the US military" blog post on DemocraticUnderground than an actual cabinet level report. How long is too long, by the way? You really don't think the DHS is capabable of authoring a puff piece like that in 3 months?

2) I was highlighting the vague and nefarious nature of the accusations the so-called report makes. "A promiment civil rights group issued a report at one point that large numbers of potentially violent neo-nazi and skinhead groups are now learning the art of warfare in the US armed forces". That's what qualifies as a credible accusation by the Obama administration these days? That's pathetic. If you want to return to grammar school, how about that basic rule of citing your sources? "Somebody at recess told me that Tommy is going to steal money out of your desk during bathroom break" is not grounds for DHS to surveil Tommy, his family and any of his known associates.

3) No outrage. I'm actually finding this quite amusing. I remember, what was it, two years ago, when you used to claim you tried to walk the middle. Right now, you're putting Robert Gibbs to shame as apologist in chief. I'm amazed at how even when Obama goes public with "I screwed up" you find ways to defend his actions as not only infallible, that anybody that would question them is somehow part of a cabal. Call Hillary... I think I found her "vast right-wing conspiracy" alive and well... tell her to make a diversion to Wisconsin, there's somebody there that can help her find it. :laugh4:

Quote:

---

Missed a spot:


By your logic, "whatever she can" could also include shooting veterans, imposing martial law, destroying the Constitution, arresting half the population and imprisoning all veterans of any war after WWII in Guantanamo, Cuba. Do you think that's what she meant, or are you tearing off into a rhetorical tower? Again, why don't we stick to things people actually said or wrote. Much easier that way.

---

I am focusing on what she wrote. I'm focusing on the fact that she attempts to establish a flimsy linkage between right-wing extremist groups and veterans, then uses that as justification "to do whatever she can" to make sure the veterans are put in their place. Wouldn't it make more sense for her to focus her "hammer-time" authoritarian rule on the right-wing extremists, not the veterans?

By the way Lemur, I'll be sure to write an email letting Rahm Emmanuel know you're ready to be a ward precinct captain. :laugh4: You've managed to totally sidestep over half of my questions back to you thus far.

El matador Lemúr. Olé'!


https://i362.photobucket.com/albums/...s001/lemur.jpg

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Don Corleone

Where is your evidence that this report was begun under the Bush administration. Your sole suggestion on the matter thus far was that a report by DHS takes "a long time" to write, though we both agree the report we're citing is vague and fluffy, and reads more like a "why I don't trust the US military" blog post on DemocraticUnderground than an actual cabinet level report. How long is too long, by the way? You really don't think the DHS is capabable of authoring a puff piece like that in 3 months?

---

Look at the "properties" tab of the PDF. Check the date of creation. Go ahead, check it right now, I'll wait for you.

See? "January 23rd, 2007, 12:32:54." I din't find this by myself, one of the first sites that broke the story had it:

The “Rightwing Extremism: Current Economic and Political Climate Fueling Resurgence in Radicalization and Recruitment” document was produced during the Bush administration, as a quick check of the PDF document’s properties reveals. It was created on January 23, 2007.

How long do I think such a report should take to write? One coffee-fueled evening should do the trick. But I know for a fact that such official reports are batted around forever amongst bureaucrats. The Intelligence Summaries, for instance, are known to take a minimum of six months to author before they are released to Congress. Why? I haven't the foggiest.

As for sources, you aren't responding to a point I made earlier: This is an unclassified report. I've had two relatives involved in the intelligence business [edit, three now that I think about it], both on a national level. I'll give you a couple of stories to illustrate how absurd it can get:

While being given a tour of Langley, one of my relations asked what a landmark was. The officer replied that it was classified. My relative then held up her tourist map, which had the landmark clearly identified and labeled.

Another relation told us a story about the CIA commissary. Naturally, taking any sort of picture inside Langley is strictly verboten. Cameras have to be checked, etc., I'm sure you can imagine how it goes. But in the commissary, what is on sale, next to the magazines and candybars? You guessed it. Disposable cameras. As my relative said, "Maybe they just put them there to see who would be dumb enough to buy one."

So an unclassified report does not reveal the name or document produced by "a prominent civil rights group"? And this, for you, is grounds for much gnashing of teeth and declarations of incompetence? Sounds like SOP to me.

I'll leave your various ad hominems alone; they deserve no better. If you want to find some new and creative ways of accusing me of being a leftist/marxist shill for the Obamessiah, talk to DevDave or Vuk. They've gotten much more prolix than you on the subject.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Don Corleone

I'm focusing on the fact that she attempts to establish a flimsy linkage between right-wing extremist groups, then uses that as justification "to do whatever she can" to make sure the veterans are put in their place.

---

McVeigh was a vet who joined in the far-right circle-jerk. And as the report alludes, there are other known cases. "Rare" does not equal "flimsy"; it means "infrequent." And where you're getting the idea that the Justice Department now intends to "put veterans in their place," I have no idea. Show me where surveillance, e-monitoring and phone-tapping of veterans is even referenced. That, my friend, is a conclusion you're building all on your own.

Which would be a more efficient use of law-enforcement time: Focusing on a hate group, and paying extra attention when they interact with vets, or attempting to monitor the more than 100,000 veterans of recent wars? Which do you suppose is more likely?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Don Corleone

You've managed to totally sidestep over half of my questions back to you thus far.

---

Not deliberately, I assure you. Feel free to call me out on any dodges, and I'll do my best to respond.

-edit-

P.S.: Here's a remarkably similar report from the same agency in the same format released in 2008. Strangely, there was no outrage.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lemur

Look at the "properties" tab of the PDF. Check the date of creation. Go ahead, check it right now, I'll wait for you.

See? "January 23rd, 2007." I ddin't find this by myself, one of the first sites the broke the story had it:

[indent]The “Rightwing Extremism: Current Economic and Political Climate Fueling Resurgence in Radicalization and Recruitment” document was produced during the Bush administration, as a quick check of the PDF document’s properties reveals. It was created on January 23, 2007.

---

Thank you. In the face of a verifiable fact, the first I've seen put forward thus far, I will cede this particular point and will grant you that the report obviously must have been carried over from the previous DHS and the Bush administration.

Quote:

---

As for sources, you aren't responding to a point I made earlier: This is an unclassified report. I've had two relatives involved in the intelligence business, both on a national level. I'll give you a couple of stories to illustrate how absurd it can get:

While being given a tour of Langley, one of my relations asked what a landmark was. The officer replied that it was classified. My relative then held up her tourist map, which had the landmark clearly identified and labeled.

Another relation told us a story about the CIA commissary. Naturally, taking any sort of picture inside Langley is strictly verboten. Cameras have to be checked, etc., I'm sure you can imagine how it goes. But in the commissary, what is on sale, next to the magazines and candybars? You guessed it. Disposable cameras. As my relative said, "Maybe they just put them there to see who would be dumb enough to buy one."

So an unclassified report does not reveal the name or document produced by "a prominent civil rights group"? And this, for you, is grounds for much gnashing of teeth and declarations of incompetence? Sounds like SOP to me.

---

I see. So because you can come up with some anecdotal evidence about the way the CIA operates, we should take the DHS report as the final word on how our returning veterans ought to be treated? Your family stories end any discussion on questioning the veracity of the report?

Quote:

---

I'll leave your various ad hominems alone; they deserve no better. If you want to find some new and creative ways of accusing me of being a leftist/marxist shill for the Obamessiah, talk to DevDave or Vuk. They've gotten much more prolix than you on the subject.

---

Oh lighten up, my friend. Outrage doesn't suit you. You can't tell me you didn't expect a little ribbing for the shift in your current string of stances, in light of your previous "I'm a down the middle " repeated assertions. I love you man, but while I can admit that Obama is in my RADAR in a very unobjective way, can't you see that you have a blind spot for him in a similarly unobjective way? Can you point to any missteps THE ONE may have had?

Quote:

---

McVeigh was a vet who joined in the far-right circle-jerk. And as the report alludes, there are other known cases. "Rare" does not equal "flimsy"; it means "infrequent."

---

And here we go again. The crux of my post in the first place, and the sum total of the case of the DHS against our veterans. Major Premise: Timothy McVeigh blew up the Oklahoma City Federal Building as an act of right-wing extremism. Minor Premise: Timothy McVeigh was a veteran. Conclusion: Veterans are ready to engage in acts of right-wing extremism and therefore must be under surveilance. *sniff* *sniff* What's that I smell? Ah yes, it's that old stinker, Mr. Syllogism. :clown:

Quote:

---

And where you're getting the idea that the Justice Department now intends to "put veterans in their place," I have no idea. Show me where surveillance, e-monitoring and phone-tapping of veterans is even referenced. That, my friend, is a conclusion you're building all on your own.

---

Got you here, mi amigo. First sentence of my first link:

Quote:

---

WASHINGTON -- The Federal Bureau of Investigation earlier this year launched a nationwide operation targeting white supremacists and "militia/sovereign-citizen extremist groups," including a focus on veterans from Iraq and Afghanistan, according to memos sent from bureau headquarters to field offices.

---

Sure doesn't sound like they're giving our veterans due process, let alone benefit of the doubt. But by all means, explain to me how the FBI launching a nationwide operation including a focus on veterans from Iraq and Afghanistan doesn't really qualify as surveillance. Granted, I provided the details of e-mail monitoring (Janet Reno's CARNIVORE program comes to mind) and phone taps (Bush's one true legacy) on my own. Of course, how silly of me. When the FBI says they're monitoring and surveilling veterans, they really mean they're checking out their Facebook page. :yes:

Quote:

---

Which would be a more efficient use of law-enforcement time: Focusing on a hate group, and paying extra attention when they interact with vets, or attempting to monitor the more that 100,000 veterans of recent wars? Which do you suppose is more likely?

---

I couldn't agree more. So would you kindly explain to me why the FBI is focusing not on the hate group, but on the veterans as a whole?

The tennis game's been fun my friend, but I'm afraid I gotta put my racket down. I didn't really expect to sway you, but I did want anybody out there reading to know I don't just make this stuff up. The FBI really is working with the Defense Department in Operation Vigalent Eagle to surveil our veterans to determine if they might join right-wing exteremist groups, not the other way around. Cheers. Hit 'em well. :beam:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Don Corleone

I see. So because you can come up with some anecdotal evidence about the way the CIA operates, we should take the DHS report as the final word on how our returning veterans ought to be treated?

---

Don't be deliberately dense, Don. The point of my family stories was that the classified/unclassified barrier can be a little wonky. The government has a known, provable habit of overclassifying many facts that are in the public domain. If you don't see how this relates to the pointless omission of the name of the civil rights group, well ....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Don Corleone

Can you point to any missteps THE ONE may have had?

---

Many. Is this thread about me or about this report, though? Frankly, your sudden descent into ad hominems took me by surprise. If it would make you feel better to classify me as a blind and rabid acolyte of the Obamessiah, by all means, go ahead. Doesn't change the substance of what we're discussing one bit.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Don Corleone

Got you here, mi amigo. First sentence of my first link:

WASHINGTON -- The Federal Bureau of Investigation earlier this year launched a nationwide operation targeting white supremacists and "militia/sovereign-citizen extremist groups," including a focus on veterans from Iraq and Afghanistan, according to memos sent from bureau headquarters to field offices.

---

So wait a minute, your killer clincher, the proof positive that the FBI will be monitoring hundreds of thousands of veterans and combing through their phone calls is this? Not a statement by any source, named or unnamed, not the primary document, not the FBI director, but rather a sloppily written lede sentence in a Wall Street Journal article? This is your coup? Do I need to point out that you could read that sentence a few different ways? Do I need to expound on the difference between primary and secondary sources? The fact that you're basing your entire outrage-o-thon on a reporter's lede rather than anything official? The fact that your reading of this sentence is backed up nowhere else in the same article? To quote the Lord Humungus: Just walk away, and I spare your lives.

From the same article:

"We're not doing an investigation into the military, we're not looking at former military members," he said. "It would have to be something they were concerned about, or someone they're concerned is involved" with extremist groups.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Don Corleone

I couldn't agree more. So would you kindly explain to me why the FBI is focusing not on the hate group, but on the veterans as a whole?

---

Show me where the FBI has said that it's focusing on veterans as a whole. Your source for that is a sloppily-written lede in a newspaper.

Also, feel free to explain how this memo is any more offensive than the 2008 one I linked to. How would you be reacting if that were released by Obama rather than Bush?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lemur

Look at the "properties" tab of the PDF. Check the date of creation. Go ahead, check it right now, I'll wait for you.

See? "January 23rd, 2007, 12:32:54."

---

That's hardly conclusive. ~:handball:

DHS should be worried about vets. Apart from the "former" gangbangers than now have advanced tactical weapons training and experience (thank you, lowered recruitment standards), the veterans from Iraq and Afghanistan are going to get royally screwed over in the next decade. Shoddy medical treatment, reduced benefits, you name it. The US government does not really have a stellar track record on veteran affairs, and the huge debt load we have now will mean cuts. The word "disgruntled" will get lots of airtime due to the social timebomb the Iraqi venture has armed.

Hi Don!.

You and Lemur are having a good tussle, no?

I'm not too impressed with the report. It's identifying a laundry list of potential sources for domestic terrorism. I don't think it singles out veterans as much as some of the media has suggested.

That being said, Napolitano's handling of this issue was bush-league. She managed to heighten the insult without changing the content. Not a smooth play. I'm not impressed with her caliber of leadership so far.

I'm sure the left-winger report will be similarly anemic.

Perhaps she'll "numbskull" that press conference as well and then she'll create a sense of national unity by having BOTH sides of the spectrum calling for her resignation.


Oh, by the way, later testimony and NKVD sourcing confirmed that Julis Rosenberg did participate in efforts to get classified US info to the USSR. The death penalty may have been excessive given the poor quality of the info he managed to get out, but he was a soviet spy.

More grist to ponder. I heard part of an interview with this Hagman on talk radio today. I just logged onto the site and thought I'd share. FBI spied on TEA Party Americans . I have never heard of this guy or this site till today. An interesting article that is hopefully false.

This department keeps paying back it's investment in spades.

Is it not true though? Some military veterans do join extreme right winged, sometimes even neo-nazi, groups. I have not read about the Communist Party being filled with Vietnam veterans.

White people are mostly likely to join white supremecist groups. Let's increase the scrutiny on white people.

Quote:

---

White people are mostly likely to join white supremecist groups. Let's increase the scrutiny on white people.

---

Then the best way the white supremecists can avoid the unwelcome government scrutiny is by simply recruiting mainly black people .

But anyway , as for the report(not what the report is being portrayed as mind you) if you were to take an ordinary average good old folksy Amercan domestic terrorist group like the army of god . What proportion of their nuttiest nuts have had a military background ?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alexander the Pretty Good

White people are mostly likely to join white supremecist groups. Let's increase the scrutiny on white people.

---

Of course white people would join a white supremacy group. This has no relevancy to the topic, unless you are saying that it's obvious when a military veteran joins an extreme right winged group.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by KarlXII

Of course white people would join a white supremacy group. This has no relevancy to the topic, unless you are saying that it's obvious when a military veteran joins an extreme right winged group.

---

I dunno, it makes almost as much sense as

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by also you lol

Is it not true though? Some military veterans do join extreme right winged, sometimes even neo-nazi, groups. I have not read about the Communist Party being filled with Vietnam veterans.

---

I mean, stroking with broad brushes and all that...

Can you show me statistical correlation for what you said or is "common sense"?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alexander the Pretty Good

I dunno, it makes almost as much sense as


I mean, stroking with broad brushes and all that...

Can you show me statistical correlation for what you said or is "common sense"?

---

Don't take my word, take the FBI's.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alexander the Pretty Good

White people are mostly likely to join white supremecist groups. Let's increase the scrutiny on white people.

---

Reality check: Nobody has established that DHS intends to put all veterans under surveillance. The memo doesn't say it, the FBI hasn't said it, the only people saying it are professional panic-mongers. Before you go decrying the injustice of an event, how's about establishing that the event exists.

Read the memo. Read the statements by various officials. Find me where they say they intend to increase surveillance on veterans as a group.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alexander the Pretty Good

I dunno, it makes almost as much sense as


I mean, stroking with broad brushes and all that...

Can you show me statistical correlation for what you said or is "common sense"?

---

And I did not say "A certain percentage of veterans join radical groups" I said, and my quote proves this:

Quote:

---

Some military veterans do join extreme right winged, sometimes even neo-nazi, groups

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Karl

Is it not true though? Some military veterans do join extreme right winged, sometimes even neo-nazi, groups. I have not read about the Communist Party being filled with Vietnam veterans.

---

Your statement implies that right-wing groups are "filled with Vietnam veterans" (because you used that terminology for the converse). Furthermore, could you demonstrate that there aren't Vietnam vets in the Communist party (or left-wing orgs in general)?

@Lemur - so why bother mentioning it anyway?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alexander the Pretty Good

Your statement implies that right-wing groups are "filled with Vietnam veterans" (because you used that terminology for the converse). Furthermore, could you demonstrate that there aren't Vietnam vets in the Communist party (or left-wing orgs in general)?

---

You're bad at the whole reading thing, huh?

Quote:

---

I have not read about the Communist Party being filled with Vietnam veterans.

---

My quote mentioned the fact that I have not read, nor heard of, an extreme left wing group recruiting military veterans, or military veterans joining extreme left wing groups.

In case you want it, here is the Department of Homeland Security report on left wing extremists groups, as provided by Fox News.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hosakawa Tito

More grist to ponder. I heard part of an interview with this Hagman on talk radio today. I just logged onto the site and thought I'd share. FBI spied on TEA Party Americans . I have never heard of this guy or this site till today. An interesting article that is hopefully false.

---

Interesting article, Hosa. I wonder, though, how an unnamed source can be "unimpeachable," as the author states. Unnamed sources usually carry less weight than people willing to go on record.

Photographing people at rallies is hardly new. I don't think the FBI normally does that sort of thing at straight-up political rallies, but attend anything offbeat and the odds are good your pic will be taken. This was true of the anti-war rallies in '03, the WTO protests, etcetera. I don't think it really qualifies as "spying on Americans," since people at public protests are, by definition, in public. Long-established legal precedent sez that you have no right to privacy when you are in the public space, so "spying" is a bit of hyperbole.

Last I heard, the FBI also works up profiles of people who instigate protests. Perfectly legal. I guess the reason some folks are finding it shocking is that most of the people at Tea Party rallies aren't the sorts who normally attend protests. Seems just about everything was new to them, hence their problems with not getting any of the correct permits. Welcome to the club.

I don't attend protests. Not my scene. But nothing that was done at the Tea Parties sounds new or disturbing, either on the protesters' side or the Governments. Heck, compare the treatment the Tea Parties got to the way protesters at the National Political Conventions in '08 were manhandled. How do you think the Tea Partiers would have liked being fenced into a free speech zone in a parking lot a mile away from their intended target?

From the part of the interview I heard Hagmann is on this talk radio program as a semi-regular. His "unimpeachable" source is an FBI employee, which would certainly be a good reason why the source would wish to remain anonymous. I have no idea if any of this is true, but considering the past actions of FBI surveillence programs, I wouldn't be shocked to discover that this did take place and is continuing to take place. These people that are organizing the Tea Parties, and the attendees, are engaged in peaceful protest of their government's policies & practices, nothing radical or subversive about that at all, and is a Constitutional right. The orders to conduct this surveillence comes from and has to be known/sanctioned by the White House. If it's true, I find it unsettling, because there will be, and already is, "mission creep" employed using the Patriot Act provisions as justification. Where will all this lead? I expect better of this administration...

Hosa, I'm sorry, but this is nothing new. And it's certainly nothing illegal. So the source is a dude in the FBI who wishes to remain anonymous? That's fine, but he may very well have his own axe to grind. Maybe he got passed for promotion, or maybe he really hates the new Prez. Or maybe President 44 is a tyrant keen to trample our rights underfoot. Impossible to know.

But on the face of it, your article discusses nothing new. This has been going on with protests for decades. Maybe you think that the Tea Parties should be exempt because they're something special and new and pure. but I would contend that there's nothing new under the sun, and Tea Party Conservatives are having a fit because they're receiving the same treatment all protesters have received since the Fifties. To which I say, welcome to the party, and quit whining.

And that's the disappointment with it Lem. This administration got voted in on the premise of change, not the same old same old. With all the other important things that should be on the FBI's plate they are wasting time & resources on tilting at windmills.

In my state, these protests were probably directed at least as much at the state government mafia as at the feds. IMO change by the ballot box is impossible in New York State, the game is rigged, the incumbency protection plan too well entrenched. I don't wish to see the rest of the country follow NYS over the cliff, and I have an uneasy feeling on where this administration is going.

You asked for me to source that Lemur, and here it is, as promised.

Quote:

---

Because leftist extremists are better educated than members of
right-wing groups, they have the ability to organize more effectively, and once committed
to a militant revolution, they are more of a threat.

---

Quote:

---

13,858 people who died between 1988 and 1998 in attacks committed by the 10
most active terrorist groups in the world, 74 percent were killed by leftist organizations.

---

It goes on to say that the focus is now on Rightwing because they are perceived as more of a threat, BUT, statistically the left has committed more terror attacks, is better funded, better educated, and more dangerous. Also, many of the leftwing terrorists are 'respectable professionals': doctors, professors, lawyers, etc.

Quote:

---

It goes on to say that the focus is now on Rightwing because they are perceived as more of a threat, BUT, statistically the left has committed more terror attacks

---

Not really since the topic is domestic groups so the fact that the PKK in "kurdistan" made up half of the 74% is entirely irrelevant . If you want to focus on the time period of the figures from that report you posted then go to the relevant domestic terrorist threats list and you find Puerto Rican nationalists/seperatists at the top of the most dangerous list followed by the Jewish Defense League .

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by peverblue

hmmm...this sounds similar to arguments I have heard about muslims after the LARGEST and DEADLIEST terror attack in the US. Feeling a bit hypocritical?
Sure, he was a soldier, and he was rightwing. Look how many terrorists are leftwing, and how many are occupations other than soldiers. Should we track all leftwing people and all people of those other occupations?
Considering that most domestic terrorism is commited by the left, I think it is complete hypocracy to cry for political profiling on the basis of one attack.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by peverblue

You asked for me to source that Lemur, and here it is, as promised.

It goes on to say that the focus is now on Rightwing because they are perceived as more of a threat, BUT, statistically the left has committed more terror attacks, is better funded, better educated, and more dangerous. Also, many of the leftwing terrorists are 'respectable professionals': doctors, professors, lawyers, etc.

---

World= domestic?

A few notes. According to this article, unless something big has changed since 2001 most of the current attacks are done by right-wing movements, while the left-wing were more aggressive until after 1985.

The left-wing movements there are marxists, communists etc. Are they a threat nowadays? Has Cuba been successful in their speculated sponsoring of communist terrorists in the US?

A tidbit that will cause a nice spin here. The DHS report refering to left-wing terrorism doesn't even mention these groups, but only animal-rights activist, naturalists and anarchists (the usual rioteers at the big meetings).
So either nothing new has shown up on those groups or it's a coverup from that that Marxist left-winger George W. Bush that was at power when the report was written, or that DHS had it done in 6 days (it went public in 26 january 2009) after Obama took the presidency.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by peverblue

You asked for me to source that Lemur, and here it is, as promised.

---

A very interesting document—thanks so much for taking the time to locate and link to it! Very thoughtful of you, and much appreciated.

While it certainly corroborates your claim that the majority of terror attacks in the world are based on leftist ideology, it doesn't really back that up in regards to the U.S. (neither does it take into account Islamist terrorism, but we'll let sleeping dogs lie). An interesting bit from page three:

Left-wing groups were responsible for three-fourths of the officially designated acts of domestic terrorism in the United States during the 1980s. About half of these incidents were committed by Puerto Rican separatist groups and the remainder by traditional leftist terrorist groups like M19CO (Smith, 1994).

I hesitate to classify Puerto Rican separatists as either "right" or "left," and their activities don't impinge directly on what we're talking about, so let's leave them aside. If left-leaning people were responsible for three-fourths of the officially classified terror attacks in the 1980s, and half of those were Puerto Rican separatists, that means that the split of officially recognized terror attacks in the 1980s is almost exactly 50/50 between leftists and rightists.

This is also a telling bit of text:

The Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) reports that although leftist-oriented extremist groups posed the predominate domestic terrorism threat over the past three decades, right-wing extremist groups that adhere to antigovernment and racist ideologies are the increasing concern today (Federal Bureau of Investigation, 1995).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lemur

A very interesting document—thanks so much for taking the time to locate and link to it! Very thoughtful of you, and much appreciated.

While it certainly corroborates your claim that the majority of terror attacks in the world are based on leftist ideology, it doesn't really back that up in regards to the U.S. (neither does it take into account Islamist terrorism, but we'll let sleeping dogs lie). An interesting bit from page three:

Left-wing groups were responsible for three-fourths of the officially designated acts of domestic terrorism in the United States during the 1980s. About half of these incidents were committed by Puerto Rican separatist groups and the remainder by traditional leftist terrorist groups like M19CO (Smith, 1994).

I hesitate to classify Puerto Rican separatists as either "right" or "left," and their activities don't impinge directly on what we're talking about, so let's leave them aside. If left-leaning people were responsible for three-fourths of the officially classified terror attacks in the 1980s, and half of those were Puerto Rican separatists, that means that the split of officially recognized terror attacks in the 1980s is almost exactly 50/50 between leftists and rightists.

This is also a telling bit of text:

The Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) reports that although leftist-oriented extremist groups posed the predominate domestic terrorism threat over the past three decades, right-wing extremist groups that adhere to antigovernment and racist ideologies are the increasing concern today (Federal Bureau of Investigation, 1995).

---

First of Lemur, I only skimmed the article, just so you know. I did a google and found it, but I have read before in historical works that most of the terror attacks in the US have been committed by leftwing terrorists. As I said, I do not have my library, so I must resort to the internet as a source.
To be honest with you, I disagree with many groups I have heard classified as 'rightwing', but who is gonna argue the federal government about it?
Don't forget also, that just because they find them of increasing concern, that does not mean that they are correct, or that the right is responsible for even an equal number of terrorist attacks. There has been a movement since the Clinton time in the police force I know to look out for those evil middle-aged white men in flannel shirts. (Meanwhile muslim terrorists are blowing up the WTC, and greenpeace nuts are firebombing buildings and murdering people) Lot's of people in the police force I knew actually got quite upset over the Clintonian intelligence and policing classifications (which has been anything but succesful). They were told that the dangerous and violent ones to look out for were those burly middle-aged white men in flannel shirts, yet most of the serious crime they witnessed was by completely different sorts. I know that it is not the same thing, but I think it usefull to keep in mind that they are only more concerned about it, and in April of 2001, we very much had a Clintonian intelligence system.
I would have to read the article to say more.