[Kerrigan]

Janet Napolitano, Homeland Security secretary, is taking some heat for the statements she issued accusing veterans of being likely terrorists. What do you think about this wacky lady?

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/...vr-vwD97J67100

[SpaceMonkey]

Lack of reading comprehension? Check.

Self-righteous indignation? Check.

This should be good.

[Kerrigan]

"[R]eturning military veterans who have difficulties assimilating back into their home communities could be susceptible to extremist recruiters or might engage in lone acts of violence."

Does that sort out your reading comprehension problem? Check.

[SpaceMonkey]

Originally Posted by Kerrigan 

Does that sort out your reading comprehension problem? Check.

No, not really, because your selected quotation says nothing about the likelihood of returning veterans being recruited by terrorist organizations or engaging in violence on their own, as your original post claimed. It indicates that this is a possibility to be aware of, but doesn't rank it as a priority. From your linked article, it seems that the leader of at least one veterans group recognizes this. Given its mandate, do you not want the Homeland Security Department to be mindful of any and all possibilities of domestic terrorism?

[BadKosh]

What about those LEFT WING Extremists , like Ayres the cop killer and his followers.....like the President?

[Chuckit]

Golly gosh, someone with a traumatic and violent past and no connection to other people is at increased risk for acting irrationally? Knock me over with a feather.

I know a lot of conservatives seem to prefer for their leaders to ignore any non-immediate threats until people die from them in a spectacular way and then send us to war against the wrong country, but I'm not one of them.

[BadKosh]

Ask Janet Reno why the intel was so slow in coming. You libs have problems remembering more than a few moments ago.

[Chuckit]

I think you have me confused with a liberal. All I'm saying is, I think it's good that the people in charge of defending our country are trying to plan ahead. I have the utmost respect for vets, but I don't see anything wrong with acknowledging that some of them might be disturbed. From the tone of the OP, you'd think she said something about negative veterans in general, which she didn't.

[ThinkInsane]

It's not like a disgruntled vet has ever pulled off a home-grown terrorist attack in say... Oklahoma. Given that it has happened, I would think that both the right and the left should be able to see there is always going to be potential for such things to happen again. I don't see this as particularly wrong or offensive.

[hyteckit]

Oklahoma bombing. Timmy Mcvay. nuff said.

[olePigeon]

Originally Posted by ThinkInsane 

It's not like a disgruntled vet has ever pulled off a home-grown terrorist attack in say... Oklahoma.

Or assassinated a president in Texas.

[hyteckit]

DHS report on Right wing extremist:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090416/...ing_extremists

[Kerrigan]

I think it's important to note that thread titles should always be succinct and unsettling in order to attract participants for discussion. That is all.

[Big Mac]

I thought we were talking about Rachel Maddow. Wow, is that show scary awful. I'm surprised anyone can stand to watch it.

[besson3c]

Why's that Big Mac?

[placebo1969]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

Why's that Big Mac?

Are you being obtuse? You can't figure out why someone wouldn't like to watch a political pundit?

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by SpaceMonkey 

Given its mandate, do you not want the Homeland Security Department to be mindful of any and all possibilities of domestic terrorism?

Wouldn't any and all possibilities include those actually accused of contributing to the bombing of shxx like the guy who hosted our President's senate bid in his home or should we really be more concerned about those with Ron Paul bumper stickers or those who oppose illegal immigration? If the criteria is this loose, shouldn't we also suspect drug addicts, drunks, artists, college professors...

C'mon SpaceMonkey.

[Eug]

Originally Posted by Kerrigan 

What do you think about this wacky lady?

If that article is accurate, then I think you should be proud that your Homeland Security Secretary is willing to acknowledge the potential of this sort of thing, instead of just playing dumb because of some misguided sense of political correctness.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by Eug 

If that article is accurate, then I think you should be proud that your Homeland Security Secretary has shown some common sense, and is willing to acknowledge the potential of this sort of thing, instead of just playing dumb because of some misguided sense of political correctness.

Ron Paul bumper stickers? Returning war veterans (which she's since apologized for)? Support for a Constitutional principle like the Second Amendment? Opposition to illegal immigration? With criteria like this there's obviously any number of possibilities for violent dissent; drug addicts, drunks, former boxers, football players, etc...

The intent is most definitely to isolate and alienate dissenting political philosophy. Period. Bigger fish and all that. This is unadulterated silliness.

[Eug]

I'm amused how political correctness is now all the rage.

[SpaceMonkey]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

Wouldn't any and all possibilities include those actually accused of contributing to the bombing of shxx like the guy who hosted our President's senate bid in his home or should we really be more concerned about those with Ron Paul bumper stickers or those who oppose illegal immigration? If the criteria is this loose, shouldn't we also suspect drug addicts, drunks, artists, college professors...

C'mon SpaceMonkey.

Where are you getting Ron Paul bumper stickers from the report? Did you read it?

Not to mention, there was a report on left-wing extremism, too, released in January.

Both reports, as it turns out, were actually initiated by the Bush administration, according to this article.

[Eug]

Originally Posted by SpaceMonkey 

Not to mention, there was a report on left-wing extremism, too.

Furthermore, that was actually mentioned in the article in the original post in this thread.

[OldManMac]

Unless I missed something, what does her being a lesbian have to do with the purported subject of the thread? Can you spell sensationalism...................I knew you could.

[Eug]

Originally Posted by OldManMac 

Unless I missed something, what does her being a lesbian have to do with the purported subject of the thread? Can you spell sensationalism...................I knew you could.

Actually, AFAIK, she isn't. Or at least she claims she isn't.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by placebo1969 

Are you being obtuse? You can't figure out why someone wouldn't like to watch a political pundit?

No, I'm not. Of course I can figure this out if he doesn't agree with her viewpoints, but Big Mac specifically said that she is "awful". There is a difference between being awful and simply having a differing viewpoint. Crossfire was awful, at least Maddow attempts to be thoughtful.

[OldManMac]

Originally Posted by Eug 

Actually, AFAIK, she isn't. Or at least she claims she isn't.

Then the OP's title was even more egregious.

[Laminar]

Originally Posted by OldManMac 

Unless I missed something, what does her being a lesbian have to do with the purported subject of the thread? Can you spell sensationalism...................I knew you could.

Originally Posted by OldManMac 

Then the OP's title was even more egregious.

Originally Posted by Kerrigan 

I think it's important to note that thread titles should always be succinct and unsettling in order to attract participants for discussion. That is all.

Congrats.

[smacintush]

Originally Posted by olePigeon 

Or assassinated a president in Texas.

Congratulations. You guys managed to name TWO in that last…forty six years.

Boy am I glad our government is trying to get a handle on this huge problem.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by SpaceMonkey 

Where are you getting Ron Paul bumper stickers from the report? Did you read it?

Yes, including this part;
(U//FOUO) DHS/I&A will be working with its state and local partners over the next
several months to ascertain with greater regional specificity the rise in rightwing
extremist activity in the United States, with a particular emphasis on the political,
economic, and social factors that drive rightwing extremist radicalization.

Who are their state and local partners SpaceMonkey? Liasons like the MIAC, (Missouri Information Analysis Center) which are one of several information collecting and sharing services sponsored by the DHS. MIAC released a strikingly similar report on militias and right-wing extremism on 2/20/09;
MIAC Strategic Report
"Political Paraphernalia: Militia members most commonly associate with 3rd party political groups. It is not uncommon for a militia member to display Constitutional Party, Campaign for Liberty, or Libertarian material. These members are usually supporters of former Presidential Candidate: Ron Paul, Chuck Baldwin, and Bob Barr."

It was a stupid report, they've since rescinded it not unlike the DHS report which was likewise stupid, and Napolitano has been apologizing profusely for it ever since it was released. So there's a federal report released shortly after reports of a similar, but much more detailed nature are compiled with the help of the DHS and distributed at the local level.

Not to mention, there was a report on left-wing extremism, too, released in January.

Some stark, but predictable contrasts between the reports. For one, they are much less descriptive of the recruiting potential;

- (U//FOUO) The following highlight a range of signposts that may expose leftwing
extremists’ intent—either domestically or abroad—to develop more robust cyber attack
strategies:
— (U//FOUO) Increasing number of statements by leftwing extremists advocating
the use of cyber attack techniques.
— (U//FOUO) Increasing number of communiques published on leftwing extremist
websites claiming credit for cyber attacks.
— (U//FOUO) Suspicious cyber attack activity or increased frequency, creativity, or
severity against traditional primary, secondary, and tertiary targets of leftwing
extremists.
— (U//FOUO) Evidence that leftwing extremist groups or activists are recruiting or
attempting to acquire the services of individuals with cyber capabilities.

It seems their focus is on groups already engaged in criminal activity, not focused on those who simply espouse environmentalist ideology, animal rights activism, and anarchy as "recruiters" and these issues as "recruiting tools".

"It focuses on the more prominent leftwing groups within the animal rights, environmental, and anarchist extremist movements that promote or have conducted criminal or terrorist activities."

The right-wing extremist report opens with the fact that there is no specific information that domestic right-wing terrorists are currently planning acts of violence, but that they may be gaining new recruits by playing on fears about emergent issues such as the economic downturn, the election of the first African-American President, abortion, illegal immigration, and gun control. In other words, the DHS report on left-wing extremism is very concise and detailed as to the subjects of scrutiny so named by group and criminal activity. The DHS report on right-wing extremism is very broad and vague focusing primarily on ideology. Huge difference.

Both reports, as it turns out, were actually initiated by the Bush administration, according to this article.

I see CNN is parroting what a wealth of other blogs are reporting as if this right-wing extremist report was actually drafted on January 23rd 2007. I find it interesting that a report claiming factors such as the economic downturn and the election of the first African-American President would be used as recruiting tools was drafted before a known economic downturn and an African-American announcing his candidacy.

What you and CNN missed is that the report was requested by the Bush Administration, but compiled and drafted by DHS under the Obama Administration. Nice try.

[ebuddy]

The fact of the matter is that the report is bullshxt. Napolitano knows it. She's been apologizing for it since it was released. The Obama Administration knows it. They're distancing themselves as far away from it as possible. The only ones who don't know it are the usual hand-cymbal clapping monkeys of this forum.

[smacintush]

Nevermind, ebuddy said it better than I could.

[smacintush]

Originally Posted by SpaceMonkey 

Given its mandate, do you not want the Homeland Security Department to be mindful of any and all possibilities of domestic terrorism?

The short answer is NO.

I for one, do not want our government using simple political ideologies and associations/former military status as an excuse to "keep an eye" (wink wink) on US citizens in order to prevent extremely rare occurrences of "domestic terrorism".

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by smacintush 

Congratulations. You guys managed to name TWO in that last…forty six years.

Boy am I glad our government is trying to get a handle on this huge problem.

You make it sound like they've established a Department of Investigating Veterans. For crying out loud, it's just an item in a list of things to consider. And considering how few cases of domestic terrorism there have been over the past 50 years of US history, two is not that small a number. If this is really that disturbing to you, I think you're a little high-strung.

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by smacintush 

The short answer is NO.

I for one, do not want our government using simple political ideologies and associations/former military status as an excuse to "keep an eye" (wink wink) on US citizens in order to prevent extremely rare occurrences of "domestic terrorism".

I don't recall you wigging out over Bush's much more vaguely defined categories of people he admitted to spying on. If mentioning a relevant class of people in a list is the Obama Administration's worst violation of our personal liberties, we're definitely moving in the right direction.

[smacintush]

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

I don't recall you wigging out over Bush's much more vaguely defined categories of people he admitted to spying on. If mentioning a relevant class of people in a list is the Obama Administration's worst violation of our personal liberties, we're definitely moving in the right direction.

You're right. I didn't.

I mildly supported all that crap he did that had all you guys in an uproar. (funny how now this kind of profiling and surveillance is in our best interest) At the time, I overstated my support for Bush policies because of all the unfair and ridiculous smearing of him and everything he did or tried to do. I also have been shifting more and more toward libertarianism in the last few years, so my opinion on this issue isn't the same is it was then.

[smacintush]

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

You make it sound like they've established a Department of Investigating Veterans. For crying out loud, it's just an item in a list of things to consider. And considering how few cases of domestic terrorism there have been over the past 50 years of US history, two is not that small a number. If this is really that disturbing to you, I think you're a little high-strung.

I think when you consider how many veteran's there have been, and how many have turned out to be the kind of people that would do these things, they should not have even been mentioned in this context.

It should be noted, that Oswald wasn't right wing at all, so he doesn't even belong in this conversation.

[SpaceMonkey]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

The right-wing extremist report opens with the fact that there is no specific information that domestic right-wing terrorists are currently planning acts of violence, but that they may be gaining new recruits by playing on fears about emergent issues such as the economic downturn, the election of the first African-American President, abortion, illegal immigration, and gun control. In other words, the DHS report on left-wing extremism is very concise and detailed as to the subjects of scrutiny so named by group and criminal activity. The DHS report on right-wing extremism is very broad and vague focusing primarily on ideology. Huge difference.

Has it occurred to you that the DHS Office of Intelligence and Analysis was tasked to produce both reports? If one is more specific than the other, it speaks to the results that office found in terms of the balance of threats out there. There is no evidence that either report has yet influenced DHS policy, yet you are acting as though Napolitano has made the "right-wing" report her DHS operating bible. Why are you not assuming that they are taking the "left-wing" report more seriously, if it's so much more specific? These are studies. They probably did a set last year, too.

[SpaceMonkey]

Originally Posted by smacintush 

I think when you consider how many veteran's there have been, and how many have turned out to be the kind of people that would do these things, they should not have even been mentioned in this context.

You could say the same thing about many other groups.

[SpaceMonkey]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

The only ones who don't know it are the usual hand-cymbal clapping monkeys of this forum.

I'm sorry you're taking this so personally.

[SpaceMonkey]

Originally Posted by smacintush 

Boy am I glad our government is trying to get a handle on this huge problem.

The report never claimed it was a huge problem.

[SpaceMonkey]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

What you and CNN missed is that the report was requested by the Bush Administration, but compiled and drafted by DHS under the Obama Administration. Nice try.

No, that's exactly right, and I never said otherwise. The Bush Administration said, in effect: "Write us a report on possible sources of right-wing extremism." DHS did exactly that. It even downplayed the immediate security threat of these right-wing groups, as you yourself pointed out in the selections you quoted.

[ort888]

Originally Posted by smacintush 

Congratulations. You guys managed to name TWO in that last…forty six years.

Boy am I glad our government is trying to get a handle on this huge problem.

Beltway Sniper.

Also the guy that blew up the Atlanta Olympics.

[smacintush]

Originally Posted by ort888 

Beltway Sniper...

...was not a "right-wing extremist."

It's also important to note that McVeigh was not a "right-wing extremist". He was an agnostic and a libertarian. If he was "right wing" at all it was only a little.

So let's tally up:

Oswald: Former marine, did not serve in a war and was not a right-winger. Motive not positively determined.

Muhammed: Former US Army, did not serve in a war and was not a right-winger. Motive apparently "jihad".

Rudolph: Former US Army, did not serve in a war. Right-wing nut with right-wing nut motives.

McVeigh: Former US Army, gulf war vet. Not a true right-winger. Anti-government motive.

The only guy that fits what this report's saying is Rudolph. That's still one.

[Kerrigan]

Originally Posted by Laminar 

Congrats.

Yes, I think it is important to reiterate that I chose this thread title because it was the most unsettling synopsis of the story I could think of. Yes, she projects a masculine vibe in the image that I selected, but she is not a lesbian.

That is not to say that I think there is anything wrong with lesbianism.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by SpaceMonkey 

I'm sorry you're taking this so personally.

Yes because I oppose illegal immigration, gun control, abortion, our response to the economic downturn, policies that risk US sovereignty, and I am sympathetic to the "industrial military complex". Like I said earlier, with criteria this loose, we may as well include former boxers, football players, and people that post in the PWL at MacNN.

How exactly is detailing someone's political philosophical differences going to help profile and/or identify them as a potential danger SpaceMonkey?

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by SpaceMonkey 

No, that's exactly right, and I never said otherwise. The Bush Administration said, in effect: "Write us a report on possible sources of right-wing extremism." DHS did exactly that. It even downplayed the immediate security threat of these right-wing groups, as you yourself pointed out in the selections you quoted.

The differences in the reports are stark SpaceMonkey. The implications of the differences in the reports are stark. The left-wing report focuses on very specific groups who have conducted criminal activity, not ideology. The right-wing report claims while there are no plans for criminal activity, their focus is on political differences (ideology) with no more specificity than that.

I think it's a good idea to draft a report on right-wing extremism. I'm not taking issue with the request for a report. I suspect there have been a great many requested reports that were simply dead ends, lacking anything substantive from which to profile. In this case they drafted it anyway. The only reason at all to invoke the "B" word is because it is fashionable to say; "but Bush" right now. It is nothing more than to deflect from the fact that the report is a sham and it was drafted as antagonist toward those with dissenting political views. Period. It is a useless, meaningless report and they know it.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by SpaceMonkey 

Has it occurred to you that the DHS Office of Intelligence and Analysis was tasked to produce both reports?

Has it ever occurred to you that there might be any number of hundreds of requested reports? Which ones receive the focus and the nature of the details in the report are supposed to be meaningful right? I mean, otherwise what are they authoring them for?

If one is more specific than the other, it speaks to the results that office found in terms of the balance of threats out there.

Bingo. I think "we really didn't find anything of substance to report Mr. President" is what you're looking for. Don't take my word for it, read the report.

There is no evidence that either report has yet influenced DHS policy, yet you are acting as though Napolitano has made the "right-wing" report her DHS operating bible.

There are several reports like this one, making their way through local States' civil apparatus that are in fact expected to be actionable. If the reports weren't supposed to offer some sort of threat matrix for effective response, what are they for? I never said they were Scripture, only one more indicator of this Administration moving the country one more step in the wrong direction.

Why are you not assuming that they are taking the "left-wing" report more seriously, if it's so much more specific? These are studies. They probably did a set last year, too.

I can tell if someone is requesting the aid of a programmer/developer for cyber crime SpaceMonkey. I can tell if they are associated in any official capacity with the listed known criminal groups. I don't have to ask them how they feel about abortion, global warming, and animal rights. Identifying war veterans as potential recruits is no more meaningful in this context than identifying former IBM employees as potential cyber criminals. Give me a break.

I'm flummoxed you're actually trying to defend this report.

[ort888]

No one is really defending it. We're just wondering why you are so angry about it.

Are you this desperate to find something to be upset about?

Does Obama have you so scared that you just plow through online stories looking for articles and then figuring out ways to get really upset about them? Because that's about what it feels like.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by ort888 

No one is really defending it. We're just wondering why you are so angry about it.

I've already explained why I'm upset by it. I'm not alone. It focuses primarily on ideological differences leaving one with no other means of profiling. It's hostile.

Are you this desperate to find something to be upset about?

We'd likely disagree on our definition of "desperate". There's a reason why Napolitano has been apologizing for it since its release and the Obama Administration keeping as far away from it as possible.

Does Obama have you so scared that you just plow through online stories looking for articles and then figuring out ways to get really upset about them? Because that's about what it feels like.

Scared is not as appropriate as "concerned for the direction of this country". I know it's hard to separate any critique of an Administration from a direct personal attack on you or Obama, but since perception is reality; the only ones who don't see a problem here are likely those with the "preferred, peaceful, and productive ideology".

The real question is; is this Administration so scared of dissenting views that they must identify anyone with them as potential terrorist recruiters and the related issues as recruiting tools? After all, the guilt implied in the report is the ideology, no specific group or action.

[ort888]

I give up.