I just do not understand why this causes a problem for some people. The government has a legitimate interest in knowing which groups may pose a threat regardless of their nation of origin or ideology. If I reported that the government was conducting ongoing surveillance of a suspected terror cell, most on this board would approve wholeheartedly. These groups should be treated no differently. It is groups like these that cause the oath of office to be to defend against all enemies, foreign and domestic.
Dude, white people can't commit terrorist attacks. Remember, other than that whole 9/11 thing, Bush kept us safe from terrorist attacks. Since the anthrax attacks were carried out be a white guy, they weren't terrorism. Duh.
Dude, Bro, Lol. Attention to detail FTL. He said he had $4700 on him (not $40,000), and I'm pretty sure by law you have to declare possession of $10,000 when flying (at least internationally), so if he had 40 grand on him it would have been a different story. The guy violated no laws, was not 'required by law' (love how you say it like it's a joke to exercise your rights) to answer any questions, and was cooperative the whole time. The TSA guys or whoever were complete stooges as one would expect, and they absolutely hate guys like him who don't put up with their intimidation ploys. The reason the plainclothes guy whispered to let him go is that cops DO NOT want to mess with innocent people who know their rights, it is futile. You are always way better off using your rights while being cooperative than being 'buddy-buddy' with someone who GETS PAID TO ARREST OR TICKET YOU, lol. Cops are not your friends, they are paid henchmen of the government. If only America were filled with people like this guy and not these recent generations who are happy with this mentality of, "If I have nothing to hide I guess it's ok for you to give me a cavity search, Mr. Officer." Yes, let's all kiss the boots of those whose alternative line of employment was a fry cook at McDonalds.
LOL at the propaganda brainwashing that formulates opinions such as this one. Ever think it might be possible to just not support either the left or the (current) right? Both sides are clearly horrible and have been for 45 years!!! This guy was a Ron Paul supporter, who is one of the few legitimate Republicans in office. Paul voted against basically every unconstitutional piece of legislation passed, including the Patriot Act, and has vehemently spoken out against both the PA and the Drug War. Oh yea and if Obama is such a savior, I'm sure he'll repeal the Patriot Act, end war and abolish the Drug War, all of which Ron Paul has promised to do. Accepting the position of a tyrant and not changing the tyrranical practices makes you just as guilty, not that I support either Bush or Obama one bit.
Considering how many "defenders" of the constitution supported the act, I have to think that was the plan. Its not as much fun when it gets applied to someone you can identify with.
Here's the problem. The earlier report on the 'left wing radicals' clearly identified actual left wing radical groups. It gave specific information on specific groups, thereby specifically NOT deliberately casting doubt and aspersions on an entire 'wing', but rather upon the very specific people who are the actual threats. This most recent one, however, does nothing of the sort. It even clearly states that it has NO spcific information or evidence at all, but instead simply identifies general groups of people, whose only common factor is specific POLITICAL opinions which amazingly enough happen to be at odds with the current administration. 'Those people' 'could' become threats, because of all of these things we just pulled out of our bottoms, so 'watch them', be suspicious of them. Is there any evidence? At all? No, but still, they are clearly 'bad people'. Timothy McVeigh! Killer veterans! It picks out veterans in particular, because the majority of them are usually more politically conservative, and have by the way sworn an oath to protect and uphold the Constitution. It even plays the race card pre-emptively, presumably so that those people with the stated political beliefs can also be declared racists. The two reports could not be more dissimilar. Now I know that, as always, there are a significant number of people who inhabit this particular section of the board for whom there is no such thing as open-minded debate or discussion, only condemnation and ridicule. That's fine. I don't come here any more really, but I wanted to see what the reaction would be to this report, and of course it's same-old, same-old. And clearly these same people seem to think that the report is just dandy, because, after all, anyone who could be conservative and offended by such a thing as this report must be a mental defective anyway, and all anyone needs to do is say cute things like FAIL and whatnot to put them in their place. However, if anyone can look at this report honestly and not see it for the political hatchet job that it clearly is, then they need to do a self-assessment of what the word 'honestly' really means.
It says there are no specific acts of violence planned - not that there aren't specific groups involved. That's no different than the left-wing one.
I don't know what to make of this thread. On the one hand I am glad that many are so up about defending their civil liberties on the other hand I am wondering why weren't they up in arms when people including US citizens were being detained with out trial or even Habeaus Corpus the past few years.
I think you're wrong on this... First, the report was started under the Bush administration. Second, historically, left-wing violence has come from a small number of clearly defined groups. Third, historically, right-wing violence has come... at times, but usually dramatically so... from individuals very much fitting the description in the report. Fourth, there are probably too many right-wing groups with potential for violence that you couldn't single out a few or list them all in a report.
I don't know that the outrage has anything to do with defending civil liberties. I have not seent hat phrase used, but maybe it has been, so if it has, don't shoot me. However, rather than civil liberties being stepped on (which is kind of a convenient deflection, in as much as since it may come to pass that no local law enforcement agencies take this report and start rounding up conservatives, therefore creating a 'see? we told you, you whiny conservatives were all outraged over nothing!' kind of situation), I think it is instead more of a simple outrage over how transparent it is, how blatantly obvious an attempt it is to denigrate every single person who has certain political opinions about things like illegal immigration, abortion, the economy; and of course to cast a shadow over the military, which liberals have historically despised. To me, it's telling that Napolitano has already apologized, but more importantly that she claims to have authored it, and specifically has stated that she 'would have left that part out' about the veterans, when she wrote it. If it was that serious a threat, why would she now regret it, and say she should have left it out? If returning veterans really aren't enough of a threat to warrant being singled out to local law enforcement agencies, then who else in the report should come under the heading of 'we didn't really mean it'? To me, this is not the behavior of someone who is honestly trying to protect the United States from legitimate threats, but is instead the behavior of someone who is simply playing politics. That's what the outrage is about. Not civil liberties. Just civility. Decency.
First, maybe it was *started* then, but Napolitano has already gone on record as saying she wrote it. Second, I don't disagree with that. Third, perhaps true, but painting with such broad strokes renders it useless for anything other than casting suspicion on, what, 40 million, maybe 50 million people? More? How is that helpful exactly? It would be just as useful to say that homegrown terrorists have usually breathed oxygen, drank milk as children, and occasionally wear hats. Fourth... that last part was a joke, right? I mean, you don't seriously mean that. There are 'probably too many right-wing groups with potential for violence that you couldn't single out a few or list them all in a report.' ?? Soooo... instead, you don't list ANY? And instead you state that you have ZERO evidence of any of them. Hehe you probably want to take that one back, it's ok, take a mulligan.
If you need corroborating information, the following are good places to start: FBI: White Supremacist Recruitment of Military Personnel 2008 FBI: Gang Related Activity in the US Armed Forces is Increasing 2007 The "dirty bomb" that disappeared
Nobody is claiming that some ex-military people have never become involved in fringe violent groups. It's the complete lack of any actual data, or evidence, or anything solid at all. It is nothing more than innuendo, insinuation. It seems to be enough to yell out the name 'McVeigh!' while ignoring the 42 million vets who did not blow up a building. In fact I would have no problem with the report at all, IF it had mimicked the other report, and actually given some specific information. Heck, maybe we can even give Napolitano the benefit of the doubt - maybe there just aren't any actual specific groups, but she had to have her paper turned in by a certain date, and just threw something together about nasty people who might protest things from the conservative pov.Easy targets, right? They should probably all be locked up anyway.
Ok... so you don't really dispute the subject matter... I guess I'm having a hard time seeing exactly why you are upset, other than it strikes too close to home, as it deals with conservative offshoots and you are a conservative? You do understand that this isn't intended for public release? That is is an overview for internal use and law enforcement, and isn't really intended to detail points? Honestly, it reads exactly like every other threat assessment I've read. Would you be as upset right now if it substituted 'Muslim' for 'right wing'?
Here are some particulars from the SPLC... Notice that not all the groups mentioned are right wing... just most of them. And the responses of some in this thread beg the question: If these groups can't be adequately distinguished from "regular" Republicans by regular Republicans, what does that tell you about regular Republicans?
So you really don't see any difference between this one and the previous one which named specific groups? As for not disputing the subject matter - of course I don't dispute it. The government's job is to protect the country from legitimate threats. I simply disagree with the federal government actually coming out and stating that people who want to hang onto their Constitutionally-guaranteed right to bear arms, to exercise free speech, who think abortion is wrong, and who think that illegal immigration should be, well, illegal, should all be watched by local authorities because they are all likely violent right-wing radicals. Especially when the other report simply names dangerous groups, and somehow refrains from targeting people based on their political opinions. Are people over-reacting? Probably. My instinct tells me that this Napolitano character is simply an incompetent hack and needs to be fired, and this whole mess stems from that one point of origin. As for the last point: Umm, ok, so it's ok that it was such a blatant piece of dreck because it was supposed to be a 'secret'? And that only local police were supposed to know that we are supposed to be watched as dangerous loonies? Call me crazy, but somehow that is not that comforting.
