Don't get me wrong, I agree with you. Again, the problem I have is that the DHS document does not draw the distinction that you do, nay that ANY person with some common sense would draw. Of course you are not watched, nor should you be. Nor should I. Nor should the overwhelmingly vast majority of people the document states are potential violent right-wing extremists. That's why I think people are over-reacting somewhat, but that still does not excuse the ridiculousness of the document. Even the highest-ranking Democrat on the committee which oversees the DHS has reacted with 'outrage' over this thing. It's fubar, no question. Who ultimately has to take the fall for it is still up in the air, but my guess is that Napolitano is gone. What is much more interesting to me is how exactly this happened, and whether or not we will ever really find out. It's the sort of thing a bulldog 'journalist' would eventually uncover, but since the perception is out there (rightly or wrongly) that the the MSM is the Laker Girls to the current administration's Lakers, one might wonder just how much of a compulsion they might feel to scratch this particular itch, especially in Washington. Anyhow, it's interesting to ponder - was this all Napolitano, on her own, trying to score brownie points with the higher-ups? Was this 'groupthink' within the DHS itself, or at least certain 'now-in-favor' peoples inside it? Or was this handed down from above, as the MSM always seemed to believe was happening when Rove and Cheney were lurking somewhere in the shadows. One thing seems pretty clear - this came from a politician, not from any legitimate analyst whose primary concern was the safety of the citizenry.
Well maybe that you cite politics as your primary reason for being upset about this is why it sounds like you are concerned more about politics than you are about civil liberties. Again you are stating you are upset about the politics of this not about the principle of violating civil liberties. What bothers you isn't that the government is monitoring people over political beliefs in general it is that they are monitoring people over these particular beliefs. When you are discussing government monitoring people over political beliefs you are clearly talking about "civil liberties". That isn't a non-sequitor.
I would say so. Makes me think about the domestic extremists in the 60's and 70's. They were mostly left-wing. Same ol problems.
Hey, I remember this thread and this report: In the light of the Wisconsin Sikh massacre, it is interesting to read this thread.
It seems not only so obvious in hindsight, but it was also obvious at the time - that's why they released a report. Where the Obama Administration failed was allowing the report to use the word "far-right" to modify extremist groups. It's very apropos, but they should have known that the right would react as they did, creating a ****-storm of victimhood. Still, I'm not sure how they could have adequately described these dangerous far-right individuals. They could have possibly described them by the issues they rabidly focus on, like Muslims, immigrants, and the power of the federal government, but even that would have caused problems. So what is the answer? I guess the federal government could do nothing or never try to draw attention to important issues which affect the lives of Americans, or it could do nothing and let itself be completely controlled by political gamesmanship rather than the problematic reality of domestic terror.
Actually, The Obama Administration had little to nothing to do with this report, much less defining the terms. That suggestion was just another part of the political gamesmanship that you, quite rightly, decried. ^ Great article at Wired: DHS Crushed This Analyst for Warning About Far-Right Terror
