DHS Report on Rightwing Radicalism

[Slack3r78]

Just spent a few minutes reading this report (it's only 9 pages) and.... this is what the Republicans are having a fit over?

http://www.gordonunleashed.com/HSA%20-%20Rightwing%20Extremism%20-%2009%2004%2007.pdf

Seriously? I'm having a bit of a hard time understanding what there is to be upset over unless you tacitly endorse violent radicalism.

[muddi900]

OMG! The socialist are rounding us up!

Just to add a little flavor

[Narradisall]

Catchy title.

I do love reports like this that explain things most toddlers could have figured out. It's like they have a magic crystal ball or something.

[Slack3r78]

Catchy title.

I do love reports like this that explain things most toddlers could have figured out. It's like they have a magic crystal ball or something.
That's what's so funny about the conservatives getting riled up about this to me. Do you endorse blowing up abortion clinics? No? Then this report really isn't about you.

[Ink Asylum]

Some people doth protest too much...

[Rakael]

Anything they can latch onto and make a stink about.

[ShivaX]

That's what's so funny about the conservatives getting riled up about this to me. Do you endorse blowing up abortion clinics? No? Then this report really isn't about you.

There was a left-wing one done as well, just noone noticed it because... well why the fuck would you unless you're planning on going McVeigh or something? Plus they were both commissioned by Bush iirc, so apparently Bush was Hitler and trying to take out people on "his" (using that term extremely loosely) own side.

Just roaming the internet I've seen a lot of crazy shit that I've debated reporting to DHS. Most of them happened to be right-wing crazies instead of the left-wing variety, but I think thats more chance than anything. Plus the right-wing crazies seem more likely to have the weaponry and the will to do something, especially the really far gone ones involved with white supremecy and the like.

[Generation ABXY]

Et tu, Shiva? :p

[DoctorFinger]

The problem is that there's no specific threat or act mentioned in the report (other than the Pittsburgh shooter, who is as much a right wing threat as Lee Harvey Oswald was a left wing threat). Just a vague assertion that anyone holding right wing views is a threat and you should be scared.

BTW, have you bitched about your taxes being too high? Or about the TARP/Stimulus over spending? Or about illegal immigration? Are you a veteran? Because according to that report you are a threat. Not by doing anything, but just by holding those views.

And that's the issue. If they focused on RW groups who actually have committed crimes and violent acts, I'd have no problem. Instead it talks about a bunch of vague threat and uses them to paint everyone who has conservative views as a danger.

[Slack3r78]

The problem is that there's no specific threat or act mentioned in the report (other than the Pittsburgh shooter, who is as much a right wing threat as Lee Harvey Oswald was a left wing threat). Just a vague assertion that anyone holding right wing views is a threat and you should be scared.

BTW, have you bitched about your taxes being too high? Or about the TARP/Stimulus over spending? Or about illegal immigration? Are you a veteran? Because according to that report you are a threat. Not by doing anything, but just by holding those views.

And that's the issue. If they focused on RW groups who actually have committed crimes and violent acts, I'd have no problem. Instead it talks about a bunch of vague threat and uses them to paint everyone who has conservative views as a danger.
No, it doesn't. It's quite specific that it's talking about those who would engage in violence, not just anybody that holds a particular belief.

Most of the report is a comparison of conditions today to those during the 1990s when activities by radical right-wing groups peaked. It also discusses issues that radicals may use as recruiting points, but conflating extremism with Joe the Plumber everyday Republicanism is not the point of the report at all.

As far as specific groups -- there's an entire section of the report specifically explaining that the threat from rightwing radicals has traditionally been from either individuals acting out on their own or from small, local groups, not large, centralized organizations. The reason it doesn't focus on specific groups is because the threat identified traditionally hasn't taken that form.

[DoctorFinger]

No, it doesn't. It's quite specific that it's talking about those who would engage in violence, not just anybody that holds a particular belief.

Most of the report is a comparison of conditions today to those during the 1990s when activities by radical right-wing groups peaked. It also discusses issues that radicals may use as recruiting points, but conflating extremism with Joe the Plumber everyday Republicanism is not the point of the report at all.

As far as specific groups -- there's an entire section of the report specifically explaining that the threat from rightwing radicals has traditionally been from either individuals acting out on their own or from small, local groups, not large, centralized organizations. The reason it doesn't focus on specific groups is because the threat identified traditionally hasn't taken that form.Yet the report on left wing radicalism used specifics. Specific groups threatening violence. Specific acts of violence. There are no specifics in this report at all. The ELF doesn't have a large centralized organization, but they still got a specific mention in the LW report because they actually engaged in violence. This report doesn't say a group has, or is about to, commit violent acts, just that people with "right-wing" views should be feared.

But even if I take your analysis of the paper at face value, what's the point of the report? If there are no specifics groups to focus enforcement on, no specific targets to protect, then what value does it have? Why not call it a report on domestic extremist groups? Why single out RW groups in this manner?

BTW, I just saw AG Napolitano go on John King's show and distance herself from the report.

[Stmfuller]

Yet the report on left wing radicalism used specifics. Specific groups threatening violence. Specific acts of violence. There are no specifics in this report at all. The ELF doesn't have a large centralized organization, but they still got a specific mention in the LW report because they actually engaged in violence. This report doesn't say a group has, or is about to, commit violent acts, just that people with "right-wing" views should be feared. Well, that's not completely true. It's used to profile the types of people that might be involved in something. While one could see it as thought police stuff, it's not "OMG your neighbor might be an extremist". Like was said earlier, it's mostly skinhead etc stuff.

But even if I take your analysis of the paper at face value, what's the point of the report? If there are no specifics groups to focus enforcement on, no specific targets to protect, then what value does it have? Why not call it a report on domestic extremist groups? Why single out RW groups in this manner? I'm sure someone was charged with creating this report since the LW side (from the accounts in this post) DOES have specific examples, perhaps the writers felt it garnered its own report. The RW paper is just the result of the first paper.

[Slack3r78]

Yet the report on left wing radicalism used specifics. Specific groups threatening violence. Specific acts of violence. There are no specifics in this report at all. The ELF doesn't have a large centralized organization, but they still got a specific mention in the LW report because they actually engaged in violence. This report doesn't say a group has, or is about to, commit violent acts, just that people with "right-wing" views should be feared.
What group was Eric Rudolph acting in concert with? How about Tim McVeigh?

But even if I take your analysis of the paper at face value, what's the point of the report? If there are no specifics groups to focus enforcement on, no specific targets to protect, then what value does it have? Why not call it a report on domestic extremist groups? Why single out RW groups in this manner?
It actually does point out a few recent incidents that follow the trend they're discussing. As far as the purpose of the report? It's just a general background analysis. The fact is that it makes no suggestions whatsoever in terms of policy or enforcement, which is why I find the outrage over it so puzzling. It's simply an internal heads-up to DHS and affiliated agencies that this is something they might want to be thinking about.

BTW, I just saw AG Napolitano go on John King's show and distance herself from the report.
Well, given I've seen conservatives using the report as an excuse to call for her losing her job, can you blame her? Chances are it wasn't anything she had a direct hand in anyway.

[DoctorFinger]

What group was Eric Rudolph acting in concert with? How about Tim McVeigh?They're part of no group. So why not do a report on domestic radicals? Why bring tax protesters, illegal immigration protesters and veterans into the report on those actual threats?

[Narradisall]

Well with the amount of bitching that goes on in these forums I'd be expecting some nice men from the Fed to come busting down some doors soon.

Look outside..... how long has it taken them to deliver that Pizza?

[Slack3r78]

They're part of no group. So why not do a report on domestic radicals?
That's pretty much what this is, it's just one subsect of them.

Why bring tax protesters, illegal immigration protesters and veterans into the report on those actual threats?
Because there's a history of a threat along the lines the report is addressing. Again, much of the report is comparing trends among violent groups during the 1990s with similar trends that are being seen now.

Also, as a side note, the talk I've heard about how this report 'smears veterans' is particularly absurd. The report explains why veterans returning from overseas make attractive recruiting targets for these groups, it doesn't say that being a veteran is a profile element.