|
||
Facts Are Stubborn Things -- So Why Is Napolitano Still Knocking the DHS Extremist Report?
Even after the murder of a physician and the attack at the Holocaust museum by individuals with strong ties to violent ultrarightist movements -- and as new reports of violence linked to ultra right-wing groups emerge -- Secretary of Homeland Security Janet Napolitano still thinks that an April DHS intelligence report "was not a well-produced product. It could and should have been done better."
Washington Independent reporter Spencer Ackerman reported on Napolitano's remarks, which she made at a press briefing last Friday.
Meanwhile, Napolitano acknowledged in the briefing that both the purpose and a key conclusion of the April DHS intelligence report was completely spot-on.
From Ackerman:
Napolitano did not describe the report in terms of its political context at the Thursday briefing, instead portraying it as representing an alert to local law enforcement about a complex security risk. Such "lone wolf" attacks are "very difficult to stop and prevent," Napolitano said, because "a lone wolf is, by definition, not planning with anybody, or doing something that would perhaps help them be intercepted before they actually act out."
Indeed, the DHS intelligence report had a lot to say about the 'lone wolf' problem:
(U//FOUO) DHS/I&A assesses that lone wolves and small terrorist cells embracing violent rightwing extremist ideology are the most dangerous domestic terrorism threat in the United States. Information from law enforcement and nongovernmental organizations indicates lone wolves and small terrorist cells have shown intent--and, in some cases, the capability--to commit violent acts.
Following close on the heels of Napolitano's half-hearted disavowal of the DHS report, a story in the Sunday New York Times tells of a double homicide in Arizona linked to the Minutemen border patrol militia movement.
The Pima County, Arizona, sheriff made three arrests in connection to the crime, including Shawna Forde, leader of Minutemen American Defense, a Washington state-based splinter group of the anti-illegal immigration group Minutemen, known for her extreme anti-immigrant views and for forbidding her members from eating Mexican food.
New York Times sources say the three suspects intended to steal money and drugs from the residence of Raul J. Flores to fund their Minutemen activities. Sources allege that the robbery ended in the killing of Flores and his 10-year-old daughter. Another source quoted by the New York Times said that Forde intended to establish a base in Pima County, where she and her group could stage vigilante raids on drug dealers and "hunt" illegal border crossers.
The DHS report -- so decried by conservative commentators and bloggers as alarmist and unnecessarily exaggerated -- foresaw this particular style of anti-immigrant vigilantism as well.
From page 6 of the report:
(U//FOUO) DHS/I&A assesses that rightwing extremist groups' frustration over a perceived lack of government action on illegal immigration has the potential to incite individuals or small groups toward violence. If such violence were to occur, it likely would be isolated, small-scale, and directed at specific immigration-related targets.
Despite the prescience of the DHS report, Napolitano's continued categorical disavowal of its supposedly faulty methodology is a sop to the alarmist and unnecessarily exaggerated umbrage expressed by conservative commentators and bloggers.
If anything, the April report was a solid, if not workmanlike, analysis of historical and current intelligence information on ultrarightist terrorist activity in the United States.
One particularly unadventurous judgment in the report probably garnered the most disingenuous outrage: the assertion that newly returned military vets could become involved in ultrarightist violence.
It probably should not be a surprise that the same segment of the political scene that can't tell a socialist from a fascist or a Sunni from a Shia forgets that before September 11, 2001, the single most deadly terrorist attack in the history of our Republic had been carried out in Oklahoma City by Timothy McVeigh, a maladjusted former soldier and Gulf War veteran. Or that Eric Robert Rudolph, another former soldier and FBI Wanted List fugitive, carried out a bombing campaign from 1996 through 1998, including the Olympic Park bombing in Atlanta.
Intelligence analysts, particularly those on the counterterrorist beat, look to past attacks for signs of future threats. Postulating that a latter-day McVeigh or Rudolph is lurking somewhere in America is not an ideologically-driven leap of logic, it's good old-fashioned intelligence analysis. Even a Bush-era FBI report noted that former US military personnel frequently serve in leadership positions in ultrarightist groups.
As a former soldier, I was not offended in the least by the DHS report. Other veterans, like Iraq veteran and VoteVets.org co-founder Jon Soltz (and fellow Huffington Post blogger) have also defended the DHS report's reasonable conclusions.
It should not be a surprise that conservative media figures, many of whom have no first-hand knowledge of military life, aren't aware that white supremacists and other ultrarightists have always been a small but undeniable presence in the military -- there were a few everywhere I went in the Army -- and that the ultra extremist presence in armed forces may be rising as a result of several years of relaxed recruiting standards.
Intelligence analysts have a word for when intelligence is altered to meet a political objective, such as bowing or caving into critics whose feelings are hurt by indisputable facts: politicization. Politicization of intelligence usually rears its ugly head in the context of foreign intelligence, and the results are disastrous, as evidenced by the never fulfilled "slam dunk" promise of Iraqi weapons of mass destruction.
In this case, politicization of intelligence directly threatens Americans and their communities. Local, state, and Federal law enforcement rely on DHS intelligence reports. Let's hope that Napolitano's bow to political pressure on perfectly sensible intelligence analysis doesn't cause them to let their guard down against America's homegrown "lone wolf" and "small group" criminals with political intent.
Violent criminals with political intent? Isn't that what we call "terrorism?"
Follow Frank Naif on Twitter: www.twitter.com/frank_naif
Loading comments…
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
Let's see if I'm keeping score properly--
The report warns about right-wing violence.
A bunch of people who could be described as "liberal" agree that right-wing violence is trouble.
A bunch of people who proclaim themselves to be "Libertarians" jump in to put down the "Liberals" and the DHS report, which... kinda puts them in the position of defending the right-wingers.
They then complain when people see them in the same light as... right-wing extremists.
They then try to tell us that... right wing violence isn't right wing, but actually liberals in clever disguise.
Who came up with this game plan? Boris and Natasha? Wile E. Coyote could come up with a better game plan than this.
Liberals claim the DHS report is absolutely accurate based mainly on 4 principle events:
(1) Abortion doctors killed - while it is true some abortion opponents have killed a few abortion doctors, the number killed is statistically insignificant, and was never an attempt to bring about governmental "change".
(2) The murder of one family by former "Minute Man" members - again, statistically insignificant, no involvement by the Minute Man organization, and most accurately characterized as a robbery gone wrong rather than a right-wing extremists plot.
(3) The assumption that the recent attack on the Holocaust Museum in Washington, D.C. was the result of a right wing extremists. However, post-shooting investigations revealed the shooter was a neo-nazi type, who hated Christians and Jews and admired Hitler. These are far-left positions.
(4) The Pièce de résistance, the OKC bombing by Timothy McVeigh. David Schippers, the life-long democrat and the chief counsel for the 1998 impeachment trial of President Clinton, has video available of his interview where he catagorically states the OKC bombing was financed, planned, and McVeigh trained by members of the Iraqi Republican Guard. David Schippers is no ideologue. He has a distinguished career as a prosecutor. If he is to be believed, then the OKC bombing was the work of Islamofacists, not right wing extremists.
Thus, the DHS report is revealed to be nothing but an attempt to intimidate anyone with an originalist interpretation of the constitution into silence since the major threat is from Islamofacists.
See Frank Naif's Profile
The statistical significance argument as applied to terrorism is problematic. As a democracy, our response is based on terrorism's psychological and political destruction, not a bean-counting definition.
Law enforcement professionals on the terrorism beat would disagree with the idea that either the Tiller or Pima county murders were not part of a trend or not a product of a targeted, well-documented vigilantism campaign based on political beliefs.
James von Brunn, alleged Holocaust Museum shooter, is an ultrarightist. He was deeply immersed in white supremacist and Nazi culture. His own family even admits as much.
The assertion that neo-nazism and anti-semitism are far left ideas doesn't stand up to critical or scientific scrutiny and flies in the face of the body of knowledge encompassed by the history and political science disciplines. Is there an expert outside the conservative blogosphere/talk radio/Fox News echo chamber who would characterize Nazism as a far-left philosophy?
It's also hard to describe David Schippers as a non-ideologue. In Clinton's impeachment, he represented a caucus of partisan, lying, adulterous, hypocritical senators in their case against a narcissistic, lying, adulterous, hypocritical president.
And before his claims of Iraqi involvement in the Oklahoma City bombing can be called "facts," they must be corroborated with other evidence or others who can independently confirm his claims. Surely, someone with a partisan interest in vindicating the Iraq War or embarassing the FBI will come forward to validate Schippers' claims. But they haven't yet.
Frank, you are apparently unfamiliar with the concept of statistical significance. Just because there are a couple events that fit into your world view vis a vis the DHS report, it doesn't mean there has been or will be any statistically provable correlation. Your use of the Minuteman story which was simply a robbery gone bad (doesn't that happen every day in this country) only illustrates your desire to twist the facts to fit your dubious template. By your mathematics, we should also characterize the shooting at an Arkansas military recruiter as evidence of a spike or upward trend in Islamic extremist terrorism on our soil.
See Frank Naif's Profile
Nowhere have I claimed that the Arkansas recruiter incident isn't noteworthy. If there is another incident like it, we will have a trend, which will deserve a response from the authorities. I would probably be right here, writing about how lame or incompetent the government's response would be.
But there have now been a series of highly visible incidents of ultrarightist violence in recent months. If there has been a comparable trend in the past few months of politically motivated violence here in the US that isn't ultrarightist, I or nor security professionals I know haven't heard about it.
Some, including commenters responding to this article, downplay the significance of the upswing in ultrarightist violence by excusing such acts as "a robbery gone bad," a judgment that doesn't fit with any investigative or law enforcement reasoning known to security professionals. Or the incidents have been brushed aside with the spurious claim that the incidents were not really ultrarightist, an assertion that evinces complete ignorance of history and political science, not to mention the practical knowledge gained via years of actual counterterrorism work by police, intelligence, and security forces worldwide.
But I'll take the "statistical significance" bait. If statistical significance were the measure of how the US responded to threats to its citizens, we'd be having a war on obesity, drunk driving, lightning, diving boards, hurricanes, bathtubs or any number of other things that will more probably hurt or kill Americans than terrorists, we would't even have a war on terror.
Ah, so your measure of a national trend is the THREE incidents? I'll take the word "apparently" out of my assessment of your lack of a grasp of the concept of statistical significance. And what's your logic in comparing crimes to hurricanes and lightening? Apparently you feel the government can control nature, too?
"Postulating that a latter-day McVeigh or Rudolph is lurking somewhere in America is not an ideologically-driven leap of logic, it's good old-fashioned intelligence analysis. "
So if the right says this it's 'fearmongering' but if the left says people are 'lurking' it's "intelligence analysis". It's perfectly clear now. LOL
See Frank Naif's Profile
Citing 'fearmongering' attributed to 'the right' is changing the subject. The topic here is the DHS extremist report.
DHS reporting in the Bush administration came to much the same conclusions as this Obama administration DHS report on ultrarightism. DHS reporting in both the Bush and Obama administrations also drew similar conclusions about the much smaller and practically inconsequential ecoterrorist movement, the closest thing currently to a leftist domestic terrorist threat. Not sure how these facts squares with the statement "So if the right says this it's 'fearmongering' but if the left says people are 'lurking' it's "intelligence analysis."
Janet should have never apologized for that report. She shouldn't have caved to pressure, even from the president. She was doing her job. She needs to continue to do her job and not apologize for it.
Frank Naif is correct about one thing: Facts are stubborn things. Too bad he has none.
Anyone who believes the Frank Murrah building b*mbing in Oklahoma City was a "right wing extremist" plot has simply not done their homework.
Anyone remember David Schippers?
He was a life-long democrat who was appointed the Chief Investigative Counsel for the U.S. House Judiciary Committee during the Clinton impeachment hearings.
While that may make him a pariah to the lefties, I think most reasonable people would agree he is a level-headed intelligent person not given to unsubstantiated wild goose tales.
Schippers is convinced Tim McVeigh was working with members of the Iraqui Republican Guard in planning and implementing the Oklahoma b*mbing. The link below has the video of Schippers explanation for this belief.
That makes the b*mbing the work of Islamofacists, not right-wing extremists.
The fellow that shot up the Jewish Holocast museum was also no right-winger, as his statements indicate a hatred of J€ws AND Chri$tian$. He was more of a neo-N@zi, AKA National Socialist Party, a far left wing group.
The DHS report on the "dangers" of "right wing extremists" is nothing but a thinly veiled attempt at intimadating any American with an originalist view of the American constitution.
If any of our founders were alive today, both Naplitano and Naif would label them as "right wing extremists".
Happy Birthday, America. Please wake up before we lose our country.
http://www.peoplestruthforum.com/
I've heard that the latest round of Kool-Aide being distributed among the Conservative movement was to refer to the Nazis as "left wingers" but it won't work. Nazism, a philosophy based on dividing people by race/ethnicity, and the 'purity of their blood', is a right-wing ideology.
Left wingers divide people by class (working class, 'capital', bourgeois, proletariat, etc).
Right wingers divide people by race, ethnicity, and religion.
From the sound of your factless rant, sir, I think we already have.
"Latest round of Kool-Aide"?
Sir, this has been established fact since at least the 1930s.
The fact that the liberals and leftists now want to define Nazis as ultra rightists is directly in line with your attempted re-definition of marriage, the failure of the ultra regulated financial systems as a "failure of free markets and de-reuglation" and similar bologna.
If you tell me which of my statements you consider "factless", I will be glad to debate you on them.
Otherwise, you are typical liberal attempting to intimidate the presenter and avoiding at all costs the points of the debate.
Chaz Napolitano doesn't instill much security in the homeland.
The DHS report was horribly written.
It was too broad stating that anti-abortion people are "right wing extremists" Not True.
Yes ther are some nut jobs...but they are on both sides of the aisle..look at Bill Ayers...he went around bombing peole. What about environmentalists that go around flippin' cars and destroying personal property.
The McVeigh part of this article is true, there always will be certain people from select groups that go crazy, but the way the report was written made it sound like we should be on the lookout for all returning veterans. The report seemed like something that was just written to attack conservatives, it was a pointless piece of writing, they tried to keep it secret, why?
Couldn't find a more recent example than Bill Ayers?
See Frank Naif's Profile
The DHS report did not attack conservatives. It assessed the threat posed by Americans who would harm their fellow citizens.
The DHS report does not say that all abortion opponents are "right wing extremists." The report did say, in a footnote on page 2, that among known violent ultrarightists, there are those whose motivating issue is opposition to abortion. Detractors of this report claiming that DHS asserts that all abortion opponents are "right wing extremists" should be prepared to support that claim with actual quoted material.
Neither does the DHS report claim that every returning veteran is a threat. Again, detractors should be prepared to support their arguments with actual quoted material.
The topic of the DHS report is right wing, not left wing extremism. Bringing up Bill Ayers and ecoterrorism is just changing the subject.
But I'll take the bait.
Neither the DHS report nor I claim that Ayers and ecoterrorism are somehow not terrorism. Anyone who believes that this report somehow says Ayers and ecoterrorism are not terrorism should ready with facts.
Ayers was--past tense--a leftist terrorist back in the 70s. His ideology is all but dead and there isn't a latter-day "smash imperialism" domestic terrorism movement. So bringing up has-been Ayers and his has-been ideology is a non-starter.
DHS, and earlier, FBI, have focused similar reports on ecoterrorists. But by nearly any measure, ecoterrorism has not been as consequential, lethal, or as long-lived as ultrarightist terror.
bottom line to me, the people that screamed for her to apologize don't love this country.
You are correct. The extremes at both ends of the spectrum will use violence to push their cause. The differences today are their targets and the promotion they receive from the political commentators.
Ayers and the Weather Underground never targeted people. The far left environmentalists, as you noted, also do not target people. The far right anti-abortionists, anti-immigration fanatics, and other right-wing extremists target people.
Left-wing commentators do not promote hate against groups and call for violence. Right wing commentators do.
The report said that returning veterans might be targets for far-right extremist recruiters, not that we need to be suspicious of all returning vets.
Now, there you go bringing facts to a good right-wing ranter. You meanie! They finally just convinced the,selves that their poop doesn't stink and that everything evil that's ever happened in this world was because of left-wingers in general and Barack Obama in specific.
Fall of the Roman Empire? The Black Death? Inquisition? Probably ACORN had something to do with it, right?
Because she's afraid of offending the rightwing nuts.
If being a domestic terrorist is wrong, conservatives don't want to be right.
they don't wanna be right
if it means having to fight
they don't wanna be right
if it means making others uptight
Can anyone explain to me why anti-semites are automatically right-wing? Jeremiah Wright said some anti-semetic comments, does that make him right-wing? Also, why are National Socialists lumped in the same category as right-wingers?
People seem to forget the Socialist part of National Socialist. It is just stupid that regimes can only be left or right. Communists are supposedly left while Nazis are right. They just seem totalitarian to me.
"Communist" countries were simply far right authoritarian police states which couched their rhetoric in the words of Karl Marx.
Likewise, National Socialists couched their conservative movement in populist speech. You could say they were a "moral majority". Once they took over, they were able to simply drop the pretext, and they went into full-on dictatorship mode.
And that's why it's always right wing. Because if you just come out and say you want to establish a police state which is going to make slaves of everyone, you won't get many people to support you. Especially in a democracy.
See Frank Naif's Profile
Anti-semitic does not always equal right-wing. Anti-semitism crops up in very specific instances within the leftist context, such as in criticism of neo-conservativism or support for Israel. Jeremiah Wright's anti-semitism is akin to that specific leftist kind of anti-Semitism, rooted in anti-semitic ideas sometimes current among African-American clergy. Jesse Jackson, for example, has also been criticized for unguarded anti-semitic remarks.
More often anti-semitism has been a key element of conservative or right wing political movements (inquisition-era Spain, Nazi Germany, Czarist Russia) that intend to restore or reinforce some kind of religious, racial or national "natural order." Modern ultrarightist movements in the US often incorporate these ideas.
National Socialists--Nazis--were German fascists and the very epitome of right wing. They were not socialists or communists that wanted to achieve international social and economic justice. Where communism abolished private property and religion, the Nazi and other fascist systems allowed for accommodation with capitalism and religion.
The Nazis exalted the German nationality above all else, and actually persecuted communists and socialists of all kinds, along with Jews, whom the Nazis blamed for communism and Germany's national decay.
Bottom line--if you want to tell a fascist or right wing political movement from a socialist or left wing political movement, go read a political science or comparative politics textbook.
And for the love of all that is good, don't listen to conservative media tell you what a fascist is.
Why does the US still have a Department of Homeland Security? It's just worsening security problems.
To drain much needed money for healthcare reform.
I guess so they can apologize for doing their jobs
As an active limited-government libertarian, I understand that violent fringe individuals exist who advocate views similar to mine. But as is typically the case, this article simply points out an issue without being explicit about the solution the author really advocates. Do you advocate that the federal government investigate me because I have a Campaign for Liberty bumper sticker on my truck, or because I ask my university students to read writers who advocate a limited federal government? Where exactly do those of you who champion the April DHS bulletin draw the line between legitimate government investigation and totalitarianism?
I never get a straight answer to that last question from writers such as this columnist.
Didn't know that libertarians saw themselves as racists, bigots, far right-wing radicals and/or potential domterrorists. This is new news to me.
We don't see ourselves this way. But when we get lumped into the same broad categories with those who do by our political opponents who now hold power, is it any wonder that we ask those lumpers to clarify their intentions?
And do note: when we asked the neocons for clarifications of their views about us, we got similarly snarky non-answers.
Libertarians claim to not identify with that kind of stuff, but they'll always vote with the far right. Or they just go third party.
You will never, ever, ever see a Libertarian voting Democrat, aside from very rare isolated incidences.
I don't automatically see Libertarians as violent radicals; I usually just see them as adherents to a particularly naive fantasy version of society. But many self-proclaimed "Libertarians" involve themselves in anti-government groups like the Teabaggers. It also seems to me that when the militias form, about a third of them are race-based militias and the other two-thirds tend to be states-rights libertarian types.
Sorry, but it is the company they keep.
Libertarians are fascists who couch their beliefs in "freedom" rhetoric.
You'll never see a Libertarian vote for anyone except a far right candidated.
Perhaps you should discourage those extremists "who advocate views similar" to yours, that you don't appreciate the brotherhood. You can't invite them to march with you and then complain because they're giving you a bad name and expect to be seen as sympathetic.
We're supposed to tell the difference between the two of you how?
See Frank Naif's Profile
Here's your straight answer, GodBlessJohnWayne:
The Federal government has absolutely no cause for investigating you or any other citizen because you believe in limited government, have a Campaign for Liberty bumper sticker on your truck, or have a limited government college reading list for your students. What part of the DHS report proposes limiting your First Amendment rights? Unpopular ideas are not terrorism, and not what the DHS report is about.
There is a line between "legitimate government investigation and totalitarianism": violence. That's it, pretty simple. And clear, too. Harm to others and their property is not covered in the first amendment. It doesn't matter if the motivation is Islamic extremism, white supremacy, or radical environmentalism, terrorism is terrorism.
So if radical libertarians or an Islamic extremist sleeper cell or the Earth Liberation Front is distributing arms or making bombs that can harm Americans, that deserves a legitimate law enforcement response. The DHS report talks about those known to have demonstrable history or tendency to political violence--but it's not talking about those who participate in the democratic process.
AL CIA DUH ! America will not fall for these blanket statements.
"It should not be a surprise that conservative media figures, many of whom have no first-hand knowledge of military life..."
That's part of it, right there.
The Conservatives have no sense of perspective when it comes to military members. Remember that Conservatives tend to focus everything on the role of the Greatest Generation, the men who served, fought, and died profusely against tyranny in World War 2. The 2nd World War was about as obviously just as wars can reasonably be expected to be, but that makes it the exception, not the rule.
Conservatives have reached the point where they essentially fetishize the American Soldier. We are some sort of heroic, chivalric White Knights that embody wholesomeness and selfless sacrifice through service. Without experience themselves, they cannot realize that soldiers are drawn from the people, the population they serve, and have the same proportion of dropouts and maladjusted types as any other segment of society.
I think because most Conservative talking heads these days are really too cowardly to serve their country in uniform, they see soldiers as braver than they are, and therefore, deserving of mindless worship. As a soldier myself, I find this rediculous and even unsettling. I appreciate the thanks of my citizens for my service, but a hero just for being in uniform? Thanks, but no thanks.
You mean like John McCain.
One out of... how many?
Ughhhhhhhhhhhhhh
Soldiers are people too - reflective of our society.
http://www.usdoj.gov/ndic/pubs32/32146/military.htm#start
I think DHS has a legitimate role to play in tracking criminal gangs as well. Lotsa foreign illegals mixed in with these gangs. Interesting overlap in the wording with the infamous DHS memo.
I disagree. The makeup of the military began to diverge from the general makeup of society the day the draft ended (not that I ever want that nightmare back again). Instead of scooping up a cross section of society in a net through which only the richest and most privileged escaped, the military has for several years attracted only those who were either actively seeking that lifestyle, blinded by abject nationalism and recruiter propaganda, or desperately seeking any way out of a life of poverty, crime, and failure. I'm not saying today's average G.I. is any better or worse than the people I served with thirty years ago, but he (she) is DIFFERENT enough to make your eyes water.
An open, honest assessment with profound considerations when one considers what is at stake, while we allow our officials (former / or current) to engage in this crapshoot dance that appeases all sides, while the soldiers on the foreground of our national security get dumped on because they tell the truth, because they provide a comprehensive analysis, because they dare to put politics aside, and focus on solving the problem.
The politicization of national security is the ultra-element of volatility that gives one pause as you consider this Mr. Naif's remarks:
Intelligence analysts have a word for when intelligence is altered to meet a political objective, such as bowing or caving into critics whose feelings are hurt by indisputable facts: politicization. Politicization of intelligence usually rears its ugly head in the context of foreign intelligence, and the results are disastrous, as evidenced by the never fulfilled "slam dunk" promise of Iraqi weapons of mass destruction.
In this case, politicization of intelligence directly threatens Americans and their communities. Local, state, and Federal law enforcement rely on DHS intelligence reports. Let's hope that Napolitano's bow to political pressure on perfectly sensible intelligence analysis doesn't cause them to let their guard down against America's homegrown "lone wolf" and "small group" criminals with political intent. ( Frank Naif)
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
