| User Blox 4 |
|
- Put stuff here
|
Barack Obama  |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rob Kailey is a working schmuck with no ties or affiliations to any governmental or political organizations, save those of sympathy.
|
|
Tue Apr 14, 2009 at 19:22:26 PM MST
|
The big buzz on the 'Tubes today is about a DHS report on the increased danger of right-wing extremists:
The Department of Homeland Security is warning law enforcement officials about a rise in "rightwing extremist activity," saying the economic recession, the election of America's first black president and the return of a few disgruntled war veterans could swell the ranks of white-power militias.
A footnote attached to the report by the Homeland Security Office of Intelligence and Analysis defines "rightwing extremism in the United States" as including not just racist or hate groups, but also groups that reject federal authority in favor of state or local authority.
"It may include groups and individuals that are dedicated to a single-issue, such as opposition to abortion or immigration," the warning says.
Rightie bloggers have been apoplyeptic about the news -- Malkin's response is typical -- they claim it's a "hit job" on the right hours before their tax-day protests.
My initial reaction was two-fold. The first was, hey! I've been saying for years that right-wing extremism is a much more real and present threat than Islamic extremism. Or have we forgotten the violence latent in the anti-abortion movement? The militia movement? Timothy McVeigh? That the Bush administration and its agencies were focusing our attention on the Middle East -- and not terrorism, per se -- was a political decision. They used the specter of terrorism to further their foreign-policy objectives, not to actually combat or curb terror. Especially the rightwing domestic kind, because that's kind of embarrassing, isn't it? |
| Jay Stevens :: There are -- gasp! -- radical rightwingers! |
From the Economist:
The official explanation is that this is meant to "facilitate a greater understanding of the phenomenon of violent radicalization in the US". That makes sense, even if some of the wording (attacking groups for "rejecting federal authority in favor of state or local authority") had led to accusations that DHS is attacking ordinary conservatives and libertarians. It's been two months since a right-wing extremist was found dead with dirty bomb material, and it's only been ten days since Richard Poplawski, a deranged conspiracy theorist in Pittsburgh, murdered three police officers. It's hard to argue that Pittsburgh cops don't deserve a lesson on what, exactly, Mr Poplawski was thinking.
The report is referring to radicals: Stormfront and other neo-Nazi groups, militia groups, etc., not your garden variety conservatives or libertarians -- although the report's wording, if taken out of context and read in bad lighting, could be interpreted as such. And the Bush administration -- not Obama's -- prepared the first drafts of this report. So the notion that this report was manufactured to discredit the US right for partisan reasons is ludicrous.
And besides, it's not exactly as if rhetoric from many conservatives corners is exactly free of the whiff of violence, is it? David Weigel, on Tea Party rhetoric:
Both promotions suggest that the Tea Parties are the start, or tipping point, of some kind of "revolution." Do I actually think the protesters want to overthrow the government? No, of course not. But if they want to use this rhetoric, they can't really be too angry when the government frets about a rising tide of violent government overthrow rhetoric. If the Tea Parties are just a bunch of harmless cosplay nonsense directed at beating Democrats in the 2010 elections, they can say so.
Dave Niewert goes even further, and accuses Malkin et al of too closely identifying with the radical extremists named in the reports. Andrew Sullivan: "Why, one wonders, would Michelle Malkin read a DHS report on fringe, far-right extremism that could lead to violence or Oklahoma-style domestic terrorism and think ... they're talking about her?"
My second reaction was, basically, f*ck 'em.
Glenn Greenwald:
It's certainly true that federal police efforts directed at domestic political movements -- even ones with a history of inspiring violence in both the distant and recent past -- require real vigilance and oversight, and it's also true that the DHS description of these groups seems excessively broad with the potential for mischief. But the political faction screeching about the dangers of the DHS is the same one that spent the last eight years vastly expanding the domestic Surveillance State and federal police powers in every area. DHS -- and the still-creepy phrase "homeland security" -- became George Bush's calling card. The Republicans won the 2002 election by demonizing those who opposed its creation. All of the enabling legislation underlying this Surveillance State -- from the Patriot Act to the Military Commissions Act, from the various FISA "reforms" to massive increases in domestic 'counter-Terrorism' programs -- are the spawns of the very right-wing movement that today is petrified that this is all being directed at them.
When you cheer on a Surveillance State, you have no grounds to complain when it turns its eyes on you. If you create a massive and wildly empowered domestic surveillance apparatus, it's going to monitor and investigate domestic political activity. That's its nature....
Indeed, thanks to the very people who are today petulantly complaining about politically-motivated federal police actions (now that they imagine it's directed at them rather than at people they dislike), the Federal Government today has the power to eavesdrop on telephone calls and read the emails of American citizens without warrants; monitor bank records without court approval; obtain all sorts of invasive personal records, medical and financial, without Subpoenas; and obtain and store a whole host of other personal information about American citizens who have not been accused, let alone convicted, of having done anything wrong. Also thanks to them (and things like the War on Terror, the War on Drugs, the Patriot Act, the FISA Amendments Act, etc. etc), most of this is carried out without any real oversight or safeguards, left entirely to the judgment and good faith of federal officials to wield these powers carefully and for proper ends. And, better still, federal officials can hide behind sweeping claims of secrecy and National Security to prevent courts from scrutinizing what they did and determine if it was illegal (we call that "the state secrets privilege").
So, yeah. I'm still p*ssed off about the federal wiretapping powers, even now under Obama. That's what got me to start blogging. And where were you then? |
|
| Poll |
| Voting. Useful or not? |
|
|
|
Results
|
|
