I would count myself among the first to agree that one of the legitimate roles of the Department of Homeland Security is to make sure that we aren’t attacked by terrorists, including those of the homegrown variety. The next Timothy McVeigh or Ted Kaczynski is as much of a threat to the safety of the nation as the cleverest al-Qaeda operative who might sneak over the border from Mexico or go AWOL on his or her student visa.
Yet on reading a controversial new report from DHS, I have to wonder about the selective and political nature of their concerns. They seem to have a handle on one or two potential sources of domestic terrorism, while completely dismissing or ignoring other potentially much more serious threats.
Their report focuses entirely on domestic terrorism originating from disgruntled conservatives. Their concern over racist and nativist groups and their rising activism seems justifiable, but in the document they spread their net awfully wide to include just about every kind of conservative who might have legitimate concerns over the policies of the Obama administration and the political trends in the nation.
They break potential terrorists down into two groups: hate groups, whose inclusion makes a great deal of sense; and a much broader category of those whose motivations are “mainly anti government, rejecting federal authority in favor of state or local authority, or rejecting government authority entirely” — which is an extremely broad category that could easily include those who have been promoting 10th Amendment state sovereignty legislation or who oppose federal bailout and stimulus spending.
The latter group also includes a great many people who would never sensibly be classed as terrorists. It’s a group that includes me.
They also express understandable concern over a resurgence of conspiracy fanatics who “believe that a ‘New World Order’ would bring about a world government that would usurp the sovereignty of the United States and its Constitution, thus infringing upon their liberty.” You only have to visit infowars.com to see that the potential for extremist violence from that quarter remains very real.
Yet the government officials responsible for the report don’t seem to grasp the difference between those fanatics and the much broader and more mainstream popular concern over actual threats to civil rights originating with the current administration. They seem not to understand that when the Second Amendment is actually threatened, it is the anti-Constitutional actions of government — not those who want to stand up for their rights — which is the problem. I guess that reflects what side their bread is buttered on and who is buttering it for them.
These officials’ callous awareness that the Administration is potentially creating terrorists by its actions and their acknowledgment that there is a real attack on gun rights, is rather dismaying. Of the gun rights issue they write:
“Legislation has been proposed this year requiring mandatory registration of all firearms in the United States. Similar legislation was introduced in 2008 in several states proposing mandatory tagging and registration of ammunition. It is unclear if either bill will be passed into law; nonetheless, a correlation may exist between the potential passage of gun control legislation and increased hoarding of ammunition, weapons stockpiling, and paramilitary training activities among right wing extremists…Because debates over constitutional rights are intense, and parties on all sides have deeply held, sincere, but vastly divergent beliefs, violent extremists may attempt to co-opt the debate and use the controversy as a radicalization tool.”
This is probably a genuine concern, but — in the report — they seem totally oblivious to how broad the discontent with gun rights restrictions are and how large a role the actions of the government play in radicalizing ordinary citizens.
I worry as to whether these bureaucrats can tell the difference between legitimately concerned citizens and actual potential terrorists.
I’m not happy with legislation to restrict gun rights. I might be buying a lot more ammunition as a result of shortages. Does that make me a terrorist?
For some critics of this report, it also prompts a legitimate concern that it may put too much focus on broadly targeting veterans and soldiers returning from Iraq or Afghanistan. The report seems to take the attitude that anyone with a military service background is automatically a terrorism suspect just because they might be a high value recruiting target for anti-government groups. The report raises the issue of “disgruntled military veterans,” without considering the reasons why they might be disgruntled, focusing only on the potential for the rise of another Timothy McVeigh, a possibility which could be most easily prevented by addressing the psychological and social support needs of returning veterans rather than labeling them potential terrorists. It seems a shameful disservice to operate on the assumptions which DHS expresses in this document.
Perhaps what troubles me the most is what’s not addressed in the report as well as the politically one-sided nature of the report. Historically, the U.S. has faced as much threat from domestic terrorists on the left as on the right, yet it is the rise of “right wing extremism” which is the sole concern here. It’s all about the next Timothy McVeigh, with no attention to the threat of the next Unabomber. This despite the fact that ecoterrorism and far left radicalism are demonstrably on the rise here in the U.S., mirroring an enormous growth in “leftwing extremism” and — in particular — socialist anarchism on a worldwide basis.
I worry because this document is just a starting point for a much wider exploration of the idea that the right wing is a haven for terrorists. It is the unfortunate but perhaps inevitable outcome of the security measures taken after 9/11, where the legitimate need to monitor real threats begins to come under the sway of politics. The report concludes by declaring that:
“DHS/I&A will be working with its state and local partners over the next several months to ascertain with greater regional specificity the rise in right wing extremist activity in the United States, with a particular emphasis on the political, economic, and social factors that drive right wing extremist radicalization.”
This is a frighteningly broad mandate. The biggest factor driving “right wing extremist radicalization” could very well be the activity of government in stigmatizing the political right, classing them as extremists and terrorists and launching partisan investigations of anyone who speaks out against the current administration and its policies.
When our government starts labeling discontent and disenfranchised citizens as radicals and extremists simply because the bureaucrats disagree with their political beliefs, it is the first step towards driving them to become what they are unfairly accused of being.
Permalink
Comments Off
