DHS, Nazis, and the Democratic Party...

It didn't indicate an individual dedicated to a single issue is a potential extremist. It would have bothered me if it did.

Quote:

But I think it's you and others who take offense who are doing the lumping. The report is just categorizing extremists. Folks who are upset about this report have reversed the logic in order to take offense -- because some extremists may be dedicated to a single issue, that must mean the government thinks those who are dedicated to a single issue are extremists. It's illogical.

Then you would agree that any liberal who believes in animal rights is a potential extremist? Logically, this should be your conclusion, based on your view of the DHS reports. Don't forget about those who support the green movement; obviously, by your reckoning, DHS should be notifying local law enforcement about these potential extremists, also.

According to the report, "It may include groups and individuals that are dedicated to a single issue, such as______.

The thing is, fill in the blank. Either a liberal cause or conservative cause will do.

Do you feel comfortable with a federal law enforcement agency making such a statement? I don't, regardless if it is a cause from either side. I'm surprised you, professing individual and human rights, are ok with this.

Where does infiltration start and end? Is having an informant in PETA, for example, infiltration? Video taping those marching against the Iraq War is OK?

What actions of federal law enforcement tend to disturb you?

Notifying local law enforcement that any individual who is dedicated to a single issue is a potential extremist seems to be ok in your view.

An apology doesn't mean anyone admits they were wrong.


Ultimately, some people took the report the wrong way. They were apologized to. Why? Because it is a political expedient thing to do. You don't tell voters they are being stupid and over reacting.

I'm having trouble seeing how you conclude that the above should be my logical conclusion. If anything, it's your reasoning about that ridiculous footnote that would lead you to such a conclusion. It ignores simple logic -- A is the set of extremists, B is the set of people dedicated to a single issues and C is the intersection of B and A as mentioned in the footnote. A contains C and B contains C but B is not equal to A.

Spying and eavesdropping without a warrant tends to disturb me, especially if done for political purposes. Preventing protesters from actually protesting by cordoning them off in "free speech" zones miles away from where anyone can see or hear them. Politically motivated prosecutions. Those things bother me. You be sure to let me know when any of this happens to people whom you consider targeted by this report and I'll stick up for you.

Yes, I do. It's true in either the "liberal" or "conservative" case. Extremists often do latch onto a single issue, so what. How does acknowledging this fact violate anyone's human rights?

Representative Bennie G. Thompson
Ranking Member
House Committee on Homeland Security

Given the FBI’s designation of right-wing
groups as “the most serious domestic threat,” it is surprising that, according to the article,
DHS’ planning document did not name right-wing domestic terrorists or terrorist groups as
a potential threat.

Other terrorism experts still consider right-wing terrorists as serious threats, and
were surprised that DHS did not. “They are still a threat, and they will continue to be a
threat,” said Mike German, a 16-year undercover agent for the FBI who spent most of his
career infiltrating radical right-wing groups. “If for some reason the government no longer
considers them a threat, I think they will regret that,” said German, who left the FBI last
year.

Recommendations
There are many opportunities for DHS to revise its approach and think as creatively
as some right-wing terrorists may.
• DHS must reassess the threat posed by right-wing domestic terrorists and revise its long-term
planning to address this risk.
First and foremost, DHS must return to its overall statutory mandate to determine
“the nature and scope of terrorist threats to the homeland” by including in its long-term
planning a genuine consideration of the risks posed by right-wing domestic terrorists.

I would call it realism. Not cynicism. There will always be idiots that scream about what the politicians do. Then there will be the gullible that are swayed by the idiots and repeat the arguments by those idiots. The gullible make up a large percentage of the voting population. By apologizing, the gullible are appeased and the argument by the idiots is undercut.

Now it seems when the DHS does what the Republicans in Congress told it to do, the idiot chorus starts up. But the funny thing about that idiot chorus, they only sing one note.

Oh, my. You mean people actually suck up to their bosses?

Been away. Glad to be back.

I looked around, was surprised I couldn't find a thread on the Department of Homeland Security report on right wing extremists...

If I missed it, my apologies. But wow...

Heard any comparisons to the Nazi Party in 1933 Germany and the Democrat Party in 2009 America?