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.
Interesting that Janet Napolitano regretted the footnote, as reported in the media. She actually went against the recommendations of civil right officials in DHS in releasing the report as it was written.
Why do you believe those officials recommended this?
And thanks for describing a Venn Diagram; it makes my point even better, in that DHS is taking a group of individuals and labeling them. Civil rights officials notwithstanding.
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.
And what is the first step that is taken when the government targets a group of individuals for their beliefs? Usually, it is a government law enforcement report detailing the danger those individuals present to the government.
Think of all the FBI files that have been discovered about individuals who have had 'extremist beliefs' for issues such as civil rights, etc.
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?
And much more often than not, individuals who support single issues do not become extremists. Maybe this is why those civil rights officials in DHS cautioned Napolitano to not release the report?
Guess they thought it might have been an issue to target people solely for their beliefs.
You do know the purpose for DHS reports of this nature? When the local beat cop receives one of these reports, it is with the idea that DHS is advising them of homeland security issues.
And again, when DHS states individuals that are dedicated to a single issue such as abortion or opposing immigration may be extremists, it is taken with the idea that DHS does not release info lightly. It sets a tone, and cautions our local beat cop that maybe that guy with the bumper sticker is a danger.
Maybe that's what those civil rights officials were worried about?