“Appropriate personnel action is being taken.”

Promotion, then.

I R A Darth Aggie

That bears repeating– bingo.

Asked whether the person who wrote the report is still employed

correct me if im wrong, but i highly doubt only one person researched, wrote, and authorized the entire report.

Chiasmos on May 14, 2009 at 10:12 AM

.
When there is no research, no analyzing, and no accountability one person could easily be responsible.
.
He returns from vacation a week from Tuesday, when his new larger office is ready.

angryed on May 14, 2009 at 9:39 AM

Think how I feel. I am a right wing nut and now nobody will ever take me seriously.

Pelosi and the CIA

Napolitano and the world

Any idea what the Friday night doc dump is going to be?

“The report is no longer out there,” she said. “An employee sent it out without authorization.”

She says this weeks after she released it and stood by it on several occasions. Now it’s someone else’s fault. Of course it is. She’s a Dhim. Accountability is not part of the Dhim Lexicon.

Sorry America … Napolitano, we are just really glad to be rid of her here in Arizona.

Ghostbuster
Wickenburg, AZ

Ghostbuster on May 14, 2009 at 1:04 PM

Spot on, from Phoenix.

It had no business being written but, most importantly the only reason it was released was a heavy handed attempt to silence opposition to this administration.

There is a word for that kind of government.

Time for you to be sh*t-canned and sent packing.

You know we don’t have much time left when our own government considers those of us who support this country’s founding document are considered extremists and potential terrorists.

-Dave

DHS report withdrawn
DHS Secretary Janet Napolitano finally acknowledged defeat publicly
on her department’s report on right-wing extremism. In a hearing
yesterday held by the House Homeland Security Committee, Napolitano
acknowledged……

Ghostbuster
Wickenburg, AZ

This is all on you, Janet!!!

Here’s where the bait and switch comes, in the first paragraph, a bounce between terms:

The DHS/Office of Intelligence and Analysis (I&A) has no specific information that domestic rightwing* terrorists are currently planning acts of violence, but rightwing extremists may be gaining new recruits by playing on their fears about several emergent issues.

So besides saying they have no evidence of any plans, there COULD be plans, they don’t know, maybe. Possibly.

Then, as the asterisk indicates, “right wing extremist” is loosely “defined” as:

* (U) Rightwing extremism in the United States can be broadly divided into those groups, movements, and adherents that are primarily hate-oriented (based on hatred of particular religious, racial or ethnic groups), and those that are mainly antigovernment, rejecting federal authority in favor of state or local authority, or rejecting government authority entirely. It may include groups and individuals that are dedicated to a
single issue, such as opposition to abortion or immigration.

My old criminology professor once said “two parties cannot communicate effectively until they agree upon definition”.

So how is “extremist” different than “terrorist”? Are they interchangeable? Notice how the “definition” offered doesn’t mention violence, which is what is implied in “right wing terrorist” but not necessarily in “extremist”. So, does a “extremist” automatically equal advocating violence, or is that a “terrorist”? Charles Johnson at LGF apparently believes that “extremist” equals “violence”, but that is not what the report states. His definition in his head and the one in the report do not align. Thus he is defending a definition in the report that is not there.

For example, you could have an “extreme view”, such as no abortions for anyone, which is “extreme” as far as most people believe (and the law allows), but you are not advocating blowing up buildings to achieve it. Conversely, you could have a “moderate view” that you want enforced with “extreme measures” including violence. Both are “extremists”, but only one advocates violence, and thus only one is considered dangerous enough to confront with law enforcement. The other is free speech. The term “extremist” is thrown around in the report in both contexts, without a clear definition that it entails violence, or advocacy thereof.

Further, consider this:

(U//FOUO) DHS/I&A assesses that rightwing extremists will attempt to recruit and radicalize returning veterans in order to exploit their skills and knowledge derived from military training and combat. These skills and knowledge have the potential to boost the capabilities of extremists—including lone wolves or small terrorist cells—to carry out violence. The willingness of a small percentage of military personnel to join extremist groups during the 1990s because they were disgruntled, disillusioned, or suffering from the psychological effects of war is being replicated today.

So are the groups defined/identified, so local law enforcement can monitor or infiltrate them? Any suggestions as to where and how they recruit? No, instead, focus and monitor the easy target, the “bait”, i.e the returning military personnel.

What “common sense” actually tells you when you think of “extremist” AND WHAT THE REPORT ACTUALLY SAYS are two different things.

My final question is: can you identify the violent groups/people from that report so we can catch them/monitor/infiltrate them? If so, how? How do we spot them? So how effective and helpful is the report to local and state law enforcement, aside from hassling or monitoring a broad section of people who hold the views they defined?

This would be just as wrong if done on left wing views that don’t advocate violence. CJ at LGF gives the DHS and this report more credit and legitimacy than it deserves.

Of course, if I had an account there and posted this, he’d ban me first post.