Of course they should. I never said anything to the contrary. But that identification must be based on a propensity for violence, not on their political beliefs. And since a propensity for violence can and does exist across the political spectrum, looking at someone's political beliefs on issues like abortion isn't even a useful correlator with propensity for violence.
You'll note that that is not actually what the report says. It does not say that anti-abortion and anti-immigrant groups and individuals are
ipso facto likely to engage in violence; it does say that those persons likely to engage in violence may include anti-abortion and anti-immigration activists. Some As are also Ts, but not all As are Ts, and only some Ts are also As. Need me to draw you a Venn diagram?
Since most of the rest of your argument is predicated on that misinterpretation, I don't see a whole lot of point in refuting it point by point.
If they don't advocate violence, then no, they don't. The person responsible for violent acts is the person who commits violence. We should not be engaging in any shifting of responsibility of this sort, because to do so is to basically rule that some political speech is unacceptable. But it is not: political speech is speech, and should be free and protected as long as it doesn't advocate violence. I am not suggesting that it be immune from criticism, but assigning blame for the actions of others goes beyond that: if we accept the premise that it shares culpability for crimes, then we must logically do more than just criticize it, and that's not acceptable.
Culpability and responsibility are not entirely the same thing; it is possible to be one without being the other. A military unit commander is responsible for his subordinates' (mis)behavior, even if it occurs without his knowledge or approval, and if he fails to discipline them himself, he can be held accountable. Of course, there is no such formal hierarchy in the anti-abortion movement, but there's still a possible element of incitement.
But where exactly do we draw the line at what constitutes "advocating violence"? There's a fairly sizeable gray area of rhetoric along the lines of the "Nuremberg Files" which equate abortion providers with Nazi war criminals, and even if there is no explicit, direct call
Interesting example: you're basically saying that statements which may be true should not be said because some nutjob might do the wrong thing in response.
I said no such thing. (Two can play at that game.)
Funny, but I don't recall any military veteran organizations, for example, making "root cause"-type excuses for Timothy McVeigh. Did the American Legion need to "clean house" before they sent Napolitano a
letter objecting to the report?
Maybe they should have actually read the report, rather than relying on some second- or third-hand interpretation of what it actually said. Which is this:
Returning veterans possess combat skills and experience that are attractive to rightwing extremists. DHS/I&A is concerned that rightwing extremists will attempt to recruit and radicalize returning veterans in order to boost their violent capabilities.
Note it doesn't say returning veterans are inclined to violent extremist behavior, or to seek out groups that are. The stated concern that such groups will take the initiative to seek out and attempt to recruit veterans.
And what anti-abortion groups excused attacks against doctors with "root cause"-type excuses? You may be able to find one, but this goes back to my objection to your "they": if you find one, you're basically going to use it to paint all anti-abortion groups with the same brush.
I can cite some examples, but since you've already indicated you're going dismiss them as unrepresentative, I don't see much point in listing them.
Let me be more explicit then: I reject the entire premise of your question.
How convenient. I think the most effective response I can give is that I, for my part, reject the entire premise of this thread.
