DHS report: right wing = scum

Strawman... you mean like to mischaracterize Bush's statement to other nations to imply that Bush was labeling Americans domestic terrorists if they did not agree with him and him alone as Redtail suggests.

I give you credit for at least detecting a strawman somewhere around here. Your aim is shoddy though.
 
.. Okay. So you won't answer the question. That's probably wise, given how it pokes a hole in your theory. I was pointing out that nations are groups of people. But eh.

Her'es this?

Over time it's going to be important for nations to know they will be held accountable for inactivity," he said. "You're either with us or against us in the fight against terror.
Click to expand...
(Nov 6 2001)

So uh.. yeah. No neutrality indicates...

ETA: To be fair, it was probably not Bush who said this. It was more likely Limbaugh.
 
Last edited:
Rika said:
.. Okay. So you won't answer the question. That's probably wise, given how it pokes a hole in your theory. I was pointing out that nations are groups of people. But eh.
Click to expand...
No, I'm just not going to be derailed by your irrelevant remark. The fact that nations are made of people has no bearing on my reply to Redtail or to drkitten since, again (since you are apparently one of those who reads only the last posting and posts a knee-jerk reply without reading the whole conversation), this thread is about domestic terrorism. I was responding to Redtail's response about Bush.... oh never mind. You're probably too old to have someone hold your hand through a simple discussion.
 
varwoche said:
However it was Bush administration policy that initiated domestic surveillance of innocent citizens.
Click to expand...

And this is relevant... how? Do you think the problem here is surveillance? No, it is not. There's no surveillance involved in the DHS report. Hell, that's one of the problems with the report: it's amazingly light on actual data. And some of the data they do have is simply wrong. The report states:

— (U) In April 2007, six militia members were arrested for various weapons and explosives violations. Open source reporting alleged that those arrested had discussed and conducted surveillance for a machinegun attack on Hispanics.
Click to expand...

Wow. Pretty serious stuff. Where does it come from, and what are those "open sources" (ie, news reports)?
BIRMINGHAM, Alabama — Five members of a self-styled Alabama militia were denied bond Tuesday after a federal agent [Adam Nesmith] testified they planned a machine-gun attack on Mexicans.
Click to expand...

Sounds really bad. What happened with the case since then? Well, the Southern Poverty Law Center has some follow-up information:
But there is no mention of any specific plan to kill Mexicans in the search warrant affidavits or any other court document related to the Alabama Free Militia defendants, and the ATF says Nesmith's testimony was misconstrued. [ATF regional director] Cavanaugh told the Intelligence Report that Nesmith did not mean to suggest that the defendants plotted to machine-gun Mexicans. What Nesmith meant to convey, Cavanaugh said, is that the militia members were planning to steal machine guns from Mexicans in Remlap — not to shoot the Mexicans with machine guns.
Click to expand...

So the DHS can't even phone up the ATF to find out the real story. As I said before, the problem with this report is that it's crap. And liberals should not be happy about that either. Instead, many people seem to be happy because it's upset other people they like to see upset. That's neither a principled nor even an intelligent response.
 
DrBaltar said:
Strawman... you mean like to mischaracterize Bush's statement to other nations to imply that Bush was labeling Americans domestic terrorists if they did not agree with him and him alone as Redtail suggests.

I give you credit for at least detecting a strawman somewhere around here. Your aim is shoddy though.
Click to expand...

Did you read the whole thread?
 
Ziggurat said:
And this is relevant... how? Do you think the problem here is surveillance? No, it is not. There's no surveillance involved in the DHS report. Hell, that's one of the problems with the report: it's amazingly light on actual data.
Click to expand...
Yeah, Bush can't do anything right, can he?

Maybe Obama should commission a better report.
 
varwoche said:
However it was Bush administration policy that initiated domestic surveillance of innocent citizens. A factless tu quoque.
Click to expand...
All I'm saying is that the example you provided did not concern me all that much, and that it seems to me typical of the shortcomings of even the most well-meaning of human governments, and that I think it likely that the Obama administration suffers from the same shortcomings, and that they don't bother me any more now than they did under the previous administration, and that the example given hardly seems to be a case of official persecution policy.
 
I repeat my statement that it's sad that so many people who probably consider themselves rational thinkers have a "If they investigate people I don't like, it's great, but if they investigate people I like, it's evil" attitude.
 
Napolitano responds:

We are on the lookout for criminal and terrorist activity but we do not – nor will we ever – monitor ideology or political beliefs. We take seriously our responsibility to protect the civil rights and liberties of the American people, including subjecting our activities to rigorous oversight from numerous internal and external sources.
Click to expand...
 
Brainster said:
Napolitano responds:
Click to expand...

IMHO responsible conservatives should be distincing themsleves from the Miltias and other groups, instead of more or less going to bat for them. That hurt the conservative movement badly in 1995 at the time of Oklahoma city when the flirtations of a number of leaders..talk show hosts in particular...with the Miltia morons came to light. It stopped the momentum form the 1994 elections cold. ANd it will hurt even worse this time,if the flirtation with the extreme right continues and some Tim McVey wannbe commits an act of violence. And I think that is only a matter of time.
 
Ziggurat said:
As I said before, the problem with this report is that it's crap. And liberals should not be happy about that either. Instead, many people seem to be happy because it's upset other people they like to see upset. That's neither a principled nor even an intelligent response.
Click to expand...

Back when the DHS was formed and the PATRIOT Act passed, cooler heads said these broad anti-terrorism powers should be a concern to both liberals and conservatives, because the hands holding these reins wouldn't always be Republican ones. Back then, I could easily imagine a Democratic government gunning for militia groups, instead of animal liberation and "eco-terrorist" gangs.

Of course, few listened, and look what we have here.

I'm not willing to see my fellow Americans' civil rights be run roughshod over just because I happen to disagree with their politics.
 
SOrry, but Eco Terror groups are legitimate targets for Government investigation because they do have a history of violence.
So the Feds should not investigate groups like the KKK and the Weather Underground?
 
dudalb said:
IMHO responsible conservatives should be distincing themsleves from the Miltias and other groups, instead of more or less going to bat for them. That hurt the conservative movement badly in 1995 at the time of Oklahoma city when the flirtations of a number of leaders..talk show hosts in particular...with the Miltia morons came to light. It stopped the momentum form the 1994 elections cold. ANd it will hurt even worse this time,if the flirtation with the extreme right continues and some Tim McVey wannbe commits an act of violence. And I think that is only a matter of time.
Click to expand...

It's especially odd because conservatism is not supposed to be a populist movement. I always thought that conservatives appealed to your mind while liberals appeal to your heart.

On the militias, is there a rise in militia activities? I haven't heard about it but it's not a topic I follow. I do recall that one of our local columnists had a rotating schedule of columns in the mid-1990s: Waco, Waco, Ruby Ridge, Waco, something topical, Ruby Ridge, Waco... IIRC they retired him shortly after OKC.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom