new lib stragety, rename conservatives

[craigimass]

The facts are very clear. Right Wing extremists promote more violence toward human beings. More guns.

The Homeland Security Dept. clearly warned of left wing extremists...but also said they use non-violent methods - which are harmful to business.

I think some of the big gun mass murders, like the famous Texas tower shooting, were done by vets. I know vets from Vietnam who committed violent acts... against themselves (suicide) using firearms. They know very well how to use them.

Yep, CHARLES WHITMAN: THE TEXAS TOWER SNIPER - was a Marine.

It is only common sense. Folks who take offense should do some careful reading. There are words in there like "might" "maybe" "tendency" as well as clear indications of the circumstances surrounding the possible recruitment.

It is a pretty strange thing that people DON'T want law enforcement to keep an eye on groups and people who "profile" in a certain way - who present a potential danger which has been PROVEN, not guessed at....McVeigh, etc.

[erps]

It is a pretty strange thing that people DON'T want law enforcement to keep an eye on groups and people who "profile" in a certain way - who present a potential danger which has been PROVEN, not guessed at....McVeigh, etc.

Doh! I thought profiling was a dirty word among the left.

[PBzeer]

Well gee whiz, and here I thought I was objecting to the apparent political nature of the report, when what I was really doing was saying they shouldn't monitor possible terrorist, domestic or foreign, activities. Dang, I'm glad there's someone here who is smart enough to understand what I really meant!

[erps]

Acknowledging that “an apology is owed,” Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano promised Thursday to “meet and clear the air” with veterans groups that were offended by her agency’s report citing “returning veterans” as terrorist risks to the U.S.

BILL SAMMON: Janet Napolitano Admits ‘An Apology Is Owed’ « FOX Forum « FOXNews.com

[craigimass]

Of course, any pol is gonna apologize once someone leaks a secret document and gets a bunch of people to complain.

I suppose the right wing now believes in leaking internal documents on a regular basis.....so that the targets (right wing extremists) can now know they are being looked at. This way, they can disguise themselves as hippies...and then they break out the machine guns, the left will get the blame.

[AdamLein]

So I had to do some catching up in this thread, but here I am... it seems that Craig is still going on with the same principle seen in other threads: "It was wrong when conservatives did it in the past, therefore they shouldn't complain / it's right / it's justifiable that liberals are doing it now," and, "You conservatives weren't against it when we were the victims," when he has no idea what "you conservatives" were for or against.

I.e. we've been the bad guys all along, regardless of what we said or did or supported... so long as we supported "right-wing" views.

Okay but I think this profiling discussion actually merits further examination, and has the potential to be a much more productive discussion than the back-and-forth about the Black Panthers and granola eaters.

So, does anybody here believe that profiling of one kind or another is morally acceptible, but that the recommendations of this DHS report are not? Why?

Personally I think recommending that certain groups be watched more than other groups is justifiable if statistics show that those groups are more likely to commit crimes than other groups. I also think that, if only for efficiency's sake, the "group" in question should be narrowed down as much as possible. If you can say that a certain conservative Christian church has produced more abortion clinic bombers than any other with statistical significance, that's better than saying "sometimes conservative Christians bomb abortion clinics." I've only scanned the DHS report, but it looks like they primarily rely on anecdotal evidence, which is useless in determining statistical trends; therefore I think they've failed to justify profiling in this case.

edit:
OTOH, reading a little deeper I can't find where profiling actually takes place. It looks like all statements are of the form, "Historically, right wing extremists have attempted to recruit X" or "have been motivated by X", which is different from recommending that law enforcement officials allocate manpower to keeping an eye on X. Political scare tactic? Yes, definitely. Implementation of profiling in law enforcement? Maybe not.

[craigimass]

100% OK with me for profiling to occur when it is transparent and when it is clearly part of policy. Another name for profiling might be:
Intelligence......

As to who said everything Bush did in terms of clamping down on Americans was OK....well, in some ways - the folks who voted for him and supported him did.

Remember - this was a LEAKED document. So....do you folks now think that every document and briefing suggesting various potential dangers should be leaked to the righties to make sure it meets their political correctness test?

I think the BIG point here is when VIOLENCE is involved....or potential violence. Targeting anti-war protesters because they make you less money (if you are the government, corporations, arms contractors) is NOT the same as targeting the McVeigh types.....

[AdamLein]

Originally Posted by craigimass

I think the BIG point here is when VIOLENCE is involved....or potential violence. Targeting anti-war protesters because they make you less money (if you are the government, corporations, arms contractors) is NOT the same as targeting the McVeigh types.....

Similarly, targeting tax protesters or people who support the Second Amendment is NOT the same as targeting people who destroy factories to save the planet.

In any case, I'm not convinced that this document is explicitly targeting anybody... though it certainly does encourage law enforcement to do so.

[craigimass]

I agree 100 percent.
But we have seen some "smoke" lately which indicates that a lot of people don't know the difference or where the "line" is. And where there is smoke, it can turn into fire.....

The loonies who shot the police and others - had the "right" books in their house and repeated some of the talking points of the rabid right.

The Gov. of Texas has now called for possible succession.....a number of times. 30% of Texans think the state should be able to do that......of course, it is 100% illegal and might result in a 2nd civil war.

This is dangerous. You cannot let it get too far before you make it clear that violent militancy and breaking the laws is not part of protest.

Free speech is one thing. Yelling fire in the crowded movie house is another.....

[AdamLein]

Originally Posted by craigimass

The Gov. of Texas has now called for possible succession.....a number of times. 30% of Texans think the state should be able to do that......of course, it is 100% illegal and might result in a 2nd civil war.

This is dangerous. You cannot let it get too far before you make it clear that violent militancy and breaking the laws is not part of protest.

Actually, breaking unjust laws (peacefully) is often part of a good protest. It's better to let The Man escalate to violence first.

Of course, the question of whether or not secession is a states' right is beyond the scope of this thread. In any case, I'm curious as to why you're concerned? Are you concerned for the well-being of the nation? If the so, it would be reasonable to at least consider what complaint the Texans have against the federal government, rather than simply label their complaining "irresponsible" and "extremist". After all, even scholars who oppose states' right to secede admit that secession is justifiable in response to oppression.