Government says right wingers are a security risk
Kevin J. Burns
Issue date: 4/21/09 Section: Commentary
Janet Napolitano, secretary of Homeland Security, has recently aroused a firestorm of criticism over a recent report by the Department of Homeland Security warning of potentially violent "right-wing extremists." The report warns law enforcement officials that certain extremists may be preparing to commit terrorist acts in response to the election of President Barack Obama and the economic downturn.
The report has drawn criticism for its focus on unnamed "right-wing extremists." Specifically, the report claims that certain political issues, such as opposition to abortion, gun control and gay marriage, are aiding extremists in recruiting new members and that veterans returning from the Middle East will be prime recruitment targets for these extremist groups. The report mentions no specific organizations. It is vague, it blames violence on particular political issues, and it singles out returning veterans as a distinct threat to the country.
Let us imagine, for a moment, that this report had been issued during President George W. Bush's tenure. Further, let us imagine that instead of warning of "right-wing extremists," the report warned against Muslims or "left-wing extremists" who increase recruitment by focusing on issues such as opposition to the war in Iraq or opposition to Zionism. The response to such a report would be tremendous. Every major media source in the nation would have condemned not only the secretary of Homeland Security, but President Bush.
But the report was not aimed at leftists or a perceived abused minority. It was aimed at conservatives. Not surprisingly, most of the media has glossed over the entire incident. Napolitano has not been forced to apologize. Instead, following demands for an explanation from the American Legion, House Minority Leader John Boehner and Rep. Bennie Thompson, the Democratic chairman of the House Committee on Homeland Security, she has issued the infamous non-apology apology. In a recent interview on FOX News, Nepolitano said she apologized, "to the extent veterans read it as an accusation," but quickly hedged, "this was an assessment, not an accusation." I'm sure we are all glad to know that the secretary is sorry that so many veterans misread the report.
But veterans and conservatives have not misread the report. Unlike a similar report on left-wing radicals that failed to mention any specific violent groups (such as the Weather Underground), the report does not mention any organization or organized act of violence, but nevertheless ascribes the risk of future terrorism to "right-wing radicals." Instead of pointing out that people of certain political persuasions may become radical, it claims that certain political ideologies increase radicalization. It is this that is the real risk of this report. When a government begins to monitor its citizens because of their political opinions, the government has failed at its basic duty to protect freedom of speech and opinion.
The report has drawn criticism for its focus on unnamed "right-wing extremists." Specifically, the report claims that certain political issues, such as opposition to abortion, gun control and gay marriage, are aiding extremists in recruiting new members and that veterans returning from the Middle East will be prime recruitment targets for these extremist groups. The report mentions no specific organizations. It is vague, it blames violence on particular political issues, and it singles out returning veterans as a distinct threat to the country.
Let us imagine, for a moment, that this report had been issued during President George W. Bush's tenure. Further, let us imagine that instead of warning of "right-wing extremists," the report warned against Muslims or "left-wing extremists" who increase recruitment by focusing on issues such as opposition to the war in Iraq or opposition to Zionism. The response to such a report would be tremendous. Every major media source in the nation would have condemned not only the secretary of Homeland Security, but President Bush.
But the report was not aimed at leftists or a perceived abused minority. It was aimed at conservatives. Not surprisingly, most of the media has glossed over the entire incident. Napolitano has not been forced to apologize. Instead, following demands for an explanation from the American Legion, House Minority Leader John Boehner and Rep. Bennie Thompson, the Democratic chairman of the House Committee on Homeland Security, she has issued the infamous non-apology apology. In a recent interview on FOX News, Nepolitano said she apologized, "to the extent veterans read it as an accusation," but quickly hedged, "this was an assessment, not an accusation." I'm sure we are all glad to know that the secretary is sorry that so many veterans misread the report.
But veterans and conservatives have not misread the report. Unlike a similar report on left-wing radicals that failed to mention any specific violent groups (such as the Weather Underground), the report does not mention any organization or organized act of violence, but nevertheless ascribes the risk of future terrorism to "right-wing radicals." Instead of pointing out that people of certain political persuasions may become radical, it claims that certain political ideologies increase radicalization. It is this that is the real risk of this report. When a government begins to monitor its citizens because of their political opinions, the government has failed at its basic duty to protect freedom of speech and opinion.
Viewing Comments 1 - 1 of 1
Rico Simpkins
posted 5/06/09 @ 7:06 PM CST
Let us imagine, for a moment, that this report had been issued during President George W. Bush's tenure. Further, let us imagine that instead of warning of "right-wing extremists," the report warned against Muslims or "left-wing extremists"
You don't have to imagine it. (Continued…)
Post a Comment