This document from the Department of Homeland Security was pulled shortly after being released by a "maverick" element within the department that is being reined in. This document, combined with another that was recently released and then called a "mistake" after it got really bad press because it said soldiers were potential terrorists really suggests that DHS needs to be reined in. Better yet, get rid of it entirely, it really is the kind of institution that has potential to do great harm internally. Oh wait, I just became part of their extremist views groups. This document defines extremist groups. For the record, I do not advocate or believe in any kind of violence to achieve goals, so I'd agree that anyone who uses violence in their opposition is an extremist. However, while there are plenty of real examples of extremism in this "lexicon", I'd say that many people fall into at least one of these categories, which calls into question their legitimacy. After all, you can't just define a group and say it is violent and then brand it as extremist. Can you? Here are some examples:
Cuban Independence Extremism: A movement of groups or individuals who do not recognize the legitimacy of the Communist Cuban Government and who attempt to subvert it through acts of violence, mainly within the United States.Wow! I didn't know that the entire city of Miami was considered extremist. Oh yeah, another one I fit into. While I do not advocate violence, I do not recognize the legitimacy of the Communist Cuban government. Oh, by the way, this definition makes JFK an extremist, just fyi.
Antiabortion extremism: A movement of groups or individuals who are virulently antiabortion and advocate violence against providers of abortion-related services, their employees, and their facilities. Some cite various racist and anti-Semitic beliefs to justify their criminal activities. Yes, there are in fact a bunch of crazy antiabortionists who would kill to achieve their goals and I disagree with that philosophy since two wrongs don't make a right. However, in using the word virulently, what are they really saying here. If they mean people who are opposed to all abortions, then many people fit into this. I think we need more to a definition of what constitutes extremism than "a group is against something and by the way occasionally commits violent acts".
direct action: Lawful or unlawful acts of civil disobedience ranging from protests to property destruction or acts of violence. This term is most often used by single-issue or anarchist extremists to describe their activities. Okay, I here ya. anarchism is an extreme overreaction in my opinion, so certainly extremist, but the definition is awful. After all, how can a lawful act of civil disobedience constitute extremism. I mean, really?
tax resistance movement: Groups or individuals who vehemently believe taxes violate their constitutional rights. Among their beliefs are that wages are not income, that paying income taxes is voluntary, and that the 16th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which allowed Congress to levy taxes on income, was not properly ratified. Members have been known to advocate or engage in criminal activity and plot acts of violence and terrorism in an attempt to advance their extremist goals. They often target government entities such as the Internal Revenue Service and the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives. Well, a lot of people are anti-tax and more and more are becoming this way. This is a legitimate political opinion. Yes, adding violence to it makes it extreme, but really? These people are violent? Never heard of a single act of violence being perpetrated by anyone claiming to be anti-tax. Doesn't mean it hasn't happened, but certainly it hasn't happened enough to justify labelling this group of people as extremists. Eh?!
These are some examples of extremism as listed in the report. In addition, it pretty much calls every current Democrat a left-wing extremist and every Republican a right-wing extremist based on the definitions it chooses to use for those groups. However, the report overall isn't a bad one, listing a plethora of legitimate extremist groups. Therefore, edit some of the more egregious examples I've listed and then keep the report, it isn't bad overall, so what is it that the DHS was so afraid of that it had to be quashed? Huh? Maybe I missed it, anyone else want to read it and comment on what they think I missed?
No comments:
Post a Comment