Obtained: Federal Agency’s Memo Warning Of “Left Wing Extremists”
Hmm. Obama’s Department of Homeland Security is keeping an eye on the threat from “left wing extremists,” in addition to “right wing” ones, according to an internal DHS threat assessment I’ve just obtained.
Yesterday the Washington Times caused a massive outrcry by reporting that the DHS had prepared a threat assessment warning law enforcement officials around the country of increased activity by “right wing extremists.”
The story was grabbed on to by conservatives and Republican elected officials who alleged it proved anti-conservative bias by the Obama administration, with some claiming that the sweeping term “left wing extremists” would never be used by Obama administration officials about the left.
I’ve now obtained, however, an internal DHS assessment for law enforcement officials that sounds equally dire warnings about “left wing extremists.” And it broadly defines these extremists as including people who embrace some components of “anticapitalist” or “antiglobalization” ideas.
You can read the whole thing right here.
While this new memo was mentioned tangentially by The Washington Times, reading the whole memo in full shows clearly that a similar approach was employed towards the left and deflates any claims of DHS “bias.”
Critics are upset with the right wing memo in part because it defines “rightwing extremism in the United States” as not just hate groups but also ones that challenge the authority of the Federal government. The outcry has been so vehement that DHS chief Janet Napolitano is expected to address it today.
But the memo I’ve obtained describes “left wing extremism” as including people who “embrace a number of radical philosophical components of anticapitalist, antiglobalization, communist, socialist, and other movements.” That seems equally sweeping.
Critics of the right wing memo also decry the description of “right wing extremists” as violence-prone. But the left wing memo — which is dated January 26th — also explicitly warns of violence from left wing extremists.
“Many leftwing extremists use the tactic of direct action to inflict economic damage on businesses and other targets to force the targeted organization to abandon what the extremists deem objectionable,” it says. “Direct actions range from animal releases, property theft, vandalism, and cyber attacks — all of which extremists regard as nonviolent — to bombings and arson.”
To be fair, it’s true that the right wing memo was clumsily done and created a political problem where there needn’t have been one. But this new memo, which is equally ham-fisted in parts, shows pretty clearly that the right wing one isn’t the result of “bias” among DHS employees or anyone else.
Developing…
Update Both Glenn Greenwald and Media Matters raised the point about the lefty memo before I did.
The homepage of this blog is here. RSS feed here. Twitter feed here. Email me here.
It’s not the Punch-and-Judy show of “right-wing extremism” vs. “left-wing extremism” any more than its about “Democrats” vs. “Republicans”. It’s pretty obvious, from the actions taken by both Obama and Bush Administrations, that it’s a class war, where the lower and middle classes are being screwed into the ground, and their money and property taken from them, for the benefit of certain weathy factions who control Congress and the Executive Branch. It’s no wonder that people are buying guns and voting in small numbers in local elections… if there’s no obvious political solution, then other solutions will come to mind, especially if you’re just a couple of paychecks away from financial disaster, or one sickness away from financial ruin…
Thanks for the reporting Greg. I am sure Rush Limbaugh appreciates it lol
sg — it’ll be really interesting to see if the cable nets that have been all over the right wing version will cover this.
Greg
.
Well I am twittering furiously to most of them as we comment
So, are the right-wing pundits who decry the Obama Administration’s apparent bias claiming that right-wing extremists are not a threat? I may be wrong, but it sure seems like it isn’t mainly PETA or ELF members buying up guns and ammo in record numbers these days, nor are there liberal talking-heads on TV warning of an impending totalitarian state, and telling us to “arm ourselves” (a la Michelle Bachman R-MN).
“I may be wrong, but it sure seems like it isn’t mainly PETA or ELF members buying up guns and ammo in record numbers these days, nor are there liberal talking-heads on TV warning of an impending totalitarian state, and telling us to “arm ourselves” (a la Michelle Bachman R-MN).”
I agree with you completely.
But there have been nasty incidents of Eco-terrism here and there and it’s a legitimate thing for law enforcement to keep an eye on.
Eco-terrorists have burned houses down – a number of them. That’s not funny nor is it acceptable as a tactic AFAIC.
An alternative to Greg’s reading should surely be provided:
“The differences between these two reports could not be more vast. In one, DHS downplays the potential for violence from proven and existing violent groups. In the other, DHS presumes violence from a wide range of mainstream political points of view without any evidence of a threat, any specific groups, and impugns millions of veterans as potential terrorists.”
http://hotair.com/archives/2009/04/15/the-vaunted-left-wing-extremism-report/
Now if I read any references to ‘teabagging’ I’ll know that Greg is really in the bag, so to speak . . .
I wanted to point out that the phrase “embrace a number of radical philosophical components of anticapitalist, antiglobalization, communist, socialist, and other movements” in the report is applied specifically to “anarchist extremists”. I can certainly believe that some people in the DHS would have a pretty ham-fisted notion of what “left-wing extremism” would be. But that particular definition strikes me as being pretty carefully delineated.
The description it applies to “leftwing extremists” is “groups or individuals who embrace radical elements of the anarchist, animal rights, or environmental movements and are often willing to violate the law to achieve their objectives”. There are probably some militant pacifists who practice civil disobedience who will be disappointed not to see a definition broad enough to include them!
I’m not trying to argue for the rightwing position that the DHS was smearing “conservatives” with their paper on far-right extremism. On the contrary, it’s astonishing that so many stars like Malkin and Beck were willing to rush to denounce that report. How many Democratic elected officials or columnists in THE NATION or MOTHER JONES or leading liberal bloggers are going to accuse this report of being a slam at liberals? I’ll be surprised to see any doing so. Shoot, until I saw this report, I didn’t even know there were groups like Crimethinc. the Ruckus Society amd Recreate 68.
I admit I was kind of puzzled by the notion to which the report refers, “the perception that cyber attacks are nonviolent” that they describe leftwing extremists as holding. Unless they are using cyber attacks to launch rockets or make something blow up, how would cyber attacks be violent? None of the examples they describe sound like anything violent. They are plenty reasons to be concerned about cyber security and plenty of related laws that need to be enforced. But I just don’t worry much about getting whacked on the head by a cyber attack. Identity theft, yes. Physical assault by a line of code, no.
While it may be a class issue, the ‘enemy’ is perceived very differently by the differing sides. I’m not seeing many conservatives rail again the rich, just as I don’t see many liberal progressives rail against the poor.
As for left and right extremists, I’m trying to recall any murders or deadly acts of terrorism committed by the left. I’m not saying it hasn’t happened, but seems the right wing extremists are quicker to kill than the left, which seems to employ vandalism.
Eco-terrorists have “burned houses down”? “A number of them”?
Is that number 5? I can find a story of one incident, and the houses were vacant. I would call that vandalism, not terrorism.
Eco-terrorism is the most exaggerated phenomenon out there. There is far more fiction about eco-terrorism than there is actual eco-terrorism.
OTOH, anti-abortion activists have committed actual murder.
sbj
.
One try coming up with your own opinion for once.
.
Two the report doesn’t cast aspersions on Veterans, it cast aspersions on the groups RECRUITING veterans. Jeebus the stupid is strong with hotair readers.
One, my opinion is that an alternate reading to Greg’s should be provided. Since Greg chose to present only one side of this issue, I linked to a site presenting the other.
Two, the report casts aspersions on veterans:
“The possible passage of new restrictions on firearms and the return of military veterans facing significant challenges reintegrating into their communities could lead to the potential emergence of terrorist groups or lone wolf extremists capable of carrying out violent attacks.”
As The American Legion replied:
“The American Legion is well aware and horrified at the pain inflicted during the Oklahoma City bombing, but Timothy McVeigh was only one of more than 42 million veterans who have worn this nation’s uniform during wartime. To continue to use McVeigh as an example of the stereotypical “disgruntled military veteran” is as unfair as using Osama bin Laden as the sole example of Islam.”
Let’s not be quite so disingenuous with our next reply.
BTW: Hilarity ensues as Fox mocks CNN.
http://www.mediabistro.com/tvnewser/cnn/cnn_reporter_at_chicago_tea_party_its_anticnn_since_this_is_highly_promoted_by_the_rightwing_conservative_network_fox_114141.asp
It’s disingenuous to claim that the report casts aspersions on veterans by quoting summary text. You must have read where the report specifically states that the danger is from extremist groups recruiting veterans; every paragraph discussing veterans references this except the one you quote, which is merely an introduction followed by two more specific bullet points.
You must have known this, but you present it as “the report casting aspersions on veterans” when that is undeniably false. The report does no such thing. The American Legion’s opinion is equally disingenuous; McVeigh killed what, 190 people in the worst homegrown terrorist incident in our nation’s history, and the report specifically states that it is a “small percentage” of military personnel that may join extremist groups.
I think veterans would be sad to see so much politically correct whining on their behalf. There are bad seeds in every population; the bad seeds with military training are just more dangerous than the bad seed accountants. Let’s not pretend that’s irrelevant.
Right sbj, thats why you went and read the document for yourself huh? If you did maybe you would have noticed THIS
.
http://video1.washingtontimes.com/video/extremismreport.pdf
.
.
So you see sbj what you just quoted was one of the headlines but when you go to the actual examples it ruins your whole argument. Like I said start finding your own d*mn voice instead of being a parrot.
Sam said… Like I said start finding your own d*mn voice instead of being a parrot.
Sam, you have to understand that this is the Right-Wingnut Way. You are fed your talking points. You repeat them. When they are dissected and shown to be false, you move on, ignoring the fact that you were completely wrong. Rinse, wrong, repeat.
Think about it:
- Their hero, George W., and his cronies charged ahead again and again, never owning up to their failures.
- People like Kristol, Krauthammer, Kagan, and a host of others want to lecture us on foreign policy after being enormously, spectacularly, and utterly wrong over and over and over again.
- Right-wing TV, radio, and blog personalities spew out one piece of junk after another, and by the time reasoning people prove them wrong, they have moved on.
- The GOP Congress (what’s left of it) is still peddling tax cuts for the wealthiest and deregulation as the economic balm for any fiscal problem, with no realization that these policies allowed us to get here in the first place.
Being a Right-Wingnut means never having to say you’re sorry, or admitting that you have no idea WTF you are talking about.
Great reporting again, Greg. Drudge should be embarrassed — in general, of course, but especially by good you are at doing the job they pretend to.
I believe this is another attempt by politicians to distort other politicians (on both sides) to distract us from real problems. Yes, those problems do exist, but everyone is attributing to them to bigger problems and divides. However, if they’re going to focus on violence occurring within our borders, they should be focusing on gang violence and the problems allowing that environment to flourish. How about focus on the floods of illegal guns on the streets before we spend so much focus on whether or not law abiding citizens can own certain guns. How about focus on the million rivers of dangerous drugs finding their way into every town in the country before we focus on how big a house or car we can have. How about focus on the racial divide that still exists in this country that makes millions of impoverished minorities believe that they’re not good enough to be more than another statistic that we can all sit and cry about but never give a second thought to fixing. And gangs don’t just exist in our major cities. They hide out well in small towns too, where no one would suspect them. Washington doesn’t want to fix the real problems. They just want to give you five minutes of distraction while they come up with the next distraction.
I’d like to know how I fit into this as a person that posesses material from crimethinc and supports some ideas that would be held by “right wing extremists”. Does that make me a center wing extremist?
“I would call that vandalism, not terrorism.”
You should really look up the word terrorism.
“Terrorism is, most simply, policy intended to intimidate or cause terror. It is more commonly understood as an act which (1) is intended to create fear (terror), (2) is perpetrated for an ideological goal, and (3) deliberately targets non-combatants.”
‘Eco-terrorists’ as you call them, fit that description exactly.
Many police actions, IRS actions, media actions and other actions fit that description exactly. Or do you only mean ideological goals that you don’t like?
It should be noted that animal rights activists who practice direct action, the Animal Liberation Front, for example, have never killed or physically injured a single human being in their campaigns. The motivation for labeling them “terrorists,” therefore, is financial due to the economic damage of their actions.
http://www.greenisthenewred.com/blog/
Can you not see a distinction here between the two memos? While I agree that their definitions of who these groups are is over-arching, but other than the groups motivated against illegal immigrants in the Right-Wing report, none of the crimes even _PLANNED_ happened since the 1990s. There were no actual plots to assassinate Obama, no actual plans to commit acts of violence, nothing but speculation this since the economic climate is similar to that of the 1990s that we should prepare for a new militia movement, belief in the 10th amendment (deferring to state and local authority as opposed to Federal authority) makes one a potential member of.
Is the left-wing memo an over-generalization? Yes. However, it does refer to specific groups that have committed specific crimes, or been caught plotting specific crimes recently. I.e. it is a threat assessment based on intelligence gathering (maybe not very high quality intelligence gathering and interpretation) but there are crimes that have been committed recently that have been perpetrated by the groups who are targeted as subjects for potential law-enforcement activities. Other than the anti-Illegal Immigrant people and one attack in Pittsburgh by an apparent “lone wolf” racist, there were no actual crimes referred to in the right-wing memo, just a bunch of warmed over reminiscences of the militia movement and the vague suggestion that this could return.
You can’t see a distinction between belonging to a group where similar groups have actually committed crimes recently and to having an ideological belief that the government thinks makes you pre-diposed to join a criminal group that doesn’t exist yet and which hasn’t yet committed any crimes.
The left-wing memo is over-broad in defining who the real criminals are; the right-wing memo is accusing people of thought-crimes.
If you disagree with this assessment could you please address the argument I made and not attack me ad hominem for my beliefs.
Thank you.
Actually, right-wing extremists have been quite busy in the past few years, Adam.
Anti-abortion groups like Operation Rescue have had an ongoing campaign of acts of terrorism ranging from arson of hospital facilities to assassination of civilians.
As for threats against Obama, there were a couple plots to kill him by right-wing extremists last year during the campaign, if I recall correctly.
Now you have the mainstream of the Republican party openly arguing that Obama is variously a Muslim, not born in the United States and that he stole the election mixed in with vague calls for violence. That’s the *mainstream* of the GOP.
The extremists are going even further. You need only check out the signs of attendees at the tea-parties yesterday. Racial slurs, calls for Democrats to be lynched, etc.
They’ve been quiet because their party has been in power. And now that they’re on the outs, they’re returning to their old ways almost instantly.
I just read the whole report from the DHS on leftwing extremists and I don’t find where it loosely defines them broadly in the same manner that the DHS broadly defined the rightwing extremists. Your statement was,”… And it broadly defines these extremists as including people who embrace SOME components of “anticapitalist” or “antiglobalization” ideas.” What it actually says is, “DHS/Office of Intelligence and Analysis defines leftwing extremists as groups or individuals who EMBRACE RADICAL elements of the anarchist, animal rights, or environmental movements and are often willing to violate the law to achieve their objectives.” I don’t know what you were reading, but please get your information correct before you give your opinion on something. I suspect though that you willingly misrepresented the information to suit your point. It is people like you who warp the minds of those who truly try to understand what is happening in this country.
The left-wing report actually cites specific groups, though, while the right-wing report simply makes generalizations about “groups” of people, and then supports them with examples of lone-wolves committing crimes. I agree that each report makes sweeping statements in defining a “left-wing extremist” and a “right-wing extremist”, however, the left-wing report is much more detailed in its assumptions and the examples of cyber-terrorism that it cites are much more coherent with the accusations it gives.
So, yes, I do think the right wing report is a lot worse. However, I think that both reports generalize the two groups too much and this will only create division and tension.
Note that the “leftwing extremist” assessment was published on Jan 26th. Obviously, it was produced by the HLS department in the Bush Admistration.
All this talk of buying guns and ammo…
When last I checked, the purchase of firearms and ammunition was completely legal.
It does appear, however, that the DHS report is having it’s intended effect: the demonization of law-abiding citizens the current administration has deemed troublesome.
I consider myself a right wing guy from Texas and live in the country, but I don’t consider myself violent. I believe that the Bush family are a bunch of rich yankess from New England. I don’t consider him a conservative or identify with them. They’re from Maine, right? Bush went to Yale, right? I am in my late 20s, earn a middle class living (55k/year), and have a master’s degree in science. I am annoyed that people (talk show hosts and supposedly conservative politicians) deny the truth. The Obama admistration has said that we (as in me and my type) cling to our bible and guns (he says that as if he was being offensive). That is true, but it’s not offensive. They said that right wing extremists are getting angry and dangerous. That is true. The conservative media denied these things, so the DHS has to come out and say something about left wing extremists to make it fair. It’s all amusing. Speaking for myself, I own a lot of various legal firearms and ammunition, but I’m not buying right now because the prices are inflated by the nervous people. I am ready, however, to take the power back- so to speak. Many people that I have spoken to could not attend the tea parties because they had to work. And most of us are not rich, but earn a modest income. It’s not a class thing, it’s a a freedom thing and a power thing and we don’t want to live in Sodom and Gemorah. These politicians KNOW that real power comes from the muzzel of a rifle, not some lawyer twisting language and spouting out garbage. A civil war is the worst thing that could ever happen, but the people are not going to tolerate the federal government forcing us to give up our liberties so that we can be safe or that the government can be safe from gun owners and money for the benefit of LOSERS. The Obama administration is buying power by not making anyone pay taxes in my tax bracket (which is most of America). He thinks he can buy my vote, but how is my boss going to pay me my salary? How will I get a job making what I make? Why would anyone want to go into business and take the risks of financial ruin if they won’t ever make much money? Foget all that, those are rhetorical and I’m going off on a tangent. The point is that the true right are not wealthy- they are mostly Christian, mostly fairly successful like myself, and well armed. I have 5 boys- ages 9,8,7,6,and 4. 4 out of 5 can shoot well enough to kill a man and in a few more years they will be as good as me or better. Socialists and communists…be very afraid because it is true…what they say…
i’m a little worried about leaving my opinion because it seems that if anyone disagrees with it i’ll just be categorized, stereotyped, attacked, and dismissed. I don’t blog, and have no “hidden” agenda.
After looking at the reports, there does seem to be a difference between the two. The one addressing the “left-wing” extremists does seem to be a bit more carefully worded and thought out. And it doesn’t seem to group in people who obviosily believe in maintstreme ideas who just happen to disagree with current administration. The threats from the rigt wing seem to be more “fear based” (in that they will physically hurt you) compared to a physcologically less fearful “they may conduct cyber-crime” addressed to the left-wings extremists. That’s all. I think that a lot of confusion would have been avoided if the people who wrote the right-wing memo wrote it with the same care as the left-wing memo.
I guess us right wingers feel that we are “the militia” and it is our civic duty to physically control government. Vandalism and stuff against innocent civilians doesn’t make sense to me. Violence against innocent civilians doesn’t make sense to me. I would never kill someone at an abortion clinic. I am just saying that the average gun owner, the average Texan, believes their is a civic duty to take power away from the government when it is deemed tyrranical. You’re right, my entry is not carefully worded and thought out. This doesn’t come from quotes from newspapers, O’Reilly Factor (O’Reilly is a liberal like Bush), or any other media source. This comes from common sense from the ideas that we inherited from the founders of this country- they were rebels you know. And I don’t want it to change- I don’t want a socialist economy, universal health care, and a “nanny” government to take care of me. I want security of my constitutional rights. Over-taxation impedes my pursuit of happiness. What is happiness? The forefathers meant personal wealth!
Mr. Josey Wales (great movie by the way), were you just as upset and willing to take the government back during the 8 years under Bush? Remember, the attack on civil liberties (wiretappings, infiltration of anti-war groups by the government, etc) in the name of security and the expansion of the federal government began under Bush (Medicare drug plan, increase in discretionary spending, increase in federal subsidies, initial $700 billion bailout plan, etc). While I do not support Obama, I fail to see that there is really a difference between what Bush did and what Obama is doing. I don’t recall the Right (except for Ron Paul and libertarians) being so upset during Bush’s presidency and as a result the protests of the tea baggers sound like sour grapes.
there is a new PSA out there on ABC NEWS, more or less warning bloggers about what we write. It’s another case of ; “be careful what you say, kamerade” bullshit from Janet Napoletano.
are you guys certain that Chertoff isn’t still running the goddamned gestapo agency still??
this Obombanation really is more of the same. more of the ******* same.
To keep the discussion simple; one only has to read both reports and see that the leftwing report is general and limited, whereas the rightwing report is more specific and broad. It would not be hard to report on both extremist “groups” in a fair assessment. But that was not done, I believe on purpose rather than by accident or incompetence. If you’re leftwing, and can’t see that, or have to support your dogma by bringing up the Bush presidency, etc., then you should really examine how you rationalize your pre-confirmed beliefs. I think the concern is that the Govt is subtly identifying “problem” groups in a political/ideology context. I see a related action when the Govt “fires” the head of a private company (GM), justifying this action on bailout funds. We will soon see where the Govt will control the banks in a similar manner, to the extent the Govt won’t accept repayment of bailout funds (or will restrict repayment on the grounds of keeping “stability”). Bank execs that toe-the-line will keep their jobs, other’s won’t. As the saying goes; Beware when the Camel’s nose is in the tent.
THe RW assesment is 7 pages, the RW assesment is 10. Both are short on substance and meaning and useless for any law enforcement employee. the contents are a disgrace and a seventh grader could have “assesed” the topics better. If this is typical product of DHS Threat analysis division with cooperation of the FBI! then we are in alot of trouble.
Reminds me of a essay paper due in three hours and hmmmm.. I need a catchy title.
For anyone who gives a rat’s a** about this country, READ THE CONSTITUTION! It would be nice if congress and the almighty POTUS would. But on the bright side, this nation did manage to survive Woodrow Wilson’s “rule”, his Committee on Public Information, his American Protection League and his resulting political prisoners. That’s what happens when there’s no respect for the Constitution (Wilson openly disregarded it). Liberals need to stop revising history and start re-reading history; might actually learn a few valuable lessons and avoid some costly mistakes.
These are not “internal” assessments. I work in the electric utility industry and see these kinds of security bulletins all the time. In fact, I came across the very same “leftwing extremist” document, linked to above, in our company’s print queue some time ago, and like GM, found myself marveling at the plainly propagandistic tone and lack of subtlety.
I’ve read the left wing extremist report, and no, it did not contain the same vague, generalizations the “right wing extremist” report did. It didn’t lump in people who might belong to PETA, or have bumper stickers about “Earth Day”, who might protest against a company for polluting water, etc.. it didn’t even reference anti-semetic and other such extremists. Sorry, but you’re completely ignoring the pertinent concerns about a report that violates our constitutionally protected rights and freedoms. I’m a democrat, and I am incensed by the DHS report, that seeks to intimidate a majority of American citizens, who express legitimate concerns, which they have every right to do. I believe Napolitano needs to be fired from the position of DHS secretary, she is corrupt.
Leftwing Extremists
Likely to Increase Use of Cyber
Attacks over the Coming Decade
Because thats the same type of report as
Rightwing Extremism: Current
Economic and Political Climate Fueling
Resurgence in Radicalization and Recruitment
What the problem is is the wording in both reports… Jenny is right… the right wing one is a very vague piece over the left wing one
1. this report is no where near as negligent or offensive as the right wing extremist report. this report refers to animal rights activists throughout, with a couple references to environmentalists and anarchists opposed to globalism (ps the entire democratic party is comprise of globalists, and Ill bet most are meat eaters. i think they’re are ok even if they do offend PETA and the G20 protesters.). it talks about possible cyber attacks. Huh! uh-oh!
the right wing extremist report refers to returning veterans, pro lifers, and falsely describes people concerned with illegal immigration “anti immigration.” It associates them with radical, conspiracy driven militias overthrowing the government. it mentions the threat of people who talk about the US constitution and states rights
(are we out of our goddamn minds? a federal agency is targeting people who prefer state governments and the US constitution? and normal people are ok with this?)
re-read and compare both reports, without bias. I did – they’re both offensive. one, considerably more so.
2.even if these reports were totally equivalent, is compiling reports that target phantom groups, ideas and associations a healthy practice for the federal government? or is maybe (you know, just a little bit) completely and utterly fascist and un American?
what a joke. is this really an argument to counter the concern that the DHS is targetting ideas?
if you’re on the left, you should be outraged as well.
These left wing asswipes are still bitching and moaning about the right. Every left wing communist pig from Obama to Pelosi has the same anti American, pro globalist, pro illegal mexican agenda. In the meantime, they’re doing their damndest to silence every taxpaying, law abiding American.
“These left wing asswipes are still bitching and moaning about the right. Every left wing communist pig from Obama to Pelosi has the same anti American, _pro globalist_, pro illegal mexican agenda. In the meantime, they’re doing their damndest to silence every taxpaying, law abiding American.”
LOL. I think it is hilarious that you mention globalization when some of the most fervent ANTI-globalist people are labeled as “left-wing…” maybe I’m missing something.