It is entirely reasonable to consider the possibility that some elements of the far right may engage in acts of domestic terrorism.
I find it interesting that this report makes no mention of far left extremist groups. That makes it seem like less of an objective analysis of possible threats than a manifesto of security policy driven by ideology.
If you're not concerned when the ruling party singles out its political opposition as a security risk, you obviously have not paid any attention whatsoever to the history of the 20th century.
I find it interesting that this report makes no mention of far left extremist groups. That makes it seem like less of an objective analysis of possible threats than a manifesto of security policy driven by ideology.
I'm talking about someone who is in allegiance with a group of people who have already attacked and killed thousands of citizens and not only boasts about it, but it is their well known objective to cause us much death and suffering to us because we are Americans.
You see, that's why it's a problem. If "O" hasn't thought about this, you can be bloody sure that someone in his Administration has.
The "solution" is simple: "O", or at least the Democrats, can never leave office.
I disagree. I can kill someone who intends me harm but I'm a monster if I hurt someone who intends you harm. That simply makes no sense. When you kill someone a line has been crossed, you cannot take it back - no fixies. Life is ended, families destroyed. How is it somehow morally superior to destroy life but not make it uncomfortable? I am a graduate of SERE( I suspect you'll need to look that up) so I feel qualified to say the techniques out lined in the released CIA memo are just that, uncomfortable. It sucks unbelievably when it happens but you are no worse for wear when it's over. No permanent damage is done unless you count ego. These techniqes have been used for a very long time on all special operations personel and pilots. Do you have any moral quandry with our SOF personel undergoing this sort of training? If you do you should read In the company of heros by Mike Durant it may change your mind. He credits the training he recieved at SERE with his survival. So its OK to subject those who stand-to to protect you, but it's morally reprehisible to subject those who wish to kill you. You need to wake up and rub some of the fairy dust out of your eyes.
I find it interesting that this report makes no mention of far left extremist groups. That makes it seem like less of an objective analysis of possible threats than a manifesto of security policy driven by ideology.
If you're not concerned when the ruling party singles out its political opposition as a security risk, you obviously have not paid any attention whatsoever to the history of the 20th century.
Well the DHS does look at "leftwing terrorism" but does so by listing specific groups that have a history of engaging in violent acts. It doesn't paint with a broad brush such as "disgruntled veterans," folk who are concerned about the possibility of new gun control laws, and "antigovernment groups" (which could include anybody who has any disagreement with the current administration).
(U) Proliferation of Cyber Attack Tools and Expertise(U//FOUO) DHS/I&A believes that the availability of cyber technologies and expertise such as online hacking tools and hackers-for-hire provides leftwing extremists with resources to augment their own homegrown cyber attack capabilities.Resources and capabilities for successful cyber attacks are becoming more accessible to the public as evidenced by online advertisements for hacking services and software. A simple online search provides users with numerous links to discussion forums and websites that offer hacking tutorials and information regarding exploitable system vulnerabilities. In addition, illegal file-sharing sites allow pirated copies of hacking software to be freely exchanged.
...
(U//FOUO) The following highlight a range of signposts that may expose leftwing extremists’ intent—either domestically or abroad—to develop more robust cyber attack strategies:
— (U//FOUO) Increasing number of statements by leftwing extremists advocating the use of cyber attack techniques.
— (U//FOUO) Increasing number of communiques published on leftwing extremist websites claiming credit for cyber attacks.
— (U//FOUO) Suspicious cyber attack activity or increased frequency, creativity, or severity against traditional primary, secondary, and tertiary targets of leftwing extremists.
— (U//FOUO) Evidence that leftwing extremist groups or activists are recruiting or attempting to acquire the services of individuals with cyber capabilities.
...
(U//FOUO) 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. Many leftwing extremist groups are not hierarchically ordered with defined members, leaders, or chain of command structures but operate as loosely-connected underground movements composed of “lone wolves,” small cells, and splinter groups.
— (U//LES)Animal rights and environmental extremists seek to end the perceived abuse and suffering of animals and the degradation of the natural environment perpetrated by humans. They use non-violent and violent tactics that, at times, violate criminal law. Many of these extremists claim they are conducting these activities on behalf of two of the most active groups, the Animal Liberation Front and its sister organization, the Earth Liberation Front. Other prominent groups
include Stop Huntingdon Animal Cruelty; and chapters within the Animal
Defense LeagueUSPER, and Earth First!USPER.
— (U//FOUO)Anarchist extremists generally embrace a number of radical
philosophical components of anticapitalist, antiglobalization, communist,
socialist, and other movements. Anarchist groups seek abolition of social,
political, and economic hierarchies, including Western-style governments and large business enterprises, and frequently advocate criminal actions of varying scale and scope to accomplish their goals. Anarchist extremist groups include entities within CrimethincUSPER, the Ruckus SocietyUSPER ,and Recreate 68 USPER.
Right, the point is that this assessment is clearly politically biased.
This report is supposed to be directed at right-wing extremists. Just like the other one is supposed to be directed at left-wing extremists.
This report is supposed to be directed at right-wing extremists. Just like the other one is supposed to be directed at left-wing extremists.
Can you please provide a link to the previous report that identified people with left-wing political beliefs as a terrorist risk?
That tells me one of two things: 1) They don't know what is in the reports because they don't look at them or 2) They don't care what is in the reports.
I want to know if I'm being targeted and I want to know what is in the report. If those people on the left are not going to get upset with the government targeting them, I'm not going to be mad for them, nor will I try to protect them if/when the government decides to do more than put together intelligence reports about the different segments of our population.
The government is not targeting you unless you are a member of a right-wing extremist group. Are you? If not then stop being so paranoid.
Or maybe 3) they realize that what is in the report could actually be true & that there are left-wing extremist terrorist organizations. They realize that the report doesn't call every left-leaning person a terrorist.
The government is not targeting you unless you are a member of a right-wing extremist group. Are you? If not then stop being so paranoid.
So how do you know that they know they won't be killed. How many of their countrymen have died in the war? How many of them have died in our prisons under our care? How many have died in our prisons while being interrogated? If you say none, you are being dishonest. They have no way of knowing that they won't be one of the ones to be killed, even by accident.
So you would be OK with the same techniques being used on American citizens in police interrogations? On you? You never know when you might be a victim of mistaken Identity.
[/font][/color]
SOF forces who go through that training are volunteers. They know exactly what will happen to them. They know they will not be killed or seriously injured. They know they are in friendly hands.
I bet they wouldn't fare so well if those same things were done to them as POW's in the hands of enemies who probably don't care about their well-being. That's the whole point of the training, so that they have at least experienced it under favorable conditions so that when it happens under exctreme conditions they won't be as traumatized by it. Even by the fact that the military trains their people on how to resist shows that they feel it is effective & could rise to the level of 'torture'.
You even state as an example a person who says that without the training in exactly the same techniques being used that he wouldn't have survived. That sounds pretty serious to me. I think that might even lead to a determination of a permanent injury (lack of survival is pretty permanent).
Another problem is you have just removed any moral authority to expect the other side in future conflicts to not use the same techniques or worse. They could say "We didn't consider it torture just 'motivation'.
[/left]
As for the removal of moral authority. I do believe unequivocally in the humane and respectful treatment of any uniformed combatant acting in accordance with his nations declaration of war. Even if said nation is not a signatory of the Geneva convention. Terrorist do not meet that criteria. Their policy of civilian targeting removes all moral authority for me.
The thing that disturbs me about these reports is the failure to distinguish between "extreme" viewpoints and groups that actually commit violent acts.
It's not "paranoid" to be concerned about government excesses and abuses. In most countries throughout most of history, political oppression has been the norm. We have enjoyed an unusual degree of liberties here in this country, but this is a fragile condition that requires constant vigilance to maintain, along with the willingness to protect and support the rights of dissenting groups.
This belief that "if you're not listed, you have no cause to complain" is pernicious. If anyone's freedoms are threatened, everyone's freedoms are threatened.
Where do I start? Yes we are volunteers, but guess what chuckles? SO ARE THEY!
Oh and those hands aren't so "friendly". More people suffer serious career ending injury than quit. Before you score yourself a point, not from water boarding.
No one would fare as well under enemy care. That statement is just moronic.
The point of SERE is not to expose you to all the various interrogation/torture techniques so they no longer work on you. That just isn't possible.
The point is to teach you survival techniques and most importantly mindset. For most people the big lesson taken away is simply "don't get caught". If you read Mike Durant's book you'll learn A. he wasn't water boarded and B. it was the afore mentioned techniques and mindset that allowed him to prevail.
As for the removal of moral authority. I do believe unequivocally in the humane and respectful treatment of any uniformed combatant acting in accordance with his nations declaration of war. Even if said nation is not a signatory of the Geneva convention. Terrorist do not meet that criteria. Their policy of civilian targeting removes all moral authority for me.