Napolitano Ignored Civil Liberties Lawyers For “Right Wing Extremists” Hit Job

So, while Jazz Shaw at “The Moderate Liberal Voice” is wringing his hands over Bush supposedly targeting veterans as right wing extremists in the waning days, but completely missing the point (read Ed Morrisseys analysis, first paragraph after the blockquote in particular), I’m wondering when he and the rest of the so-called civil liberties protectors on the Left will chime in on this

Civil liberties officials at the Homeland Security Department flagged language in a controversial report on right-wing extremists, but the agency issued the report anyway. …

Homeland Security spokeswoman Amy Kudwa said the report was issued before officials resolved problems raised by the agency’s civil rights division about analysts’ definition of right-wing extremism.

Hmm, might there have been a reason to get the report out that quickly? Na, we all know never to question the timing of what Democrats do. But, hey, keep up the Bush Derangement Syndrome, Lefties! Anything to deflect away from the incompetence and sheer partisanship of President Neophyte!

What truly amazes me is that many of these same people who are complaining the loudest today had absolutely no problem with government targeting mosques and other organizations where Muslims gather to seek out terrorists. It wasn’t a statement that every Muslim in America was a terrorist, but apparently they were prime areas for recruitment.

I know it is hard for a liberal to remember September 11, 2001, as well as the many other terrorist attacks that have been undertaken in the name of Allah, but, no, we have no problem with the government targeting mosques, where so much Islamic terrorist recruiting occurs. It is something entirely different to target veterans of the Iraq and Afghanistan wars simply because they are veterans, and targeting them with no proof.

Is every veteran an angel? No. Like the rest of the population, there are hard cases. But, some actual proof, rather then vacuous innuendo, would be nice. And some other folks think so, as well

Senators Coburn, Brownback, DeMint, Burr, Murkowski, Inhofe, and Vitter sent the following letter to DHS Secretary Napolitano yesterday concerning the DHS report:

April 16, 2009

The Honorable Janet Napolitano
Secretary
The Department of Homeland Security
310 7th street, S.W.
Washington, DC 20528-0150

VIA FASCMILLE

Dear Secretary Napolitano,

We write today concerning the release of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) report titled “Rightwing Extremism: Current Economic and Political Climate Fueling Resurgence in Radicalization and Recruitment” prepared by the Extremism and Radicalization Branch, of the Homeland Environment Threat Analysis Division.

While we agree that we must fight extremists who are both foreign and domestic we are troubled by some of the statements your department included as fact in the report titled above, without listing any statistical data to back up such claims.

First, your report states that “Returning veterans possess combat skills and experience that are attractive to rightwing extremists…” without listing any data to support such a vile claim against our nation’s veterans.

Second, the report states that the millions of Americans who believe in the Second Amendment are a potential threat to our national security. Why? Do you have statistics to prove that law-abiding Americans who purchase a legal product are being recruited by so-called hate groups?

Thirdly, the report states that those that believe in issues such as pro-life legislation, limited government, and legal versus illegal immigration are potential terrorist threats. We can assure you that these beliefs are held by citizens of all races, party affiliation, male and female, and should not be listed as a factor in determining potential terror threats. A better word usage would be to describe them as practicing their First Amendment rights.

Also, you list those that bemoan the decline of U.S. stature and the loss of U.S. manufacturing capability to China and India as being potential rightwing extremists. We would suggest that the millions of Americans who have lost their jobs in the manufacturing industry to foreign countries are not potential terror threats, but rather honest Americans worried about feeding their families and earning a paycheck.

In closing, we support the mission of DHS in protecting our country from terror attacks and are proud of the many DHS employees who make this possible in conjunction with our state and local law enforcement. We ask that DHS not use this report as a basis to unfairly target millions of Americans because of their beliefs and the rights afforded to them in the Constitution. We also ask that you provide us with the data that support the unfair claims listed in the report titled above and to present us with the matrix system used in collecting and analyzing this data?

Finally, we look forward to your prompt reply and we offer our assistance to DHS in our shared effort to fight terrorism both home and abroad by using data that is accurate and independent of political persuasion.

Via Michelle Malkin

And, via The Jawa Report from Obamanation, the new DHS Threat Levels

Currently sitting at yellow.

More: Via DrewM at Ace, William Kristol chimes in

So: We were once in danger. Now we live in “a bright, sunny, safe day in April 2009.” Now, in April 2009, Obama’s Director of National Intelligence seems to be saying, we’re safe.

Good news, if true. And it would be an amazing tribute to the preceding administration’s efforts in the war on terror–efforts that Democrats have been saying for years were making us less safe. Apparently, the old policies worked. The threat from al Qaeda has gone. We now have the luxury of “reflection,” as President Obama put it in his statement, the luxury of debating and deploring what we did back in the bad old days when there was a war on. After all, “we have been through a dark and painful chapter in our history.”

Hmm, so, according to President Obama and his staff, Bush kept us safe. Good to know.

Save $10 on purchases of $49.99 & up on our Fruit Bouquets at 1800flowers.com. Promo Code: FRUIT49
If you liked my post, feel free to subscribe to my rss feeds.

Both comments and trackbacks are currently closed

RSS feed

You can login to comment with:

Trackbacks/Pingbacks

5 Comments

Comment by John Ryan
2009-04-17 20:08:00

when will the jumping barracuda be replaced ? Why do you hate Sarah ? Why do your archives with Sarah show NO ENTRIES since Dec 31st ? Why was Saeahcudda thrown under the bus ?

 
Comment by N Waff
2009-04-17 23:30:52

Dear President Obama,

In 2004, congress introduced legislation called the “End Racial Profiling Act” to stop the offensive discriminatory act of stereotyping ordinary citizens as criminals. The ACLU said this act was “a key step in the fight to ensure that no one in America is subject to law enforcement encounters based on crude bias.” Now, your administration, under Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano, has committed the same criminal act against our citizens, denying them equal protection and, instead, holding them under criminal suspicion because they hold a conservative political position. This action taken by your administration is offensive, un-American and has already eroded the trust between citizens, the federal government and law enforcement. It needs to be retracted and the appropriate disciplinary action needs to be taken against those who implemented this federally sanctioned discrimination. I am requesting your prompt attention to this matter.

Regards

 
2009-04-18 16:37:50

Napolitano’s use of Oklahoma City in 1995 certainly is an intriguing example of how US military veterans are supposedly some sort of threat to us all.

That bombing was a single event, staged almost 14 years ago- hasn’t Al Qaida staged hundreds of attacks on US interests since then? Why so little mention of them since she was appointed three months ago- isn’t keeping a lid on those medieval savages 80% of her job description? Isn’t that why the Department of Homeland Security created in the first-place?

Apparently there is no bounds to what government assets Obama will prostitute for his own purposes, either… while neglecting daunting, actual threats in the meantime.

So all who wondered why Obama chose this obedient toady to head Homeland Security now have their answer: a serious choice who would have focused upon real terrorist threats -not imaginary, partisan ones- like, say, a Rudolph Giuliani, wouldn’t have been a willing participant is such a sham report.

http://reaganiterepublicanresistance.blogspot.com

 
2009-04-18 16:40:11

Napolitano’s use of Oklahoma City in 1995 certainly is an intriguing example of how US military veterans are supposedly some sort of threat to us all.

That bombing was a single event, staged almost 14 years ago- hasn’t Al Qaida staged hundreds of attacks on US interests since then? Why so little mention of them since she was appointed three months ago- isn’t keeping a lid on those medieval savages 80% of her job description? Isn’t that why the Department of Homeland Security created in the first-place?

Apparently there is no bounds to what government assets Obama will prostitute for his own purposes, either… while neglecting daunting, actual threats in the meantime.

So all who wondered why Obama chose this obedient toady to head Homeland Security now have their answer: a serious choice who would have focused upon real terrorist threats -not imaginary, partisan ones- like, say, a Rudolph Giuliani, wouldn’t have been a willing participant is such a sham report.

 
Comment by William Teach
2009-04-19 14:05:00

Interesting how Napolitano uses McVeigh, but fails to mention veteran and massive communist Lee Harvey Oswald.

 

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.

Bad Behavior has blocked 8628 access attempts in the last 7 days.

Performance Optimization WordPress Plugins by W3 EDGE