Want a reasonable response to the DHS report that was the focus of so much discussion earlier in the week (and that I blogged about here and here)?
Well, cruise over to Crooks and Liars and watch a clip from Fox News’ Shepard Smith. Kudos to Smith, reporter Herridge and guest Mike Baker for both decent reportage on the report (noting, among other things, that there was a similar report on left-wing extremists and both reports were started under the previous administration, and are not Obama-admin driven attempts at singling out half the country) and a reasonable discussion of the report.
Also, see The Alabama Moderate’s post on the subject.
Filed under: Uncategorized | Comments/Trackbacks (8)|
The views expressed in the comments are the sole responsibility of the person leaving those comments. They do not reflect the opinion of the author of PoliBlog, nor have they been vetted by the author.
April 17th, 2024 at 2:37 pm
Wow! Thanks for the link, Dr. Taylor!
April 18th, 2024 at 9:58 am
I am still not sure what to think about this report. One thing that I am certain of is that it represents a very bad example of threat assessment and analysis. It is clear that they have no specific information about anything, couching almost every assertion in terms like “may,” “could,” and “has the potential to.” The one definitive finding is that they have “no specific information.” I must admit that I find a certain irony in the fact that the current administration, which has gone to great lengths to stop using the term terrorist to describe radical Islamists, seems to have no problem throwing that term about when it involves domestic activity on the right. Before anyone jumps on the fact that they did not use a similar term in the report on left wing extremism, that analysis was focused on cyber attacks, so the nature of that report is substantially different, and the non-violent nature of cyber attacks makes it less likely for that to be described as terrorism in general.
I do think that it is worth recognizing that the respective reports came out of different branches in the I&A organization at DHS, and the quality of the analytical products may reflect that difference more than anything else. It does trouble me that the report on left wing extremism identified 8 specific groups while the report on right wing extremism offered no such detail. The generic (I would characterize it as sloppy) nature of much of the writing in the report on right wing extremism has no doubt fueled much of the histrionics in response.
Recent reporting that Civil Rights Attorneys within DHS had cautioned against release without some editing adds to the view that the document was published hurriedly and that the timing of the release was motivated by political considerations more than prevention or enforcement concerns.
I still tend to hold the view that this represents sloppy government work more than a politically motivated hit job on the right. Certainly there is ample evidence to support the view that sloppy work is a common product of the Federal bureaucracy.
April 18th, 2024 at 10:44 am
ts:
I am more than willing to say that the report itself may be worthy of criticism. I certainly am hardly shocked at the notion that such a report might be poorly or hastily written. Of course, total defense of the report was never my goal.
However, the notion that it is aimed at all conservatives, or even a segment of mainstream conservatives is utter nonsense.
Al Mod: My pleasure.
April 18th, 2024 at 2:20 pm
“I must admit that I find a certain irony in the fact that the current administration, which has gone to great lengths to stop using the term terrorist to describe radical Islamists, seems to have no problem throwing that term about when it involves domestic activity on the right.”
But here’s the problem with that statement… They didn’t. As was stated above and in my own post on the subject (and reported on Fox News), the reports were ordered by the Bush administration but were not completed until after Bush left office. In fact, one such report on right wing extremism was released by the FBI in the summer of 2024 before the election. As the reporter from Fox News states, these things do take some time to compile and complete.
You might also note that the left wing report did include acts of violence other than cyber attacks and specifically listed instances where fire bombing had been used. The two reports are near identical in coverage, though they do have a slightly different order. Both list specific groups as well as broad definitions, but it does require that you read the reports and neither add words nor overlook them. The reports are about nine pages long, so they’re not exactly tedious to read.
Cyber attacks, while technically non-violent, actually can be quite devastating. This isn’t just a computer virus. We’re talking about taking out whole power grids, communications systems, security systems, military systems, and financial markets.
I’d also like to note that some of these broad definitions aren’t necessarily pertaining to those who are part of these groups but rather descriptions of people these groups might target for recruitment. That’s a very significant thing to point out.
Though I must agree with you that the report is somewhat sloppy in nature, I still must argue that it hardly justifies the degree of panic and paranoia that we’ve seen from the right regarding this issue.
April 18th, 2024 at 3:17 pm
I still must argue that it hardly justifies the degree of panic and paranoia that we’ve seen from the right regarding this issue.
And that is the basic point.
April 18th, 2024 at 5:22 pm
But isn’t that the nature of much of the public discourse today, irrespective of ideology or political affiliation, that we are immediately shocked and offended by everything. Everyone has become Captain Renault. In some respects it’s amazing that anything gets accomplished at all with everyone running around being perpetually outraged.
April 18th, 2024 at 5:36 pm
Al Mod -
Got to take issue with one point you’re making. Read both reports,and while the more recent one discusses specific incidents, it does not identify any specific active groups. Using the general term Christian identity groups is not the same as saying ELF. Again I think this is more a reflection of sloppy work than anything. The fact that this is apparently the result of more than a year of work is frankly the most offensive aspect of the report. If that was the product of a year of my work I would have expected a pink slip about 11 months, 3 weeks, and 4 days ago.
April 22nd, 2024 at 1:29 pm
Actually, ts, it does. The right wing report specifically mentions the Skinheads and neo-Nazis. If I remember correctly, it was on page 8 or 9, but I’d have to go back and look. The idea that the right wing report doesn’t include mention of specific groups is a talking point that originated (best I can tell) on the Glenn Beck website. The left wing report (on the last page) gives more general definitions for left wing extremists– including animal rights advocates, among other things. Anyone who reads the report can easily find the mention. The two reports are in slightly different order, but they do contain roughly the same information– listings of specific previous attacks, naming a few known groups, giving a general definition of those who might be targeted for recruitment, and listing ways in which such groups are known to act.