Results 1 to 20 of 38

Thread: DHS Report: Rightwing Extremism

Hybrid View

Previous Post Previous Post   Next Post Next Post
  1. #1
    Council Member franksforum's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Oakton, VA
    Posts
    23

    Default DHS Report: Rightwing Extremism

    (U) Key Findings:

    (U//LES) The DHS/Office of Intelligence and Analysis (I&A) has no specific
    information that domestic rightwing* terrorists are currently planning acts of violence, but rightwing extremists may be gaining new recruits by playing on their fears about several emergent issues. The economic downturn and the election of the first African American president present unique drivers for rightwing radicalization and recruitment.

    (U) Disgruntled Military Veterans:

    (U//FOUO) DHS/I&A assesses that rightwing extremists will attempt to recruit and radicalize returning veterans in order to exploit their skills and knowledge derived from military training and combat. These skills and knowledge have the potential to boost the capabilities of extremists—including lone wolves or small terrorist cells—to carry out violence. The willingness of a small percentage of military personnel to join extremist groups during the 1990s because they were disgruntled, disillusioned, or suffering from the psychological effects of war is being replicated today.

    — (U) After Operation Desert Shield/Storm in 1990-1991, some returning military veterans—including Timothy McVeigh—joined or associated with rightwing extremist groups.

    — (U) A prominent civil rights organization reported in 2006 that “large numbers of potentially violent neo-Nazis, skinheads, and other white supremacists are now learning the art of warfare in the [U.S.] armed forces.”

    — (U//LES) The FBI noted in a 2008 report on the white supremacist movement that some returning military veterans from the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have joined extremist groups.

    Full text of report in PDF format available at:

    http://www.fas.org/irp/eprint/rightwing.pdf

  2. #2
    Council Member slapout9's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Posts
    4,818

    Default

    franksforum,thanks for posting this. I heard about it yesterday from a friend but he could not provide a link.

  3. #3
    Council Member
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    4,021

    Default Hmm ....

    Seems that Fluffy is out of her bag - NRA and 2nd Amendment folks perk up your ears.

    Googling - "rightwing extremism" dhs - or - "right wing extremism" dhs - gets over 20K hits for the first and over 40K for the second.

    Here is an analysis by Andrew Napolitano.

    DHS has also released a report on Leftwing Extremists.

    Leftwing extremists, being sophisticates, launch attacks via cyberspace. Rightwing extremists, being primitives, launch attacks via firearms and explosive devices. An interesting mindset at DHS. I wonder who the new John Yoo is ?

    From the American Legion, a rather mild rejoinder.

  4. #4
    Council Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    3,098

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by jmm99
    ....Leftwing extremists, being sophisticates, launch attacks via cyberspace. Rightwing extremists, being primitives, launch attacks via firearms and explosive devices. An interesting mindset at DHS.....
    That's certainly putting a spin on it. I've never been exactly overwhelmed by the analytic talent at DHS, and the linked report certain follows a too-generic flawed assessment format, but it still clearly states up-front that it is clearly focused on the potential cyber threat, period. It is not a broad assessment of capabilities of the left-wing groups, nor does state that cyber attacks is their primary capability or preferred tactic. It does mention that the groups in question - animal rights, environmental, and anarchist extremist movements - are known to conduct bombing and arson attacks. DHS, the Bureau and other fed agencies have published quite a number of assessments over the past couple of years looking at the more violent aspects of these groups, so I would hardly say that there is an organizational bias one way or the other.

    However, it is clear that none of that matters, and what is leaked to the publicly is simply meant to be twisted into yet more juvenile partisan bickering.

  5. #5
    Council Member
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    4,021

    Default Yup, "bombings and arson" are mentioned ...

    once, at p.3. The rest folows the lead "Leftwing Extremists Likely to Increase Use of Cyber Attacks over the Coming Decade."

    And, yes, I am aware of ELF et al's other activities - since we just had one sentenced in Fed DC in Marquette 3 weeks ago - and of the 7 May 2008 DHS report cited by Bourbon just below my post.

    That report sums their violent incidents from 1984-2008 (table - pp.15-23); and amply supports concern.

    The Rightwing Extremist lead "Rightwing Extremism: Current Economic and Political Climate Fueling Resurgence in Radicalization and Recruitment" is supported by these items in this century (from report):

    p.3
    The DHS/Office of Intelligence and Analysis (I&A) has no specific information that domestic rightwing* terrorists are currently planning acts of violence, but rightwing extremists may be gaining new recruits by playing on their fears about several emergent issues.

    (U//LES) Threats from white supremacist and violent antigovernment groups during 2009 have been largely rhetorical and have not indicated plans to carry out violent acts.

    p.4
    (U) A recent example of the potential violence associated with a rise in rightwing extremism may be found in the shooting deaths of three police officers in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, on 4 April 2009. The alleged gunman’s reaction reportedly was influenced by his racist ideology and belief in antigovernment conspiracy theories related to gun confiscations, citizen detention camps, and a Jewish-controlled “one world government.”

    p.5
    Most statements by rightwing extremists have been rhetorical, expressing concerns about the election of the first African American president, but stopping short of calls for violent action.

    p.6
    In April 2007, six militia members were arrested for various weapons and explosives violations. Open source reporting alleged that those arrested had discussed and conducted surveillance for a machinegun attack on Hispanics.

    — (U) A militia member in Wyoming was arrested in February 2007 after communicating his plans to travel to the Mexican border to kill immigrants crossing into the United States.

    p.8
    A prominent civil rights organization reported in 2006 that “large numbers of potentially violent neo-Nazis, skinheads, and other white supremacists are now learning the art of warfare in the [U.S.] armed forces.”

    The FBI noted in a 2008 report on the white supremacist movement that some returning military veterans from the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have joined extremist groups.
    The report also notes one post-1995 event:

    p.6
    Law enforcement in 1996 arrested three rightwing militia members in Battle Creek, Michigan with pipe bombs, automatic weapons, and military ordnance that they planned to use in attacks on nearby military and federal facilities and infrastructure targets.
    To me, this seems very slim evidence on which to posit a resurgence.

    To these, the report adds another factor - firearms:

    p.3
    (U//FOUO) 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.

    (U//FOUO) Proposed imposition of firearms restrictions and weapons bans likely would attract new members into the ranks of rightwing extremist groups, as well as potentially spur some of them to begin planning and training for violence against the government. The high volume of purchases and stockpiling of weapons and ammunition by rightwing extremists in anticipation of restrictions and bans in some parts of the country continue to be a primary concern to law enforcement.

    pp.4-5
    (U) Legislative and Judicial Drivers

    (U//FOUO) Many rightwing extremist groups perceive recent gun control legislation as a threat to their right to bear arms and in response have increased weapons and ammunition stockpiling, as well as renewed participation in paramilitary training exercises. Such activity, combined with a heightened level of extremist paranoia, has the potential to facilitate criminal activity and violence.

    — (U//FOUO) During the 1990s, rightwing extremist hostility toward government was fueled by the implementation of restrictive gun laws—such as the Brady Law that established a 5-day waiting period prior to purchasing a handgun and the 1994 Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act that limited the sale of various types of assault rifles—and federal law enforcement’s handling of the confrontations at Waco, Texas and Ruby Ridge, Idaho.

    — (U//FOUO) On the current front, legislation has been proposed this year requiring mandatory registration of all firearms in the United States. Similar legislation was introduced in 2008 in several states proposing mandatory tagging and registration of ammunition. It is unclear if either bill will be passed into law; nonetheless, a correlation may exist between the potential passage of gun control legislation and increased hoarding of ammunition, weapons stockpiling, and paramilitary training activities among rightwing extremists.

    (U//FOUO) Open source reporting of wartime ammunition shortages has likely spurred rightwing extremists—as well as law-abiding Americans—to make bulk purchases of ammunition. These shortages have increased the cost of ammunition, further exacerbating rightwing extremist paranoia and leading to further stockpiling activity.

    Both rightwing extremists and law-abiding citizens share a belief that rising crime rates attributed to a slumping economy make the purchase of legitimate firearms a wise move at this time.

    (U//FOUO) Weapons rights and gun-control legislation are likely to be hotly contested subjects of political debate in light of the 2008 Supreme Court’s decision in District of Columbia v. Heller in which the Court reaffirmed an individual’s right to keep and bear arms under the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, but left open to debate the precise contours of that right. Because debates over constitutional rights are intense, and parties on all sides have deeply held, sincere, but vastly divergent beliefs, violent extremists may attempt to co-opt the debate and use the controversy as a radicalization tool.
    When the yellow bird sings in the coal mine, I listen up.

    BTW: My words quoted in your post were frankly intended to be sarcastic. You, as a reader, have the right to your perception (and expression of that perception) that it is "spin"; or that it is a form of "juvenile partisan bickering"; or whatever.

    The same goes for your perception that DHS has been balanced in its reporting. The readers can access the 2008 & 2009 DHS "leftwing" reports and can judge whether the evidence in those reports supports the DHS conclusions. They also can judge whether the evidence in the 2009 DHS "rightwing" report supports the DHS conclusions there.

  6. #6
    Council Member bourbon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Boston, MA
    Posts
    903

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by jmm99 View Post
    To these, the report adds another factor - firearms:
    What do you take issue with about that?

    I don't think it is out of line, or inaccurate to surmise that increased restrictions on firearms will radicalize a small number of people. It was certainly a trigger for Tim McVeigh. Not sure why that's controversial, and I think you could even be pro-gun acknowledge this.

  7. #7
    Council Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Posts
    1,444

    Default

    The timing of my firearms purchases has largely coincided with proposed legislation to make those purchases more difficult or illegal. But the rationale in my mind has often been, "well, if I'm gonna buy this thing, I'd better buy it now, before it gets more difficult or gets illegal." I know lots of Soldiers who bought firearms soon after deployments because that was when they had the most money saved up. I know others who bought them after ETS because they no longer got to shoot at work, so they bought their own.

    As for radicalizing, I don't get the connection. You either hold radical views or get persuaded into them. I don't see how that comes about by imposing background checks or a 3-day wait period or a ban on rifles with bayonet lugs.

    That this was deliberate seems pretty obvious. You can't leak a memo bashing the right wing because it will be recognized as not a leak. So you leak two memos - one bashing each side - but not one that upsets your natural allies. And if there's a bit of a backlash, so what? You've now got official-looking documents in circulation that give estimates perceived as credible that anyone opposing gun control legislation may turn into Tim McVeigh. I already foresee the news coverage... "but getting beyond the leaks and controversy, these are very disturbing intelligence assessments about possible radicalization of gun rights proponents..." Mission accomplished. Now the gun control proponents are the voice of reason, passing legislation despite the "dangers" of the radical kooks who oppose them. We need to get these people into Iraq and Afghanistan to work beside our IO folks.

  8. #8
    Council Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Posts
    204

    Default

    Going to be interesting to see the "spin"on this one...

    Was the material "leaked" because somebody realized the incendiary nature of the material (best way to kill off bad concepts is to put it out where everybody can see it), or was it more of a "trial balloon", where the folks just didn't understand exactly how politically deadly this stuff can be.

    Poor Janet Napolitano - what a "tin ear". She's going to take a real political beat down over this one from just about everybody, and to be honest about it, probably not deserved, but she's in charge, so she gets to take one for the team. But she's got to be real careful here, and the spin she puts out will count - she gets it wrong, and makes it worse (and it can get worse), they'll be looking for a new head of DHS.

    But there's some staff people she's got who seriously need to be reassigned for an extended period to counting and doing full body inspections of various types of vermin at some far off backwater. If you are in her position, these folks may or may not be her ideological soulmates, but doesn't matter - they have got to go.

    Old rule in politics - "It's never your enemies you have to worry about - you know what they'll do to you. It's your friends and allies that you have got to worry about".

    Another excellent example right here.

  9. #9
    Council Member davidbfpo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    13,219

    Default Former DHS analyst: what keeps me up at night?

    Note: copied here from a current August 2012 thread on Lone Wolves.

    In the previous post I referred to a 2009 DHS report on Right Wing Extremism, today I found an interview of the lead analyst involved from the summer of 2011, which after recent events makes interesting reading for a non-American.

    It ends with:
    What worries me is the fact that our country is under attack from within, from our own radical citizenry. There have been a lot of small-scale attacks lately, whether it's three mail bombs sent to U.S. government facilities in Maryland and D.C., or a backpack bomb placed near a [Martin Luther King Jr. Day] parade in Spokane, Wash., or two police officers gunned down at a traffic stop in West Memphis, Ark., [by antigovernment extremists in May 2010].

    These incidents are starting to add up. Yet our legislators, politicians and national leaders don't appear too concerned about this. So, my greatest fear is that domestic extremists in this country will somehow become emboldened to the point of carrying out a mass-casualty attack, because they perceive that no one is being vigilant about the threat from within. That is what keeps me up at night.
    Link:http://www.splcenter.org/get-informe...s-agency-bowed

    I am aware of the role of the SPLC.
    Last edited by davidbfpo; 08-13-2012 at 01:29 PM.
    davidbfpo

  10. #10
    Council Member Fuchs's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    3,189

    Default

    "Peter King Must Go"
    BY SAHIL BHATIA | AUGUST 10, 2012
    http://www.foreignpolicy.com/article...r_king_must_go


    In the wake of Sunday's deadly attack on American Sikh worshippers in Wisconsin by a white supremacist gunman, it's time for Washington to reframe its debate about fighting terrorism to address all its forms. But before that can happen, Rep. Peter King (R-NY) must step down from his position as chairman of the House Committee on Homeland Security.

    The now-obvious truth is that King, known as Congress's iron-fisted champion of all things security in this frightening post-9/11 era is, in actuality, soft on terrorism -- at least where it counts. Since his tenure as chairman began in 2011, he has repeatedly refused to devote serious attention to the threats posed by white supremacist groups and right-wing extremism, opting instead to focus nearly all of his committee's time and resources to Muslim extremism, a statistically minimal threat by comparison.

    (...)

  11. #11
    Council Member tequila's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    New York, NY
    Posts
    1,665

    Default

    Prosecutor: GA murder case uncovers terror plot

    LUDOWICI, Ga. (AP) -- Four Army soldiers based in southeast Georgia killed a former comrade and his girlfriend to protect an anarchist militia group they formed that stockpiled assault weapons and plotted a range of anti-government attacks, prosecutors told a judge Monday.

    Prosecutors in rural Long County, near the sprawling Army post Fort Stewart, said the militia group of active and former U.S. military members spent at least $87,000 buying guns and bomb components. They allege the group was serious enough to kill two people - former soldier Michael Roark and his 17-year-old girlfriend, Tiffany York - by shooting them in the woods last December in order to keep its plans secret.

    "This domestic terrorist organization did not simply plan and talk," prosecutor Isabel Pauley told a Superior Court judge. "Prior to the murders in this case, the group took action. Evidence shows the group possessed the knowledge, means and motive to carry out their plans."

    One of the Fort Stewart soldiers charged in the case, Pfc. Michael Burnett, also gave testimony that backed up many of the assertions made by prosecutors. The 26-year-old soldier pleaded guilty Monday to manslaughter, illegal gang activity and other charges. He made a deal to cooperate with prosecutors against the three other soldiers ...

    The prosecutor said the militia group had big plans. It plotted to take over Fort Stewart by seizing its ammunition control point and talked of bombing the Forsyth Park fountain in nearby Savannah, she said. In Washington state, she added, the group plotted to bomb a dam and poison the state's apple crop. Ultimately, prosecutors said, the militia's goal was to overthrow the government and assassinate the president ...
    This crew sounds unhinged, but they were apparently quite willing to commit murder before their plots even got off the ground.

  12. #12
    Council Member davidbfpo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    13,219

    Default The benefits of hindsight - in The Economist

    The article's full title:
    The benefits of hindsight....The need for more monitoring of domestic terrorism
    Noted via Twitter today, it appeared on the 18th August, starting with this 2009 DHS report and ends pithily:
    ..talking about right-wing extremist threatens howls of protest. Nice idea, shame about the politics.
    Link:http://www.economist.com/node/215605...s_of_hindsight

    The comments illustrate the difficulty in this area of public safety policy and in IMHO are not worth reading in total.
    davidbfpo

  13. #13
    Council Member AmericanPride's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    "Turn left at Greenland." - Ringo Starr
    Posts
    965

    Default

    Hey David,

    That's an interesting chart. Right-wing populism has always been a source of localized violence in the U.S. But given the conservative tilt of U.S. politics, right-wing extremism is treated with some level of deference and benefit of the doubt not given to other forms of extremism.
    When I am weaker than you, I ask you for freedom because that is according to your principles; when I am stronger than you, I take away your freedom because that is according to my principles. - Louis Veuillot

Similar Threads

  1. USIP report: Iraq in the Obama Administration
    By Rex Brynen in forum US Policy, Interest, and Endgame
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 12-18-2008, 08:40 PM
  2. DoD IG Gimble Report on Iraq Intel
    By Tom Odom in forum The Whole News
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 06-05-2008, 05:28 PM
  3. Rebuilt Iraqi Projects Found Crumbling
    By tequila in forum US Policy, Interest, and Endgame
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 05-03-2007, 10:07 AM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •