All Things in Moderation

I was really busy with family matters from 2007 to early 2009 and then became consumed with the health care debate from 2009 to 2010 but I remember this story and thought it was fascinating at the time.  Remember that Homeland Security report that raised such a ruckus regarding domestic terrorism in 2009.  I think the report was probably badly worded in a few areas, such as referring to “right wing” extremists a little too frequently and it pissed a lot of conservatives off.  It also referred to environmental extremists but that was lost in the brouhaha I think.

Anyway the DHS nixed the report and actually eliminated the entire department except for one analyst.  The rest of the staff was shuffled around to other departments and according to the guy who was in charge pre shuffling, Daryl Johnson, basically given the big cold shoulder treatment or worse, and he at least left with a story to tell.

I love these kind of insider or whistle blower stories, and yes I know they’re not always completely believable, but this one sounds intriguing to me.

Spencer Ackerman tackles some of it here:

Johnson, who has written a forthcoming book about far-right extremist groups, concedes that the definition of “right-wing” in his product was imprecise. In retrospect, he says he should have clarified that his focus was on “violent” right-wing organizations, like white supremacists, neo-Nazis and so-called Sovereign Citizens who believe the U.S. government is an illegitimate, tyrannical enterprise. Much like mainstream Muslims denounce terrorism and object to over-broad analysis portraying Islam as an incubator of extremism, so too do mainstream conservatives denounce neo-Nazis and white supremacists and dispute that those groups are authentically right-wing.

Johnson left DHS in April 2010 after “they dissolved my team,” he says. Had he still been at DHS, he says he would have published an analysis calling attention to a growing number of attacks on mosques, which he thinks could serve as a “warning” to Sikh communities that are often mistaken for Muslim ones. But finding so-called “lone wolf” terrorists like Page is a challenge no matter their motivations, since they operate outside established extremist cells and often don’t have criminal records, making it difficult for law enforcement or homeland security officials to spot them.

Amy Goodman has an interesting interview with Johnson here:

(Scroll down the link for transcript)

AMY GOODMAN: What were the critical findings?

DARYL JOHNSON: Basically, that we were seeing a resurgence. We had experienced very early on, right after the election, we saw arson activity at black churches, we had a bombing out in the Pacific northwest where some police officers were killed that were carried out by anti-government extremists. We had a neo-Nazi up in Massachusetts that went on a shooting spree, and we saw a lot of extremist chatter talking about how they were fearful of an African-American president and possible gun confiscations, gun bans and the immigration issue was still being unresolved. So all these things kind of came together into the perfect storm which we saw very clearly and put out very clearly what our findings were.

AMY GOODMAN: Back in 2009 a handful of Republicans in the House called for Janet Napolitano to step down as head of the Department of Homeland Security in the wake of your memo that warned of right-wing political extremism in the United States. House Majority Leader, John Boehner, said the report focused on “[A]bout two-thirds of Americans who might go to church, who may have served in the military, who may be involved in community activities… I just don’t understand how our government can look at the American people and say, ‘You’re all potential terrorist threats.’” Those were Boehner’s comments. Daryl Johnson, your response.

DARYL JOHNSON: That is a gross misrepresentation of what was said in the report. Basically, I think what Boehner is alluding to is a very broad, vague definition that was in the footnote of one of the pages. Basically, the definition was written very broadly so it could encompass the wide range of extremist groups we were talking about which were primarily the white supremacist movement which has neo-Nazi groups, Ku Klux Klan groups, Christian Identity groups which is a racist religion that thinks whites are the true Israelites. We have skinhead groups. We have other types of white supremacists. It also was alluding to sovereign citizens, those that reject federal and state authority in favor of local authority. It was also talking about the militia extremists. So, basically, some of the conservative radio talk show hosts took this definition out of context, and without the scope of talking about violent extremism and terrorism which was stated upfront in the scope note, and took this definition out of context and applied it to a broad range of people. I think it was done deliberately as a political maneuver to use against the new administration.

Somewhat tangentially I read this in The Atlantic yesterday and it gave me the chills as it’s almost exactly what some of us here have been talking about for months.  The author here is referring to the attack last weekend at the Sikh temple.

Attacks like his are disconcerting to some white Americans for a seldom acknowledged reason. Since 9/11, many Americans have conflated terrorism with Muslims; and having done so, they’ve tolerated or supported counterterrorism policies safe in the presumption that people unlike them would bear their brunt. (If Mayor Bloomberg and the NYPD sent officers beyond the boundaries of New York City to secretly spy on evangelical Christian students or Israeli students or students who own handguns the national backlash would be swift, brutal, and decisive. The revelation of secret spying on Muslim American students was mostly defended or ignored.)     

In the name of counterterrorism, many Americans have given their assent to indefinite detention, the criminalization of gifts to certain charities, the extrajudicial assassination of American citizens, and a sprawling, opaque homeland security bureaucracy; many have also advocated policies like torture or racial profiling that are not presently part of official anti-terror policy.

Filed under: 2012 | Tagged: domestic terrorism | 16 Comments »