April 15, 2009

Napolitano Issues Non-Apology Apology for "Right Wing Extremists" DHS Report

Here's the DHS press release from Sec. of Homeland Security, Janet Napoliltano.

Now, let me clarify my position on this. Behind the scenes I've actually been working to dispel some of the fears about the DHS document. In fact, I have some intimate knowledge about how government works and how security reports are produced.

I do not think the document was trying to target conservatives and paint them all as potential terrorists. Nor do I think this was part of an Obama Administration attempt at linking domestic terrorism with the conservative movement -- specifically, with the TEA party movement.

The document itself was mostly produced during the Bush Administration. Except for several late editions to the text -- literally a few paragraphs and some wording changes.

The wording about the "right-wing" and the subsequent categorization of anti-abortion, anti-tax, and pro-federalism as part of a broader "right-wing" movement comes not from the DHS, but from academia. In other words, the people that helped produce the document simply adopted terminology which is widely accepted in academia.

This says less about the motives of those at the DHS than it does about academia. If you doubt there is a leftward bias in academia, then I can only assume you are the kind of person who sees no problem in the current DHS report.

As for the timing of the report one week before the TEA Parties were set to begin I can say this: the report's release probably coincides with DHS staff meetings with Sec. Napolitano.

If Sec. Napolitano had ulterior motives for the timing of that meeting than those motives were probably not known to staff.

As for whoever leaked the report, I've no idea what their motives were. Some have suggested to me that it was someone on the Left who leaked the report as a way to say, "See, even the DHS is acknowledging that the Right is full of cooks." That is as plausible an explanation as any I've heard, but no more plausible than someone on the Right leaking the document because they were shocked at the wording of the document.

To sum up my position: I do not believe that DHS was trying to paint the Right as full of extremists and as potential terrorists.

As I've said on these pages many times before, from a historical perspective the largest home-grown terrorist organization in the U.S. has been the Ku Klux Klan. A group that has been called many things, but never "left-wing".

There are violent extremist groups on the Right.

I do not believe these groups are as dangerous as they once were, and unless this is the first time reading this blog than you already know that in my mind that Islamist terror is now our number one threat.

I also concur with the report's conclusion that the present circumstances may lead to a rise in extremism from white supremacy groups, conspiracy theorists, and other assorted nuts.

Nevertheless, the report is troubling. You'll notice that I have said that the authors of the report did not intend to paint the Right as dangerous.

This goes to motives, but not to the substance of the report itself. Substantively, the report was sloppily written and used language vague enough that someone reading it could reasonably reach the conclusion that law enforcement officials were being warned to be on the lookout for anyone who was anti-abortion or pro-tenth amendment.

I cannot imagine that if the report was on home-grown Islamist terrorism that it wouldn't use idiotic catchphrases over and over again like "the vast majority of Muslims are peaceful" and "Islam teaches that violence against civilians is never justified". Again, don't get me wrong, I think that those kind of meaningless platitudes are actually necessary and that our government should keep repeating them.

The fact is that by using the commonly accepted academic terminology the DHS also adopted the academic left-wing bias embedded in that terminology. The Left really does think the right is full of kooks, just as we on the Right think the same of them.

The difference is that we do not control the language of academia, they do.

When the authors of the DHS report talked about "right-wing extremists", in their mind they saw Timothy McVeigh. But by using vague and biased terminology, they set themselves up for the kind of reaction that we are seeing all over the blogosphere.

As some of us read the document, we saw ourselves.

That is the real problem with it. The imprecise use of language.

The timing? Well, that stinks, too.

But, as I've said, the report was mostly written under the Bush Administration.

When the new Sec. of DHS asked to be briefed about any developments from McVeigh types, as mentioned below, the unfinished report was probably dusted off, edited, and completed just before staff was to meet with Sec. Napolitano, again as referenced below.

Whether or not the timing of that meeting or the subsequent leak of the document had something to do with the TEA Parties is something you'd have to ask Sec. Napolitano about. But I doubt it.

Do I think that she should apologize for the document? Yes. The report does paint too broad a picture of right-wing extremism, even if that was not the intentions of its authors.

And her apology, which I've reproduced below, is one of those non-apology apologies that politicians are so good at giving.

Millions of Americans took offense at the vaguely worded warnings from the DHS. Ironically, many conspiracy theorists on the extreme fringes of the Right now have further "confirmation" that the Obama Administration is out to get them and so the document itself may actually fuel the fire of extremism.

To my friends at the DHS: Next time, watch how you word things. Even if it is common practice simply to adopt terminology from academia, don't do it. Academics can be such meatheads sometimes. Trust me, I know. I'm one of them.

Here's the DHS presser, as promised.

STATEMENT BY U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY SECRETARY JANET NAPOLITANO ON THE THREAT OF RIGHT-WING EXTREMISM

The primary mission of this department is to prevent terrorist attacks on our nation. The document on right-wing extremism sent last week by this department’s Office of Intelligence and Analysis is one in an ongoing series of assessments to provide situational awareness to state, local and tribal law enforcement agencies on the phenomenon and trends of violent radicalization in the United States. I was briefed on the general topic, which is one that struck a nerve as someone personally involved in the Timothy McVeigh prosecution.

Let me be very clear: we monitor the risks of violent extremism taking root here in the United States. We don’t have the luxury of focusing our efforts on one group; we must protect the country from terrorism whether foreign or homegrown, and regardless of the ideology that motivates its violence.

We are on the lookout for criminal and terrorist activity but we do not – nor will we ever – monitor ideology or political beliefs. We take seriously our responsibility to protect the civil rights and liberties of the American people, including subjecting our activities to rigorous oversight from numerous internal and external sources.

I am aware of the letter from American Legion National Commander Rehbein, and my staff has already contacted him to set up a meeting next week once I return from travel. I will tell him face-to-face that we honor veterans at DHS and employ thousands across the department, up to and including the Deputy Secretary.

As the department responsible for protecting the homeland, DHS will continue to work with its state and local partners to prevent and protect against the potential threat to the United States associated with any rise in violent extremist activity.