DHS Lexicon -

[Freedom4all]

The Janet Napolitano-led Department of Homeland Security strikes gold again with a follow-up to its April 7th report casting conservative political positions as indicators of threats to national security.

For your reading pleasure and amusement: DHS Lexicon

Highlights: :blink:

(U) anti-immigration extremism: (U//FOUO) A movement of groups or individuals who are vehemently opposed to illegal immigration, particularly along the U.S. southwest border with Mexico, and who have been known to advocate or engage in criminal activity and plot acts of violence and terrorism to advance their extremist goals. They are highly critical of the U.S. Government’s response to illegal immigration and oppose government programs that are designed to extend “rights†to illegal aliens, such as issuing driver’s licenses or national identification cards and providing in-state tuition, medical benefits, or public education.

and of course the definition of right-wing extremism is back:

(U) rightwing extremism: (U//FOUO) A movement of rightwing groups or individuals who can be broadly divided into those who are primarily hate-oriented, and those who are mainly antigovernment and reject federal authority in favor of state or local authority. This term also may refer to rightwing extremist movements that are dedicated to a single issue, such as opposition to abortion or immigration.

The following demographics get mentioned:

White nationalists
Black nationalists
Mexican nationalists
Puerto Rican nationalists
Violent religious sects
Jewish extremism

But no Muslim extremism? :blink: (Must have been a special request from Obama to omit that one.)

Jewish extremism? Are they kidding? :blink:

Maybe its just more that Jewish extremism really is more of a threat than Muslim extremism? In the Twin Cities, they haven’t seen Jewish immigrants suddenly disappear and conduct suicide bombings in Somalia. Isn’t DHS just a wee bit curious about that?

Some could think that “violent religious sects†covers the Muslims without naming them.

Not exactly:

(U) violent religious sects: (U//FOUO) Religious extremist groups predisposed toward violence. These groups often stockpile weapons, conduct paramilitary training, and share a paranoid interpretation of current world events, which they often associate with the end of the world. They perceive outsiders as enemies or evil influences; display intense xenophobia and strong distrust of the government; and exercise extreme physical or psychological control over group members, sometimes isolating them from society or subjecting them to physical or sexual abuse and harsh initiation practices.

That’s very generic. Why not just name names? The left-wing extremism report focused on specific groups as proven threats; this and the April 7 report give very generic and broad-reaching descriptions. And note that DHS had no problem getting specific enough to mention Jews, Mexicans, blacks, and others.

 

[Freedom4all]

Like I said in another thread, you can't uphold American Ideal by engaging in Un American Activities like those you've pointed out.

Freedom and Liberty know no political party they know neither Left nor Right they are endowed upon us by our Creator.

Yet our Government tries to strip those inalienable rights on a daily basis under the guise of security. So whether it be water boarding jihadists or having a government agency deciding and publishing the names of which citizens groups are potential terrorists makes no difference.

When you take away one persons Freedom and Liberty you diminish all of us whether they be Jihadist or Klansman. Freedom and Liberty are moral absolutes.

What are you talking about? Those "Un American Activities" came from the DHS Lexicon!

 

[Freedom4all]

Like I said in another thread, you can't uphold American Ideal by engaging in Un American Activities like those you've pointed out.

Freedom and Liberty know no political party they know neither Left nor Right they are endowed upon us by our Creator.

Yet our Government tries to strip those inalienable rights on a daily basis under the guise of security. So whether it be water boarding jihadists or having a government agency deciding and publishing the names of which citizens groups are potential terrorists makes no difference.

When you take away one persons Freedom and Liberty you diminish all of us whether they be Jihadist or Klansman. Freedom and Liberty are moral absolutes.

Are you actually trying to say that Jihadists, hell bent on our destruction should enjoy our freedoms and liberties? Thats mighty accommodating of you. Allah would be so proud.

 

[Freedom4all]

If the Jihadist is a US citizen then yes they are afforded the same rights as any race baiting KKK moron.

If a Jihadist is caught and tried in this country he has all of the legal rights afforded any other defendant in the United States.

This is known as the rule of law and not of men.

DHS's actions IMO are worse then torturing enemy combatants as our own government has decided which citizens are "Government Approved". We saw how well this went at Ruby Ridge and The Branch Davidian's at Waco.

Timothy McVeigh was a home grown terrorist and his views while misguided only became a problem when he acted upon them and he paid with his life just as any Jihadist should if convicted. Hell bent or not the rule of law takes precedence over political expediency regardless of party.

Thats great, but speaks to nothing of the subject of the DHS Lexicon. Or were you just venting off topic?