Generally what the government has done about right wing terrorism of all kinds is looked the other way as hard as possible until the terrorists do something so spectacular it has to be addressed for PR purposes. And then generally treat them with kid gloves anyway.
I cannot see how any person can construe my post as anything but a direct rebuttal to your multiple claims that resources are finite.
Read my first post again. I did no ranking. I asked how the ranking should be done. Do you deny resources are limited?
Yes. Resources can change. This is a fundamental power of the government.
And if you read my post, I said the priorities of the Federal government go in an order something like that, based on the Administration’s policies. You are not the Federal government.
I should hope that it wouldn’t surprise you, given that it was specifically pointed out in the OP.
What exactly should the federal government do? Holding racist opinions isn’t and can’t be made illegal. Holding racist protests isn’t and can’t be made illegal. Committing acts of terrorism is illegal and is prosecuted by both state and federal governments.
Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk
The government can investigate and monitor activities that are legal.
Not a direct answer to your question, but check out this film made by the War Department in 1947, starting around 2:20. Even way back then, there wasn’t a problem with the government saying bad things about prejudice and racism.
But I’m not suggesting that the Government get into the business of making film reels to show at movie nights for the military. An easy thing to do is have the government support civil rights, rather than pretending that Black Lives Matter is an analog of the KKK. When racial and religious injustice happens, jump on that shit and stomp it out, instead of (like the speaker in the old film) portraying our country as being made up by American Americans and “others.”
Two useful quotes, since there seems to be a lot of assumption of just what the proposed change was in this thread and in general (with my underline added):
quote] The CVE program aims to deter groups or potential lone attackers through community partnerships and educational programs or counter-messaging campaigns in cooperation with companies such as Google (GOOGL.O) and Facebook (FB.O).
[/quote]
It’s never been a law enforcement program. The proposed change in CVE had zero to do with law enforcement efforts. It’s struggled with being effective at doing even it’s small piece in the total fight to do what it’s supposed to do, actually countering violent extremism. For the question in the thread title, it’s mostly a distraction.
That’s why I was asking what is done. I had the impression that some mosques were being monitored if there was suspicion that some of the people there could do damage, it seems reasonable to me to legally monitor whatever gatherings of white racists just to see if anything is going too far.
And I specifically said in the OP I know it is hard to fight, because you can’t make holding abhorrent beliefs illegal. And I don’t know what surveillance can or should be done.
But from what I’ve read here and in other articles, right-wing extremists are behind more attacks than Islamic extremists. And sting operations were used in more Islamic incidents, and more of them were stopped than the right-wing extremists. So it seems like it would make sense to devote a bit more resources to stop right-wing attacks.
Wasn’t Trump supported by far right-wing groups?
Why would he crack down on them?
Do you admit that a loon planning to set off a bomb is a threat to public safety whether he’s a right-wing “militia” loon or an Islamist loon? :smack: [sarcasm]Or do you think, if the Oklahoma bank had been blown up, the survivors/relatives would be saying “at least it wasn’t an Islamist.”[/sarcasm] :rolleyes:
I’m not sure why you are angry and sarcastic. It is a fact that resources are not unlimited. There is more than one threat. See my first post. How do you propose we rank the threats and distribute resources?
You’re saying this while ignoring that resources are not static. It it totally within the power of the government to spend more money on priorities, including law enforcement. If a police department claimed that they had to let rapists go free because they only had enough money to go after robbers, any commonsense government would provide enough resources to investigate both rapes and robbery.
Why are you even arguing about this?
Precisely. Being a racist dickhead, in and of itself, shouldn’t be illegal.
However, the microsecond said racist dickhead attacks someone for being the wrong colour or erects a burning cross on the lawn of someone who has the temerity to be slightly less white than a ream of A4 paper, then the authorities should fuck them up in a legal sense.
It seems like denying First Amendment rights to everyone with a politically incorrect perspective is working pretty well.
Not being static is not the same as unlimited. Now that you know that, do you plan to have real-world discussion or are we done here?
The same thing they do to Muslims and environmentalists. They infiltrate them and seek out those who want to “do something” and provide them with fake means to carry out their fantasies and then bust them. Its not hard to get these Nazi-types to start to talk about violence.
Look at the whole Bundy situation You have paramilitary types armed with assault rifles confronting and backing down federal officers. They seized and held a federal facility for weeks. If these people were Muslims or Black or anybody but White supremacists, they would have been toast. Armed rebellion is taken seriously everywhere. There was enough to send all those people up the river for life multiple times, but they are all walking around free because Republican politicians support them.
These people aren’t screwheads. They are neo-Nazis complete with torch parades like in Germany in the 1930s. Their ideology is hatred and extermination for anyone not like them. Besides, the US government has hundreds of billions to wage nonstop war in a half a dozen countries. The national security state consumes over half the discretionary part of the budget. We can find money to go after these hate mongers.