Will Napolitano take a dive

BrainGlutton · December 30, 2009, 3:31am

It is pure bullshit to say, as the Washington Times does in the linked article, that the report in question “lists returning veterans among terrorist risks to the U.S.” It does list militias and “patriot” groups as terrorist risks, which they are, and returning veterans as a potential recruiting ground for such, which, sadly, they are; it would be dishonest to deny it. Didn’t we cover all this back in April? The RW position was all lies then and it’s all lies now.

And it remains a relevant issue. Southern Poverty Law Center Report: Return of the Militias:

The 1990s saw the rise and fall of the virulently antigovernment “Patriot” movement, made up of paramilitary militias, tax defiers and so-called “sovereign citizens.” Sparked by a combination of anger at the federal government and the deaths of political dissenters at Ruby Ridge, Idaho, and Waco, Texas, the movement took off in the middle of the decade and continued to grow even after 168 people were left dead by the 1995 bombing of Oklahoma City’s federal building — an attack, the deadliest ever by domestic U.S. terrorists, carried out by men steeped in the rhetoric and conspiracy theories of the militias. In the years that followed, a truly remarkable number of criminal plots came out of the movement. But by early this century, the Patriots had largely faded, weakened by systematic prosecutions, aversion to growing violence, and a new, highly conservative president.

They’re back. Almost a decade after largely disappearing from public view, right-wing militias, ideologically driven tax defiers and sovereign citizens are appearing in large numbers around the country. “Paper terrorism” — the use of property liens and citizens’ “courts” to harass enemies — is on the rise. And once-popular militia conspiracy theories are making the rounds again, this time accompanied by nativist theories about secret Mexican plans to “reconquer” the American Southwest. One law enforcement agency has found 50 new militia training groups — one of them made up of present and former police officers and soldiers. Authorities around the country are reporting a worrying uptick in Patriot activities and propaganda. “This is the most significant growth we’ve seen in 10 to 12 years,” says one. “All it’s lacking is a spark. I think it’s only a matter of time before you see threats and violence.”

A key difference this time is that the federal government — the entity that almost the entire radical right views as its primary enemy — is headed by a black man. That, coupled with high levels of non-white immigration and a decline in the percentage of whites overall in America, has helped to racialize the Patriot movement, which in the past was not primarily motivated by race hate. One result has been a remarkable rash of domestic terror incidents since the presidential campaign, most of them related to anger over the election of Barack Obama. At the same time, ostensibly mainstream politicians and media pundits have helped to spread Patriot and related propaganda, from conspiracy theories about a secret network of U.S. concentration camps to wholly unsubstantiated claims about the president’s country of birth.

This is a real threat which it would be irresponsible for DHS to ignore.

Jophiel · December 30, 2009, 3:40am

I fail to see how supporting the findings of a report commissioned by the previous administration counts as “focusing her attention” for the last 11 months.

Ravenman · December 30, 2009, 4:44am

Using flickster’s logic, it might be okay to say that the Klan tries to recruit white people, but not that white people may be targeted for recruitment to the Klan, because then you’re calling all white people racists.

Therefore, it might be okay to say that right wing extremist militias may try to recruit veterans, but not that veterans may be targeted for recruitment to right wing extremist militias.

That is probably the most politically correct thing I have ever heard. Thanks, flickster, for taking such a sensitive view towards the feelings of others. Is there a better term to use other than right wing militia? Perhaps free association of independently-minded, armed, and non-moderate-Americans?

flickster · December 30, 2009, 5:09am

Not so fast - can’t just blame this on some schlep screener

Obama: US intel had info ahead of airliner attack

“Had this critical information been shared, it could have been compiled with other intelligence, and a fuller, clearer picture of the suspect would have emerged,” Obama said in a brief statement to the media. “The warning signs would have triggered red flags, and the suspect would have never been allowed to board that plane for America.”

Officials said Obama chose to make a second statement in as many days because a morning briefing offered him new information in the government’s possession about the suspect’s activities and thinking, along with al-Qaida’s plans.

Obama’s statement showed more fire than he had shown previously about the lapses that allowed the bombing attack to take place and came after his homeland security secretary, Janet Napolitano, had to backtrack on an assertion that “the system worked” in the Detroit airliner scare. Some have criticized Obama for not addressing the issue publicly sooner.

Question is, will the sword they give her to fall on be sharp or dull?

Kimmy_Gibbler · December 30, 2009, 5:42am

Hold it, flickster, let’s not get ahead of ourselves. How come you’re not answering the request for specific examples of how DHS has been focused on those things you list in the OP? I’m sure you agree that not repudiating a factually accurate report doesn’t fit that bill. So, what is it that Napolitano and the DHS have done that does?

BrainGlutton · December 30, 2009, 6:33am

I suggest “violence-empowered victims of statism.”

mswas · December 30, 2009, 6:34am

Haha, that’s a good one.

The_Flying_Dutchman · December 30, 2009, 6:35am

QFT

Magiver · December 30, 2009, 7:05am

I never understood her appointment. She has nothing on her resume that suggests Homeland Security. When I see her avoiding the word “terrorism” in a sentence it makes me doubt her ability to carry out the job.

Was her governorship in jeopardy that was benefited by a party replacement?

BrainGlutton · December 30, 2009, 7:18am

Neither did Tom Ridge. But Ridge, Chertoff, Napolitano, all were prosecutors at some point in their careers. Apparently that’s the established qualification.

Whack-a-Mole · December 30, 2009, 8:06am

Well, what are the requirements for that job? To my mind you need an administrator and political wonk. She is that. Kinda like the head of Boeing is not an aerospace engineer.

As for her governorship being in jeopardy it was but only because Arizona governors have term limits. She was approaching the end of that (another year or two…I forget).

From people I know who live in Arizona (and whose opinion I find value in) she is a smart person and was a pretty good governor.

Magiver · December 30, 2009, 10:08am

Tom Ridge was criticized by Republicans for his lack of any background in the field. Chertoff had a background in security legislation.

Ravenman · December 30, 2009, 12:39pm

Well done, sir.

mswas · December 30, 2009, 2:06pm

She also lead the charge in some cross-border immigration stuff as Governor of Arizona. I think part of the point was to throw a bone to Conservatives who cared a lot about border and immigration issues. To show Obama wouldn’t be soft on immigration.

Enderw24 · December 30, 2009, 2:19pm

The thing about Napolitano is that everything was fine when we scooped through her luscious chocolate and intriguing vanilla. But it all went to crap when we hit her strawberry center. Nobody likes the strawberry.

Sinaijon · December 30, 2009, 2:28pm

This thing is starting to snow ball a bit. Every detail that comes out seems to indicate a bigger and bigger systematic failure. How many more red flags can a guy have?

WarmNPrickly · December 30, 2009, 3:40pm

What changes has Napolitano made to the system that allowed this failed attack to occur?

Magiver · December 30, 2009, 4:04pm

The only thing we know about her is that she can’t use the word “terrorism” in a sentence. It makes her look like a PC wonk. For her to come out after the incident and say all is in order is just a foot-in-mouth bit of fluff that can be overlooked. On the other hand the President has had to interrupt his vacation a couple of times to restate the seriousness of the situation.

Marley23 · December 30, 2009, 4:11pm

No, and in fact, she was replaced by a Republican because Arizona does not have lieutenant governors. (The state Secretary of State takes over if the governor leaves.) But Napolitano’s term would have ended in January 2011, and she could not have run for re-election due to term limits. The border thing probably helped her security credentials and she was an early supporter of Obama’s - I think she was also considered a candidate for Attorney General.

All that said, no, I still don’t think she’s going anywhere.

WarmNPrickly · December 30, 2009, 4:22pm

I agree. She’s not going anywhere. There is no reasonable way to connect this failure to the Obama administration.