Nat’l Security Plan Focuses on Homegrown Terror

[Defender]

I almost don't believe this, but the source is good. This will surely give anyone that already thinks the government is up to no good confirmation of their fears...like this is the way a radical limitation of our freedoms begins...food for thought.

Nat

President Obama's administration will unveil a new security strategy Thursday that places the focus on homegrown extremists and steps back from the Bush era's "war on terror" terminology.

The administration is also likely to stress that U.S. military superiority must be matched by muscular diplomacy and all the tools of statecraft, from development aid to intelligence gathering.

The new strategy comes amid a huge U.S. foreign military commitment in Iraq and Afghanistan, new terror threats and a world destabilized by the worst economic meltdown since the 1930s.

It will be closely studied for signs Obama has adjusted his policy of offering dialogue to U.S. foes such as Iran and North Korea, which has yet to bear fruit, and will come against a backdrop of his bedrock nuclear non-proliferation effort.

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton will make a major speech Thursday at the Brookings Institution, laying out diplomatic and military aspects of the strategy, and national security adviser James Jones was due to weigh in later.

For the first time, the government strategy document, which lays down a doctrine for national security policy -- and can impact defense spending -- is likely to focus attention on the threat posed by homegrown extremists.

Following a spate of attacks or near misses -- at the Fort Hood, Texas, Army base last year and in Times Square, New York, this month -- the administration appears to have reframed the matrix of threats to U.S. national security.

"We've seen an increasing number of individuals here in the United States become captivated by extremist activities or causes," said John Brennan, deputy national security adviser for counte-terrorism and homeland security.

"The president's national security strategy explicitly recognizes the threat to the United States posed by individuals radicalized here at home," Brennan said Wednesday at the Center for Strategic and International Studies.

"We've seen individuals, including U.S. citizens, armed with their U.S. passport, travel easily to terrorist safe havens and return to America, their deadly plans disrupted by coordinated intelligence and law enforcement." Faisal Shahzad, the top suspect in the failed car bombing in Times Square on May 1, is a naturalized U.S. citizen, who allegedly became radicalized after years in the United States and received training by Pakistani extremists.

Maj. Nidal Hasan, an American-born Army psychiatrist who is the only suspect in the killing of 13 people at Fort Hood last year, was allegedly drawn to radical thought while serving in the armed forces.

The new strategy comes as an unclassified Department of Homeland Security memo was revealed to show the number of attempted domestic attacks in the past nine months surpassed the number of attempts during any other previous one-year period.

The DHS assessment, dated May 21 and reported on the CNN website late Wednesday, urged authorities to "operate under the premise that other operatives are in the country and could advance plotting with little or no warning."

Brennan said that "unprecedented" pressure placed on al-Qaida since Obama took office has severely limited the group's ability to move, raise funds, recruit and carry out attacks.

But he said the network was now relying on poorly trained "foot soldiers" who might be able to slip past U.S. defenses because they do not fit the conventional profile of a terrorist.

"This is the new phase of the terrorist threat, no longer limited to coordinated, sophisticated, 9/11 style attacks," Brennan said.

"As our enemy adapts and evolves their tactics, so must we constantly adapt and evolve ours."

Brennan also appeared to deliver the White House's most explicit rejection yet of "war on terror" terminology favored by the former administration of George W. Bush, which drove U.S. foreign policy for years after the 9/11 attacks.

"The president's strategy is absolutely clear about the threat we face. Our enemy is not terrorism because terrorism is but a tactic.

"Our enemy is not terror because terror is a state of mind and, as Americans, we refuse to live in fear.

"Nor do we describe our enemy as jihadists or Islamists because jihad is holy struggle, a legitimate tenet of Islam meaning to purify oneself or one's community."

Brennan said that Obama envisaged using the full arsenal of diplomatic, military, developmental, law enforcement, intelligence and homeland security powers available to a U.S. president.

[Guest SUNTZU]

I almost don't believe this, but the source is good. This will surely give anyone that already thinks the government is up to no good confirmation of their fears...like this is the way a radical limitation of our freedoms begins...food for thought.

Nat

President Obama's administration will unveil a new security strategy Thursday that places the focus on homegrown extremists and steps back from the Bush era's "war on terror" terminology.

The administration is also likely to stress that U.S. military superiority must be matched by muscular diplomacy and all the tools of statecraft, from development aid to intelligence gathering.

The new strategy comes amid a huge U.S. foreign military commitment in Iraq and Afghanistan, new terror threats and a world destabilized by the worst economic meltdown since the 1930s.

It will be closely studied for signs Obama has adjusted his policy of offering dialogue to U.S. foes such as Iran and North Korea, which has yet to bear fruit, and will come against a backdrop of his bedrock nuclear non-proliferation effort.

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton will make a major speech Thursday at the Brookings Institution, laying out diplomatic and military aspects of the strategy, and national security adviser James Jones was due to weigh in later.

For the first time, the government strategy document, which lays down a doctrine for national security policy -- and can impact defense spending -- is likely to focus attention on the threat posed by homegrown extremists.

Following a spate of attacks or near misses -- at the Fort Hood, Texas, Army base last year and in Times Square, New York, this month -- the administration appears to have reframed the matrix of threats to U.S. national security.

"We've seen an increasing number of individuals here in the United States become captivated by extremist activities or causes," said John Brennan, deputy national security adviser for counte-terrorism and homeland security.

"The president's national security strategy explicitly recognizes the threat to the United States posed by individuals radicalized here at home," Brennan said Wednesday at the Center for Strategic and International Studies.

"We've seen individuals, including U.S. citizens, armed with their U.S. passport, travel easily to terrorist safe havens and return to America, their deadly plans disrupted by coordinated intelligence and law enforcement." Faisal Shahzad, the top suspect in the failed car bombing in Times Square on May 1, is a naturalized U.S. citizen, who allegedly became radicalized after years in the United States and received training by Pakistani extremists.

Maj. Nidal Hasan, an American-born Army psychiatrist who is the only suspect in the killing of 13 people at Fort Hood last year, was allegedly drawn to radical thought while serving in the armed forces.

The new strategy comes as an unclassified Department of Homeland Security memo was revealed to show the number of attempted domestic attacks in the past nine months surpassed the number of attempts during any other previous one-year period.

The DHS assessment, dated May 21 and reported on the CNN website late Wednesday, urged authorities to "operate under the premise that other operatives are in the country and could advance plotting with little or no warning."

Brennan said that "unprecedented" pressure placed on al-Qaida since Obama took office has severely limited the group's ability to move, raise funds, recruit and carry out attacks.

But he said the network was now relying on poorly trained "foot soldiers" who might be able to slip past U.S. defenses because they do not fit the conventional profile of a terrorist.

"This is the new phase of the terrorist threat, no longer limited to coordinated, sophisticated, 9/11 style attacks," Brennan said.

"As our enemy adapts and evolves their tactics, so must we constantly adapt and evolve ours."

Brennan also appeared to deliver the White House's most explicit rejection yet of "war on terror" terminology favored by the former administration of George W. Bush, which drove U.S. foreign policy for years after the 9/11 attacks.

"The president's strategy is absolutely clear about the threat we face. Our enemy is not terrorism because terrorism is but a tactic.

"Our enemy is not terror because terror is a state of mind and, as Americans, we refuse to live in fear.

"Nor do we describe our enemy as jihadists or Islamists because jihad is holy struggle, a legitimate tenet of Islam meaning to purify oneself or one's community."

Brennan said that Obama envisaged using the full arsenal of diplomatic, military, developmental, law enforcement, intelligence and homeland security powers available to a U.S. president.

I remember a DHS report on who .gov considers an extremist.

[Guest 6.8 AR]

That source is good. Beck has done a couple of shows about this stuff. Remember when Janet Napolitano slipped it out about being concerned about soldiers and "right winged extremists"?

They won't talk about muslim camps in America, but they will about us.

It'll get worse, just wait. More of that fundamental transforming for us.

[Guest 1010011010]

I suppose a focus on homegrown terrorism might be necessary to the security of a free state, too.

[Guest SUNTZU]

I suppose a focus on homegrown terrorism might be necessary to the security of a free state, too.

I suppose we have already seen evidence of their focus.

[Guest 1010011010]

I suppose we have already seen evidence of their focus.

I'm observing that "National Security" and "security of a free state" are not necessarily the same thing.

To what evidence are you referring?

[Guest SUNTZU]

DHS Report on Right Wing Extremism

[Guest 1010011010]

DHS Report on Right Wing Extremism

Far be it from me to not want to be associated with racist hate groups jealously guarding their white privilege from the brown people while trying to undermine privacy and religious rights in an attempt to create a de facto repressive theocracy, but it looks like the only obvious recommendation being followed in that report is for the government to obey the Second Amendment.

What exactly is objectionable?

[Guest SUNTZU]

Make your sentence longer. You seem to be a veteran based on the soldier icon under your name. Welcome to being watched, you crazy extremist. Where were you that you missed all of the constant fear of right wing extremists at Town Hall meetings and that Tea Party people are racists and extremists?

How broad of a paintbrush are you willing to accept, Numbers?

[Guest Lester Weevils]

Far be it from me to not want to be associated with racist hate groups jealously guarding their white privilege from the brown people while trying to undermine privacy and religious rights in an attempt to create a de facto repressive theocracy, but it looks like the only obvious recommendation being followed in that report is for the government to obey the Second Amendment.

What exactly is objectionable?

Hi 1010011010 (great handle by the way).

Here is another goodun, the MIAC report--

MIAC Strategic Report - The Modern Militia Movement | Scribd

I distilled those two docs into the classic form of Jeff Foxworthy's "You might be a Redneck if--"

Apologies that this is so long and tedious. The documents just list so many characteristics of violent rightwing extremists.

I neither endorse or condemn any of the following beliefs. The list is only offered in case it may be useful for identifying violent rightwing extremists using the official government specs.

If you are a veteran, you might be a violent rightwing extremist.

If you belong to a group which supports law enforcement and also does community service related work, you might be a violent rightwing extremist.

If you belong to a group which lobbys government officials or confronts corruption, you might be a violent rightwing extremist.

If you belong to the Constitutional Party, you might be a violent rightwing extremist.

If you belong to the Libertarian Party, you might be a violent rightwing extremist.

If you contributed to Ron Paul's Campaign for Liberty, you might be a violent rightwing extremist.

If you supported Ron Paul, Chuck Baldwin, or Bob Barr, you might be a violent rightwing extremist.

If you have a "Don't Tread on Me" flag or bumper sticker, you might be a violent rightwing extremist.

If you oppose new firearms restrictions and weapons bans, you might be a violent rightwing extremist.

If you opposed the Brady law, you might be a violent rightwing extremist.

If you oppose mandatory firearms registration, you might be a violent rightwing extremist.

If you suspect the federal government might sometime confiscate firearms, you might be a violent rightwing extremist.

If you attend gun shows, you might be a violent rightwing extremist.

If you practice Marksmanship, you might be a violent rightwing extremist.

If you oppose the Ammunition Accountability Act, you might be a violent rightwing extremist.

If you think the federal government might go broke, you might be a violent rightwing extremist.

If you support a Balanced Budget Amendment, you might be a violent rightwing extremist.

If you suspect the Federal Reserve does more harm than good, you might be a violent rightwing extremist.

If you agree with "End the Fed", you are almost certainly a violent rightwing extremist.

If you oppose Federal Income Tax, you might be a violent rightwing extremist.

If you think illegal immigration hurts the economy, you might be a violent rightwing extremist.

If you suspect illegal immigrants reduce USA workingman's wages, you might be a violent rightwing extremist.

If you oppose illegal immigration amnesty, you might be a violent rightwing extremist.

If you wish the Feds would enforce immigration law and protect the border, you might be a violent rightwing extremist.

If you think free trade agreements are not in the USA's best interest, you might be a violent rightwing extremist.

If you think the USA has lost stature in the world, you might be a violent rightwing extremist.

If you oppose UN policies, you might be a violent rightwing extremist.

If you think the USA industrial base has been eroded, you might be a violent rightwing extremist.

If you think the USA has excessive debt to China, you might be a violent rightwing extremist.

If globalism bothers you, you might be a violent rightwing extremist.

If you don't want a North American Union, you might be a violent rightwing extremist.

If you think the govt mishandled Waco and Ruby Ridge, you might be a violent rightwing extremist.

If you oppose abortion, you might be a violent rightwing extremist.

If you dislike Communist regimes and don't want communism in the USA, you might be a violent rightwing extremist.

If you think NORTHCOM violates Posse Comitatus Act, you might be a violent rightwing extremist.

If you oppose a Universal Service Program, you might be a violent rightwing extremist.

If you oppose a new Civilian Defense Force organization, you might be a violent rightwing extremist.

If you are a States Rights advocate, you might be a violent rightwing extremist.

If you distrust the IRS, ATF, FBI, or FEMA, you might be a violent rightwing extremist.

If you don't want the government infringing civil liberties, you might be a violent rightwing extremist.

If you think it is possible we could experience martial law, civil strife, or suspension of the Constitution, you might be a violent rightwing extremist.

If you stockpile food in case of emergency, you might be a violent rightwing extremist.

If you buy extra ammo because it is in short supply, you might be a violent rightwing extremist.

If you buy a gun because it might later be outlawed, you might be a violent rightwing extremist.

If you are concerned with computer security and encrypt files, you might be a violent rightwing extremist.

If you don't like RFID chip tracking schemes, you might be a violent rightwing extremist.

If you oppose GPS tracking of citizens, you might be a violent rightwing extremist.

If you are a shortwave ham operator, you might be a violent rightwing extremist.

If you discuss ANY of this on internet forums, yahoo groups, blogs, or social networking sites, you might be a violent rightwing extremist.

[Guest 1010011010]

Where were you that you missed all of the constant fear of right wing extremists at Town Hall meetings and that Tea Party people are racists and extremists?

Sure, there are people that feel any change to the status quo is a threat to their wealth and power. For a long time the party of Hope and Change was also the party of making sure we didn't have a hope of changing anything by denying themselves the tools required. And the party of maintaining the accrual of wealth and power to the existing elites has supporters of the Second Amendment in their corner and under control.

As the disintegration of the Republican half of the twoparty picked up steam under the added insult of Sarah Palin, it really looked like the old systems of control could fail. You had MoveOn and Taxed Enough Already getting together to protest fiscal irresponsibility in Washington. You have an image of a black guy with an AR on his shoulder protesting health care.

Something had to be done! And the combined Endless September efforts of Fox News and the smear campaigns by other media channels has pretty effectively halted the progress of the tea Party.

You can make all these observations without being the least bit bothered that Obama is black or trying to say it's a sinister plot by a cabal of mulitnational Jewish bankers. The DHS report simply notes that the type of people who will be inspired act out in violence against the state are likely to be recruited with those sorts of stories.

How broad of a paintbrush are you willing to accept, Numbers?

Very narrow. I acknowledge that maintenance of liberty requires one to accept an inherent lack of security and that it should be expected that if a government does not react to resolve the issues raised in peaceful protests that violent protest is the next step in restoring government to its proper place subordinate to the people.

[Guest 1010011010]

Apologies that this is so long and tedious. The documents just list so many characteristics of violent rightwing extremists.

It's not as if the people preparing the report have any control over the interests and behaviour of violent rightwing extremists. They describe the characteristics of the group.

That these characteristics overlap with other groups that are not violent, rightwing, and/or extremist isn't surprising or particularly interesting.

But examples of agencies infiltrating groups to monitor and direct their behaviour are disturbing whether it's an FBI agent trying to buy RPGs from another FBI agent while a few vaguely ethnic Muslims have reluctantly come along for the ride or if it's a DHS mole at a weekly meeting of a liberal book club taking two cookies rather than just one or if they're sticking their tentacles into a group you might agree with at some level.

If you're only getting upset because they're finally coming after you, you should probably have read more history.

[Guest SUNTZU]

You can make all these observations without being the least bit bothered that Obama is black or trying to say it's a sinister plot by a cabal of mulitnational Jewish bankers. The DHS report simply notes that the type of people who will be inspired act out in violence against the state are likely to be recruited with those sorts of stories.

No, it "simply" does not. Its politics. Look to the head of DHS, despite her saying its not about politics, it falls right in line with the talking points in the media. Fear, fear, fear, hate, hate, hate. That report was pointed at conservatives and salted with white supremacy groups, racists, disgruntled veterans, bad economy, right wing is going to do something be afraid sorry it leaked language.

You have Bill Clinton talking about how the rage filled rhetoric of the TEA party is similar to the rhetoric that led to the Oklahoma City bombing. Bull****, 666, bull****.

Nancy Pelosi's comments about "frightening rhetoric and violence" that is similar to San Francisco in the 70's.

Nope, no way that report was about politics. Janet Napolitano is as neutral as Sweden.

[Guest Lester Weevils]

It's not as if the people preparing the report have any control over the interests and behaviour of violent rightwing extremists. They describe the characteristics of the group.

That these characteristics overlap with other groups that are not violent, rightwing, and/or extremist isn't surprising or particularly interesting.

But examples of agencies infiltrating groups to monitor and direct their behaviour are disturbing whether it's an FBI agent trying to buy RPGs from another FBI agent while a few vaguely ethnic Muslims have reluctantly come along for the ride or if it's a DHS mole at a weekly meeting of a liberal book club taking two cookies rather than just one or if they're sticking their tentacles into a group you might agree with at some level.

If you're only getting upset because they're finally coming after you, you should probably have read more history.

Hi 1010011010

Re Paragraph 3: I know nothing of substance of what you speak and therefore can't intelligently comment.

Re Paragraph 4: If the word "you" refers to "me", then you are making at least three blind assumptions <g>.

Re Paragraphs 1 and 2: AFAIK, it is not illegal to be leftwing or rightwing or any other wing (if you like a higher-dimensional political orientation vector space such as David Nolan's 2-D chart).

AFAIK, it is not illegal to be extreme either.

It is illegal to be violent, regardless of other characteristics. So it seems to me that a 'suspect checklist' is quite risky regardless of the contents of the checklist.

DHS was a bad idea, and I expect the experiment to turn out badly before it is over. Regardless of who is in charge and regardless of the contents of the checklists.

[Guest 6.8 AR]

The people writing that report obviously had an agenda.

Looks political enough to me.

[Guest gts]

Great discussion going on here.

Does anyone remember these words:

When, in the course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the laws of nature and of nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. That whenever any form of government becomes destructive to these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shown that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such government, and to provide new guards for their future security. --Such has been the patient sufferance of these colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former systems of government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute tyranny over these states. To prove this, let facts be submitted to a candid world.

If you believe or adhere to the above, then, according to our current government, whether Republican or Democrat controlled, you are considered a violent extremist.

IMHO, the fallacy within the Second Amendment crowd is they focus on a the secondary clause within the second amendment while ignoring the primary intent.

Please allow me to explain:

The second amendment reads, "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

The movement has solely focused on the words, "the right to keep and bare arms shall not be infringed." This is the secondary clause of the amendment. The primary clause is, "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State,"

Primarily, we the people of the United States possess the right to form a well regulated militia. This was considered by our founders as being necessary to the security of a free state for,of and by the people. Not the government.

The declaration and establishment of the second amendment was to ensure that we could protect ourselves from, and abolish in need be, a despot, usurping, and destructive government. Which was the sole purpose of the American Revolutionary War.

With that being said, we, as the people of these United States, should be extremely concerned that our government is taking to developing the strategy in the OP. The fact is that people are becoming more and more concerned, and thus becoming more and more active at opposing the despotism. These practices were defined by our founders as being not only righteous, but necessary. We, over the past several years, have witnessed a moving within government to marginalize those people and prevent the practice thereof.

We are to be protecting the free state of the people, not the free state of government.

Believing this way is the intent of our founders, and what at our current government is trying to prevent and criminalize.

[Guest Caveman]

Great discussion going on here.

Does anyone remember these words:

If you believe or adhere to the above, then, according to our current government, whether Republican or Democrat controlled, you are considered a violent extremist.

IMHO, the fallacy within the Second Amendment crowd is they focus on a the secondary clause within the second amendment while ignoring the primary intent.

Please allow me to explain:

The second amendment reads, "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

The movement has solely focused on the words, "the right to keep and bare arms shall not be infringed." This is the secondary clause of the amendment. The primary clause is, "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State,"

Primarily, we the people of the United States possess the right to form a well regulated militia. This was considered by our founders as being necessary to the security of a free state for,of and by the people. Not the government.

The declaration and establishment of the second amendment was to ensure that we could protect ourselves from, and abolish in need be, a despot, usurping, and destructive government. Which was the sole purpose of the American Revolutionary War.

With that being said, we, as the people of these United States, should be extremely concerned that our government is taking to developing the strategy in the OP. The fact is that people are becoming more and more concerned, and thus becoming more and more active at opposing the despotism. These practices were defined by our founders as being not only righteous, but necessary. We, over the past several years, have witnessed a moving within government to marginalize those people and prevent the practice thereof.

We are to be protecting the free state of the people, not the free state of government.

Believing this way is the intent of our founders, and what at our current government is trying to prevent and criminalize.

Well written and +1

[Mike.357]

all the Rights named in the BoR are directed at individuals, it makes no sense that the second one is aimed at a group.

The founding fathers believed in the individual right of bearing arms for self defense, it takes very little research to learn their mindset on that. I have read numerous bits where they went armed possessing pocket pistols that were concealed.

I also read a bit about a night at a bar in the 1700's, some ruffian came in and attempted to rob the patrons at gun point. He was shot like 28 times by the people in the bar. So i am also pretty sure they had no problem with being armed and drinking. HA

[Guest gts]

all the Rights named in the BoR are directed at individuals, it makes no sense that the second one is aimed at a group.

The founding fathers believed in the individual right of bearing arms for self defense, it takes very little research to learn their mindset on that. I have read numerous bits where they went armed possessing pocket pistols that were concealed.

Mike.357,

I am having difficulty understanding the point you are making. I am asking for some clarification.

1> Are you saying that the people of the United States have no right to form a militia (i.e. group)?

2> Are you saying that the second amendment only gives an individual the right to defend his/herself?

[Mike.357]

I believe the second reserves the right for individuals to be armed ( pretty much however they see fit). And in addition to using the arms for individual self defense that people will also make themselves available as soldiers in a militia should the need arise.

[Guest gts]

I believe the second reserves the right for individuals to be armed ( pretty much however they see fit). And in addition to using the arms for individual self defense that people will also make themselves available as soldiers in a militia should the need arise.

Okay, I will try to make this the last questions.

1> Who is the militia?

2> Did the founders ever fear standing armies and oppressive government, to the point as to declare the need for the militia to secure the free state against such?

[Mike.357]

#1, off the top of my head I can't recall the age specified, but all residents were potentially the militia. I do not believe you have to be a citizen.

# 2 Enemies, foreign and domestic would be why a militia is needed. Domestic could include an oppressive gov't.

I am not sure what you are getting at.

[Guest gts]

#1, off the top of my head I can't recall the age specified, but all residents were potentially the militia. I do not believe you have to be a citizen.

# 2 Enemies, foreign and domestic would be why a militia is needed. Domestic could include an oppressive gov't.

I am not sure what you are getting at.

Not getting at anything. Just wanted see if I misunderstood, and I did.

Thanks.

[Mike.357]

so I passed?

[eapking]

This was a good thread.