Skip to main content

DHS: The Keystone Cops strike again...

Now we are discovering that the infamous DHS report on rightwing extremism was preceded by an equally dismal product (which DHS top brass actually recalled before it was leaked) titled Domestic Extremism Lexicon.

This is not so much a report, as a handy-dandy glossary for law enforcement officials to know what to call the different varieties of dangerous violent extremists.

In it, you get defintions of animal-rights extremists, anti-abortion extremists, black separatist extremists, yada yada yada.

First, I could have reduced the content of this report to one sentence:

Any group which advocates or conducts violent acts in pursuit of its political/ideological goals may be characterized as extremist.

But that would be too easy. Instead, the report goes into detail that would often be amusing if it were not potentially alarming.

Take the definition of Racist skinheads:

(U//FOUO) Groups or individuals who combine white supremacist ideology with a skinhead ethos in which “white power” music plays a central role. Dress may include a shaved head or very short hair, jeans, thin suspenders, combat boots or Doc Martens, a bomber jacket (sometimes with racist symbols), and tattoos of Nazi-like emblems. Some are abandoning these stereotypical identifiers.


To be honest, the first thing I thought upon reading this description is that I really hope WPHT talk-radio host Michael Smerconish (who shaves his head) does not wear jeans or Doc Martens.

Then I thought, this is really useful, because it essentially says, skinheads dress this way, except when they don't.

It can be argued that this report indicates that DHS is not targeting rightwing extremists for political reasons, and there is some merit to that interpretation.

On the other hand, what really bothers me about this report is that it is amateurish and virtually useless to law enforcement agencies. It contains no group names, no web links to other sources, no indication of geographic areas of operation, no estimates of numbers ... nothing of conceivable practial use.

Want to know the truth? If DHS had simply out-sourced reportage on violent extremism to the Southern Poverty Law Center, it would have saved money and provided law enforcement with an actual, useable intelligence reference.

The disquieting truth is that the creation of DHS was a gigantic mistake. Violent extremism (whether domestic or Islamic) is decentralized, opportunistic, tactically flexible, and has a face that is constantly changing.

So what did we do to combat it? We created the largest bureaucracy in American history, centralized law enforcement authority, and staffed the department itself with hacks and cast-offs from the Departments of Justice, Labor, FEMA, etc.

Let me be clear: this is a problem that the Obama administration and Security Czar Napolitano have inherited rather than created, but there is no reasonable expectation that we will see major structural changes to DHS.

And if the recently released reports are any indicator of the overall quality of work at our primary homeland security agency, government has once again lived down to my expectations.

Comments

Delaware Watch said…
"Dress may include a shaved head or very short hair, jeans, thin suspenders, combat boots or Doc Martens, a bomber jacket (sometimes with racist symbols), and tattoos of Nazi-like emblems."

Sounds like a dress code (what not to wear" for high school.

"Some are abandoning these stereotypical identifiers."

This is ominous. So not only is anyone sporting the above attire suspect, so is potentially anyone who doesn't.

We are all potential suspects now.
G Rex said…
I see a skinhead right now! That's weird, he's smoking a pipe.

"Dress may include a shaved head or very short hair, jeans, thin suspenders, combat boots or Doc Martens, a bomber jacket..."

Funny thing is that's exactly how I dressed in college, even in my National Security Policy Studies class.

Popular posts from this blog

A Libertarian Martin Luther King Jr. Day post

In which we travel into interesting waters . . . (for a fairly long trip, so be prepared) Dr. King's 1968 book, Where do we go from here:  chaos or community? , is profound in that it criticizes anti-poverty programs for their piecemeal approach, as John Schlosberg of the Center for a Stateless Society  [C4SS] observes: King noted that the antipoverty programs of the time “proceeded from a premise that poverty is a consequence of multiple evils,” with separate programs each dedicated to individual issues such as education and housing. Though in his view “none of these remedies in itself is unsound,” they “all have a fatal disadvantage” of being “piecemeal,” with their implementation having “fluctuated at the whims of legislative bodies” or been “entangled in bureaucratic stalling.”   The result is that “fragmentary and spasmodic reforms have failed to reach down to the profoundest needs of the poor.” Such single-issue approaches also have “another common failing — ...

More of This, Please

Or perhaps I should say, "Less of this one, please." Or how about just, "None of them. Ever again. Please....For the Love of God." Sunshine State Poll: Grayson In Trouble The latest Sunshine State/VSS poll shows controversial Democratic incumbent Alan Grayson trailing former state Senator Dan Webster by seven points, 43 percent to 36 percent. A majority of respondents -- 51 percent -- disapprove of the job that Grayson is doing. Independents have an unfavorable view of him as well, by a 36/47 margin. Grayson has ignored the conventional wisdom that a freshman should be a quiet member who carefully tends to the home fires. The latest controversy involves his " Taliban Dan " advertisement, where he explicitly compares his opponent to the Taliban, and shows a clip of Webster paraphrasing Ephesians 5:22 -- "wives, submit to your husbands." An unedited version of the clip shows that Webster was actually suggesting that husba...

A reply to Salon's R. J. Eskrow, and his 11 stupid questions about Libertarians

Posts here have been in short supply as I have been living life and trying to get a campaign off the ground. But "11 questions to see if Libertarians are hypocrites" by R. J. Eskrow, picked up at Salon , was just so freaking lame that I spent half an hour answering them. In the end (but I'll leave it to your judgment), it is not that Libertarians or Libertarian theory looks hypocritical, but that the best that can be said for Mr. Eskrow is that he doesn't have the faintest clue what he's talking about. That's ok, because even ill-informed attacks by people like this make an important point:  Libertarian ideas (as opposed to Conservative ideas, which are completely different) are making a comeback as the dynamic counterpoint to "politics as usual," and so every hack you can imagine must be dragged out to refute them. Ergo:  Mr. Eskrow's 11 questions, with answers: 1.       Are unions, political parties, elections, and ...