J-No and DHS being suied

[The_Basseteer]

She got the name "J-No" here in Arizona for vetoing legislation that crossed her desk

From: Ace Of Spades
(http://ace.mu.nu/)
Individuals, Group Sue DHS Over "Rightwing Extremist" Report (http://minx.cc/?post=286103)
—Gabriel Malor

The Thomas Moore Law Center has sued the Department of Homeland Security because of the "Rightwing Extremists" intelligence assessment released last week. The suit is filed on behalf of a pro-life group, an Iraq war veteran, and Michael Savage. All three allege First and Fifth Amendment violations. According to their allegations, the report has a "chilling effect" on protected political speech and subjects them to unequal treatment because of their political beliefs or veteran status. They seek a declaratory judgment, an injunction, and attorney's fees. The fairly short complaint is here (PDF). (http://www.thomasmore.org/downloads/sb_thomasmore/ComplaintAgainstDepartmentofHomelandSecurity.pdf)

Professor Orin Kerr is already making fun of it, calling it a "frivolous" lawsuit (http://volokh.com/posts/1239925036.shtml). (Attorneys can be sanctioned for filing frivolous suits.) Kerr characterizes the suit:

As I read it, the lawsuit is claiming that the issuance of a government report criticizing certain groups violates the plaintiffs' constitutional rights. But the Constitution doesn't provide a constitutional right to have the government not say things that might be considered criticism. Perhaps the plaintiffs want the Constitution to be radically reinterpreted by activist judges to invent some brand-new constitutional rights?

I can only imagine that he hasn't actually read the report and fell for the lefty drivel trying to explain it away. A copy is linked from here (http://michellemalkin.com/2009/04/14/confirme-the-obama-dhs-hit-job-on-conservatives-is-real/). It doesn't merely criticize individuals or groups. It classifies individuals as susceptible to or aiding in the creation of violent criminals and that classification is based on political beliefs. In particular, the report identifies support for state and local government, the Second Amendment, border security, unborn children, and several other conservative issues as fostering violence. It makes generalized reference to "hate-groups" that, in context, refers to conservatives.

More than that--and this is the kicker--it does not merely focus on identifying, isolating, and preventing violence. That is something we can all agree is the proper job of government and there is, of course, no constitutional protection for committing violent crimes. Rather, the report specifically labels speech, conservative speech, as an activity of extremists. It then goes on to encourage law enforcement and other agencies to report "suspicious or criminal" activity to DHS or the FBI. A plausible explanation is that DHS is surveilling conservative groups and encouraging law enforcement to do the same.

So, no, I don't believe it is a frivolous lawsuit. Perhaps if, as Kerr apparently assumed, the report merely criticized "rightwing" groups and perhaps if it hadn't included a call to action.

This is not to say that it the lawsuit is without its problems. Though it is clearly not frivolous, it may not prevail on the merits. I'm not convinced that the plaintiffs have sufficiently alleged an injury caused by the report. Thus, as regularly seems to be the case around here, the first major hurdle for plaintiffs will be standing.

Bombshell Update: Stick this in your hole and smoke it! The DHS civil rights division (DHS has a civil rights division?) apparently raised concerns about the report. (http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D97JU0881&show_article=1)The department decided to issue it before those concerns were resolved. Hmm, the fevered conspiracy-mongering that this was released last week as a preemptive strike at the teaparties doesn't seem as unlikely now.

Discovery is gonna be a bitch.

But Conservatives aren't supposed to file lawsuits.... that's only for ACORN, ACLU and like organizations representing truly aggrieved parties...VICTIMS.

[greenleaf]

Bombshell Update: Stick this in your hole and smoke it! The DHS civil rights division (DHS has a civil rights division?) apparently raised concerns about the report. The department decided to issue it before those concerns were resolved. Hmm, the fevered conspiracy-mongering that this was released last week as a preemptive strike at the teaparties doesn't seem as unlikely now.

Discovery is gonna be a bitch.

Timing, it's all in the timing. Did DHS rush the report out, throwing civil liberty concerns aside, because of a deadline of political expediency?

[The_Basseteer]

A legal opinion on the DHS document


JUDGE ANDREW NAPOLITANO: Six Things You Should Know About the Homeland Security Report on ‘Rightwing Extremism’

By Judge Andrew Napolitano
FOX News Senior Judicial Analyst

Homeland Security Warns of Rise in Right-Wing Extremism (http://foxforum.blogs.foxnews.com/2009/04/15/napolitano_homeland_security/)

The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) report entitled “Rightwing Extremism: Current Economic and Political Climate Fueling Resurgence in Radicalization and Recruitment”, dated April 7, 2009, which I have read, is apparently an unclassified summary of a larger classified report.

1. The summary contains few proper names, has no footnotes of any significance, lists very few sources, and is drafted with a prejudice against anyone who criticizes the role of the federal government in our lives today. It lumps together in its definition of “rightwing extremism” hate groups, anti-government groups, and single issue groups “such as opposition to abortion or immigration.”

2. The document itself cautions the reader that the document is “not to be released to the public, the media, or other personnel who do not have a valid need-to-know without prior approval” of the DHS. The document refers to itself as one of a series of intelligence assessments intended to “deter, prevent, preempt, or respond to terrorist attacks against the United States.”

3. The thrust of this report is that in the present environment of economic instability, returning military veterans, those who fear of the loss of Second Amendment-protected rights, those threatened by an African-American president, and those who fear “Jewish ‘financial elites’” could all be a fertile breeding ground for groups whose power and ideas the government hates and fears. The document is essentially a warning for DHS and FBI officials to be on the look-out for rootless persons looking for the comfort of groups as they may be a danger to American security.

4. The summary (unclassified) document is terrifying. One can only imagine what is contained in the classified version. This document runs directly counter to numerous U.S. Supreme decisions prohibiting the government from engaging in any activities that could serve to chill the exercise of expressive liberties. Liberties are chilled, in constitutional parlance, when people are afraid to express themselves for fear of government omnipresence, monitoring, or reprisals. The document also informs the reader that Big Brother is watching both public and private behavior.

5. The whole purpose of the First Amendment is to guarantee open, broad, robust debate on the policies and personnel of the government. The First Amendment presumes that individuals — NOT THE GOVERNMENT — are free to choose what they believe and espouse, what they read and say, and with whom they associate in public and in private. The writers of this abominable report are particularly concerned with the expression of opinions that might be used to fuel ideas that challenge federal authority or favor state and local government over the federal government. Unfortunately, legislation passed during the past eight years gives the DHS and the FBI the tools to monitor everything from a telephone conversation to the keystrokes used on a personal computer without a warrant issued by a federal judge.

6. My guess is that the sentiments revealed in the report I read are the tip of an iceberg that the DHS would prefer to keep submerged until it needs to reveal it. This iceberg is the heavy-hand of government; a government with large and awful eyes, in whose heart there is no love for freedom, and on whose face there is no smile.

I don't know about you, but I'm hoping someone leaks the full document soon.

[greenleaf]

Evidently Janet and Judge Andrew are not related, at least not politically. :)

I joke, but chilling the exercise of free speech is definitely a serious matter.

[TheTaoOfBill]

This is absolutely pathetic. I hope the DHS files a counter suit for wasting their time.

[Horizon]

This is absolutely pathetic. I hope the DHS files a counter suit for wasting their time.

From Media Matters, who holds EVERYONES feet to the fire, no matter what party you belong to.

http://mediamatters.org/items/200904170012

Summary: Oliver North falsely claimed that a recent DHS report concluded that "right-wing extremism is the number one threat to American safety and security." In fact, the report does not make any conclusions about what is the biggest threat to "American safety and security" overall.

During the April 16 edition of Fox News' Hannity, Fox News host Oliver North falsely claimed that a recent Department of Homeland Security (DHS) report -- which concluded that "rightwing extremists may be gaining new recruits by playing on their fears about several emergent issues" -- concluded that "right-wing extremism is the number one threat to American safety and security." North added: "That means that if you're a Hamas organizer or a Hezbollah recruiter or a Somali terrorist trying to recruit suicide terrorists, you're lower on the totem pole in terms of scrutiny than a regular American citizen concerned about these things, to include, outrageously enough, American veterans who they think are a target for being radicalized." Host Sean Hannity responded, "Good point." In fact, the report does not say that "right-wing extremism is the number one threat to American safety and security." Rather, it says "DHS/I&A [Office of Intelligence and Analysis] assesses that lone wolves and small terrorist cells embracing violent rightwing extremist ideology are the most dangerous domestic terrorism threat in the United States" [emphasis added]. It does not make any conclusions about what is the biggest threat to "American safety and security" overall.

Echoing other Fox News hosts and contributors, both Hannity and North also advanced the claim that the Obama administration is targeting tea party attendees, as well as conservatives and others, simply because they disagree with administration policies and proposals, a claim Fox News host Shepard Smith and national correspondent Catherine Herridge have debunked. North said of a tea party Hannity attended in Atlanta, "You and that crowd ... apparently have alarmed the Department of Homeland Security." North added: "[T]his report -- which you and none of your viewers were ever supposed to see -- says they're concerned about people who apparently believe that they're Christians, they want to support the sanctity of life, they oppose abortion, want to preserve marriage as a union between a man and a woman, that are veterans with, as I quote, 'skills and knowledge derived from military training and combat.' " Hannity responded: "Colonel, why do I think if we start checking off the list -- on immigration, I'm on the list. On Second Amendment, on being pro-life, on supporting the 20-plus thousand people that showed up in Atlanta last night, I'm on the list."

From the April 16 edition of Fox News' Hannity:

HANNITY: And in "Your America" tonight: Now, earlier today, Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano did her best to backtrack on her department's report that said that military veterans may be vulnerable recruits for radical extremist groups. And if she thinks vets and other Americans who simply disagree with the Obama administration are right-wing extremists, well, her department must have been pretty busy yesterday.

Joining me now is Colonel Oliver North, who is the host of War Stories, and this Saturday night, by the way, 9 p.m., he takes us inside special ops -- the special look at the most elite members of our armed forces. Colonel, good to see you. Thanks for being with us.

NORTH: Sean, you must had a great time down there in Atlanta -- you're still hoarse.

HANNITY: Yeah.

NORTH: But I will tell you this: You and that crowd are apparently have alarmed the Department of Homeland Security, because this report -- which you and none of your viewers were ever supposed to see -- says they're concerned about people who apparently believe that they're Christians, they want to support the sanctity of life, they oppose abortion, want to preserve marriage as a union between a man and a woman, that are veterans with, as I quote, "skills and knowledge derived from military training and combat" -- well, I'm one of those.

I also own firearms -- another one of this scatological category in here. I buy ammo. I refuse efforts to infringe on our Second Amendment. All this is apparently wrong by the Department of Homeland Security standards.

HANNITY: Colonel, why do I think if we start checking off the list -- on immigration, I'm on the list. On Second Amendment, on being pro-life, on supporting the 20-plus thousand people that showed up in Atlanta last night --

NORTH: You --

HANNITY: -- I'm on the list.

NORTH: -- you are, according to this, an extremist -

HANNITY: Yeah.

NORTH: -- and you need to be very carefully watched. Here's what's really alarming about this: Number one, it's proof that they are listening. At the bottom of the page on the front cover, it says no one in the public is supposed to see this; it's all for, quote, "law enforcement authorities."

And it warns about right-wing extremist chatter on the Internet that, quote, "focuses on the economy, the perceived loss of U.S. jobs in manufacturing and construction."

HANNITY: Perceived?

NORTH: That's an alarming admission --

HANNITY: Yeah. Yeah.

NORTH: -- alarming, very alarming -- because it's an acknowledgement that they're monitoring political speech.

HANNITY: Well, which is a good point; which means that probably talk radio and probably the Fox News Channel. And, you know, I even said somewhat, you know, tongue-in-cheek last night that, you know, probably they got the license plate of every single person in the 20,000 people that showed up at the tea rally last night or the hundreds of them that went on around the country.

So if we slap a bumper sticker on our car that's pro-life, that's pro-Second Amendment, that's pro-military, Semper fi, in God we trust, whatever it is -- as we look at, you know, some of the video from Atlanta, which went on for blocks and blocks and blocks -- you know, that means --

NORTH: Those are all --

HANNITY: But if I sat in Jeremiah Wright's church for 20 years, god-d America, you know, and America's chickens have come home to roost; if I hang out with Bill Ayers, am I on the list?

NORTH: Well, here's what's really disturbing about it. One is the intrusion into political thought in America that vilifies those of us who have subscribed to any of those, or guys like you and me that subscribe to all of them.

HANNITY: Yeah.

NORTH: Second of all, it's a twisted idea. They're saying that right-wing extremism is the number one threat to American safety and security. That means that if you're a Hamas organizer or a Hezbollah recruiter or a Somali terrorist trying to recruit suicide terrorists, you're lower on the totem pole in terms of scrutiny than a regular American citizen concerned about these things, to include, outrageously enough --

HANNITY: Hey, Colonel --

NORTH: -- American veterans who they think are a target for being radicalized.

HANNITY: Good point, but we could even take it a step further here. You know, these overseas contingency operations -- they're using harsher language, you know, Barack Obama said we'll send Mr. Burgess to tear up Sean Hannity -- they're using harsher language towards conservative talk hosts and people that are pro-life and want to obey immigration laws and that are pro-Second Amendment than they are against Kim Jong-Il and Ahmadinejad and Al Qaeda and some of our enemy combatants and terrorists.

NORTH: We had to run this all the way through the lawyers, Sean, to get this document. We put it up on the Freedom Alliance Web page -- www.freedomalliance.org -- so all Americans could see it, despite the warning at the bottom of it. We believe the American people do have a right to know.

HANNITY: Well, I agree.

NORTH: And they need to know what our government's up to.

HANNITY: Oh, I'm glad you did. Now, we saw, by the way -- and I only have a short time left -- we saw these incredible Navy Seals: three shots, three dead pirates, at incredible -- at incredible distances, on the high seas, factoring high-wind conditions -- an amazing feat. You have a special coming up this weekend going inside special ops on these guys.

[Suzan]

They may have something here:

It doesn't merely criticize individuals or groups. It classifies individuals as susceptible to or aiding in the creation of violent criminals and that classification is based on political beliefs. In particular, the report identifies support for state and local government, the Second Amendment, border security, unborn children, and several other conservative issues as fostering violence. It makes generalized reference to "hate-groups" that, in context, refers to conservatives.

I don't agree with this (the quote below). It's perfectly proper for agencies that do intelligence to assess the potential for violence. What I don't understand is why they made the report public, and even if that's routinely done, the timing makes it look suspicious.

More than that--and this is the kicker--it does not merely focus on identifying, isolating, and preventing violence. That is something we can all agree is the proper job of government and there is, of course, no constitutional protection for committing violent crimes.

[Suzan]

Evidently Janet and Judge Andrew are not related, at least not politically. :)

I joke, but chilling the exercise of free speech is definitely a serious matter.
I speak from personal experience. Call it silly--and I'm sure many will, :p--but I got an email from the RNS (which must be from the GE days when I switched to McCann/Palin because I'm not a registered Republican) asking me to send a virtual tea bag to DC. I decided against it, primarily because I didn't want my name on some DHS list of subversives.

[Jester]

Media Matters is objective? It was founded and even states its goal is to correct conservative misinformation. They even went so far as to name Chris Matthews misinformer of the year a few years back, because he went against the talking points. They accused Chris Matthews of being to conservative.

Yes, Media Matters is an unbiased source. :rolleyes: To even claim this outs the surreal take on your own bias.

[Suzan]

From Google:

Media Matters

A non-profit progressive research and information center dedicated to comprehensively monitoring, analyzing, and correcting conservative misinformation in ...

[observer21]

In regard to journalistic objectivity:

Can it even exist? I personally believe that it is impossible to be a journalist and be completely objective. Every person has his own beliefs and underlying assumptions about how the world works, which are bound to affect how one views a situation, therefore affecting how it is reported. Even if it's a simple "factual" report of reporting what someone said, chances are that, as accorded by one's own interests and world view, the report would focus on different highlights or talking points.

But I still think that journalists should try to be as objective as possible regardless of whether or not it is impossible to realistically achieve that objectivity. I think far too often nowadays people watch "newsish" shows on TV not to get as close to an accurate account as possible of world events, but instead to lend support to their already established views on issues. This practice discourages free thought and the challenging of one's own assumptions. But I don't think anything will change unless the population expresses their own desire for this change.

In regard to the original topic:

I'm really not sure about the intent of the extremist report, but it is my view that there is nothing really important in that document that should have warranted its partial declassification. There are hardly any specifics in there that can be used for any tactical value to the average citizen, and some of the vernacular and wording can be easily misconstrued (assuming the interpretation isn't accurate in and of itself) as labeling a huge portion of the United States population as dangerous extremists. To me, aside from the veteran issue, the most debate comes from the footnote at the bottom of page two which classifies their definition of right-wing extremism.

[Jester]

In regard to journalistic objectivity:

Can it even exist? I personally believe that it is impossible to be a journalist and be completely objective.

Of course not, but it should at least be a goal. When it goes far beyond, it becomes editorial.

[observer21]

Of course not, but it should at least be a goal. When it goes far beyond, it becomes editorial.

True, but at what point does it cease to be reporting and become editorial content?

In my mind, there are several different kinds of bias that a media source can have (and I'm not talking about left or right). They can be expressively for a position and not try to hide it (such as Hannity/Beck being openly Republican and Colmes/Olbermann being Democrat, etc.). This is probably the least dangerous form of bias because only the most entrenched in their views consider them completely accurate.

Then there's the kind of bias where a reporter/journalist claims to be reasonably objective, but unbeknown to himself/herself, (s)he exhibits a subtle bias for a certain kind of position on an issue in their reporting. I sometimes think I see this in some shows such as 20/20 or Dateline. These are slightly more dangerous because they are more openly seen as credible sources, but it's not quite so bad because the bias is generally slight.

Worst of all, though, are those that claim to be objective sources, but willingly and deceptively include biased sources/information in their reports. This is the worst because they have the same amount of respect as the unknowingly biased journalists, but since they are purposefully disingenuous, they can manufacture a lot more harm to one's political sanity. Such examples include alleged "fact" sources or objective journals which overtly claim they are for truth, yet purposefully hide or misinterpret the truth for personal gain or vindictiveness.

What do you think?

[Horizon]

Media Matters is objective? It was founded and even states its goal is to correct conservative misinformation. They even went so far as to name Chris Matthews misinformer of the year a few years back, because he went against the talking points. They accused Chris Matthews of being to conservative.

Yes, Media Matters is an unbiased source. :rolleyes: To even claim this outs the surreal take on your own bias.

Bias, Bias, Bias, a word that you are VERY familiar with, yet have no problem tossing out at others. FYI, I read MM daily, and have seen them take MANY liberal news postings/sites to task. :rolleyes: Back at ya.

And, who the hell cares if they lean left or right? At least they take the time to dig at at the real story and find the truth.

[lanney]

Media Matters is objective? It was founded and even states its goal is to correct conservative misinformation. They even went so far as to name Chris Matthews misinformer of the year a few years back, because he went against the talking points. They accused Chris Matthews of being to conservative.

Yes, Media Matters is an unbiased source. :rolleyes: To even claim this outs the surreal take on your own bias.
Funded by Soros.

[Jester]

And, who the hell cares if they lean left or right? At least they take the time to dig at at the real story and find the truth.

Yes, a biased truth. Unless you agree Chris Matthews is siding with Bush. Then that is ultra-biased.

[Mangolynn]

A

I don't know about you, but I'm hoping someone leaks the full document soon.

I think Michael Savage is also sueing under the Freedom of Information Act for the full classified document. I think his point is that since the "Fairness Doctrine" wasn't renewed that this is the Administrations way of going after talk radio. He wants to see if there is anything in the report about conservative talk radio. I'm betting there is.

[Mangolynn]

I speak from personal experience. Call it silly--and I'm sure many will, :p--but I got an email from the RNS (which must be from the GE days when I switched to McCann/Palin because I'm not a registered Republican) asking me to send a virtual tea bag to DC. I decided against it, primarily because I didn't want my name on some DHS list of subversives.

Good move on your part. A man that my brother works with at a medical instruments company in Minnesota (need to be a little vague here) was paid a visit at work by the FBI. Seems he came to their attention after he wrote a heated letter about Al Franken's cheating to get the Senate seat. He also called O a few names... including FAKE, LIAR, CHEAT and "total rube". To make matters worse, He's a Jew.

Best to lie low under Obama. I don't think he takes criticism well.:itwasntme:

[Mangolynn]

Meridith1 quote Media Matters as : Summary: Oliver North falsely claimed that a recent DHS report concluded that "right-wing extremism is the number one threat to American safety and security." In fact, the report does not make any conclusions about what is the biggest threat to "American safety and security" overall.

In fact, perhaps Ollie North saw the CLASSIFIED document and so who is Media Matters to say his statement is false until that document is available for all to look at???

[Mallory]

Evidently Janet and Judge Andrew are not related, at least not politically. :)

I joke, but chilling the exercise of free speech is definitely a serious matter.

For people who know Janet Napolitano the DHS memo is really scary. This is a woman who had absolutely no regard for the rights of her consituents. She spent a good part of her day battling the Sherriff who was doing his job. In fact, she conspired with other state officials to take away funding from the Sherriff. Putting her in charge of the DHS is like putting a fox in charge of the henhouse.

If that memo had come from someone else, I might be inclined to think that it really didn't mean that people who were anti-abortion, against illegal immigration, and former Vets were actually being put on a terrorist WATCH list. Since it is Jay-NO's department, she meant it just the way most people are taking it. Even former Congressman J D Hayworth has called her on it. People who are familiar with the way she operates know EXACTLY what the intent is here.

Janet Napolitano believes in open borders. It's a simple as that. She does not want immigration law enforced. She'll bend over backwards to defend the "rights" of illegals in Arizona and turn on citizens with a vengence. She doesn't think the men in Gitmo are terrorists (she actually say she doesn't like that word. It's polarizing. She however, has no problem using it on conservatives who don't agree with the new Admin's line of thinking.) There is something so wrong with this woman I don't even know where to begin.

The fact that Napolitano left Arizona with the largest budget deficit in its HISTORY is insignificant, given the rest of her track record in Arizona.

[Ikasu]

For people who know Janet Napolitano the DHS memo is really scary. This is a woman who had absolutely no regard for the rights of her consituents. She spent a good part of her day battling the Sherriff who was doing his job. In fact, she conspired with other state officials to take away funding from the Sherriff. Putting her in charge of the DHS is like putting a fox in charge of the henhouse.

Janet Napolitano believes in open borders. It's a simple as that. She does not want immigration law enforced. She'll bend over backwards to defend the "rights" of illegals in Arizona and turn on citizens with a vengence. There is something so wrong with this woman I don't even know where to begin.

Napolitano left Arizona with the largest budget deficit in its HISTORY.

She only got re-elected by a 2:1 margin in 2006. The citizens of Arizona must really hate her. No, I think it's just the really uptight conservative ones.

[Mallory]

She only got re-elected by a 2:1 margin in 2006. The citizens of Arizona must really hate her. No, I think it's just the really uptight conservative ones.

She did win by a large margin; but then only a little more than 1/3 of registered voters turned out for the election. Arizona is a little different than other places I've lived. The large senior population tends not to get out and vote for State races... just a tad bit apathetic. But yes, the citizens of Arizona were very happy to see her go. Good day for us... bad day for the country.

Just check it out with the other Arizonan's on here!

[The_Basseteer]

Just check it out with the other Arizonan's on here!

What, just because I called her "J-No" in another thread makes you think I have antipathy towards her?. This is just another example where President Obama has brought us all together; Janet is no longer just Arizona's problem..she's all of ours.