Domestic terrorist?

I recently heard about a report, The Modern Militia Movement, that was purportedly “leaked” in the state of Missouri. The report is to be used by various police authorities as a way to spot potential domestic terrorists involved in paramilitary militias. The report was produced by MIAC, or the Missouri Analysis Information Center, contends that some of the criteria for spotting potential terrorists includes literature that supports Ron Paul and Libertarians.

I wanted to know just who, are what, MIAC was. At their website, I found various information about their “mission” as well as data collection and sharing:

MIAC’s “Mission”

The Missouri information Analysis Center is tasked with the collection, collation, analysis and dissemination of information to appropriate agencies and individuals, in an effort to mitigate criminal and terrorist activities and respond to natural and man-made disasters in a way that enhances public safety. Equally important is our mission to safeguard the privacy, civil rights, and civil liberties of any individual. Toward that end, the MIAC administers the Missouri Statewide Police Intelligence Network (MoSPIN) and facilitates the flow of information through a network of in-house analysts. Although MIAC administers MoSPIN, it is important to note that MIAC and MoSPIN are not one in the same. They are complimentary programs designed to individually assist other agencies in the public safety effort. The end result is enhancement of the public safety effort and the safeguarding of individual privacy, civil liberties, and civil rights. This detailed policy documents those efforts.

“Information:

In fulfilling its public safety role, MIAC may actively seek, analyze, disseminate and retain information that is based on criminal predicate, reasonably suspected terrorism nexus, or that which negatively impacts public safety. Such information must be relevant to investigation, prosecution, and/or mitigation of genuine public safety incidents. In order to provide law enforcement, public safety and other affected agencies with useable strategic intelligence, MIAC may also engage in research toward that end. All MIAC employees will ensure that information is verifiable, collected in a lawful manner, and lawfully disseminated. The limitations on the quality of the information will be noted if a source is of doubtful credibility. MIAC may retain preliminary information such as tips and leads, and suspicious activity, providing the information is arguably of public safety interest. Such information will be disseminated as soon as practical to agencies with a vested public safety/enforcement interest. MIAC will not seek or retain information about individuals or organizations based solely on religious, political, or social views and/or activities. This prohibition also applies to information based solely on race, ethnicity, citizenship, place of origin, age, disability, gender, or sexual orientation.

What’s interesting to note is that while they maintain that they would not “seek” nor “retain” information based solely on “religious, political, or social views and/or activities”, their report specifically cites Libertarians and Ron Paul and Bob Barr supporters.

Lt. John Hotz of the Missouri State Highway Patrol said the report comes from publicly available, trend data on militias. It was compiled by the Missouri Information Analysis Center, a “fusion center” in Jefferson City that combines resources from the federal Department of Homeland Security and other agencies. The center, which opened in 2005, was set up to collect local intelligence to better combat terrorism and other criminal activity, he said.

“All this is an educational thing,” Hotz said of the report. “Troopers have been shot by members of groups, so it’s our job to let law enforcement officers know what the trends are in the modern militia movement.”
–Kansas City Star

The Report

The report summarized past militia activity in the U.S., which according to the MIAC, began in 1980 and reached “it’s peak” in 1996. According to the report, the now “vintage” militias were formed by farmers who were disenfranchised by the farm crisis of the 1980’s.

The report then cites “academics” who “contend” that the “female and minority empowerment of the 1970’s and 1960’s caused a blow to the white male’s sense of empowerment”. According to the report, white males were already crumbling after a “sense of defeat” in Vietnam.

According to History.com, the Vietnam War has been swaddled in revisionist history. They have a great site which debunks many of the myths about the war, which may have been used as analytical “fact” in this report.

From History.com:

Myth: Most American soldiers were addicted to drugs, guilt-ridden about their role in the war, and deliberately used cruel and inhumane tactics.

Fact:

*91% of Vietnam Veterans say they are glad they served

* 74% said they would serve again even knowing the outcome

* There is no difference in drug usage between Vietnam Veterans and non veterans of the same age group (from a Veterans Administration study)

* Vietnam Veterans are less likely to be in prison – only 1/2 of one percent of Vietnam Veterans have been jailed for crimes.

* 97% were discharged under honorable conditions; the same percentage of honorable discharges as ten years prior to Vietnam

* 85% of Vietnam Veterans made a successful transition to civilian life.

* Vietnam veterans’ personal income exceeds that of our non-veteran age group by more than 18 percent.

* Vietnam veterans have a lower unemployment rate than our non-vet age group.

* 87% of the American people hold Vietnam Vets in high esteem.

Myth: The United States lost the war in Vietnam.

Fact:

The American military was not defeated in Vietnam. The American military did not lose a battle of any consequence. From a military standpoint, it was almost an unprecedented performance. (Westmoreland quoting Douglas Pike, a professor at the University of California, Berkley a renowned expert on the Vietnam War) [Westmoreland] This included Tet 68, which was a major military defeat for the VC and NVA.

So much for the “strong sense of defeat” felt by “white men”.

The report concluded that militias were formed by white men who felt this “sense of defeat” while serving in Vietnam, suffered unemployment, and were anxious about the “increased levels of immigration”. Also indicted as feeding the militia fodder: Tom Clancy novels, Soldier of Fortune Magazine, and movies “such as Rambo”.

The report goes on to cite the Ruby Ridge Incident in 1992, the FBI siege of the Branch Davidians in 1993, and the Brady Handgun Act of 1992, as adding fuel to the paramilitary militia fire, which reached it’s “peak” in 1996 with “over 850 groups believed to be operating in the United States”.

The report states that these movements declined after the 1995 Oklahoma City Bombing and raids on the Montana Freeman and Republic of Texas in 1996 and 1997.

Militia movements “reemerged” after 911 and the “environment” is now “lush”, with the current economical and political “situation”, specifically the election of Barack Obama, a member of a minority, as President.

Domestic terrorists?

I’m not going to dispute the existence of militias in America. What I specifically wanted to look at was the criteria used for the “analysis” that led to the conclusion that people, who were Ron Paul supporters, Libertarians, those who oppose illegal immigration, dislike the NAFTA Superhighway, or fear the economy may collapse, could be now be viewed as potential domestic terrorists based on this report. Some have concluded, rightly so, that the existence of a Ron Paul For President bumper sticker on their car, could lead to profiling as a potential domestic terrorist.

Sovereign citizens, according to the report, are potential threats because they “argue that the government has gotten away from the intent of the Constitution”. They are also “strong state’s rights advocates”.

Domestic terrorists?

Anti-abortionists, tax resistors, and opponents of illegal immigration are noted. Anyone who believes that illegal immigrants are “sucking up government resources”, something I’ve written about in the past, are also potential domestic terrorists. Militias who patrol the border in order to “safeguard against drug smugglers, gangs, or violent illegal immigrants” are on the list.

The list is long but the reference to paramilitary members having material related to Libertarians and Ron Paul, Chuck Baldwin, and Bob Barr, are cited.

Allison Bricker, of The Smoking Argus Daily, wrote a great piece on the report, “Does Supporting the Constitution Make Me a Terrorist?”.

Here’s a small snippet:

This past week, sensitive documents from the Missouri Information Analysis Center were leaked to the public. The M.I.A.C. report designated “UNCLASSIFIED//LAW ENFORCEMENT SENSITIVE”, seeks to put supporters of Dr. Ron Paul, those tired of the endless banker bailouts, and just about anyone else who dare question the Federal government on par with Neo-Nazis and abortion clinic bombers.1

It disturbs me greatly to bear witness as our Federal government continues to expand its program of correlating dissent with domestic terrorism. Fellow readers, this despicable tactic is precisely why many of our Founding Fathers sought to engross humanity’s inherent liberties into the Constitution via The Bill of Rights. Among these rights derived solely from nature, is the right to free speech; even speech deemed unpopular or critical of one’s government.

I have to agree with Bricker, that the report supplies evidence that the “Federal government continues to expand its program of correlating dissent with domestic terrorism”. I want to add that a state government was the one who issued the report using, in part, information supplied by Homeland Security.

Bricker goes on to give a thoughtful presentation of the historical aspect of “criticizing the central authority as outright enemies of the state, whether it be king or government is as old as humanity itself”.

As one who attended this past election primary conventions, and heard the various candidates speak, including Ron Paul, I wonder just how his supporters will receive the news that the government considers them a potential domestic terrorism threat? That an innocent bumper sticker may now be a signal for cops to pull them over and perhaps search their car? Will these people now give second thought to pulling away from supporting a candidate who is Libertarian with the fear of being branded as potential terrorists?

This report has effectively stigmatized Libertarians as “right wing extremists”. Not only Libertarians, but also those who are anti-abortion, anti-illegal immigration, or Constitutionalists. That those who are dissatisfied with the current status quo in our political parties, have now been branded by government institutions as “right wing extremists”, just a hop, skip, and jump away from joining a violent paramilitary organization intent on domestic terrorism.

By LBG

Image – Ron Paul Supporters
Image - Illegal Immigrant protest
Image – Ron Paul Bumper Sticker