Justice Department Studying ‘Far-Right’ Social Media Use

[NYGman]

http://freebeacon.com/issues/justice-de ... media-use/

The Department of Justice is concentrating on “far-right” groups in a new study of social media usage aimed at combatting violent extremism.

[snip]

“We will collect posts made in four active forums used by members of the far-right and three from the Islamic Extremist community, as well as posts made in Facebook, LiveJournal, Twitter, YouTube, and Pastebin accounts used by members of each movement,” the grant said.

While the grant does not name the “far-right” groups that would be examined, other federal agencies have devoted their energy to the sovereign citizen movement.

The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) released a report on the movement, whose members believe that U.S. laws do not apply to them, just as the White House held its summit on violent extremism. The administration did not use the phrase “Islamist extremism” at the summit.

DHS stirred controversy in 2009 when it issued a report on right-wing extremism, which included veterans returning from combat as a potential terrorist threat.

The Justice Department and Michigan State University did not return requests for comment by press time.

Looks like the Government is doing some more research on this topic. I am not sure why this is so controversial, cracking down on groups that believe laws do not apply to them should be desirable, no matter who is under the microscope.

[The Observer]

I am not sure why this is so controversial, cracking down on groups that believe laws do not apply to them should be desirable, no matter who is under the microscope.

I think the controversy occurs when the government gives the perception that they have established a profile for what constitutes "extreme right-wing" radicalism that may run contrary to the average man or woman's concept of what "extreme right-wing" really means.

Case in point is this:

DHS stirred controversy in 2009 when it issued a report on right-wing extremism, which included veterans returning from combat as a potential terrorist threat.

Is there really a good reason to consider all veterans as potential terrorists? Do we want government engaging in this kind of stereotyping of men and women who have put their lives on the line for the country? I certainly understand the issue and concern with veterans who suffer from PTSD that may become violent, but I know of no study that has ever been done that would suggest that returning combat veterans had a strong urge to become right-wing terrorists. So the question in my mind is who is the person or persons who are coming up with these categories to identify potential terrorists.

It certainly makes sense to monitor and observe web sites and social media where support and posts shows that violence and criminal behavior is being discussed favorably (KKK, Aryan Brotherhood, Freemen/Sovrun site). But dropping and spying on the local VFW chapter? If so, then are we monitoring returning Greenpeace whaling protestors for possible left-wing radicalism and terrorism? I would think that would be equally stupid and a waste of resources.

I could go farther with this but it would start getting into the verboten territory of political commentary

[NYGman]

I am not sure why this is so controversial, cracking down on groups that believe laws do not apply to them should be desirable, no matter who is under the microscope.

I think the controversy occurs when the government gives the perception that they have established a profile for what constitutes "extreme right-wing" radicalism that may run contrary to the average man or woman's concept of what "extreme right-wing" really means.

Case in point is this:

DHS stirred controversy in 2009 when it issued a report on right-wing extremism, which included veterans returning from combat as a potential terrorist threat.

Is there really a good reason to consider all veterans as potential terrorists? Do we want government engaging in this kind of stereotyping of men and women who have put their lives on the line for the country? I certainly understand the issue and concern with veterans who suffer from PTSD that may become violent, but I know of no study that has ever been done that would suggest that returning combat veterans had a strong urge to become right-wing terrorists. So the question in my mind is who is the person or persons who are coming up with these categories to identify potential terrorists.

It certainly makes sense to monitor and observe web sites and social media where support and posts shows that violence and criminal behavior is being discussed favorably (KKK, Aryan Brotherhood, Freemen/Sovrun site). But dropping and spying on the local VFW chapter? If so, then are we monitoring returning Greenpeace whaling protestors for possible left-wing radicalism and terrorism? I would think that would be equally stupid and a waste of resources.

I could go farther with this but it would start getting into the verboten territory of political commentary

See I read including to be less restrictive rather than over inclusive. I would take issue with assuming all former veterans are potential terrorists, however, I also believe some of the more militant members of the movement are former members of the armed forces. To say veterans are above suspicion is to ignore the reality of the situation. To say all Veterans are suspect is an over simplification of the problem. Just because some of these right-wing extremist groups contain ex-service men, should not mean we ignore them either.

The makeup of these groups should not be relevant to us watching what they do. I posted this as I see the FMOtL movement being more Right-Wing than Left-wing, but I would also hope they have another equally advanced program to monitor left-wing extremists too.

I believe we owe a lot to our vets, who serve our country, but being a vet does not exempt you from the laws of the land, it does not provide any special priveledges when it comes to membership in the FMOtL movement.

I do think there may be some politics involved with those that have issues with this due to the focus on Right-Wing groups, and not all extremist groups, and the belief that the scope will move to those less extreme, and that would involve the government examining all right wing organizations regardless of purpose. However, I do not buy that argument. That and some of those right-wing groups on the fringe have some political support (I am not saying this isn't true of the left, but that isn't my focus here). You have Militias patrolling the boarder with some having tacit approval from more mainstream right wing movements/commentators, you have Militia groups supporting Clive Cliven, and politicians siding with them. There is therefore some overlap on the fringes, and this has some concerned about scope creep. However, I stick to my point, those that believe that our laws do not apply to them are a danger to this country and should be watched, regardless of the side they are on (Left or Right).

[The Observer]

I would take issue with assuming all former veterans are potential terrorists, however, I also believe some of the more militant members of the movement are former members of the armed forces.

But that is a case of trying to have your cake and eat it too. This is exactly the issue, the government program is just dumping servicemen into the profile without providing any reasonable basis. Based on your logic that because some extremists have a military background, it is all right to profile all veterans, then we should then start adding every vocation to the profile for potential terrorists. How far do you think that would go?

I believe we owe a lot to our vets, who serve our country, but being a vet does not exempt you from the laws of the land, it does not provide any special priveledges when it comes to membership in the FMOtL movement.

And I don't think I have stated that veterans should be exempted from the laws of the land. I think veterans should have the same rights under the law that you and I enjoy, and not be treated as a suspect group on the basis of their background merely because there have a been a few bad apples.

There is therefore some overlap on the fringes, and this has some concerned about scope creep.

And rightfully so. There have been too many instances in this country in the past where such "creep" was instigated by one political party or another against people based on profiling, stereotyping and done on the claim that this was for the protection of the country. In the end the reasons for such were discovered to be wrong or baseless and were based on politics rather than any hard evidence that such a group presented a viable threat to the government or the country.

[Demosthenes]

I do think there may be some politics involved with those that have issues with this due to the focus on Right-Wing groups, and not all extremist groups,

What focus? The DHS puts out numerous reports every year, and each report covers a narrow topic. Islamic domestic terrorism, for example, get several reports each year. Eco-terrorism, black supremacist groups, outlaw motorcycle gangs, militias, drug traffickers, human traffickers, and so on all get roughly one or two individual reports per year.

A lot of conservatives seem to think that it's an "aha" moment when a report on militias, for example, doesn't mention Islamic jihadists. Why would it? These groups have no overlap in their membership and are monitored by different analysts.

In 2009, when the contentious "right-wing" report was leaked, Fox News put their hands in the air and rang around in circles. A "left-wing" report was leaked the same day in 2009 but it was largely ignored.

The latest Fox brouhaha over the "right-wing" sovereign citizen report from Feb 2015 was kind of funny, because the report never used the words "right-wing." That label all but died last year when left-wing extremists joined up with the sovereign movement.

[Demosthenes]

This is exactly the issue, the government program is just dumping servicemen into the profile without providing any reasonable basis.

I could probably come up with a few hundred examples from the last five years including plots to blow up government buildings, ambush murders, military guys forming private militias while still in the military, plots to destroy critical infrastructure, murder, ID theft of active duty military (info, including security clearance, that was then sold to the militias) theft of explosives and firearms from the military, and probably the most dangerous of all: high ranking retired officers preaching the take down of the government.

For example, a group of soldiers based at Fort Stewart put together a private anti-gov militia. The leader murdered his pregnant wife (also a soldier) to collect the death benefit to fund the purchase of arms and ammo to be used in an attack on the US government. When one member of the group decided to leave the Army and therefore the militia, the rest killed him and his teenage girlfriend to keep them quiet.

The Republic of the united States (RuSA) holds a weekly phone call. This week's speakers are regulars on the show: Major General Paul Vallely US Army (ret) and Lieutenant Colonel Dennis B Haney USAF (ret). A third regular on the "patriot" circuit is Brigadier General Charles
Jones USAF (ret).

Vallely and his buddies want to lead the country into a revolution, arrest and try Obama, and then put themselves in office as the new leadership since American voters can't be trusted to vote as he sees fit.

[NYGman]

I do think there may be some politics involved with those that have issues with this due to the focus on Right-Wing groups, and not all extremist groups,

What focus? The DHS puts out numerous reports every year, and each report covers a narrow topic. Islamic domestic terrorism, for example, get several reports each year. Eco-terrorism, black supremacist groups, outlaw motorcycle gangs, militias, drug traffickers, human traffickers, and so on all get roughly one or two individual reports per year.

A lot of conservatives seem to think that it's an "aha" moment when a report on militias, for example, doesn't mention Islamic jihadists. Why would it? These groups have no overlap in their membership and are monitored by different analysts.

In 2009, when the contentious "right-wing" report was leaked, Fox News put their hands in the air and rang around in circles. A "left-wing" report was leaked the same day in 2009 but it was largely ignored.

The latest Fox brouhaha over the "right-wing" sovereign citizen report from Feb 2015 was kind of funny, because the report never used the words "right-wing." That label all but died last year when left-wing extremists joined up with the sovereign movement.

I agree with you, My comment related to this specific announcement's focus and the feigned outrage over it for political purposes. The purpose of my post was to voice support for this project, as a positive step in building intelligence on these groups. I think it is a worthwhile exercise as these groups ave really embraced social media to communicate. I know they have had a deal of success tracking and monitoring gang activity on social media, this is just one more example of the good guys going high tech

[Demosthenes]

The real question for me is whether they are dumping money into a study where the people doing the studying have little or no clue about the movement, their code words, their rhetoric, and where they hang out.

The good FB groups, for example, are hidden and closed - you only get in by being known and invited. The real conversations (not just people taking selfies in camo and whining about killing the President) take place on lesser-known social media sites like Zello, unannounced call-in numbers, and through comments on selected articles. In a crunch, they'll use the Direct Message function on FB.

Many of the more serious "patriots" turned off their FB accounts last year, but are now heartened to read this news:

http://www.wired.com/2015/06/new-facebo ... t-privacy/

There was a mini exodus from Facebook last year when the "real name" rule started to be enforced but that was pretty easy to get around with a couple of tricks.

I find FB very annoying because they delete what I post if someone complains about it. Since I monitor threats and similar trends, I copy some fairly nasty stuff from other Facebook users. My timeline posts get deleted, but the people I've copied the objectionable material from have their posts left intact.

Twitter is only useful to pass around propaganda (usually in memes) andto harass reporters and bloggers whose stories they don't like. Instead of getting 10 "your to stupid" emails a day, I now get 10 "your to stupid" tweets, although the nastier stuff still comes to my email box.

As an aside, I very much doubt they're monitoring military / veteran groups, looking for terrorists. The vast majority of mil guys online don't suffer fools and violent dumb dumbs get mocked and booted quickly. Realistically, they're monitoring groups that preach violence and paying particular attention to veterans (and more recently, active duty) because they are better trained, sometimes have access to military weapons and explosives, and most recently, because they are leaking intel like a sieve to anti-gov groups.

[JamesVincent]

I just wanted to put my $0.02 in. As far as the actions concerning veterans this is something that's been going on, nothing new to see. The past several years I have seen reports of vets getting letters from the VA stating that since they are at risk of PTSD they must turn in their weapons. Have I gotten one? No, I haven't, I am not a combat vet. Have I seen enough of what the VA is doing to vets to make it believable? Sure have.

As far as being far right wing, who makes that decision? This is the issue I have with a lot of these "study groups". If you use the criteria that I've seen before then I belong in the right wing extremist category because I believe what I believe. Ex-military? Check. Member of the NRA and Cold Dead Hands? Check. Believe in people taking care of themselves? Check. Very knowledgeable about weapons and tactics? Check. List could go on and on. Who makes the decision about what is far right? For that matter, who makes the decision of what is far left? And, in some places, the two converge, who decides what is what?

As far as more members of groups being ex-military then not, less then 3%, at any given point in time, of the entire population is military or ex-military. I don't remember the exact numbers you gave us before Demo but if memory serves then every single person who ever served in the military would have to be involved in these "groups" for them to be the majority. If anything they are probably well less then half or the numbers just don't make sense.

Having said all that I will say I saw a lot of support for the Bundy clan on military websites and Facebook pages. Not that I agreed with it, and I said so many times on those pages, but I did see it.


P.S. Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?

[Judge Roy Bean]

I just wanted to put my $0.02 in. ...

As far as being far right wing, who makes that decision?

Ah ... the political label conundrum.

If you don't like someone's philosophical leanings/behavior, develop and apply a label that those closer to your own political philosophical leanings/behavior will soon come to recognize and use. They can then join you in rallying against whoever it is when necessary.

Eventually, if you have sufficient support among the media, your opponents will find themselves having to cower in silence as the shift in public opinion has gradually bent the will of the masses against their philosophy or creed.

It's a high-stakes profession. All of the sides know how to play.

[notorial dissent]

Demo, I have to agree with your summation on the subject of who is and who isn't surveiled(I really hate that non word). The problem I have seen first hand is that the people who are usually making these decisions are usually as farther out of the loop than I am, and yet are reacting to keys they don't really understands or recognized, but there is a "threat" out there so they are by gum, so they are going to do something, and while they are doing "something" what they are supposed to be watching for is going on right under their noses and they'll never see it.

[Demosthenes]

The use of "far right" in the grant proposal just means that the people who will be doing the study are out-of-date or don't understand the movement.

The younger segment of the patriot movement (the ones most in tune with social media) is attracted to both far right and far left issues:

Look at the following "like" pages for this guy (triple murderer/patriot in WA):
https://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id ... &pnref=lhc

Or how about Jerad Miller, the Bundy supporter who murdered two cops and a bystander in Las Vegas a year ago in an effort to start the next revolution? His recent posts on FB included gun rights, founder quotes, Ron Paul, sov cit redemption theory, LGBT rights, anti-oppression of women, Occupy, Anonymous, MLK quotes, JFK quotes, anti drug laws, and CopBlock. Bottom line, he coopted every cause from left, right, libertarian, and anarchy, that pumped up his rage at "them."

These guys are the new scary generation - they bypass the paperwork phase and go straight to violence.

[Demosthenes]

All the study is going to look at are postings made on public forums. It's not really surveillance.

[JamesVincent]

Look at the following "like" pages for this guy (triple murderer/patriot in WA):
https://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id ... &pnref=lhc

Either the link is broken or the page has been taken down.

[Judge Roy Bean]

All the study is going to look at are postings made on public forums. It's not really surveillance.

I would beg to differ.

IMHO, attendance by agents at public marches and rallies in the 60's for the purpose of observation and taking notes (and photos) of what was being said and done (and by whom) is essentially the same thing as having agents watch participants today as they "march" and "rally" via posts on the 'net.

I'm not saying there isn't a place for surveillance; the issue, as always, is who protects the rights of people to be free to harbor their own views without ramifications if the powers-that-be want to categorize and then quash the effect of such views?

It's a slippery slope and we're all at the precipice of having someone in power decide we're a fringe element that needs to be studied in order to ensure the greater good.

[grixit]

Agreed. I'd expand on that, but this isn't the right board.

[Duke2Earl]

I'm sorry, but it people choose to express their opinions in a totally public space...either in a open rally in a public space or in a freely accessible public space on the internet they need to understand that people may be listening or reading. In fact, the public space was specifically chosen to allow people to listen or read freely...so if that choice is made then they just have to live with the fact that people they would rather not be listening may do so. This is specifically not a privacy issue if the speaker specifically chose to express his opinion openly in a open to the public manner either in person or on the internet.

[Demosthenes]

When I first started paying attention to the tax protest movement in 1997, I learned that the IRS refused even to look at scam promoters' public websites because they thought it would violate the scammers' privacy. As a result, the tax scam industry spread unabated on the Internet. Under the IRS' daft theory, government employees couldn't read a newspaper or magazine or even open a browser online.

There is no expectation of privacy when someone publishes thoughts, pictures, etc. on a public internet forum or website. The person posting the information has no actual, subjective expectation of privacy and society does not recognize that this expectation is objectively reasonable. Paraphrased from Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347 (1967)

Several FB, Twitter, and MySpace cases have been making their way through the state and federal courts. In People v. Harris, 945 N.Y.S.2d 505, 507 (N.Y. City Crim. Ct. 2012), the judge compared a tweet to screaming out of a window, a situation where no reasonable expectation of privacy is found. In United States v. Meregildo,83 F.Supp.2d 523 (S.D.N.Y. 2012) the defendant had their privacy settings set to "friends only" but he allowed those friends to share their posts to the public. The court found no reasonable expectation of privacy.

[JamesVincent]

I was sitting here and just thought how what I was working on would be loved by the people doing these studies. Sitting here cleaning my shotgun, listening to Ted Nugent and thinking about the new Diesel pickup I want to buy to replace my truck (Dodge of course, sorry Gregg). Gonna get arrested for being a terrorist.

[Demosthenes]

I was sitting here and just thought how what I was working on would be loved by the people doing these studies. Sitting here cleaning my shotgun, listening to Ted Nugent and thinking about the new Diesel pickup I want to buy to replace my truck (Dodge of course, sorry Gregg). Gonna get arrested for being a terrorist.

If you say that a dog as a mammal with four legs and a tail, is a cat a dog? How about a horse, is it a dog too?