The kinds of concerns which the FBI is using to identify these potentially dangerous citizens are not the hallmarks of dangerous extremism. They are mostly reasonable concerns over the current state of our government held by tens of millions of fairly ordinary citizens who have legitimate reasons to be dissatisfied with government. They are also the same kinds of extreme views which were held by our founding fathers.
The one genuine, unifying characteristic of all of these "extremists" is that they are not happy with a government which is spending beyond its means, taxing beyond our ability to pay and which encroaches more and more on our constitutionally guaranteed rights every day. In their statement the FBI is not actually identifying a real threat to public safety or to citizens, they are sending a warning that public expression of justifiable anger at the government can get you labelled a dangerous criminal or even a terrorist.
This is a tactic intended purely and simply to intimidate and silence the public. They are sending the message that protest is a crime and speaking out against government will not be tolerated. As they did under Hoover, the FBI is categorizing people and making lists and if you don't watch your step they'll put you in a database and take away your rights.
The implications of this statement from the FBI are particularly ominous in the wake of efforts in the National Defense Appropriation Act, the PATRIOT Act and the pending Enemy Expatriation Act to empower the government to take away the most fundamental rights of citizens.
The goal may be to intimidate critics of government, but they are also showing us why we so desperately need to take our government back before these threats of abuse of power turn into full-fledged tyranny.
Article comments
— go to most recent comments1 - Glenn Contrarian
Dave -
Do the names Timothy McVeigh and Terry Nichols ring a bell? They weren't claiming to be "sovereign citizens" by name, but were their core beliefs really that much different when it came to their opinion of the authority of the American government? No, I don't think so.
Furthermore, when was the last time that anyone who wasn't an American citizen assassinated (or attempted to assassinate) an elected official in America? Last I recall, Lee Harvey Oswald defected...so today, in the absence of a Soviet Union which would have welcomed him, would it really be a stretch to see him becoming a 'sovereign citizen'? No, I don't think so. And bear in mind the fact that before Obama ever took the oath of office, death threats against him were 400% higher than they were against Bush, never mind the vast damage that Bush did to America (including his protection of Cheney's treason).
The reason the FBI is worried, Dave, is because when it comes to foreign terrorists, we largely know what to look for. In addition to organic and allied HUMINT in nearly every nation on the planet, we can and do use software filters to troll through billions of e-mails and FB posts and so forth looking for communications between would-be terrorists...but of course some will still slip through.
However, when it comes to 'sovereign citizens' and homegrown lone wolves, it's almost impossible to detect them before they've already acted - again, look at McVeigh and Nichols. A lone wolf with a reasonable amount of intelligence could do a great deal of damage, and if he's smart and careful, he won't get caught - remember the anthrax attacks? Except for 9/11, what was the worst terrorist attack against Americans? One that was conducted by American citizens who didn't accept American authority within American borders.
So...no, I don't think the FBI's blowing things out of proportion. i admit I worry about some idiot Islamist with a black-market nuke (or dirty bomb) on board a yacht trolling up the Potomac to D.C. or up the East River to NYC, but short of that, yes, the greatest terrorist threat America faces IS from homegrown terrorists, from those American citizens who reject the authority of the American government.
2 - John Lake
Glenn interprets the "sovereign" thing as being a terrorist on a yacht in the East River with a dirty bomb. He may be on to something. Here is what I was writing when I saw his comment:
The first thing that strikes me is all this referral to “sovereign citizens.” It sounds like the Federal Bureau statement was written by an agent in Great Britain. Three cases in three years; I suppose that’s an increase. And the Bureau says it is “Inundated with threats.”
"Hundreds of thousands" of "sovereign citizens" who can turn violent "at the drop of a hat”--- If we place all the Tea Party people, and the Occupy people together with Ron Paul’s libertarians, we might be able to meet the hundreds of thousands threshold. We may have to go some. But when civilians respond to years of faulty elections, and un-responsive politicians, there may be some, not the brightest bulbs in the chandelier to be sure, who would call their protests, “drop of a hat.”
The extremists are re-acting to spending beyond its means and taxing beyond our ability to pay, Mr. Nalle says; clearly Tea Party. “Outrage at tax collection” sounds like the Libertarians among us are uprising. Going off the gold standard is one of the lesser complaints of the Occupy group.
It sounds to me as if some weak link in the F.B.I. has a bad case of lumbago, and might rather stay home.
3 - jim
glen still believes the gubbermints version of OKC and 911. shows you were his head is don't it?
4 - Cooper
Glenn you are a tool, John thank you! Great article by the way I am checking the facts though you can't believe everything you hear.. GLENN!!
5 - Dave Nalle
BS Glenn. McVeigh and Nichols acted as part of a group, not alone. And they were already on the FBI's radar well before they acted, because they were involved in organized groups which advocated terrorist activity. That's enormously different from someone just claiming they want the government to leave them alone.
Most of the domestic terrorists we have caught were caught because they worked with others who turned them in or were in groups the FBI infiltrated. Even Eric Rudolph had a wide network of supporters who helped him.
The only lone wolf we've had who has been particularly successful was the Unabomber and he was politically left-wing, if anything. Mostly he just had personal grudges he tried to justify with a loony agenda.
The truth is that they've realized that domestic terrorism isn't much of a threat, so they have decided to fabricate hypothetical threats on very little evidence to keep their funding coming and justify their existence.
Dave
6 - Christopher Rose
"The truth is that they've realized that domestic terrorism isn't much of a threat, so they have decided to fabricate hypothetical threats on very little evidence to keep their funding coming and justify their existence".
QFT!
When you're right, Dave, you're very right, and here you are right!
7 - archer52
I spent a good deal of time inside law enforcement and struggled to get the PC out of our intelligence gathering. The Feds liked to look at the only remaining PC'ed groups because they were low hanging fruit and justified greater budgeting. As an agency the FBI really avoided public statements about terrorists being Middle Eastern or that the border wars with Mexico were very real. Privately, inside our community it wasn't that way at all. There are many more good agents trying to do the right thing as there are agenda driven political bosses. (see my most recent post)
However, the FBI is a horribly bureaucratic agency. You have no idea how hard it is to break through their entrenched and PC approved mindset.
That said, domestic terrorism is real, just not as bad as they want you to think. And the fact that the government fears normal citizens suddenly getting fed up and fighting against the intrusive nature of our government is actually a good thing. That is why the founding fathers gave us the 2nd amendment. It was as much a tool to fight the overreach of the government as it was to fight off marauding Indians and the French.
Had we not been so blessed, all of this would be mute a long time ago. There would be no free Internet, or thought or movement or opinion. Why? Look at China, Italy, Belgium, or Europe in general where you can be arrested and jailed for saying something the government doesn't like. It is and has always been the habit of government and the people who run it to attempt to control its subjects, more and more and more. It is just human nature.
Count you blessing.
8 - Glenn Contrarian
John -
Glenn interprets the "sovereign" thing as being a terrorist on a yacht in the East River with a dirty bomb.
No, that is NOT what I said.
Jim and Dave and Cooper -
Whether or not they were on the government's radar doesn't mean the government had yet found probable cause to do anything. Of course, this was back in the day when the Fourth Amendment meant something. There's much more to the story - but for the purposes of disproving Dave's frankly naive notion that domestic terrorism by American citizens isn't much of a threat, all I need do is point at McVeigh and Nichols (and also the post 9/11 anthrax attack).
9 - Dave Nalle
Glenn, statistics remain my main defense. As a percentage of crime and over the amount of time in which they took place, the crimes you reference are relatively insignificant on a statistical basis. There have always been spree killers and terrorists of one kind or another. The incidence is not increasing in any way which can be measured meaningfully.
dave
10 - John Lake
Well Glenn, I appreciate the unpredictable threat from homegrown terrorists, some of whom may not even OWN yachts. But I am a little lost as to how we transit from “Hundreds of thousands of sovereign citizens” to individual homegrown McVeighs. The FBI source seems concerned that Americans may take advantage of their right to free assembly.
In fact the Oakland Occupiers are becoming increasingly violent. Maybe a government office should be formed to listen to their grievances.
11 - Pat in Michigan
Great Blog posting Dave. A Government that watches it's people, fears them and they fear them because they KNOW they are doing wrong. Remember that.
-Pat
12 - Dr Dreadful
I second Chris on this one, Dave. Good piece.
My immediate thought was: What else can one expect from an agency that was founded by a madman?
13 - Rob Stanton
Timothy McVeigh and Terry Nichols may have been anti-government and intended to blow up the Oklahoma federal building, but the facts are: the FBI trained and directed McVeigh to stage the attacks. The same FBI that was responsible for the murders of the residents of the Waco compound of the Branch Dividians.
14 - Igor
Local police forces welcome this FBI influence because it means funding for paramilitary police training, which is badly needed these days as local budgets are severely cut. So what it means is that traditional local police are used in smaller numbers for public protests, and more of them are the new paramilitary force.
Also, it means that local police have a big debt to the FBI, which they repay by overlooking FBI transgressions, such as illegal arrests and detentions, and also, apparently, agents provocateur, brought in by the FBI to discredit protesters.
The FBI IS a dark agency, and it has a very large unaccountable dark budget. They certainly have a large team of agents provocateur (every Secret Police since the Ancient Egyptians has had one).
15 - Pavel
Has the FBI and the Muslim Brotherhood linked politicians in the Obama administration finally read the Declaration of Independence and the first ten amendments of the Constitution appropriately named the Bill of Rights, specifically the Second, Third, Fourth, and Fifth Amendments that the Obama administration and his appointments in the courts are viciously attempting to destroy. Members of the National Rifle Association and those organizations with parallel ethical perspectives will be targeted for investigations and apathetic searches. If you are a shooter of the politically over used term “assault weapons” specifically any 50 caliber firearm; you will be the target of the FBI, CIA, TSA, CPB, and Homeland Security as a possible American terrorist.
16 - Joseph Cotto
The libertarian fringe once again proves that it is no saner than its leftist or rightist counterparts.
Let us look at this issue on a reasonable basis; if the United States conducts special operations to ensure that international threats are neutralized, then why should it not look within its own borders? We cannot be so naive as to think that our nation's homegrown terroristic threats are any less dangerous than those abroad. As a matter of fact, since they are internal, they yield the possibly for far more destruction.
Doubtlessly, following the Constitution is of paramount importance. However, the Founding Fathers drafted it as a living document. When modernizations need to be made, the feds should not hesitate in devising necessary interpretations of existing laws, or creating new ones like the Patriot Act, to deal with the problems at hand. The "pro-liberty" dogmatists never seemed to have understood this practical reality.
In short, we need a worldly government to deal with the modern world itself. Anything less is begging for trouble.
17 - old dad
hey leave the rebellious alone they are our Arab spring that will cleanse our country as it did by the us backed libyans Egyptians etc etc. we started the regime changes and now we should support our freedom fighters win over the corrupt government.
18 - Tommy Mack
I tended to go along with your rant, Dave, except when you hopped up on the GOP hobby horse of “spending beyond its means” and trying to pin the PATRIOT Act on the Obama Administration. You provoke thought, though. Can you imagine graduating from the FBI Academy today and going to work collecting information from nitwit informants? I would like to read your opinion of the necessity for the Department of Homeland Security.
Tommy
19 - Dave Nalle
DHS? Total waste of time. Consolidating agencies to create more bureaucracy and less accountability.
Dave
20 - Some Guy
There are vastly more incidents of police going berzerk and attacking innocent people than anyone in the tax protestor camp.
21 - roger nowosielski
The whole world is going nuts. Rose and Dreadful support Mr. Nalle. John Lake and the Contrarian sit on the sidelines, awaiting further developments. Tommy Mack goes along "with the rant" until he discovers it implicates Obama. And Joseph Cotto, the moderator and the ultimate "realist," denounces both the libertarians and the right and left fringe as outright lunatics, holding only the center as having any claim to sanity.
Way to go, gents. You're putting on quite a show.
22 - Sgt Barefoot
Annihlists are people whom believe there should be no government what so ever.
Are we to belive that soverign constitutional rights such as possesion of a firearm has the FBI alarmed that the practitioners of self preservation are going to simultaneously turn violent at the "drop of a hat"?
Annilists are untenable, Americans are peace loving and are willing to keep the peace at great sacrifice. Becoming assimulated into stereotypes is not a soverign act it is an act of annialism.
23 - roger nowosielski
Way to go, Sarge, knock some sense into those numb skulls.
24 - Dr Dreadful
John Lake and the Contrarian sit on the sidelines, awaiting further developments.
Actually, the Contrarian is sitting in an airport, awaiting his connecting flight.
25 - Zingzing
Annihlist/annilist/annialism... What are these things?