Tags: English Language Text Analysis EssayTravelling Experiences EssayAssign BlameBest Value For Money Toilet PaperConnections EssayExamples Of Business PlanKing Lear Essay Family RelationshipsSocial Worker EssaysArgument Analysis Essay TopicsFahrenheit 451 Essay Topics
Local law enforcement, coordinating with federal officials, might knock on the suspect’s door to assess the situation and, perhaps, reach out to relatives and community leaders to try to get the person off the path to jihad.Second, the anti-jihadist effort is well-resourced. Billions of dollars in funding goes to intelligence, including electronic surveillance, human sources, and other means.Sting operations are used on right-wing groups, but far less frequently.
But for ISIS, however, a few tweets may be enough to get the FBI to act; the bar for non-jihadist organizations is much higher.
If right-wing and the smaller left-wing groups received similar attention as jihadists, the halls of the FBI and DHS would be bursting with new employees.
Intelligence penetration of the right-wing community (and any relevant left-wing groups) would soar. counterterrorism programs single out Muslims unfairly, and expanding the use of informants and surveillance against right-wing communities would expand the numbers under the microscope.
The array of tactics would include: monitoring phones and electronic communications of individuals with possible links to terrorists; planting informers in right-wing radical groups; regular police check-ins with leaders of legitimate right-wing causes to encourage them to provide information on potentially violent members; and trying to “turn” current group members to inform on their associates. Because of the greater intelligence coverage—and lower regard for the privacy of the affected citizens—the amount of information on right-wing groups and individuals would skyrocket.
In contrast, of the small slice of the FBI budget that goes to counterterrorism, only a tiny portion specifically goes to investigating right-wing extremist organizations.
Third, the government would be quick to act at even the hint of violence.
If a suspect got a gun or tried to acquire bomb-making materials, law enforcement officials would swoop in.
Imagine a group of legally armed protesters marching through a town chanting slogans extolling the virtues of and the government pleading that it can’t stop them due to the First and Second Amendment. Neither can I—even though it seems similar to a group of legally armed protesters shouting out anti-Semitic and racist slogans.
As I noted in a longer essay, a lot of right-wing violence clearly qualifies as terrorism even if the legal framework and political discourse haven’t caught up to that reality. government policy went beyond rhetoric and truly treated right and left-wing groups that use violence as it treats Americans suspected of being involved with jihadist organizations like ISIS?
But even if we were consistent in our use of the terrorism label, what would this mean in practice? Consider, notionally, an individual suspected of ties to ISIS and one suspected of ties to the Ku Klux Klan (or, turn a molehill group into a mountainous one, substitute Antifa).