Alabama “terrorist” web site temporarily removed
A few weeks ago, Michael Hampton wrote about “homegrown terrorists.” His piece was one of those things that you read and think, “Is this for real?” But it was and is, and if you haven’t read that column of his, I’d recommend it.
As a follow-up, I noted this AP story in today’s news:
The Alabama Department of Homeland Security has taken down a Web site it operated that included gay rights and anti-war organizations in a list of groups that could include terrorists.
The Web site identified different types of terrorists, and included a list of groups it believed could spawn terrorists. The list also included environmentalists, animal rights advocates and abortion opponents.
The director of the department, Jim Walker, said his agency received a number of calls and e-mails from people who said they felt the site unfairly targeted certain people just because of their beliefs. He said he plans to put the Web site back on the Internet, but will no longer identify specific types of groups.
[...]
The site included the groups under a description of what it called “single-issue” terrorists. That group includes people who feel they are trying to create a better world, the Web site said. It said that in some communities, law enforcement officers consider certain single issue groups to be a threat.
“Single-issue extremists often focus on issues that are important to all of us. However, they have no problem crossing the line between legal protest and … illegal acts, to include even murder, to succeed in their goals,” it read.
[...]
By age 6, my son had joined several animal rights activism groups. He block-printed letters to governments, boycotted Japanese products because of their whaling policies and practices, and got others to do the same. I didn’t realize I had spawned a potential “single-issue” terrorist. My daughter grew up to become an activist on issues that were important to her. Damn, I guess I spawned two “single-issue” terrorists.
Then there’s my “single-issue” terrorism, I suppose, although I am involved in more than one issue. Yes, I would definitely consider illegal acts as part of my commitment to the issues I believe in. And I certainly have engaged in illegal acts as part of my commitment to the issues I believe in. But we never called those acts “terrorism.” We called them “sit-ins,” “lie-ins,” or “civil disobedience,” and we did them openly under our own names.
A number of years ago, as my young daughter considered what she was going to do about an issue that was important to her, she asked me whether I’d be angry at her if she ever got arrested for participating in a protest. I tossed her a quarter and told her to always keep it on her, and that as long as she did not engage in violence, she could call me and I’d come her bail her out.
One of the first casualties in post-9/11 America was reframing those who dissent or engage in acts of conscience or civil disobedience as “potential terrorists.” It’s time for this Congress and the Department of Homeland Security to remember that our country was born out of dissent and a commitment to fight for our rights.
Are there “homegrown terrorists?” I’ve got no doubt that there are. Some of them are called the Department of Homeland Security.
I can’t wait to see what the bureaucrats come up with to replace that site.
Up here in New Hampshire, freedom lovers are taking civil disobedience to new heights. It’s a lot of fun to watch, and even to participate in sometimes.
New Hampshire is on my “short list” of states I’d like to retire to if I stay in this country, which is looking more and more likely as England totally went down the tubes (no pun intended) under Tony Blair.
As to the Alabama DHS web site, maybe we’ll see some nifty advice like, “Do you know someone who loves whales? Have they been seen speaking with anyone with a harpoon? If so call, 1-800- TERRORIST WHALES”