Right-Wing Violence Is Very Real and Very Dangerous

via AlterNet:



Right-Wing Violence Is Very Real and Very Dangerous

Posted by Steve Benen, Washington Monthly at 4:31 PM on June 10, 2009.

'I hope that everyone who mau-maued the Department of Homeland Security for expressing concern (...) feel appropriately ashamed of themselves.'




In light of the shootings at the U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum in D.C. this afternoon, allegedly committed by white supremacist James Von Brunn, Matt Yglesias noted, "I hope that everyone who mau-maued the Department of Homeland Security for expressing concern about this kind of thing feel appropriately ashamed of themselves."

It's hardly an unreasonable point. Two months ago, Richard Poplawski, a right-wing extremist, allegedly gunned down three police officers in Pittsburgh, in part because he feared the non-existent "Obama gun ban." A few weeks ago, Scott Roeder, another right-wing extremist, allegedly assassinated Dr. George Tiller in Kansas. A few hours ago, Von Brunn, another right-wing extremist, allegedly opened fire at the U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum.

There are other recent examples that bear similar characteristics. This story out of Tennessee from last year continues to haunt:



Obviously, we're dealing with sick individuals here. There are key differences between violent right-wing radicals and mainstream Americans who happen to be conservative. Indeed, I'm not suggesting that conservative activists are necessarily dangerous, violent people.

I am suggesting that it makes sense of the Department of Homeland Security to coordinate and communicate with law enforcement agencies about potentially violent extremists -- of every ideological stripe -- to help prevent tragedies like the ones we've seen lately.

The DHS report specifically addressed the possibility of violence from anti-abortion radicals and anti-Semitic extremists. And in the last two weeks, Tiller was assassinated and a white supremacist opened fire at the Holocaust Memorial Museum.

The Republican hysteria over the DHS report -- which was, by the way, initiated by a Bush administration official -- was always based more on a partisan scheme than reality, but the incessant complaints look especially misguided today.


http://www.alternet.org/blogs/peek/140574/right-wing_violence_is_very_real_and_very_dangerous/

One problem with the alleged reporting of these current events stories is the use of the word "alleged", or its adverbial form "allegedly", as a mandatory modifier of all verbs and alleged nouns in the alleged passage. Now I allegedly know the reasoning behind this bit of grammatical subterfuge; nothing allegedly is true or false until it has allegedly been determined to be so in an alleged court of law. So the alleged news writers back off from allegedly stating the facts of the story as told to them by alleged eyewitnesses and couch them in terms of allegations. It is one more instance of how the alleged lawyers have allegedly pussy-whipped the alleged public into suspending judgment until they have had time to allegedly massage the facts to fit their view of the world.

The world according to lawyers: (1) Nothing really happens in this world, it is just alleged to have happened until proven in court; (2) Even if the facts have been determined, the law can look at what happened differently upon appeal; and (3) You don't want anything to happen in this world because of the liability involved. So try to have a nice day following the rules, that just gives these new fascists time to reload.

If someone only allegedly walked into a church and shot people then maybe the witnesses eyeballing the perpetrator are also alleged witnesses.

It's easy to connect the rhetoric of hate radio or the blogs or Faux Noise to these incidents and try to condemn all. Yes, it's a lawyers world cause there are protections needed to the freedom of speech. Without it, don't you think the right wingers would have had this place closed down back in the dark hours of the booosh regime?

With each of these incidents, the words and actions of the extremists get closer scrutiny. In the end, the attention they hope to gain will be their own downfall and those who attempt to support them or defend their actions will get deserved condemnation.

We need to break up the monopoly that radio has become. It does a disservice to citizens in many ways. Having the majority of airwaves controlled by just a few huge companies is a no-win situation.

Three major radio conglomerates are on the verge of bankruptcy and bets are they won't make it past September. When that happens, we'll see "deregulation" the hard way. Thousands of stations will be sold for cheap...or just shut down. Their own largess and arrogance is destroying the very "empire" rushbo thinks he built.

Your head must still be spinning from the last time a lawyer gave it a whirl. Freedom of speech should be just that, freedom to speak about what was observed -- without having to insert a gazillion legal modifiers into the paragraph. Lawyers have taken away that right to speak freely and substituted in its place the right to allege. They have the public so cowed that a direct quote from an eyewitness that "the sumofabitch just barged in and started shootin!" can't be reported. What freedom of speech is that?

The reason a lawyer gets involved is when someone...be it a media type or politician for example, tries to twist that speech...distort it or plagarize it.

Yes, freedom of speech is to be able to say what you want without the fear of reprocusions. But it also holds a degree of personal responsibility...to express dissent in a civil way without inciting physical violence. This is where the slippery slope I'm refering to is.

The right to allege is also part of a thing called innocent until proven guilty. Seems this part of our basic rights gets overlooked in a rush to judgement...be it on a discussion board or in the corporate media. The 24/7 cycle works so quickly that one can be signed, sealed and delivered on pure speculation...or before their case is heard.

While Roeder is a terrorist...no doubt in my mind...he still is sitting on charges, he hasn't had his day in court, he's still the "alleged" murderer until he's found guilty by a jury. This is where the crossroads of free speech and habeus corpus sometimes collide.

Can they not tell what they saw? What they will say in court when they are called? Can they not speak without having "alleged" inserted three times in every sentence by a nervous editor? I'm all for letting people have their day in court; I just want to hear all of the newsworthy observations too.

I follow your concern about the First Ammendment, and mine is based on the 4th...the right to a fair trial. Eyewitness testimony needs to be protected in order to preserve a fair judicial process. Putting an eyewitness...in an emotionally charged situation and moment in front of a nation audience/jury pool can make for great teevee, but for poor justice. Couple this with very eager "analists" who will trunacate, enumerate, pontificate and interject into a story before a single charge is placed.

For many years, I worked in the media and for several I had the pleasure of working with a very "by-the-books" news director. She NEVER would comment on a story...always stuck with the five "w"s and let the facts tell the story. She used the word "alleged" constantly, as until someone was proven guilty, their crimes, no matter how heinous, weren't proven. To her it wasn't a legal matter, it was an ethical one.

played down.

If these were LEFTIES, you and I both know that would be trumpeted. And it would have been from the first incident.

The Dept of Homeland Security and even the Feds, how much will do they have to really intervene and stop rightwing extremists?

And even more chilling to me, law enforcement and state attorneys' offices in places like Kansas and Idaho just might do whatever they can to prevent exposure of rightwing extremists.

In Kansas, the AG PARTICIPATED in the harassment of Tiller.

I'm not seeing it played down as much as played differently.

I just finished looking back on the Freeper thread on the von Braun shooting...and I followed the knetic posting here as it happened. It's fascinating to go back and see how quick people were jumping to conclusions and how the rhetoric adjusted as the facts became known.

These problems have been simmering under the surface for decades now. Sadly it's being flamed by politicians ahd mediatypes who are filling a power vacuum with the only thing that holds the right wing toghether: hate. They can't debate anything else...they don't have anything. Thus the extremists have become empowered. Yes, it's very chilling.

However, I think it's starting to chill a majority, including the corporate media. They're starting to connect dots and I'm sure we'll get even more. I expect Roeder's trial to be a highly covered one...and it could put out in the public a lot of the literature and connections that led to this terrorist act. It won't be based on speculation, but on facts...and those will have far reaching reprocusions.

In the meantime, we must stay vigilent...until the right wing power vacuum is filled by more moderate voices, I expect the fringes to react...each time hurting their causes further. It's a zero sum game, and one of desperation...from those who see a nation in transition and they're lashing out at the change.

Cheers...

A man had his hand nearly severed in a mob-style attack in New Rochelle, NY. While it is appropriate to refer to those arrested in connection with this incident as alleged perpetrators, I was puzzled by the use of the term "alleged victim". I mean, christ, they had pictures of his blood all over the sidewalk!

Even if he had somehow done this to himself, then he would still be a very real victim of his own demons, given the obvious evidence, there was no way he was an "alleged" victim.