Document Actions
Inarticulate Lexicon - May 28, 2009 #196
A recent DHS document seemed to suggest that political views held by many Americans were dangerously extreme. Now that emotions have cooled, the problem bears examination. I will tell you more if you will give me Just a Minute for Homeland Security. I’m Dave McIntyre, Director of the Integrative Center for Homeland Security at Texas A&M.
The Domestic Extremism Lexicon is an eleven page document prepared by the DHS Homeland Environment Threat Analysis Division. The intent was to provide a short set of standard definitions for intelligence fusion centers across the US. The terms defined cross the political spectrum from Aryan prison gangs and black nationalism, to Mexican separatism and violent antiwar extremism. Read now that the media hype has moved on, the pamphlet actually looks unremarkable . . . except for one thing. The core term – extremism – is never defined.
The document does define an extremist group as one that “advocates or attempts to bring about political, religious, economic or social change through the use of force, violence, or ideologically motivated criminal activity.” And therein lies the rub.
Advocating force in politics is clearly extreme. BUT – “criminal activity” is a pretty broad term. If that’s the qualifier for extremist behavior, then a lot of normal American’s suddenly looks suspicious to law enforcement. Like protestors who trespass. Anyone who encourages civil disobedience. People who try to minimize their taxes.
Further the Lexicon includes under right wing extremism “opposition to abortion or immigration.” People on the right saw a pattern here, coming close after a recent DHS analysis cited returning service members as potentially violent right-wingers. But the Lexicon was equally imprecise on the left, identifying those “who focus on . . . animal rights [or] environmentalism” as single-issue extremists. The problem with the Domestic Extremism Lexicon was not strong politics. It was weak analysis. It merely repeated “extremist” as used in the media without rethinking what it means.
Three years ago, we had no domestic intelligence fusion centers. Today every state has one, as well as every FBI field office, and many cities. So where did we get thousands of skilled and experienced analysts to fill hundreds of intelligence centers? Well – we made them up. We took many intelligent, well intended, hard working public servants, called them analysts, and began training them on the job – without formal, well established education programs. Not fair to them. Not good for us. In a generation, we may have a good system. In the mean time, this Lexicon fiasco will not be the last.