Napolitano-DHS Terror Report Is No Way to Treat Veterans
By Mary Kate Cary, Thomas Jefferson Street blog
In February, Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano testified before Congress, and according to news accounts at the time, she purposely did not use the word "terrorism" at all, especially regarding any attacks against the United States by militant Islamic extremists. At the time, the Associated Press reported that she was the first chief of Homeland Security to drop the word "terror" from remarks to Congress.
So it was a surprise yesterday when the Huffington Post published an unclassified report that Napolitano sent to local law enforcement officials around the United States, warning them that "the return of military veterans facing significant challenges reintegrating into their communities could lead to the potential emergence of terrorist groups or lone wolf extremists capable of carrying out violent attacks." Other parts of the report mention veterans as potential recruits to terrorist cells as well. This is the thanks they get from a grateful nation? Apparently not.
Secretary Napolitano wouldn't use the word "terrorists" to describe extremists who carried out the 9/11 attacks, but she did use it to describe returning American soldiers who have kept us all safe from terrorism. Yesterday, the head of the American Legion wrote her a letter asking for an apology on behalf of all those serving our country. She went on the morning shows this morning and downplayed the whole thing as "Washington spin." On MSNBC this morning, she agreed to take only one question on the controversy and said everyone should "take a deep breath," a phrase which always makes me feel like the person saying it thinks the rest of us are a bunch of two-year-olds. Her response came across as condescending, and she seemed annoyed at the question.
If you read the whole report, you'll see that it's full of speculation and "potential" rather than actual threats. One thought struck me while I was reading it: Why was this unclassified in the first place? It was a mistake to put this report out to local law enforcement, where it was sure to get leaked to the press. But it was an even bigger mistake to write it at all. Our vets deserve better.
On Facebook? You can keep up with Thomas Jefferson Street blog postings through Facebook's Networked Blogs.
- Read more by Mary Kate Cary.
- Read more from the Thomas Jefferson Street blog.
- Read more about the Department of Homeland Security.
Tags: Department of Homeland Security
Tools: 
Share
|
| Comments (27) | Print
Reader Comments
Mary Kate
What's your definition of a terrorist?
Would it happen to refer to people who are defending the very elements of the Constitution?
Do you have an issue with the Constitution? Maybe you'd like it to be changed.
Mary Kate Cary Article
There are those who have criticized Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano for suggesting that some disgruntled veterans who return home might well fall prey to "right-wing extremists" and, in turn, become potential terrorists . It’s apparently beyond their comprehension that either a veteran or a gun owner could become a threat to the state. Thus, it will probably do little good to remind them that....
... a few days ago, Sgt. John Russell fired on his fellow troops at a counseling center in Iraq, killing five of them.
... in September 2008, in Tunnis, Iraq, a 39-year-old soldier was charged with killing Staff Sgt. Darris Dawson and Sgt. Wesley Durbin.
... in October 2007, in Bahrain, U.S. Seamen Anamarie Camacho and Genesia Gresham were shot and killed by a third sailor, who then shot himself.
... in June 2005, in Baghdad, Lt. Willie Brown fatally shot Sgt. Joseph Tackett and later pleaded guilty to a charge of negligent homicide. He was sentenced to 30 months in prison.
... in 2003, at Camp Pennsylvania, Kuwait, Sgt. Hasan Akbar launched a grenade attack on his fellow soldiers, killing Capt. Christopher Seifert and Maj. Gregory Stone of the Army's 101st Airborne Division and wounding 14 other officers. Akbar was later court-martialed and sentenced to death.
Indeed, since these critics so greatly enjoy waving the flag, hugging the Constitution, and mouthing conservative platitudes like some mindless politically-programmed robot, it is perhaps far too much to ask that they please, please, please grow up.
Words are twisted ... again
From Politifact.com:
“This brings us back to Bilirakis' claim that DHS thinks that "returning military veterans and gun owners are likely to commit terrorist acts." This is a distortion of what the report actually said. The report said that rightwing extremists would try to recruit veterans, and that they would try to use gun control legislation as a "radicalization" tool. That's very different.”
Your article is a distortion as well. If you read the actual memo you’d see that it never said returning vets were terrorists. The operative word here is ”potential” and this potential has been documented before. All she was saying was that these militia groups, many of whose members are former military, may try to recruit veterans who they see as venerable because of extreme hardships they may face upon their return. It did not offer an opinion as to how successful there groups might be. It did NOT call veterans terrorists.
Mary Kay, I see you were a speechwriter for our previous president. Can you please explain to me, via e-mail, what is with this blind loyalty? Whatever happened to nuanced thought? Why must Republicans take the opposite position of a Democrat, whatever that position may be? Can’t the Republicans see that the hypercriticism, the immediate rush to take the opposing side, is hurting this country? It is certainly hurting your party. Where was your criticism of Napolitano when DHS issued a memo describing the potential (there’s that word again) for increased activity from left-wing extremist groups?
advertisement
