Meeting of members of the Republic of Texas
On Valentine's Day 2015, some 20 "armed and armored" officers from six different local, state, and federal law enforcement agencies descended upon a group of 60 citizens who were meeting in Bryan, Texas, to conduct business as the
Republic of Texas. The group, which claims sovereignty and is planning to appeal to an international court (they haven't yet decided which one), has its own government and currency.
Disturbed by the foreclosure of a member's home, the group sent a summons to a Kerr County judge and to a bank employee. Those summonses were apparently the last straw piled on a bale of "simulated documents" with which the group has flooded the local courts, and prompted the law enforcement officials to act.
It is not often that Bryan Police Department, the Brazos County Sheriff's Office, the Kerr County Sheriff's Office, agents of the Texas district attorney, the Texas Rangers, and the FBI combine to serve a search warrant for suspicion of a misdemeanor crime. But, according to the Houston Chronicle, Kerr County sheriff Rusty Hierholzer indicated ...
... that he had worries that some extremists in the group could become violent, citing a 1997 incident when 300 state troopers surrounded an armed Republic leader for a weeklong standoff.
That may have been one reason, but close cooperation between local, county, state, and federal law enforcement has increased since 9/11 as the nation struggles to contain the threat from domestic terrorism. Much as the right wanted President Obama to rail about Islamic terrorists during the recent White House conference, in truth, that is not our greatest threat. Please join me below the fold for more.
Multiple reports have been issued over the past year highlighting the danger posed by right-wing domestic terrorist groups that are unrelated to Islamic extremists. Fox News and its fellow bubble residents have been grappling with their indignation that someone might consider their followers to be dangerous, in spite of the threats and killings that have already occurred.
The FBI National Domestic Threat Assessment was greeted with howls of outrage last summer when a copy was obtained by the Beacon Free Press, which headlined its article: FBI National Domestic Threat Assessment Omits Islamist Terrorism:
They include anti-government militia groups and white supremacy extremists, along with “sovereign citizen” nationalists, and anarchists. Other domestic threat groups outlined by the FBI assessment include violent animal rights and environmentalist extremists, black separatists, anti- and pro-abortion activists, and Puerto Rican nationalists.
FBI spokesman Paul Bresson said the issue of not identifying Islamist-origin terrorism in the report “has more to do with how the FBI, from an organizational standpoint, distinguishes [domestic terrorism] and [international terrorism].”
The fact that the FBI has a separate reporting mechanism for international or internationally inspired terrorism did not blunt the outrage. Of course. After all, this was the same media that forced Janet Napolitano to retract the
2009 DHS terror assessment. That report was produced by the Bush administration, and named the same groups as threats. Not only did Napolitano retract the report, the agency disbanded the group that had been dedicated to studying domestic terrorism in response to Republican outrage:
The DHS/Office of Intelligence and Analysis (I&A) has no specific
information that domestic rightwing* terrorists are currently planning acts of violence,
but rightwing extremists may be gaining new recruits by playing on their fears about
several emergent issues. The economic downturn and the election of the first
African American president present unique drivers for rightwing radicalization and
recruitment.
...
* (U) Rightwing extremism in the United States can be broadly divided into those groups, movements, and adherents that are primarily hate-oriented (based on hatred of particular religious, racial or ethnic groups), and those that are mainly antigovernment, rejecting federal authority in favor of state or local authority, or rejecting government authority entirely. It may include groups and individuals that are dedicated to a single issue, such as opposition to abortion or immigration.
In keeping with their total denial of reality, the pundits of the right were furious that someone would suggest that right-wing extremists would be motivated by hate. Or that their efforts at delegitimizing the president of the United States could have anything to do with the growth of anti-government sentiment among their viewers and readers. Oh no, not them.
In July of 2014, the DHS issued another Intelligence Assessment that did not appear to be quite as disturbing to the right. Perhaps because the main thrust of Domestic Violent Extremists Pose Increased Threat to Law Enforcement and Government Officials was that we were less safe after the standoff at the Bundy ranch in Nevada that Fox had so breathlessly reported on as an heroic uprising earlier in the year.
I&A assesses that the belief among militia extremists that their threats and show of force against the BLM during the April Bunkerville standoff was a defining victory over government oppression is galvanizing some individuals-particularly militia extremists and violent lone offenders-to actively confront law enforcement officials, increasing the likelihood of violence. Additionally, this perceived success likely will embolden other militia
extremists and like-minded lone offenders to attempt to replicate these confrontational tactics and force future armed standoffs with law enforcement and government
officials during 2014. At least three incidents in 2014 appear to have a connection to the events in Bunkerville based on open source and law enforcement reporting.
...
I&A assesses the spike in anti-government attacks and plots since November 2013 is a departure from the random and sporadic nature of domestic extremist violence. These violent incidents are motivated by the perception of government actions (or lack of action)
addressing political issues such as gun control, land-use, property, and other activities as interfering with their individual rights and as oppressive measures that warrant violent reprisal against US government entities and law enforcement, according to a body of open source reporting. These are common themes cited by attackers, but the specific motivations that drive any instance of anti-government violence vary due to the disparate beliefs and motivations of the individuals involved.
Kind of makes one wonder where these individuals and groups would have gotten their "perception of government actions (or lack of action) addressing political issues." Gee, I wonder. Not really, as
Jamelle Bouie wrote at the time of the standoff for Slate:
First, this entire incident speaks to the continued power of right-wing mythology. For many of the protesters, this isn’t about a rogue rancher as much as it’s a stand against “tyranny” personified in Barack Obama and his administration.
Second, it won’t happen, but right-wing media ought to be condemned for their role in fanning the flames of this standoff. After years of decrying Obama’s “lawlessness” and hyperventilating over faux scandals, it’s galling to watch conservatives applaud actual lawbreaking and violent threats to federal officials.
And the right-wing media probably missed the National Consortium for the Study of Terrorism and Responses to Terrorism (START) report on
Understanding Law Enforcement Intelligence Processes.
This report included a survey that revealed that law enforcement officers felt that the greatest threat they faced was from, yep, sovereign citizen extremists. According to the survey of 364 individuals from 175 state, local, and tribal police agencies who had received some training in domestic terror, 86 percent felt that the sovereign citizens were a serious terror threat. Sixty-seven percent felt that Islamic extremists were a serious terror threat.
First, law enforcement perceptions about what is a serious threat in their community has changed significantly over time. Law enforcement is much more concerned about sovereign citizens, Islamic extremists, and militia/patriot group members compared to the fringe groups of the far right, including Christian Identity believers, reconstructed traditionalists (i.e., Odinists), idiosyncratic sectarians (i.e., survivalists), and members of doomsday cults. In fact, sovereign citizens were the top concern of law enforcement, but the concern about whether most groups were a serious terrorist threat actually declined for most groups (e.g., the KKK; Christian Identity; Neo-Nazis; Racist Skinheads; Extremist Environmentalists; Extreme Animal Rights Extremists).
But the one that has them hopping mad all over again is the latest report from the Department of Homeland Security: Sovereign Citizen Extremist Ideology Will Drive Violence at Home, During Travel, and at Government Facilities.
Although this map is static, the one in the DHS report is interactive, identifying each of the 24 incidents, and is included in the pdf. Or you can visit Reason.com
CNN broke the news on this latest report last week, but Reason.com has made the report available on their website as a pdf. From the report about sovereign citizen extremists (SCE):
I&A assesses that most SCE violence will continue to occur most frequently at SCE homes, during routine traffic stops, or at government offices due to their perception that their individual rights are being violated. SCE violence took place in these three circumstances in 19 of the 24 instances of SCE violence since 2010. SCEs perceive that law enforcement efforts and judicial actions infringe upon key personal rights and individual sovereignty—such as the right to travel—most strongly during these circumstances. SCEs believe they personally can ignore laws and act according to their own sovereign citizen ideology. Consequently, when SCEs perceive government representatives directly infringing on their rights and freedoms in an irrevocable way—such as police serving a warrant or a judge ruling against legal filings intended to tie up court proceedings—SCEs resort to violence.
The right-wing media is now busily engaged in downplaying the verdict from Homeland Security, pointing out that the violence is only committed by a "fringe" element of the sovereign citizen movement, and that "most of the violence consists of 'unplanned, reactive' clashes with police officers, not preplanned attacks." Which I guess, makes it okay. They are only reacting to police officers enforcing the law. We certainly must take this into account when we say they pose a greater threat than Islamic extremists.
And we must also keep in mind that when the attacks are pre-planned, they are usually in response to some "ongoing personal grievance, such as an arrest or court order." Like we can hardly blame them for that, can we?
On the other hand, the display of force used in response to the actions of the Republic of Texas makes more sense when viewed in light of these reports. There was a personal grievance—a mortgage foreclosure—and there is a history of violence from that group.
The bigger question for me, is why the hell would anyone want to defend domestic terrorism? Why does the right wing give excuses to lawbreakers? Are they trying to encourage even more actions like the one at the Bundy ranch? Can they be so insulated that they don't realize the damage that they are doing?
The result of the assaults by sovereign citizens and/or patriot militias is the unification of law enforcement on all levels. Local, state, tribal, and federal law enforcement will be working more closely to combat domestic terror threats.
When you combine that with the militarization that we have seen since 9/11, it adds up to a very uncomfortable sense that, as citizens, we are losing the battle to the terrorists. And that for some reason, this appears to provide gratification, and even encouragement, to the right wing.