Hate Groups In America
http://thedianerehmshow.org/shows/2012-08-08/hate-groups-america
The number of active hate groups in the U.S. has doubled in the last 10 years. New studies indicate there are now more than a thousand of these groups in America today. High unemployment, changing demographics and anger at a black president are among the factors attracting new members. The shooting rampage by a white supremacist at a Sikh temple in suburban Wisconsin has raised concerns about the danger posed by these groups, which are treated differently than foreign terrorists by law enforcement. Diane and guests discuss the rising threat of hate groups and what can be done to track their members.
Guests
David Gomez
president and CEO of HLS Global Consulting Group, and a former FBI Special Agent.
Mark Potok
senior fellow at the Southern Poverty Law Center.
Michael Greenberger
founder and director at the University of Maryland Center for Health and Homeland Security, and professor at the University of Maryland Carey School of Law.
Arno Michaelis
former Wisconsin white power leader and author of "My Life After Hate."
Comments
Please familiarize yourself with our Code of Conduct and Terms of Use before posting your comments.
Tyler on August 8, 2012 @ 1:57 pm wrote: “Why is it perfectly OK for our Jewish community to seek our own land, but when White groups or Palestinian groups say the same thing, they are, ‘terrorists?’ ”
I never cease to be astonished at the moral obtuseness of “conservatives”, especially since they’re the ones proclaiming the right to control our lives based on “morality”.
If you bother looking at the facts you wouldn’t need to ask that question.
How many members of the “Jewish community” have thrown wheel-chair bound old men into the sea to drown? (A reference to Leon Klinghoffer, victim of the Achille Lauro hijacking.) How many have murdered Olympic athletes? (Munich) How many have flown planes into office buildings, murdering thousands? (9/11) How many have deliberately targeted private homes and civilians for attack, not in response to attacks from those locations, but to institute violence? (The rockets from Gaza, and too many terror bombings to list.) And how many have staged those attacks from civilian areas within Jewish populations, so that any attempt to stop those attacks must harm the civilians? (Ditto.)
The answer, of course, is: none, none, none, and NONE!
Palestinian groups (and their supporters) have done all of that.
As for Israel ("our own land"), please remember that her right to exist comes from the same source as the right of Palestinians to a homeland: the U.N. resolutions creating the Partition Plan (the original “two State solution). Also remember that Israel accepted it, the Palestinians (and their Arab “brothers” and “sisters”) rejected it. Instead they chose to employ war and (when that failed) sneak attacks on civilians (the very essence of terrorism).
TO BE CONTINUED
PART TWO
Guess what? If you engage in lawlessness, you really have no standing to complain of how you are treated. (In litigation it’s called having “unclean hands”, and it means the court won’t even listen to your argument.) They chose to make might the basis for their rights, and they’ve lost every time. I shed no tears for them.
(Though, since I do respect Law, I support the creation of Palestine. And neither do I support everything the Likud government does. But morally and legally, Israel stands on far higher ground than those "Palestinian groups".)
As for “White groups” (by which you mean White supremacists), you conveniently forget they want to “create” their homeland within the U.S. - again tearing this nation apart (like the Confederacy they so admire). And to do it they use, or applaud, acts of violence against civilians (a.k.a. terrorism). To achieve their ends, they’d make sure their homeland was free of Blacks, and (since many of these groups are also virulently Anti-Semitic) “Judenfrei”.
Funny, that as a member of “our Jewish community” you seem ignorant of all this. I’m not, but maybe we’re members of two different Jewish communities!
chrisrushlau on August 8, 2012 @ 2:11 pm wrote: “AIPAC and J Street are devoted to Israel whose existence is premised on the non-existence of Palestinians.”
Ah, the stench of Anti-Semitism. (I’m sorry, I should speak Euphemism instead of English, and say “Anti-Zionism”). The existence of Israel is predicated on International Law, which called for its creation. While I admit the Likud would like Palestinians to just “go away” (preferably to Jordan), one doesn’t have to embrace your extremism to denounce theirs. Both of you are wrong.
As for the definition of “hate”, it’s very simple: violence directed against a particular people, and any member thereof, is hate.
Take George Zimmerman: was he motivated by hate when he shot Trayvon Martin? The correct answer is we don’t know (yet). But if he did so because Martin was Black, then it was hate. If he did so because he justly feared for his life, then it was not hate, and was self-defense. (Sadly, I suspect it was actually the product of irresponsible behavior and extremely poor judgment - qualities he manifested before and after this incident. But that’s for a court of law to determine.)
And to employ Cardozo’s words properly (from the landmark case of Palsgraf v. Long Island R. R. Co., 248 N.Y. 339), one should “paraphrase” them thus:
'Hatred doesn’t exist unless it involves the invasion (or denial) of a legally protected interest, the violation of a right. Proof of hatred in the air, so to speak, will not do. Hatred is deliberate malevolence, targeted at others.'
I agree that many of the illegal settlers in the West Bank can be accused of hatred, but not the entire State of Israel, or its supporters.
Andrew Tubbiolo on August 9, 2012 @ 2:05 am wrote: “Like many political partisans you are observant, analytical, and intelligent when pointing out the failings and shortcomings of your enemies. Yet when it comes to the same failings on your own side, you are blind to the obvious. . . . Sara Jane Moore . . . Before her assassination attempt the Secret Service had decided she posed no threat. Absent being charged and convicted she had her rights. That's the risk we take in our society. That's the experiment that is individual freedom.”
And sadly, with that argument, you prove to be as “blind” as you accuse Teece Bowman of being. (I’m not sure Teece is a “Mr.”). As I’ve previously observed, it’s correct to point out that not everyone on “his” list was from the "right" side of the political spectrum. On the other hand, I’m not sure the people you invoke all belong to the “left”. (Actually, I think only the SDS clearly belongs there.)
But to say we must allow any nut to have all the automatic, multi-round, weapons (and body armor!) they can afford as the price of “freedom” is simply blind ideology.
Allow me to repeat what I said earlier (August 8, 2012 @ 11:59 am):
The issue isn’t whether the “main stream” left or right is intolerant of murder or violence, it’s the fact that what passes for today’s “main stream right” encourages both the ideology which leads to violence, and supports an extreme view of “gun rights” which enables it. Republi-Cons love to play the “guilt by association” game with Obama, but scream bloody murder when the same tactic is employed against them (with greater justification, I might add).
And just to clarify, I meant using that tactic against Republi-Cons has greater justification.
Ciao.