The fact of the matter is that all extremist groups have been observed, not merely for the last few months or even years, but for decades, in order to assess the degree of threat each group might - or might not - pose. Yes, there were abuses of this process, the most notable being J. Edgar Hoover's actions regarding Martin Luther King, however, I've not seen that there has been *any* consistent policy of "shying away from" groups of one or another political ideology - what matters is whether a group poses a threat to the populace and/or members of the Government. One of the *fastest* ways to gain the immediate attention of the FBI (and most likely the Secret Service as well) is to make public threats against the President's life or well-being. This has been the case for as long as there was any government organization dedicated to the security of the President and the People.
So, why should anyone really care if extemists complain about this attention? Frankly, attention, ANY sort of attention, is precisely what many of them want, and the majority are satisfied with having their conspiracy theories "proven" by such attention. That is not opinion; that is fact. For a small minority, however, violent action remains the main goal, and this small minority is the threat that warrants investigation.
The only thing the mystifies me is, Why do the media outlets feel so compelled to air the irrational paranoia of people who refuse to accept that there are consequences for actions such as threatening the life of ANY President, or such as committing or even promoting public violence? If someone commits a robbery, and is arrested and tried, that’s considered Justice. If your neighbor threatens to kill you, that is a crime and he can be arrested and tried for it, and the is considered Justice. So why do people imagine they can threaten the life of a duly-elected President or other member of the government, or threaten to harm random members of the general populace, and be permitted to do whatever their free-floating anger desires, yet have a free pass to do so, merely because they claim these threats, or violent actions against individuals, are "political protest"? The plain fact is that some crimes are simply that: crimes. We have the Right to Freedom of Association and Freedom of Assembly, and to engage in peaceful political protest. But threats, beatings, destruction of property, and other personal crimes are simply that: crimes.
Comments are closed for this post.
