Suddenly Pro-Terrorist Michael Savage Sues DHS for Doing Its Job

No-one is born a terrorist. As a corollary, the happy, healthy, well-adjusted, and secure rarely become terrorists. This is true for fundamentalist Muslims, and it’s true for everyone else too. As part of the task of understanding who becomes a terrorist, and why, government bodies routinely commission evaluations of the process of “radicalization” – i.e., what transforms an average citizen into an agent of violence. In 2007, the NYPD commissioned one such report (PDF) tracking the radicalization of “homegrown” Muslim terrorists, and just the other day, DHS released its own report explaining the potential for a renewal of violent right-wing extremism (think Timothy McVeigh) (PDF).

Predictably – seriously, no-one at DHS saw this coming? – the immediate result of the report has been to convince the far-but-lawful-right that, now more than ever, the government is really coming for them. Just ask Michael Savage, who’s apparently chosen this moment to start caring about the danger of over-identifying terrorism, warning on WND that the report (which was commissioned under Bush and is purely advisory) nonetheless represents a concerted attempt by President Obama & “rogue homosexual elements” to censor and stifle legitimate right-wing rhetoric. But wait; there’s more! Apparently, just like Palin politely forgave abortion clinic bombers, according to Savage, Timothy McVeigh was probably innocent of the disastrous Oklahoma City Bombings. Just another innocent conservative jailed and killed by the lib’rul elite…

Savage has gone so far as to enlist the “Thomas More Law Center,” the ACLU’s evil, mentally unstable twin from a mirror universe, to sue DHS (complaint in PDF), seeking a declaration that the report constitutes a conspiracy to violate the civil liberties of nonviolent conservatives. Under Savage’s interpretation of federal equal protection law, you see, you can discriminate against gays & women for as long as you want – but you can’t even talk about the Unabomber without getting slapped with a frivolous lawsuit.

No; I’m not kidding. You have to get up pretty early in the morning to make this up, and I enjoy my weekend sleep-ins. Analysis of the complaint – which is a hilarious hodgepodge of misrepresentations & quote mines – below the line:

Problems in the Complaint’s Statement of Facts:

First, a general note. Be very, very suspicious of any legal complaint premised on objections to a document, which fails to attach the document as an exhibit, or cite it directly, even when claiming to quote from it. It’s a sure sign of quote mining & misrepresentations. Now on to the line-by-line:

• ¶ 14: the radicalization memo reflects no policy. It reflects merely observation of facts, correlated with analysis of historical motivations for right-wing violence.
• ¶ 16: conclusory without evidence. Further, the radicalization memo was commissioned and largely written under President Bush’s DHS. If it’s Obama’s policy, Bush was in on it (Savage’s inevitable answer: “HOW DEEP DOES THE RABBIT HOLE GO?! WAKE UP SHEEPLE!!11!one”). Further, the activities with which the memorandum is concerned are only violent activities, and it takes pain to distinguish as outside of the definition of “right-wing extremist” those who only engage in speech acts.
• ¶ 17: true but a misrepresentation. Again, the memo is at pains to distinguish “right wing extremists” (“RWEs”) from law-abiding citizens. See, e.g., PDF page 9.
• ¶ 18: conclusory without evidence.
• ¶ 19: conclusory without evidence. The memorandum is only concerned with those who oppose with violence issues like immigration, etc.
• ¶ 20: the paragraph cites to material on PDF pages 3-5 and 10, without noting that the quoted text occurs in a context that characterizes such “rhetorical opposition” as protected speech with which DHS is not concerned.
• ¶ 21: misrepresentation. DHS seeks to deter nothing but violence. To the extent that the memo notes that opponents of illegal immigration may turn violent, it cites to historical evidence and does not attribute blame to those whose opposition never passes into the violent.
• ¶ 22: conclusory without evidence. The memo is agnostic on the question of whether  “a private citizen’s right to bear arms” is an “individual right,” merely expressing well-founded fears that stockpiling of weapons has historically been a precursor to violence.
• ¶ 23: misleading. Only because it has in the past.
• ¶ 24: misleading. Only to the extent that it leads to violence.
• ¶ 25: false. The memo speculats only that RWEs may attempt to radicalize veterans, and has in the past with some success. Blame for radicalization is placed squarely at the feet of RWEs, not veterans. See, e.g., PDF page 7.
• ¶ 26: misleading, except where outright false. The memo makes no mention of surveillance or action to be taken.  “State, local, and tribal” entities are the distribution list, see PDF page 2, not the list of cooperating officials.
• ¶ 27: true – and not scary. “If you see something, say something” has long been the watchword of counterterrorism agencies. It’s posted all over the New York City subway system, and in every airport.
• ¶ 28: conclusory without evidence or citation.

Bottom line: DHS’ memo is only concerned with violent activity and its warning signs. To the extent that it “chills” whackjobs and predicate protected expression, that’s just the way counterterrorism has to go. If you don’t like that, “Dr.” Savage – welcome to the far left. I hear they have cookies.

We’ll cover problems in the complaint’s legal theories later. A preview: Savage & the Thomas More Law Center should familiarize themselves with the phrase “dismissal with prejudice.”