How else to interpret the Homeland Security department's decision to go after supposed terror threats from "radical environmental and animal rights activists", while ignoring the documented terrorist acts by people like McVeigh and Rudolph, who have documented association with right-wing causes?
A recent internal Homeland Security document lists the Animal Liberation Front and the Earth Liberation Front with a few Islamic groups that could potentially support al-Qaida as domestic terror threats.
The document does not address threats posed by white supremacists, violent militiamen, anti-abortion bombers and other extremists that Rep. Bennie G. Thompson (news, bio, voting record), D-Miss., called "right-wing hate groups."
I would be interested in knowing on what basis the department is linking these groups with al Qaeda, other than simplistic "Two of these things belong together" Sesame Street-level thinking. If they're simply linking terrorist groups together because they have a history of violent acts, then the omission of abortion clinic bombers, right-wing survivalist militias, and white supremacists is clearly a political decision. I don't see how you can come to any other conclusion than that the Administration regards the Oklahoma City bombing, the Atlanta Olympics bombing, and the bombing of abortion clinics as perfectly acceptable.
Or perhaps this is what's important to them:
ALF and ELF are accused by the FBI of committing hundreds of acts of arson or other attacks on property in the United States, causing millions of dollars in damages. None of their attacks, however, have caused human deaths.
Killing people is A-OK, according to Homeland Security. It's the destruction of PROPERTY -- of STUFF -- that isn't.
I guess, then, that the logical conclusion we can draw is that it wasn't the 2700 deaths in the World Trade Center that outraged the Bush Administration, it was the destruction of the building, the desks, the cubicle dividers, and the computers.
Aucun commentaire:
Enregistrer un commentaire