DHS intelligence report warns of domestic right-wing terror threat; "possibly a bigger threat than I
48 replies, posted
[quote]They're carrying out sporadic terror attacks on police, have threatened attacks on government buildings and reject government authority.
A new intelligence assessment, circulated by the Department of Homeland Security this month and reviewed by CNN, focuses on the domestic terror threat from right-wing sovereign citizen extremists and comes as the Obama administration holds a White House conference to focus efforts to fight violent extremism.
Some federal and local law enforcement groups view the domestic terror threat from sovereign citizen groups as equal to -- and in some cases greater than -- the threat from foreign Islamic terror groups, such as ISIS, that garner more public attention.​
The Homeland Security report, produced in coordination with the FBI, counts 24 violent sovereign citizen-related attacks across the U.S. since 2010.The government says these are extremists who believe that they can ignore laws and that their individual rights are under attack in routine daily instances such as a traffic stop or being required to obey a court order.
They've lashed out against authority in incidents such as one in 2012, in which a father and son were accused of engaging in a shootout with police in Louisiana, in a confrontation that began with an officer pulling them over for a traffic violation. Two officers were killed and several others wounded in the confrontation. The men were sovereign citizen extremists who claimed police had no authority over them.
Among the findings from the Homeland Security intelligence assessment: "(Sovereign citizen) violence during 2015 will occur most frequently during routine law enforcement encounters at a suspect's home, during enforcement stops and at government offices."
[img]http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnnnext/dam/assets/150219184500-sovereign-citizen-extremist-violence-2010-2014-exlarge-169.jpg[/img][/quote]
[url]http://www.cnn.com/2015/02/19/politics/terror-threat-homeland-security/index.html[/url]
[quote]Mark Potok, senior fellow at the Southern Poverty Law Center, said that by some estimates, there are as many as 300,000 people involved in some way with sovereign citizen extremism. Perhaps 100,000 people form a core of the movement, he said.
The federal government's focus on the domestic groups waxes and wanes, Potok said, in part because the threat from foreign groups like al Qaeda and its affiliates.
Potok says sovereign citizen groups have attracted support because of poor economic conditions. Some groups travel the country pitching their ideology as a way to help homeowners escape foreclosure or get out of debt, by simply ignoring the courts and bankruptcy law.[/quote]
So most of the sovereign citizen movement is radical elements from the 99% movement. That doesn't surprise me at all. Most sovereign citizens are limited to individual form who tend to just fuck with the police quiet a bit, otherwise the SC groups that go around in RV's and shit are hardly an issue. The biggest issue with SCs comes from unprovoked attacks by individuals on officers. The DHS is not lieing that this will probably increase over the years, but it entirely depends on how the economic environment works out over the next few years. If we dunk below again, we'll see a rapid rise in sovereign citizen, and possibly more homestead militia groups like the Montana Freemen. If the economic environment steadies, most of your blood will remain as is, and any confrontations will make them build up walls around themselves and start to prepare for any confrontation in a violent matter.
Who was it, I think Nancy Pelosi, that said distrust of your government is great (at least it was until Democrats took power).
[QUOTE=darunner;47178614]Who was it, I think Nancy Pelosi, that said distrust of your government is great (at least it was until Democrats took power).[/QUOTE]
There's a difference between being suspicious of your government and getting violent mate.
I see a lot of wiggle room for the government to lump in other groups with the sovereign citizens as "terrorists"
Shot at cops as they broke into your home in the middle of the night in a no knock raid? Cop hating terrorist, take him to guantanamo.
Attend protest? Terrorist sympathizer.
Express anarchist or libertarian ideas? Keep him under constant surveillance
Form a militia (a constitutionally guaranteed right)? Right wing extremist planning to kill cops.
[QUOTE=Fish Muffin;47178664]
Express anarchist or libertarian ideas? Keep him under constant surveillance
[/QUOTE]
Hi DHS!
[QUOTE=Fish Muffin;47178664]I see a lot of wiggle room for the government to lump in other groups with the sovereign citizens as "terrorists"
Shot at cops as they broke into your home in the middle of the night in a no knock raid? Cop hating terrorist, take him to guantanamo.
Attend protest? Terrorist sympathizer.
Express anarchist or libertarian ideas? Keep him under constant surveillance
Form a militia (a constitutionally guaranteed right)? Right wing extremist planning to kill cops.[/QUOTE]
It could theoretically happen, but Islam has been demonized much more than sovereign citizens, yet American Muslims haven't been getting deported to Guantanamo or branded as terrorists en-masse.
We already have lunatic militias roaming around the Southwest, remember that deal with the Bundy ranch? You'd think that if the three-letter agencies were ready and willing to trample on people getting in their way, those guys would have been first on the chopping block.
I agree, I don't think that it would happen for a while, at least not in any large scale. I'm just saying that I see it as a distinct possibility in the future.
Seems like it's a common tendency in all developed countries.
I mean both governments marking everyone they want "terrorist" and right-wing radicals rising.
[QUOTE=JoeSkylynx;47178599]So most of the sovereign citizen movement is radical elements from the 99% movement. That doesn't surprise me at all. Most sovereign citizens are limited to individual form who tend to just fuck with the police quiet a bit, otherwise the SC groups that go around in RV's and shit are hardly an issue. The biggest issue with SCs comes from unprovoked attacks by individuals on officers. The DHS is not lieing that this will probably increase over the years, but it entirely depends on how the economic environment works out over the next few years. If we dunk below again, we'll see a rapid rise in sovereign citizen, and possibly more homestead militia groups like the Montana Freemen. If the economic environment steadies, most of your blood will remain as is, and any confrontations will make them build up walls around themselves and start to prepare for any confrontation in a violent matter.[/QUOTE]
I would argue that although the economy is a factor here, the bigger influence is the badge-abuse happening all around America. Everyday we see new videos on YouTube of officers who are either negligent of laws or escalate peaceful situations to violent ones.
Edited; after reading some more about SC they come off as neo antifederalists. Some of them though, some of them are fucking crazy, not to say other parties don't have their extremists.
It's shit like this that make me wish the Republicans would win.
[QUOTE=Rapscallion92;47178641]There's a difference between being suspicious of your government and getting violent mate.[/QUOTE]
Mmhm, I don't trust the government any farther than I can throw the Capitol Building. But I'm not sitting here plotting armed rebellion.
I call bullshit on this, I saw a report and posted it here a while ago that showed that left wing and Islamic extremism are the major terrorist threats thus far.
Here is one; [url]http://www.unaoc.org/wp-content/uploads/TerrorChart2010.gif[/url]
[QUOTE=Megadave;47178821]It's shit like this that make me wish the Republicans would win.[/QUOTE]
What
[QUOTE=The fox;47178966]I call bullshit on this, I saw a report and posted it here a while ago that showed that left wing and Islamic extremism are the major terrorist threats thus far.
Here is one; [url]http://www.unaoc.org/wp-content/uploads/TerrorChart2010.gif[/url][/QUOTE]
Read the OP.
Read chart title.
The FBI classified "Soverign Citizens" one of the biggest threats in the U.S too actually, but I suspect the reason this is being mentioned now is because the DHS is desperate for funding.
[QUOTE=Saxon;47179070]The FBI classified "Soverign Citizens" one of the biggest threats in the U.S too actually, but I suspect the reason this is being mentioned now is because the DHS is desperate for funding.[/QUOTE]
They are the biggest "terrorist" threat to the US. Citizens should fear these people more than ISIS.
[QUOTE=Code3Response;47179048]Read the OP.
Read chart title.[/QUOTE]
[url]http://www.fbi.gov/stats-services/publications/terror/image/page11.jpg[/url]
[QUOTE=The fox;47179095][url]http://www.fbi.gov/stats-services/publications/terror/image/page11.jpg[/url][/QUOTE]
Terribly outdated. And since 1998 the FBI tracks that information differently than they did before then. The Sovereign Citizen's, while present during that dataset, didnt really start gaining popularity/strength until the [URL="http://www.splcenter.org/get-informed/intelligence-files/ideology/sovereign-citizens-movement"]late 2000s[/URL].
And if you look at the [URL="https://www.start.umd.edu/pubs/START_UnderstandingLawEnforcementIntelligenceProcesses_July2014.pdf"]START report on Terrorism[/URL] (July 2014), you'll see that in Table 2 Sovereign Citizens rank the highest, above Islamic terrorism. The list shows that domestic terrorism is more concerning than foreign.
[QUOTE=Code3Response;47179196]Terribly outdated. And since 1998 the FBI tracks that information differently than they did before then. The Soverign Citizen's, while present during that dataset, didnt really start gaining popularity/strength until the [URL="http://www.splcenter.org/get-informed/intelligence-files/ideology/sovereign-citizens-movement"]late 2000s[/URL].
And if you look at the [URL="https://www.start.umd.edu/pubs/START_UnderstandingLawEnforcementIntelligenceProcesses_July2014.pdf"]START report on Terrorism[/URL] (July 2014), you'll see that in Table 2 Sovereign Citizens rank the highest, above Islamic terrorism. The list shows that domestic terrorism is more concerning than foreign.[/QUOTE]
That only shows perceived, while my two sources merely list those who have been succesfull or at least attempted. You can speculate all you want, but Right wing terrorism is not a threat; At least not as much as left wing is.
[QUOTE=Code3Response;47179085]They are the biggest "terrorist" threat to the US. Citizens should fear these people more than ISIS.[/QUOTE]
Citizens should learn and take away from these extremists that our federal government is out of control. No need to get violent though
[QUOTE=The fox;47179223]That only shows perceived, while my two sources merely list those who have been succesfull or at least attempted. You can speculate all you want, but Right wing terrorism is not a threat; At least not as much as left wing is.[/QUOTE]
So show me sources that aren't "perceiving" the threats. I provided two reputable and credible sources for my argument while you provided an irrelevant pie chart from the EU and a prehistoric FBI pie chart.
You can speculate all you want.
This is what Sovereign Citizens actually believe:
[QUOTE]It is important to remember when we go into a court, that we are in [B]a commercial, international jurisdiction[/B]. If we go into court and say. "I DEMAND MY CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS!", the judge will most likely say, "You mention the Constitution again, and I'll find you in contempt of court!" Then we don't understand how he can do that. Hasn't he sworn to uphold the Constitution? The rule here is: you cannot be charged under one jurisdiction and defend yourself under another jurisdiction. For example, if the French government came to you and asked where you filed your French income tax of a certain year, do you go to the French government and say "I demand my Constitutional Rights?" No. The proper answer is: "THE LAW DOES NOT APPLY TO ME. I AM NOT A FRENCHMAN." You must make your reservation of rights under the jurisdiction in which you are charged, not under some other jurisdiction. So in a UCC court, you must claim your Reservation of Rights under UCC 1-207.
UCC 1-207 goes on to say…
"When a waivable right or claim is involved, the failure to make a reservation thereof, causes a loss of the right, and bars its assertion at a later date." (UCC 1-207.9)"
You have to make your claim known early. Further, it says:
"The Sufficiency of the Reservation: any expression indicating an intention to reserve rights is sufficient, such as "without prejudice". (UCC 1-207.4)"
[B]Whenever you sign any legal paper that deals with Federal Reserve Notes, write under your signature: "Without Prejudice (UCC 1-207.4)." This reserves your rights. You can show, at UCC 1-207.4, that you have sufficiently reserved your rights.[/B]
It is very important to understand just what this means. For example, one man who used this in regard to a traffic ticket was asked by the judge just what he meant by writing "without prejudice UCC 1-207" on his statement to the court? He had not tried to understand the concepts involved. He only wanted to use it to get out of the ticket. He did not know what it meant. When the judge asked him what he meant by signing in that way, he told the judge he was not prejudice against anyone… The judge knew that the man had no idea what it meant, and he lost the case. You must know what it means!
Without Prejudice UCC 1.207
When you use "without prejudice UCC 1-207" in connection with your signature, you are saying, [B]"I reserve my right not to be compelled to perform under any contract or commercial agreement that I did not enter knowingly, voluntarily and intentionally. I do not accept the liability of the compelled benefit of any unrevealed contract or commercial agreement."[/B]
What is the compelled performance of an unrevealed commercial agreement? When you use Federal Reserve Notes instead of silver dollars, is it voluntary? No. There is no lawful money or alternative, so you have to use Federal Reserve Notes; you have to accept the benefit. The government has given you the benefit to discharge your debts with limited liability, and you don't have to pay your debts. How nice they are! [B]But if you did not reserve your rights under 1-207.7, you are compelled to accept the benefit, and are therefore obliged to obey every statute, ordinance, and regulation of the government, at all levels of government; federal, state and local.[/B]
If you understand this, you will be able to explain it to the judge when he asks. And he will ask, so be prepared to explain it to the court. You will also need to understand UCC 1-103, the argument and recourse. If you want to understand this fully, go to a law library and photocopy these two sections from the UCC. It is important to get the Anderson, 3rd edition. Some of the law libraries will only have the West Publishing version, and it is very difficult to understand. In Anderson, it is broken down with decimals into ten parts and, most importantly, it is written in plain English.[/QUOTE]
This is a [B]horrible[/B] misinterpretation of the Uniform Commercial Code, btw, which does not deal with civil or criminal cases between citizens and the state at all.
This is the kind of bullshit that is being peddled to people with vague anti-government sentiments, and it's this level of delusion that leads to people becoming cop killers during routine traffic stops. Sovereign Citizens run on magical thinking, that the US Constitution and the centuries of law built up on top of it can be negated by a few magical words referencing a non-applicable commerce law (which is, itself, a structure of the legal system they claim to be able to ignore).
The funny thing is that the above text has been copy-pasted to dozens, if not hundreds, of sites, but there's almost no mention of when it inevitably goes wrong and Sovereign Citizens get screwed over for all they have by the courts for contempt of court plus their horseshit shenanigans (SCs have filed false liens on judges and cops who tried to apply due process on them, in retaliation) plus the original charges. Anyone who gets fucked over in court gets the blame for not doing it right. The only time it ever works is when law enforcement decides it's not worth following through because of the likelihood of being shot by these people.
If I was law enforcement, I'd take dealing with a dispatch to a sovereign citizen situation on the same level as responding to mentally-unstable people and drug users. They're about as grounded in reality, where it counts.
So...what is this? Are we talking about the possibility of a new American Civil War?
Seems like "X could possibly be a bigger threat than ISIS! Oh no!" is the latest trend in news reports these days. It's all fear mongering as far as I'm concerned.
[QUOTE=elixwhitetail;47179387]If I was law enforcement, I'd take dealing with a dispatch to a sovereign citizen situation on the same level as responding to mentally-unstable people and drug users. They're about as grounded in reality, where it counts.[/QUOTE]
Yeah that's what law enforcement needs, more massive generalizations about large groups of people.
God damn can we just dump the word terrorism already? I've had it with this shit.
Nobody causes terror for the sake of it, and putting everyone who wants do to something that involves killing in the same bag is dumb. The DHS has 0 integrity.
I take a lot of articles like this as fear mongering. Anyway, glad I got away from that shit a few years back.
[QUOTE=Pilot1215;47179934]I take a lot of articles like this as fear mongering. Anyway, glad I got away from that shit a few years back.[/QUOTE]
I would take every news article with a grain of salt, but there's always a seed of truth in there somewhere.
[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;47179963]I would take every news article with a grain of salt, but there's always a seed of truth in there somewhere.[/QUOTE]
Even bat boy?
[QUOTE=Fish Muffin;47179974]Even bat boy?[/QUOTE]
Yeah man, that's the true threat to the American people. More American lives have been claimed by bat boy than ISIS could ever dream of.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.