FBI agent: Domestic-issue groups the biggest terrorism threat in Iowa

[leQ]

i could hardly believe it myself, but sure enough...

Randy VanGent, an FBI senior resident agent from Waterloo, said "facilitators" or people involved in fund-raising networks are more likely to be found than active terrorists.

Talking about homeland security, VanGent told members of the Grain Elevator and Processing Society on Wednesday night that most terrorist concerns in Iowa involve single-issue domestic groups, rather than international terrorism.

snip...

"We don't see a lot of active terrorists in Iowa," VanGent said. "The people who may be involved are more passive, never the type who will go out and pull a trigger, but certainly some who want to support a cause."

snip...

"Domestic terrorists are more focused on single issues," he said. "Iowa's No. 1 terrorist threat comes from single-issue terrorist groups. They're anti-abortion, animal rights and eco-terrorism-based."


http://www.globegazette.com/articles/2005/01/20/local/doc41ef48c23a2c8131136653.txt

on edit: added para

[GoBlue]

1. passive terrorists

I am so skeered.
LOL;

I do hope God has a sense of humor

[madrchsod]

2. waterloo iowa....now there is a great assignment

why didn`t he mention any extreme right wing group in his speech to the boys? i`d place money that some of those guys know or are in extreme right wing groups. oh well the fbi has their head in the sand when it comes to the white hate groups in the corn and bean fields.

[rodeodance]

5. I guess the psychological terror spread by Right wing groups/persons

do not count!!--so they do not get the label.

[w4rma]

9. "anti-abortion…based" (nt)

[Debi]

17. Actually the problem

is organized drug groups...Meth... and a whole bunch of it

[ixion]

3. of course, we all saw this coming

slowly but surely, they are labeling dissenters and activists terrorists.

And building new cells in Gitmo.

All this brought to you by people who talk about 'freedom and democracy'. :eyes: :grr: :mad:

[proud2BlibKansan]

4. So I take it they have no

right wing fundie preachers in Iowa telling folks how to vote.

That group of extremists, IMO, is a greater threat to democracy than animal rights advocates.

[Redstone]

6. Ah, this isn't really a joke

Read a book called "The Terrorist Next Door." (I forget the author's name.)

The book focuses more on ultra-right "militia" types than "animal rights" or "eco-terrorism," but it does show that we have quite a few stronger-than-dirt crazies right here in our backyard.

Remember that the second-largest act of terrorism ever in this country (OK City) was carried out by all-American white boys, not Muslims.

Redstone

[emad]

7. From BBC:

FBI hunts Chinese 'terror gang'


The FBI wants to question four Chinese nationals amid fears of a plot to explode a "dirty bomb" in Boston.
Police and FBI agents in Massachusetts were issued with photographs of two men and two women wanted in connection with an "unspecified threat".

Earlier on Wednesday US TV networks reported that agents with radiological sensors were on patrol in Boston.

The FBI and city officials in Boston played down fears, saying reports of a dirty bomb were "uncorroborated".

The four Chinese were named as Zengrong Lin, Wen Quin Zheng, Xiujin Chen and Guozhi Lin.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/4190159.stm

[Lisabtrucking]

8. Funny how we took the eye off bin lauden, and put it on the American

people. This is just another act of hitlerism.

[leveymg]

10. In Iowa, the FBI is mainly concerned w/ armed racist-survivalist groups

That Bureau spokesman's inclusion of "ecoterrorism" and animal rights groups is a political nod to the local Right. A lot of resources go into watching the White Supremacist groups -- they've robbed armoured cars and killed people, something the PETA/EarthFirst people don't even contemplate.

The problem is that the definition of "terrorism" is too wide to distinguish the difference between assassinations and throwing red pain on sable coats. So, they all get lumped in together for reporting purposes.

[PROGRESSIVE1]

15. If they are concerned with "armed racist-survivalists" then....

shouldn't they be setting up operations outside of Ted Nugent's Michigan House?

[Debi]

18. In Iowa the FBI is mainly concerned with

organized crime...at least that seems to be what is reported in the news paper.

I don't mean Babyface Nelson or Dillenger. I mean large amounts of Meth being made here and distributed here or up to Chicago or the Twin Cities.

Made in barns/corn fields/old sheds. Too much for local police or county sheriff's to keep track of.

The mess made is considered eco-terrorism

[BiggJawn]

26. I thought Indiana led the country in Meth production?

The locals can't keep on top of it? What, everyone's granny is cooking it up between knitting tea cozies?

[Debi]

31. She's also busy deep-fat frying twinkies

For goodness sakes! ;)

[BiggJawn]

32. Our grannies deep-fry Oreos!

Oh, how disgusting-sounding! :puke:

Ever see any of THESE around? I laughed myself silly first time i saw one...Talk about "Truth in Adveritising"!

[Debi]

33. Either Tom Thumb mini doughnuts or funnel cakes!!

See we're not so very different...although I don't know that inciting cardiac arrest can be considered terrorism...

[eldepeche]

23. Throwing paint is not terrorism.

I believe activists have firebombed vet clinics and logging trucks, and these sorts of activities constitute the biggest portion of terrorist attacks in the United States.
IIRC, it was the activists themselves who coined the term "ecoterrorism," referring to the economic (not ecological) war they were fighting, that they wanted to make it prohibitively expensive to do business that would harm animals or the environment.

[leveymg]

25. As far as I know, all arson has been against unoccupied structures and

vehicles. Felony arson, yes. Endangers firefighters, yes. Criminal, absolutely. But, is a criminal act that is calculated to minimize the risk of loss of human life really "terrorism"?

If those are really "acts of terrorism", then terrorism -- which is the indiscriminate use or threat of lethal violence for political purposes -- loses its meaning.

By the Attorney General Designate's standards, pain and injury isn't even "torture" unless it rises to the life-threatening.

[Boosterman]

28. I understand what you are saying

But imo its merely a matter of degree. A lot of times these groups have excellent points but they go about it the wrong way.

*quote
But, is a criminal act that is calculated to minimize the risk of loss of human life really "terrorism"?
*quote

Minimize is the actual problem here. They know theres a possibility people can die and they do it anyway. So yes IMO it is terrorism.

[leveymg]

29. By that standard, any political crime where there's any risk is terrorism

including hanging a sign from a building. The sign poster might slip and fall on someone, or a policeman trying to effect an arrest might accidentally fall. No, there has to be an element of lethal intentionality or threat of death implied in the act for it to truly be an act of "terror".

It's a matter of intentionality - like the distinction between intended murder and assault. In fact, that's where I would draw the legal distinction.

In the alternative, the state should at least have to show that the "act of terrorism" was an illegal political act that involved: 1) a clear expression of threat to human life; and 2) reckless endangerment directly resulting in serious, life-threatening physical injury.

On the other hand, building and placing a bomb that failed to go off might well be an act of terrorism, if the intention was to kill people with it for political reasons.

There are lesser forms of criminal harrassment -- such as setting off fire alarms, smoke bombs, etc. -- that might lead someone to believe that their life is theatened. However, unless there is an intent to cause serious physical harm, and actual serious physical harm, this isn't an act of terrorism. Terrorism should be reserved for the most heinous of crimes.

I do not believe the concept of accidental terrorism or crimes against property (absent intentional serious harm to persons) as terrorism are valid.

[Boosterman]

30. Hmm you might have a point

Intent is a very important aspect of it. Dunno know about the legal aspects. I will have to ask advice from my counsel. Knew that friendship would payoff in the long run. I can use him for internet debate. heh.

[burn the bush]

11. wow, I thought they would call us insurgents before the T word

Did he go on to say in what way we are terrifying the US? Perhaps it's the turn your backs on shrub group? I can see how that could be seen as a terrorist attack.

Anyway, he is basically admitting that homeland security has little to do with homeland security from a foreign threat and everything to do with thwarting dissent.

[leveymg]

13. DHS combines domestic and foreign surveillance functions

which is precisely what makes it so dangerous to civil liberties, which means your rights to freely speak and write what you think without fear. We've exhanged one form of terrorism for another.

Within DHS, the legal distinctions between the two have been eroded, as have the distinctions between domestic counterterrorism operations and law enforcement, which includes operations against groups deemed to be "anarchist" and "subversive". Worse, military inteligence now has a far greater role in "counter-terrorism" and "critical infrastructure protection" inside the U.S. than they did before the Patriot Act.

It's all being carried out by the same people, using the same investigative methods and technologies, now.

[UL_Approved]

12. I don't really know what to say

It is a known fact that terrorism is prevalent in the U.S. amongst radical fringe groups, such as the Earth Liberation Front. They bomb and threaten people. We have abortion clinic bombings. We have guys who like to rob banks in heavy body armor. All of these things were forgotten after September 11, 2001. They are real.

On the other side, I do wonder if we are focusing some of the well-known Bush lies into domestic organizations now. It will be something to see if we have U.S. activism suppressed as terrorist organizations. That will be a sad and dangerous time for us all.

[leveymg]

14. Anyone who uses bombs or bullets should be investigated and prosecuted

The problem is that the Feds have often gone after others, who do not use or advocate violence, for political reasons.

The potential for abuse is far worse now.

[4dsc]

16. I'm anti war and I'm labeled Anti-American

so I wonder if I'm on this assholes list?? LMAO!!

Oh, and I'm from Iowa too.. Post regularly at the Des Moines register forums. I wonder if he's read my works??

[Debi]

19. Not this guy...

probably one of his friends in the Des Moines Bureau! I'm here in Waterloo one floor above the FBI office...Is he reading this as I post :shrug:

[jswordy]

20. I agree with his assessment, having...

...always wondered why the WTC tragedy is called terror but not the D.C. sniper killings. Or for that matter, the murder of a family to shut them up in a drug case. Look at what is happening in Baltimore, Md, right now as far as witness intimidation. And it's not just there, either.

We have always faced a greater terror threat from our own citizens, well-armed (did you know it is legal to own a .50-caliber armor piercing semi-auto machine gun?) and now with high-tech cell phones and GPS, than we ever have from any external terror source.

Why have there been no external terror attacks since 9/11 in the U.S.? Because that was a one-off and it is very hard to pull those off.

Yet in the same period, we have had sniper killings and serial murders and witness intimidation and stalkings...all in my book terrorism...from inside our own borders, from our own citizens.

And yet the administration and federal government will do nothing to fund or legally empower the war against THOSE terrorists. Assault weapons ban? Gone. Cops on the street programs? Gone. Community outreach programs designed to get kids out of gangs? Farmed out to churches, federally funded ones are gone or much diminished.

WTF?

:shrug:

[jswordy]

21. U.S. homicides 2001: 20,308; WTC deaths 2001: 2,645...

...Canadian homocides, 2001: 2645

In 2000, police in the United States reported 5.5 homicides for every 100,000 population-triple the Canadian rate of 1.8.

[livinginphotographs]

24. "Terror" has become a completely useless word.

It's now only used to describe those who commit violence in the name of beliefs that our government disagrees with, and sometimes even when violence is NOT committed in the name of beliefs that our government disagrees with.

Just like "anti-American," "unpatriotic," "treason," etc. the word "Terror" has simply become a way to slander those with whom we disagree.

That's why the WTC is called terrorism and sniper killings are not.

[ebayfool]

27. I have seen people arrested for making 'terrorist threats' for ...

threatening to kick their neighbor's ass over dogs pooping in their yard. Granted, a silly argument - make an arrest for 'terrorist threat'? Used to be public nuisance, disorderly, etc - now you can get terrorist on your record because you tell someone you're gonna kick their butt. Which, in my day (yes I'm that old), was an honorable way to settle a dispute w/a neighbor instead of calling the cops. I know it's not appropriate now, but please ... terrorist? The term has been so used & abused that it has no real meaning, anymore.

[Solly Mack]

22. "...threat comes from single-issue terrorist groups... anti-abortion"

Glad to see it in print