But then there was this: https://twitter.com/NatSecGeek/status/1273329710576152581
https://www.csis.org/analysis/rise-far-right-extremism-unite...
https://www.americanprogress.org/issues/security/reports/201...
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2019/04/03/world/white-e...
https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2019/01/homegrown-...
So right wing terrorism is a greater threat, unless you are worried about being killed.
(Nobody ever gave them credit for competence.)
https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2019/08/right-wing-terro...
And who poses the greater threat to any community, the police (some of whom are brutal) or the local criminals, gangs and traffickers?
But if asked "Are you more worried about right wing or islamist extremists?", my answer is "Yes".
Whereas something that is well known and homegrown in the USA (Timothy McVeigh, anyone?) has had a much lower level of concern assigned to it until very recently.
But we still should take efforts to reduce that, whether it's by building showers with textured floors and efforts to counteract terrorism...
https://www.seattlepi.com/national/article/Someone-drowns-in...
Watch them find something KKK-related in here.
(It's also worthwhile in discussions about "crime" to remember that it's a very loaded term. For example, wage theft numbers absolutely eclipse burglary, yet those are rarely what we think about when we hear "crime")
We don’t take terrorism or white supremacy seriously because it poses an imminent threat to everyone right now, we take it seriously because it has the potential to put hundreds of thousands to millions of lives at risk in the future if left unaddressed.
https://zbpublic.blob.core.windows.net/public/terrorism2015/...
Also modern terrorism is bad but we forget that far-left and state sponsored terrorism was worse in the 80s (numbers as of 2017):
number of attacks over time: https://zbpublic.blob.core.windows.net/public/terrorism2015/...
number of deaths: https://zbpublic.blob.core.windows.net/public/terrorism2015/...
And this is in the EU. In the US I am sure the numbers would be completely drown in the numbers for common crime.
If they really want to keep their means and methods secret, the way to do that would be by giving their internal complaints system enough teeth to never require leaking full documents in the first place.
But both groups are definately conservative and hold some of the same ideas. They both want the world and power they or their grandfathers had 50-150 years ago.
Police departments, comparatively, are not that classified or secretive. It's definitely much more likely that there's evidence of undercover operations that were leaked by this, probably. Certainly much more likely than something KKK related, what makes you say that? I admittedly haven't looked to see how far back in time these files go, so something these days seems a little outlandish, at least from what I know right now.
So unless they are very bad at their job at gather intelligence and analyze outcomes, leaks don't cost lives unless they allow it. It like a pyromaniac telling the fire department the exact location (down to the meter) and exact time (down to the second), and what exact mechanism they intend to use to light a fire. The fire department will get annoyed and angry, and the police will likely show up, but the risk for someone to die in a fire is quite low.
I looked at the articles you linked to. The New York Times mentions white extremist suggesting racially motivated but also mentions international terrorism instead of domestic terrorism. Your first source attempts to define right-wing extremism as a political motivation. That said your point isn’t very clear.
If you are limiting your point to domestic US terrorism racially motivated terrorism greatly exceeds religiously motivated terrorism but the numbers are tiny either way. If you are talking internationally religiously motivated terrorism by far takes the lead when you consider that ISIS is a growing threat in Afghanistan and Pakistan and when you consider the various terrorist organizations in sub-Saharan Africa like Boko Haram.
It is a distinction without a difference.
I think two "issues" are the relatively better protection against surveillance US citizens have (I wouldn't think it's an issue at all, hence the quotes) and the fact that they tend to be lone wolves more than Islamic terrorism, which often works through networks.
So it's not that easy to spot people like McVeigh, Kaczynski, or outside the US Breivik, before they act.
"Right-wing extremism" was clearly intended to refer to the home-grown variety here.
And how "tiny" the numbers are is somewhat subjective. Terrorism works by terrorizing, meaning its intended to affect far more people than the immediate victims by instilling fear.
Just from the last few years, everyone will remember the Orlando nightclub shooting, the Pittsburgh synagogue, the Q/MAGA-superfan mailing pipe bombs, or the Poway synagogue shooting. There are many more that you may have forgotten on wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terrorism_in_the_United_States...
Police should worry a bit about it of course.
Mistakes happen all the time, and that doesn't even get into poor redaction methods that can be reversed, ESPECIALLY since the groups being targeted are most likely able to put pieces together that journalists can't. The mysterious nine character name might be a total mystery to the interns at NYT, but if you're an insurgent with the context of the rest of the report and (most likely) a few good names to guess with it's far from real mystery.
To reiterate, the lives in question are likely still classified, and revealing even their deaths can come at significant cost. Telling terrorists that they have the right guy presents about zero benefit to anyone but them, so there's no reason it'd be public information.
Furthermore, lives are a pretty low bar. I don't think it should be controversial to say that the US government, for instance, should be a few steps ahead of violent extremists. Debating the specifics of how and what measures are appropriate is another very important and necessary conversation, but saying that redacted leaks are totally fine is like giving just the suits of your cards to your opponent. Nothing like this is harmless, that's just myopic.
I am clearly reading from the material provided. Perhaps we have a difference in reading comprehension.
> was clearly intended
It is defined or it isn’t. I don’t like subjectively inventing definitions to fit a poorly framed argument.
- victim becomes a martyr despite being "no angel" (Weaver was a white supremacist, dealing in illegal firearms)
- initial involvement of law enforcement is entrapment (undercover ATF agents)
- lies by law enforcement ("the ATF filed the gun charges in June 1990. It claimed that Weaver was a bank robber with criminal convictions.[27] (Those claims were false: at that time Weaver had no criminal record. The 1995 Senate investigation found: "Weaver was not a suspect in any bank robberies.")
- basic cockups (court date mixup)
- absurdly long quasi-siege
- significantly lighter treatment and more investigation than similar fiascoes for nonwhite people (e.g. Breonna Taylor); the 2020 version of this would probably have just been to drive a MRAP through the shack and use the return fire as sufficient justification for the killings (see e.g. https://www.forbes.com/sites/erikkain/2011/08/31/actor-steve... )
- they shot the dog. They always shoot the dog
- attempt to prosecute sniper is met with sovereign immunity, case is dropped
There is however a lot of conditions for that to happen, which is why the general claim that a leak could endanger lives should be seen as rare, unlikely, while possible event.
To make a guesstimate, journalist and government official risked more life by the additional traveling by plane and car in order to discuss and publically address the leaked documents of Chelsea Manning than the risk exposed by the leaked documents themselves. The agencies involved was likely competent enough to eliminate all higher risks well before the publication date.
> Furthermore, lives are a pretty low bar
I don't think anyone object to that. Leaks should be seen as having a high risk of disrupting operations and increasing resource costs. I would expect that pulling out operatives, protecting collaborators, replacing operatives, and operations that fails are all very costly. The trade between an informed citizens and costs is something which should be more often discussed in politics. Journalists can sometimes reduce the costs with careful work, but it not a clear cut and sometimes they will make a mistake and sometimes its the government that goes to far in hiding too much information from its citizens.
