FBI & DHS Issue Joint Intelligence Bulletin on Threat of Domestic Terrorist Attacks

DarkNoon

Dedicated Moderator
Staff member
So are you guys calling for Biden to declare Martial Law if necessary to put them down?

Who sounds crazy now?
No but if they try to attack or rush FBI offices they will get what they deserve and meet their maker soon enough if they are dumb enough to march to their death out of blind rage.
 

REALHumanRights

Well-known member
Call me evil or cynical but wouldn't it be convenient if all the radicals try and go guns blazing at FBI offices around America? Reason be,... that would "take care of them" for good permanently. Then we wouldn't have to deal with the radicals anymore and can finally move on.
There is clearly a difference between a war-time military engagement with foreign enemies in another nation and comparing that war zone to practices for U.S. non-military agencies and personnel against U.S. citizens, even criminals. The militarization of U.S. intelligence in this country is an incredibly dangerous slope to pursue, which will only encourage, incite, and escalate more criminal behavior. And worse, it does not stop just there, but spreads to local and state authorities. I recall a Memorial Day parade that my brother (military vet) and (law enforcement vet) attended in Annapolis, and watched the Annapolis, MD police parade out an MRAP with a gun turret for mass-shooting. Yea, America.

U.S. military, intelligence, federal civilian employees, law enforcement personnel all take an oath to: "support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic." When U.S. citizens seek change, my opinion is let us continuously come back to that "solemn oath." This also includes many state and local law enforcement agencies, which include this oath. There are probably at least 4 million active members combined who took this oath, and when you look to history probably at least another 35 million (easily) who are retired, still alive (19M military veterans alone). Whether you are investigator, a tank driver, a computer analyst, etc., the oath matter consistently.

So if we consider that we have likely 10 percent of the USA population that have taken this oath, I suggest we need to step back and reflect. The oath does not end when you are out of active service. An oath is an oath. Maybe it does end for a lot.

Among 10 percent that have vowed to protect the U.S. Constitution, there will be different views on that, many of which we may fervently disagree with. Violence and violent behavior against government employees are a criminal act. But we must also recognize that government abuse of authority against citizens are also a criminal act. The idea that we will fight criminal behavior with more criminal behavior is contempt to the oath that many of us swore. We need public debates on abuse, not using or encouraging weapons against one another.

Within the U.S. Constitution (which many who have sworn to uphold it, should actually read it), there is no provision in the U.S. Constitution for a sitting intelligence community to spy on the American people. None. Congress has the right to create agencies, in accordance with Article II, Section 2, Clause 2, but there is no authorization under the U.S. Constitution for any government to commit coordinate, and encourage criminal acts, and the violation of the U.S. Constitution, Amendment 4. And of course we know why. Imagine trying to get a U.S. Constitution accepted by the states with a federalist power to spy on the nation's citizens. We would NOT have a United States of America had it been proposed. Imagine trying to get U.S. Constitution and/or Amendment accepted by the states to grant a federal agency the "authority " to commit crime. Once again, not only would it have been totally rejected, there would NOT be a United States of America as a result. Those of us who took an oath to the U.S. Constitution should KNOW it is wrong. We should be responsible to elect representatives to correct the abuses. That is how a responsible democratic republic SHOULD work. The best the republic could achieve thus far was an ineffective FISA Act in 1978. That's the U.S. failure right there.

Spying on the American people is blatantly and obviously unconstitutional, and all of the statements regarding crime in the U.S. Constitution come back to punishment or trials for criminal acts, not for normalizing and/or approving criminal acts. Yet, the DOJ and FBI intelligence agency have flouted the U.S. Constitution and their mission by "authorizing" crime. There is no possible Constitutional authority to do so. None. It is literally an attack on the U.S. Constitution.

But the DOJ has been formally "authorizing" the FBI to allow CHS to commit crimes, with well-documented pro-crime processes beginning in 1976, with the DOJ Levi Guidelines (link is to DOJ OIG). The DOJ Guidelines to the FBI to "Authorize Crime" continue to get slightly modified over the years, but the FBI continues to believe it has the right to commit and authorize crime. There is absolutely NOTHING in the U.S. Constitution which allows such counter-intuitive abuse of law enforcement authority. And in the 21st century, such formal guidelines have given way to a dam burst of political and targeted attacks on the public. This are really really dangerous processes, and certainly anything BUT "law enforcement."

In the DOJ OIG review of such DOJ guidelines for the FBI, the OIG concluded: "Attorneys General and FBI leadership have uniformly agreed that the Attorney General Guidelines are necessary and desirable, and they have referred to the FBI's adherence to the Attorney General Guidelines as the reason why the FBI should not be subjected to a general legislative charter or to statutory control over the exercise of some of its most intrusive authorities."

Our national security cannot be held hostage to unaccountable agencies with no meaningful oversight, especially when they are explicitly (and internally) authorized to commit and coordinate crime. The USA is not a foreign battlefield during war. In the law enforcement struggle against crime, we will win and we will lose. But losing does not give U.S. intelligence agencies with law enforcement powers the right to become criminals themselves, and abandoning the U.S. Constitution.

And when such extremist behavior is exercised by those who are supposed to represent us and defend the U.S. Constitution, it is little surprise that extremist behavior will result by those willing to become criminals themselves. Wrong=Wrong. Crime is wrong - no exceptions. No exceptions for incensed political partisans who believe their greivance gives them the "right to commit crime." And no exceptions for those intelligence agencies with law enforcement powers the "right to commit crime."

We need to STEP BACK and stop looking at the U.S. as some war-time foreign battlefield - both for extremist vigilantes and extremists in Government. We are NOT. We are a nation of citizens and laws. And let us make certain we hold everyone - violent extremists of every kind and whatever label - accountable for their actions, and hold those who represent us to ensure we have a Government that does not approve, authorize, and commit crime for our "national security."

And if the DOJ and FBI intelligence agencies want the right to commit crimes, let them explicitly and plainly ask the American public for such authority (NOT from some "Congressional subcomittee") but hold an an actual referendum with public. Have that much honesty. (And if the DOJ and FBI and IC are "afraid" to have such a referendum, then the obvious question is "why?") Ask the USA public, "we want the right to commit crimes and protect criminals for the 'greater good', without oversight from Congress, is that OK with you?" And let us see a factual, true response from the American public. Get it on the record. Same with all intelligence agencies - have them explicitly and plainly ask the American public for the authority to spy on all the public. Ask the USA public, "we want the right to spy on you 24x7x365 any time we have a 'reasonable' purpose to do so, is that OK with you"? Because if our representatives want to legitimately have such authority - ask for them - change the USA Constitution - and get the states to approve it.

Wrong=Wrong for everyone - or - two-tier justice system will undermine all social cohesion.
 
Last edited:

REALHumanRights

Well-known member
Oh for goodness sake can't the US stabilise itself?
Get back to us in 50 years after MI5 is allowed to commit crime, threaten to murder women and children, disrupt elections, assist terrorists to attack your country, etc., and when MI5 is given law enforcement arrest power as well. MI5's official "criminal rights" are relatively new. Wait a while and when the horror stories of abuse pile up, then please get back to the Americans on their problems with the FBI intelligence agency. The abuses in democratic countries will end up undermining any arguments we give to dictatorships.
 

Train

Well-known member
Get back to us in 50 years after MI5 is allowed to commit crime, threaten to murder women and children, disrupt elections, assist terrorists to attack your country, etc., and when MI5 is given law enforcement arrest power as well. MI5's official "criminal rights" are relatively new. Wait a while and when the horror stories of abuse pile up, then please get back to the Americans on their problems with the FBI intelligence agency. The abuses in democratic countries will end up undermining any arguments we give to dictatorships.
You just described the CIA

Regardless this ain’t whataboutism it’s a thread about the fact Trump cultists are getting more and more dangerous.
 

DEFCON Warning System

Director
Staff member
I've been waiting on this. Threat of extremists using violence in reaction to the Trump raid. This has been coming for a long time, folks. I think the raid is just the trigger event.

Hmm... I don't remember this when a bunch of Democrats were burning cities and holding entire sections hostage through riots and "Police Free Zones".

Maybe I missed it.
 

DarkNoon

Dedicated Moderator
Staff member
Hmm... I don't remember this when a bunch of Democrats were burning cities and holding entire sections hostage through riots and "Police Free Zones".
Tbh it's to bad they where not met with deadly force either. Amercian law & order needs to take its fear and respect back. You fight the law or you endanger the public you should be put down right there. Violence, damage to property, or endearment to the public should be met with lethal force. I don't want to spend my tax dollars on their trials and prison terms anyways if they don't want to be a productive or law abiding member of society.

(Not to sound heartless but we should not tolerate or put up with such people regardless of their reasons or political affiliation.)
 
Last edited:

RiffRaff

Deputy Director
Staff member
So are you guys calling for Biden to declare Martial Law if necessary to put them down?

Who sounds crazy now?
Please quote from this thread where *ANYONE* used the phrase martial law, besides you.

Don't be hyperbolic. Nobody is suggesting anything of the sort.
 

DarkNoon

Dedicated Moderator
Staff member
Don't be hyperbolic. Nobody is suggesting anything of the sort.
Yeah I'm just being facetious. Everyone should know by now I'm a very big Law and Order guy. If anyone or any group is posing serious endangerment of people, property, or society should be met with a quick and lethal/forceful hand by law enforcement.
 

RiffRaff

Deputy Director
Staff member
Hmm... I don't remember this when a bunch of Democrats were burning cities and holding entire sections hostage through riots and "Police Free Zones".

Maybe I missed it.
Yes, yes you did. If I'm not mistaken, I even posted something somewhere about an internal e-mail from my wife's state agency for people to not come into the office on days when "leftist" protests were going on downtown. I don't know about the feds, but our local DHS issued a statement about increased chances for violence.
 

REALHumanRights

Well-known member
Tbh it's to bad they where not met with deadly force either. Amercian law & order needs to take its fear and respect back. You fight the law or you endanger the public you should be put down right there. Violence, damage to property, or endearment to the public should be met with lethal force. I don't want to spend my tax dollars on their trials and prison terms anyways if they don't want to be a productive or law abiding member of society.

(Not to sound heartless but we should not tolerate or put up with such people regardless of their reasons or political affiliation.)
Law enforcement is not based on "fear." You don't really "respect" what you only "fear," you simply avoid it or hold it in contempt. Law enforcement is based on shared agreement on common laws. There is no "order" without "law." These go together when they work together. Regarding widespread lethal force, unfortunately for our military-based intelligence agencies in USA, mass assassination of U.S. citizens is still frowned upon, even while our "courts" allow national intelligence agencies to commit other heinous crimes. Those who believe law enforcement rests on fear, do not understand what is left of the social cohesion in the United States of America.

With respect, the USA homeland is not a battlefield theatre of operations, and the concept of "equal justice under law" is not the military view of tanks and warfighters driven in warfighter zones to "suppress" enemy forces. There is nothing "heartless" about it per se (although it is heartening that you pause); it is simply a different war-time perspective. We are not in Fallujah, Aleppo, etc. Even during war, the idea is that we don't simply wipe people off the map without restraint. While it may seem frustrating and try the patience of some, the idea is that we still live in the United States of America. It is short walk from rationalizing military-style intelligence agencies using "lethal force" on U.S. citizens whose actions are wrong, violent, etc., to the same agencies turning "lethal force" on those who might be a "reasonable threat."

In a representative democratic republic, the rights of the citizens have to be a paramount priority.
Now of course, Xi Jinping, Vladimir Putin, Kim Jong-un, etc. have a different perspective, but those dictators don't also pretend to lead a democratic republic either. Of course, they also don't believe in "their trials and prison terms anyways if they don't want to be a productive or law abiding member of society." Xi Jinping has a massive prison concentration camp to make Uighurs and political prisoners into slave labor; Kim Jong-un and Vladimir Putin have similar approaches. Although, one might note that even such cruel dictators and architects of genocide do often believe in at least show "trials" for their propaganda tools. Not necessarily right away of course.
 

REALHumanRights

Well-known member
If anyone or any group is posing serious endangerment of people, property, or society should be met with a quick and lethal/forceful hand by law enforcement.
So, as a veteran from law enforcement, I just want to clarify to those coming from a military perspective, this is not "law enforcement." That is more rooted in the "Stasi" type approach that is more broadly being used as a criticism against U.S. federal intelligence agencies with law enforcement power.
 

DarkNoon

Dedicated Moderator
Staff member
Hey if you think people who seek to kill others, destroy property, or endanger society shouldn't be apprehended or "delt with" the full hand of authority immediately of provocation then you don't believe in law enforcement doing its job.

There is no gray line or what ifs. You endanger others, property, or society you should be dealt with immediately with the full force or law enforcement.

Also law enforcement shouldn't have to endanger their own life to save someone who is breaking the law, if you are a danger you should be dealt with accordingly. If you get shot while destroying property or posing a endearment to society that is on you if you die, not law enforcement.
 

DarkNoon

Dedicated Moderator
Staff member
There is no gray line or what ifs. You endanger others, property, or society you should be dealt with immediately with the full force or law enforcement.
Also law enforcement shouldn't have to endanger their own life to save someone who is breaking the law, if you are a danger you should be dealt with accordingly. If you get shot while destroying property or posing a endearment to society that is on you if you die, not law enforcement.
Of course try to bring them in peacefully. But that never really is the case with radicals (left or right) who seek to harm people, property, or society. Resisting cooperation of law enforcement from people such as this should be met with total hand of law enforcement in these scenarios that seem to occur to offen now.

Just don't understand why we tolerate mobs of people running amok on our streets and not do anything about it. Let's start making examples.
 

DEFCON Warning System

Director
Staff member
Yes, yes you did. If I'm not mistaken, I even posted something somewhere about an internal e-mail from my wife's state agency for people to not come into the office on days when "leftist" protests were going on downtown. I don't know about the feds, but our local DHS issued a statement about increased chances for violence.
Internal memos about left wing activity do not equate to how the government is handling right wing activity.
 

REALHumanRights

Well-known member
Hey if you think people who seek to kill others, destroy property, or endanger society shouldn't be apprehended or "delt with" the full hand of authority immediately of provocation then you don't believe in law enforcement doing its job.

There is no gray line or what ifs. You endanger others, property, or society you should be dealt with immediately with the full force or law enforcement.

Also law enforcement shouldn't have to endanger their own life to save someone who is breaking the law, if you are a danger you should be dealt with accordingly. If you get shot while destroying property or posing a endearment to society that is on you if you die, not law enforcement.
Mr. Dark Noon - with respect, and knowledge of law enforcement, what I believe is that the law should be enforced consistently and equally. This includes basic concepts under the U.S. Constitution (which quite a number of forum members may have sworn an oath to): evidence, charge of a specfic crime, right to effective and timely trial, charged for crimes committed, etc. I believe in law enforcement doing its job. I don't believe in intelligence agencies being extra-judicial assassins or attackers on U.S. citizens, including those not charged with a specific crime.

The full hand of authority? That is the Constitution of the United States of America, and shared law.

In law enforcement, you learn many people "seek" to do things. They "talk" about things. But there is a gulf between "seek," "talk," "think," and active conspiracy to commit _________ (crime). Thought crime is certainly a crime to Vladimir Putin and his KGB crowd, to Xi Jinping, to Kim Jong-un, etc. But unfortunately to the despair of political extremist partisans of every group, Thought Crime is still not officially a crime in the United States of America police state... yet... the Constitution has not yet been destroyed that much - there are fragments of it left.

In my human rights activist life, many people have threatened me over human rights issues. None have been arrested, as there was not sufficient evidence, etc. I don't hound our intelligence agencies to "get them," have them "delt (sic) with," etc. I don't like and I don't have to like what they have done. But if law enforcement does not consider a crime, I don't "deal with them." I respect the law.
 
Top