Far-Right Extremism and Facebook

A while back, I mentioned the Facebook group “I’m 10-15,” which is the Border Patrol radio code for “alien in custody,” and the loathsome posts by current and former CBP agents. 

The online news site Revealnews.com recently reported on a number of “Confederate, anti-Islam, misogynistic or anti-government militia groups” who have public, private, or secret Facebook pages. Another investigative site, TheVerge.com, identified more than 400 law enforcement officers posting to hate groups. ProPublica.org cited a 2018 investigation into Border Patrol Agent Matthew Bowen, who referred to immigrants as “guats” (Guatemalans), “wild-ass shitbags,” “beaners” and “subhuman” (the Nazis used to refer to Jews as “sub-human,” as do their current adherents). And on Friday (July 12), Slate posted an article on the “10-15” group, including the interesting fact that Border Patrol Chief Carla Provost participated in the group, which has come under (well-deserved) fire for its hateful vitriol. The article says Provost commented on a post regarding her ascendancy to the head of the agency, but they very fact that she was able to comment shows (a) she was a member of the “secret” group, and, by extension, (b) she was familiar with the overall tone of the group.

Perhaps the most telling post on the “10–15” group is the one with the Associated Press photo of Óscar Alberto Martinez Ramirez and his 23-month old daughter Valeria, lying dead on the bank of the Rio Grande:

“Ok, I’m gonna go ahead and ask…… have y’all ever seen floaters this clean. [sic] I’m not trying to be an a$$, but I HAVE NEVER SEEN FLOATERS LIKE THIS, could this be another edited photo. [sic] We’ve all seen the the dems and liberal parties do some pretty sick things….”[1]

Politico reports that senior CBP officials had been told of the group’s existence as late as 2016, and that senior officials had been monitoring the group “as a source of intelligence,” but had apparently not taken any action against CBP officers posting racist or supremacist comments. The agency did not deny, however, that Provost and other senior Border patrol agents had participated in the group.

At its peak, the “10-15” group claimed about 9,500 members. The Border Patrol currently has about 20,000 active agents. Since the group includes retired agents, let’s be generous and say the pool of prospective members is 40,000 (20,000 active, 20,000 retired). 9,500 is roughly 25% of the total… a truly disgustingly large percentage, but reflective of the percentage of racists, white supremacists, xenophobes, and assorted other haters in law enforcement as a whole.

Many would say that this hateful speech is protected under the First Amendment. But retired TV newsman Dave Statter and attorney Curt Varone (and retired Deputy Assistant Fire Chief in Providence, RI) both point out that not all speech by public employees is protected. Statter refers to “SMACSS,” or “Social Media Assisted Career Suicide Syndrome,” in which public employees manage to shoot themselves in the foot with amazing regularity.

Varone cites the “Pickering Balance Test,”[2] which holds:

Public employees have protection under the 1st Amendment when they are speaking on a matter of public concern as a private citizen, and their interest “in commenting upon matters of public concern” outweighs the “interests of the State, as an employer, in promoting the efficiency of the public services it performs through its employees.[3]

While this may appear to grant blanket protection to the speech, Varone discusses several caveats:

•          “… [If] public employee speech involves a matter of public concern and even if said as a private citizen – if the speech causes actual harm or disruption to the mission & function of the employer, there is no First Amendment protection. In this regard, speech of a racist or discriminatory nature has been found to be unprotected when it causes actual harm or disruption.” [4] [Emphasis in original]
•           Speech that threatens violence or harm or encourages others to commit violence/harm to any person or group loses First Amendment protection
•       Likewise, speech that threatens to or encourages others to withhold public safety services from any person or group is not protected.

Varone was responding to a social media post in which (now former) North Chatham (NC) firefighter Caleb Folwell stated “They should exterminate all captive [sic] right now and broadcast it over Mexican National TV to send a message if you cross illegally you die.” Caleb’s father, Jeff Folwell, was forced out as chief of the Julian Volunteer Fire and Rescue Department (where Caleb also volunteered) also as a result of the post.

Now, the question is, “what do we do about these hideous groups?” Politico said, “[…] it wasn’t clear as of Wednesday that either the Trump administration or Facebook would be able to shut the Facebook group down…”

Bull.

Facebook is a privately-owned entity, and the First Amendment, which protects against governmental infringement of speech, has no application there. Additionally, Facebook can, and has, shut down other hate groups recently. They are very quick to suspend users (including your humble host) who post disparaging comments about trump or the far-reich wing in general.

According to ProPublica, Heidi Beirich, the director of the Intelligence Project at the Southern Poverty Law Center, said she’d been pressing Facebook to pursue secret groups like 10-15 and hidden hate speech for years. Facebook, she said, “can use their AI or their people to identify these groups, and with the horrible language in there, they should have been finding these people.”[5] Since Facebook has been able to identify, and suspend, liberals referring to conservatives as “trailer trash,” it seems disingenuous for Facebook to claim they cannot identify hate speech in the extremist groups.

What is becoming clear, moreover, is Facebook’s apparent dedication to protecting the far-right extremists on their platform. Whether from a misguided sense of “fair play” for “the underdog,” or outright support for their hatred and loathing, Facebook is rapidly becoming the “safe space” for the far right, a place where they can post their hate and misogyny and supremacy and homophobia and xenophobia without fear of reprisal, while knowing that the “libtards” will be severely punished for hurting their feelings. And yet they have the nerve to call us “snowflakes.”

---

[1] I have seen “floaters this clean.” If a drowning victim is found within a day or two, there has not been an opportunity for decomposition to set in. Floaters achieve their gruesome appearance over a period of weeks or months, during which a process called “saponification” allows anaerobic bacterial hydrolysis of fat tissue, resulting in the formation of “adipocere,” a soapy or waxy substance (see, e.g., Kahana, T., et al., “Marine Taphonomy: Adipocere Formation in a Series of Bodies Recovered from a Single Shipwreck,’ Journal of Forensic Sciences, Vol. 44, No. 5, 1999, pp. 897-901) . Óscar and Valeria were found the morning after they vanished.

[2] Pickering v. Board of Education, 391 U.S. 563 (1968)

[3] http://www.firelawblog.com/2019/07/04/nc-facebook-post-results-in-two-cybercasualties/, 07-04-2019, retrieved 07-13-2019

[4] Ibid.

[5] https://www.propublica.org/article/investigation-of-secret-border-patrol-group-launched-as-new-degrading-facebook-posts-surface, 07-01-2019, retrieved 07-13-2019

I was going through some on-line FEMA training, and ran across this little gem on disaster response:

Where State, tribal, or local governments are unable to establish or maintain an effective incident command structure due to catastrophic conditions, the Federal Government, at the direction of the Secretary of Homeland Security, may establish a unified command structure, led by the Unified Coordination Group (UCG), to save lives, protect property, maintain operation of critical infrastructure/key resources (CIKR), contain the event, and protect national security. The Federal Government shall transition to its role of coordinating and supporting the State, tribal, or local government when they are capable of reestablishing their incident command.1

This would be the same Department of Homeland Security that is currently running American concentration camps, demanding papers from citizens with dark skins, and arresting Americans for leaving water in the desert for people seeking a new life in the "land of the free [hah] and the home of the draft dod-- err, brave." The same DHS that has ALL the Federal law enforcement except the FBI. The same DHS whose CBP goons were sharing viciously racist posts on at least one FB group, and whose management investigated those posts... and did nothing.

Maybe I'm overly-paranoid when it comes to der trumpenfuhrer, but I can see him and his playmates declaring a "national emergency" that would "require" suspension of the Constitution.



1. IS-830, Introduction to NRF Incident Annexes, https://training.fema.gov/is/courseoverview.aspx?code=IS-830, retrieved 07-07-19

"If You've Got Nothing to Hide..."

One of the more conservative medical bloggers -- whom I will not link to because he's such a dyed-in-the-wool-right-wing whackjob (but also a helluva medic) -- was bitching about the TSA.

BillyJoeBobBubba "forgot" to remove live ammunition from his bags before heading to the airport to board a plane, and was complaining about the search that ensued.

This from one of those "If you've got nothing to hide, you've got nothing to worry about" types. It was HIS philosophical cronies, after all, who established the TSA (and the rest of DHS) and rammed it down our throats.

Apparently, the fact that they searched a white man instead of a scary brown Moozlum is, well... intolerable.

Got news for ya, Bubba: you're the ones screaming that everybody should be armed, so it makes sense that you're the ones who should pay the price when your gun mania gets you in hot water. You're the ones who say "security trumps everything else", including Fourth Amendment freedoms. You're the ones who demanded the PATRIOT Act. You're the ones who supported the establishment of the American version of the Gestapo. You're the ones who insisted -- screechingly -- that TSA damn near strip search everyone within 5 miles of an airplane.

You wanted it, BillyJoeBobBubba, and you got it. Now YOU get to live with it, too, just like the rest of us.

Moronic redneck LOSER.

Initial Thoughts on Boston

First and foremost, prayers and best wishes for the runners, volunteers, police, fire, EMS, and other emergency personnel who responded to today's horrific events. I hope Obama sticks by his word (for once), and doesn't wimp out on prosecuting -- or killing -- whoever did this.

A few things that the investigators are almost certainly working on:

• April 15: Tax Day, hated by many far-right-wing anti-government extremists
• Patriot's Day: another potential "inspiration" if this were, in fact, a right-wing "Patriot" whackjob
• Boston: where the Tea Partiers got their inspiration, from the "patriots" who took part in the Boston Tea Party
• Massachusettes has fairly tough gun registration laws
• The race was dedicated to the victims of the Newtown shootings, which instigated nation-wide calls for effective gun control
• Massachusettes has a black governor
• The US has a black President

Am I saying that some right-wing McVeigh wannabe did this? Nope, I'm not saying anything of the sort. Just mentioning these points that may have played into some Patriot/Teabagging/Tax Protesting/anti-gummint/black-FEMA-helicopter racist gun nut small-penis-compensating loser deciding this was a way to strike a blow against the New World Order, Moozlums, and other scary people or whatever loser belief system this mutt or mutts might have.

I also noticed that during the second, prime-time special on NBC, anchor Bryan Williams said, "For all the wrong reasons, we've been fighting two wars for the past ten years," referring to the fact that many returning combat medics have seen these horrific injuries before.

My personal bet is some far-right-wing whacko like Eric Rudolph, Jared Loughner, McVeigh...  One of those losers.

On Wednesday, I mentioned the possibility of a desperate last-minute power-grab by the current administration. I said, "I wouldn't put it past Cheney ... to greet us the day after Election Day..." without stopping to think that it doesn't have to be the day after. It could be any day, up to and including Inauguration Day.

Obviously, the easiest way for the Cheneyites to retain power would be to have some sort of terror attack which would -- at least in their minds -- justify the imposition of martial law.

In discussing this with some friends, one pointed out that even Cheney and bush wouldn't have the gall to try such a move. Then, I found this video from C-Span:



"...There would be martial law in America if we voted no..." (Money quote starts at 00:25)

Now granted, Congressman Sherman was discussing the ramifications of the bailout bill, but this shows that the idea of imposing martial law is starting to percolate through the administration.

This is a terrifying thought.

My friend also said that even if they try martial law, the government wouldn't allow it. I fear that is wishful thinking. Congress hasn't stood up against this administration since Day One, not against the Patriot Act, the suspension of habeus corpus, Gitmo or any of the other schemes Cheney and bush have come up with. The legal system wouldn't be of much use either, since Cheney and bush have ensured that only loyal bushies are installed as US Attorneys... and they're the ones who would have to act (assuming that Congress is effectively neutralized, as I fear it is).

She also claimed that during the final days of Nixon's implosion, military and law enforcement units were placed on alert, just in case Tricky Dick tried to impose martial law to remain in power; she said the same thing would happen now. I'm not so sure. In the first place, Nixon's downfall took place at the tail end of Vietnam, by which time the military had lost all confidence in their Commander in Chief; I'm not sure that applies now. This time, one could argue that the military supports the administration's "efforts" to root out terrorists. Furthermore, Cheney and bush have been pretty damned effective in purging the military of "disloyal" commanders.

And let us not forget that after 9-11, Federal law enforcement, with the exception of the FBI, was concentrated in the Department of Homeland Security. I've written many times about DHS, often comparing the agency to the gone-but-not-forgotten KGB, the "sword and shield" of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union. DHS is completely under the thumb of the administration, and Michael "Skeletor" Chertoff doesn't strike me as the kind who would move against his superiors, especially not to defend a "goddamned piece of paper." I say it is entirely possible that any attempt to protest an imposition of martial law would be met by heavily armed DHS storm troopers fanatically loyal to Cheney and bush. The FBI would be equally useless, for under this administration, they have been given powers that they have only dreamed of, much more power than they held even under Hoover's heyday. Besides, the United States Secret Service -- formerly part of the Treasury Dept, and now, of course, an entity of DHS -- is the most professional, most competent executive protection organization on the face of the earth, and like the rest of DHS, would probably be loyal to the current regime.

Cheney and bush would have no problem inventing a disaster: another attack, "warnings" of an "impending" attack (and we've seen how often those crop up when the administration's in trouble), or even using the current economic meltdown. Cheney and bush would use bush's claim of "unitary executive power" and Cheney's position as "part of the legislative branch" to squelch any opposition.

Okay, maybe I'm paranoid, but -- as Henry Kissinger said, "Even a paranoid can have enemies."

It will be interesting to see if the United States of America still exists as a free nation on January 21, 2009.

TSA Strikes Out. Again.

Good Godamighty, this is getting really discouraging, considering how much we're paying for TSA to "protect" us.

TSA conducted yet another of its tests of its airport screeners. You know, the folks who are supposed to prevent bombs and guns from getting on board American airliners.

And, once again, TSA screeners have failed the test.

CNN asked if it could send a camera crew to tape one of the tests, and TSA agreed. Unfortunately, the CNN crew taped a test at Tampa International Airport.

The CNN report detailed how a covert officer with a metal knee beat security by claiming a slender mock explosive strapped around his waist was a back brace. Nice to know the screeners will believe us when we say a bomb is a back brace. Now if we could just get them to believe a bottle of Pert really is shampoo.

Of course, this isn't the first time TSA screeners have dropped the ball on finding mock explosives. See my previous post on TSA for more details.

The CNN report quotes a TSA spokesdrone as pointing out that:

Six years ago, the administration focused intently on handguns. As a result, screeners became more adept at ferreting them out before they made it on board....

This explains how a guy was able to get on a plane last week with a gun.

Guns? Okay.

Bombs? No problem.

A bottle of Poland Springs? Big problem. BIG problem.

Does it seem like I'm ragging on TSA too much? If it does, that is because TSA -- and it's parent super-agency, the Department of Homeland Security -- are violating one of the main tenets of the security profession. They are too busy trying to protect us from the last attack, and not worrying their beautiful minds about the next one.

TSA and DHS have their heads in the sand. As a New York Times writer pointed out a couple of weeks ago, the primary reason the 9-11 hijackings succeeded was not that the terrorists were able to smuggle box cutters aboard the aircraft; the reason they succeeded was that they broke the existing paradigm of hijackings, that the craft would be diverted to another destination. By being willing to sacrifice themselves (and the passengers, crews, and planes), the terrorists brought a new paradigm into play. And it is a paradigm the TSA cannot comprehend.

It is impossible to prevent weapons on planes, as TSA has demonstrated time after time. No matter how much they check our shoes, pour out our shampoo, or grope our pregnant wives' breasts, they can never keep all potentially dangerous weapons off the planes. It just cannot be done.

In years past, a takeover meant hostage negotiations and standoffs; crews were trained in the concept of “passive resistance.” All of that changed forever the instant American Airlines Flight 11 collided with the north tower. What weapons the 19 men possessed mattered little; the success of their plan relied fundamentally on the element of surprise. And in this respect, their scheme was all but guaranteed not to fail.

For several reasons — particularly the awareness of passengers and crew — just the opposite is true today. Any hijacker would face a planeload of angry and frightened people ready to fight back. Say what you want of terrorists, they cannot afford to waste time and resources on schemes with a high probability of failure. And thus the September 11th template is all but useless to potential hijackers.

I said it then, and I'll say it now: this is the template to which DHS and TSA fanatically adhere.

They Took a Lesson from DHS

The fine folks at the Virginia Alcoholic Beverage Control Department (or ABCD) has apparently taken a valuable lesson from the fine folks at the Department of Homeland Security: instead of doing something useful, let's do something horrendously stupid, something that will have no effect on the health and safety of our citizens.

The Commonwealth of Virginia, in its infinite wisdom, has sicced the ABCD onto establishments that serve real sangria. Yup, mixing brandy, triple sec, and wine will mean the terrists have won.

Instead of cracking down on the drunk Virginia assholes driving up and down the roads, let's concentrate on the yuppies in the fancy restaurants.

TSA Strikes Out One More Time...

This is starting to get monotonous. Can't these frickin' MO-rons get anything right?



The fine folks at TSA ("Thousands Standing Around") are continuing to wage the good fight against liquids aboard planes, while still managing to miss legitimate threats. It appears a man managed to get through the all the security checkpoints at Reagan National Airport with a gun.

Before the passenger boarded his flight about 7:30 a.m. Sunday, he realized that he had the gun and returned voluntarily to the checkpoint... Yingling [a spokesman for the airport] said that the agency's officers took the gun and issued a summons and that the man was allowed to continue his trip.

A TSA spokesdrone had this to say: "...testing shows that the agency has a "very high success rate" in detecting firearms." Yeah, if the screeners know they're being tested. See, for instance, here, here, here, and here. These are, of course, the same TSA screeners who are too busy groping a woman's breasts and stealing from passengers (see here, here, here)to focus on their primary job, which is "keeping us safe from terrists."



Bringing liquids on board a plane brings down TSA on you like the wrath of God. But bombs, guns, and knives? Eh, everybody's human, right?

"Prearing for the Last Attack," Part Whatever...

A number of times in the past, I have accused the bush administration, the Department of Homeland Security, the Transportation Security Administration, and/or FEMA of "preparing for the last attack," a phrase I swiped from security guru Bruce Schneier.

A recent blog post at the NY Times shows Schneier and I are not alone in this belief. Writing in Jet Lagged, commercial airline pilot Patrick Smith (who also writes Salon's "Ask the Pilot" column), makes the point that the 9-11 attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon were successful not because the terrorists were able to smuggle weapons aboard commercial jets, but because the hijackers broke the existing paradigm of hijackings:

In years past, a takeover meant hostage negotiations and standoffs; crews were trained in the concept of “passive resistance.” All of that changed forever the instant American Airlines Flight 11 collided with the north tower. What weapons the 19 men possessed mattered little; the success of their plan relied fundamentally on the element of surprise. And in this respect, their scheme was all but guaranteed not to fail.

Smith continues:

For several reasons — particularly the awareness of passengers and crew — just the opposite is true today. Any hijacker would face a planeload of angry and frightened people ready to fight back. Say what you want of terrorists, they cannot afford to waste time and resources on schemes with a high probability of failure. And thus the September 11th template is all but useless to potential hijackers.

Yet it is this "template" to which DHS and TSA fanatically adhere.

Smith's piece -- which should be another must-read (Gawd, I'm finding a lot of those these days) -- is a thoughtful, detailed analysis of why our current airline security program is destined to fail.

TSA Laptops Stolen... Along With Hazmat Driver Info

Transportation SECURITY Administration, which is part of the Department of Homeland SECURITY…

"TSA Laptops With Hazmat Driver Info Stolen"
Dark Reading (10/16/07) ; Higgins, Kelly Jackson

The Transportation Security Administration has experienced a security breach involving stolen laptops from a TSA contractor containing sensitive information about hazardous material commercial drivers. Two laptops, belonging to Integrated Biometric Technology, contained Social Security numbers, driver's license numbers, and names of about 4,000 hazmat drivers. Information regarding the presence of drivers' personal data was obfuscated by two separate accounts from TSA, first stating they had erased all sensitive information on one laptop, then confessing the data was still present on both laptops. Although the TSA ordered all contractor information to be encrypted following the breach, Paul Kocher of Cryptography Research says the agency enacted "basic measures" only after a disaster occurred. A previous incident involving a missing external storage device left 100,000 TSA employees' bank accounts, payroll information, and Social Security numbers exposed. Security experts say they would not be surprised by terrorists attempting to attack the agency because of their failure to adhere to security best practices, such as deleting or encrypting sensitive data. Integrated Biometric Technology will provide those exposed by the breach with one year of free credit-report monitoring. [Emphasis added]

Now, what part of SECURITY do these MO-rons not understand?

Yup, makes me REAL confident in their ability to safeguard our security.