What the hell is the FBI doing? Why weren't they all over this?
What the hell is the FBI doing? Why weren't they all over this?
c_hawkbob wrote:"Some of those that work forces are the same that burn crosses" ... and maybe that let some things slide under the radar.
RiverDog wrote:I'm not following you. Could you please explain.
My comment was directed in part to ASF, who holds this belief that our government has the ability to track and respond to 'lone wolves' that become active shooters and intervene before they go on a rampage. If the FBI can't track the movements of a very well known white nationalist hate group and intervened before they got as far as they did, I find it hard to believe that they have the capability to monitor individuals whose only action is that they legally bought a large number of guns.
I think it only fair to point out that even though it's still early to determine exactly what the group's objective was, it doesn't appear to have involved the use of deadly weapons. But given the riot gear, smoke grenades, and military-like plans, it certainly could have resulted in serious injuries and perhaps fatalities and is something that at the minimum should have become known by the FBI's our surveillance network, if it is as robust as claimed, and information relayed to local law enforcement agencies.
Aseahawkfan wrote:Seems they got caught before they did anything. F.B.I. isn't focused on militias at the moment. Why are you painting these guys like they're something when the Unite the Right group has been mostly filled with a bunch of incompetents who can't even cause problems for local law enforcement. For all the talk about White Supremacy groups and the like, they sure don't seem to be doing much. They're like Fox's favorite boogieman on the left Antifa, a whole lot of nothing real happening but we see them in the left wing press a lot.
Aseahawkfan wrote:Even in the 90s, the F.B.I. didn't focus on militias until after the Oklahoma City bombing. Once they did focus, they ripped them apart. As far as I know the current fight after these mass shootings is far more focused on gun control and far less focused on turning law enforcement heavily on these folks. Neither Party seems to want to give the F.B.I. the ok to go to town on mass shooter suspects. They still seem focused on counterterrorism and apparently political investigations against their opponents.
c_hawkbob wrote:What I mean is that there are likely those within the FBI that sympathize and perhaps are willing to turn a blind eye to these groups (if not actually help facilitate) their agenda. Their have been numerous examples of high ranking government and law enforcement officials "burning crosses". I was answering your "why aren't they all over this" question with a possibility.
c_hawkbob wrote:And BTW, by design FBI = domestic, CIA = global. Always. And there are severe penalties for one or the other straying across those lines. Domestic terrorism is 100% the FBI's job.
To be honest, the same criticism comes from those on the right, that the FBI sympathizes with the leftist agenda and intentionally overlooks those types of militant groups.
RiverDog wrote:To be honest, the same criticism comes from those on the right, that the FBI sympathizes with the leftist agenda and intentionally overlooks those types of militant groups.
c_hawkbob wrote:Sorry no, not to nearly the same degree. LE, much like the military, is overwhelmingly Republican. "Leftist" sympathizers are a bit of a unicorn in those circles.
RiverDog wrote:How do you know that the FBI is focused on global terrorism? Except in a very general sense, their primary function is domestic crime/terrorism. For one thing, they've spent the last 1.5 years tracking down and arresting participants and groups involved in the Capitol riot.
And I wouldn't downplay this incident. It had the potential to be very deadly. There were other groups, protesters and counter protesters, planning on attending this gay pride celebration. From the linked article:
At McEuen Park, about 100 people, including Panhandle Patriots and former Washington state Rep. Matt Shea, walked to several downtown buildings to protest the Pride event and support freedom of speech, guns and other values. “We do not hate the person,” Gabe Blomgren, pastor at On Fire Ministries in Spokane, said through a megaphone outside the Coeur d’Alene Public Library. “God, but we hate the sin of homosexuality … this is the grooming of children.”
Sounds to me like that event was a potential powder keg.
If they aren't going after these groups, then they should be. Trying to find a lone wolf possible active shooter is like trying to find a needle in a haystack. The members of these militia groups are spread all over the country, meaning that they have to communicate with each other. Compared to trying to figure out a puzzle like the LV shooter, tracking a militia is a walk in the park.
c_hawkbob wrote:Sorry no, not to nearly the same degree. LE, much like the military, is overwhelmingly Republican. "Leftist" sympathizers are a bit of a unicorn in those circles.
c_hawkbob wrote:Sorry no, not to nearly the same degree. LE, much like the military, is overwhelmingly Republican. "Leftist" sympathizers are a bit of a unicorn in those circles.
Aseahawkfan wrote:I tend to agree with c-bob on this one. Nothing is absolutely obviously, but military guys voting Democrat or liberal is a bit like teachers voting Republican. It's rare or at least lower percentage. What percent, I have not looked deeply. But Republicans can usually count on military and law enforcement support. Democrats can usually count on teachers and labor union support from non-police unions.
RiverDog wrote:First of all, the FBI is not military. They are a federal government agency. You can't even compare them with traditional law enforcement as their mission is decidedly different. As the name implies, they are investigators that solve riddles, not cops walking a beat or writing traffic tickets. Sure, they occasionally use traditional LE/military tactics when they go to make an arrest, but they're not going after the small time hoods that are ripping catalytic converters off of cars. It's a different mindset.
Secondly, if what you say is true, how do you reconcile the article I linked that shows DOJ employees, about 1/3 of which work for the FBI, donate to Democratic candidates at a rate 30 times greater than Republican candidates?
RiverDog wrote:First of all, the FBI is not military. They are a federal government agency. You can't even compare them with traditional law enforcement as their mission is decidedly different. As the name implies, they are investigators that solve riddles, not cops walking a beat or writing traffic tickets. Sure, they occasionally use traditional LE/military tactics when they go to make an arrest, but they're not going after the small time hoods that are ripping catalytic converters off of cars. It's a different mindset.
Secondly, if what you say is true, how do you reconcile the article I linked that shows DOJ employees, about 1/3 of which work for the FBI, donate to Democratic candidates at a rate 30 times greater than Republican candidates?
Aseahawkfan wrote:The F.B.I. and DoJ may have more Democrat supporters. I'm agreeing more with c-bob for blue collar law enforcement and likely Marines and Army, maybe the Navy. I wouldn't be surprised if the Air Force tended to vote more Democrat.
Marines I know for sure are hardcore Republicans a lot of them. Army and Navy may be more split. Air Force I'm not sure about.
It's likely overall more diverse than we think and might have some ties to how long a president of a particular party holds office. Obama held office for eight years and likely seeded the F.B.I. with leadership that tended to favor Democrats. We all know the DoJ was used to investigate Donald Trump and the agents doing so were definitely leaning Democrat. The F.B.I. is probably one of the more political law enforcement agencies and probably tend to flip a bit depending on how long a president of a particular party holds office. The F.B.I. and DoJ will often be told to implement government policy on law enforcement because they are Federal.
That would be my limited, minimal research opinion on the subject. I haven't looked real deep into these matters to be honest with you and can't take a super strong position one way or the other.
C-bob replied that it might have something to do with the FBI's political allegiance
C-bob replied that it might have something to do with the FBI's political allegiance
c_hawkbob wrote:Not the FBI as a whole, or institutionally, but individuals within the FBI. Thus "Some of those that work forces", as the song goes.
RiverDog wrote:I don't necessarily disagree with your take, but that's not what the OP was about. What I said in the OP was that I wondered why in the hell the FBI wasn't on top of this event in Idaho, to which C-bob replied that it might have something to do with the FBI's political allegiance. IMO it's pretty clear that, if anything, the FBI has a very strong liberal slant to them, meaning that it wouldn't explain why they were asleep at the switch in the Idaho event.
IMO the FBI really needs to get more engaged in these domestic terrorist groups. The emails and voice mails that the CdA police department has been receiving is completely unacceptable and needs to be ferreted out. And I say that about extremists on both sides of the political spectrum. To hell with the active shooters and the Capitol rioters. These groups need to be pursued. They are evil.
The FBI took on the KKK back in the late 60's, 70's and early 80's and defeated them. They need to do the same with these modern day terrorist groups.
RiverDog wrote:I don't necessarily disagree with your take, but that's not what the OP was about. What I said in the OP was that I wondered why in the hell the FBI wasn't on top of this event in Idaho, to which C-bob replied that it might have something to do with the FBI's political allegiance. IMO it's pretty clear that, if anything, the FBI has a very strong liberal slant to them, meaning that it wouldn't explain why they were asleep at the switch in the Idaho event.
IMO the FBI really needs to get more engaged in these domestic terrorist groups. The emails and voice mails that the CdA police department has been receiving is completely unacceptable and needs to be ferreted out. And I say that about extremists on both sides of the political spectrum. To hell with the active shooters and the Capitol rioters. These groups need to be pursued. They are evil.
The FBI took on the KKK back in the late 60's, 70's and early 80's and defeated them. They need to do the same with these modern day terrorist groups.
Aseahawkfan wrote:I don't think they were viewed as much of a threat myself. Sounds like they were a bunch of yahoos getting built up as more than they are same way Fox News builds up Antifa as more than they are. I deal with Antifa or whatever anarchists in my job, they mostly engage in vandalism or sensationalistic protests. They rarely engage in violence. The videos of them dressing up in masks and acting militant is more for show than reality.
That's how I see it. F.B.I. focuses on real threats and still very focused on globally inspired domestic terrorists and apparently being used in political infighting as I stated earlier.
RiverDog wrote:If the FBI didn't view this as a threat, and I think your assertation that they didn't could very well be true, they should have. There were other groups besides this one that were planning on demonstrating at this event:
Area law enforcement agencies coordinated a large, visible presence in downtown Coeur d’Alene Saturday, due to threats of a planned, armed protest organized by the Panhandle Patriots Riding Club.
Originally dubbed “Gun d’Alene,” the protest was later rebranded as “North Idaho Day of Prayer.” Members of the riding club spoke publicly of plans to “confront” those celebrating Pride.
https://shoshonenewspress.com/news/2022 ... s-shoshon/
Those 'yahoos' could have lit the fuse to a powder keg. They had riot gear, smoke grenades, and a military-like plan. It almost looked like if they were going to impersonate law enforcement. It is clear that they were up to something. Whatever their motivation, it was a scary, dangerous situation that IMO the FBI should have been heavily involved in.
I would like to know just how much, if any, intelligence on the movements of these groups that the FBI passed on to state and local LE. From what I'm reading, it looks like that there wasn't much, if anything, that the FBI had. Maybe I'm wrong, but it looked like that the only communication that occurred with the FBI and local officials was after the fact.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests