The Department of Homeland Security is considering reducing the number of color-coded threat levels from five to three. Somehow, this is going to make our Homeland more Secure. The new proposed levels would be:

    * Yellow = Guarded  – “A constant state of vigilance to protect against a terrorist attack.”
    * Orange = Elevated  – “Increased protective measures based on specific threat information regarding a known or suspected terrorist plot.”
    * Red = High Alert – “Maximum protective measures to protect against an imminent or ongoing terrorist attack.”

So in other words, in the best of times, the most we can hope for is to live in constant anxiety, always wondering where the next attack is going to come from. Hope & Change!

The whole thing was a stupid idea from the start. Nobody ever defined how we were supposed to react or behave at any given threat level, and nobody ever explained in a satisfactory way why the threat level had been changed. Even if Tom Ridge was lying, that the threat levels weren’t actually being manipulated for political purposes, the potential for political manipulation was there. They’ve combined the power to affect the national level of anxiety with powerlessness of individuals to DO anything about it but look to the government for direction. That’s a nut that politicians can’t help but fantasize about busting.

Just do away with the thing.

Wha?

WASHINGTON — President Obama told human rights advocates at the White House on Wednesday that he was mulling the need for a “preventive detention” system that would establish a legal basis for the United States to incarcerate terrorism suspects who are deemed a threat to national security but cannot be tried, two participants in the private session said.

“He was almost ruminating over the need for statutory change to the laws so that we can deal with individuals who we can’t charge and detain,” one participant said. “We’ve known this is on the horizon for many years, but we were able to hold it off with George Bush. The idea that we might find ourselves fighting with the Obama administration over these powers is really stunning.”

The other participant said Mr. Obama did not seem to be thinking about preventive detention for terrorism suspects now held at Guantánamo Bay, but rather for those captured in the future, in settings other than a legitimate battlefield like Afghanistan. “The issue is,” the participant said, “What are the options left open to a future president?”

So the guy who wants to close Guantanamo because it’s a “recruiting tool” for people who hate us and it’s not in line with our “core values” is considering a plan to detain individuals who haven’t committed a crime and cannot be tried.  OK, first off, why close Gitmo if you want to expand the program?  Second, how is detaining individuals that we can’t try within our core values when he wants to do it for vague national security reasons, but it does not reflect our core values to detain people who actually fight our soldiers on the battlefield and plan and carry out terrorist attacks?  Why evoke constitutionality on behalf of non-citizens who try to kill us when it’s politically favorable during a campaign, but then seek to expand and codify the practice?

The answer is that he’s not who he says he is.  Or rather, whatever he wants to do is OK because he wants to do it.

My concern is that if he can find some constitutional exception for “preventive detention,” will it be applied to American citizens?  Obama’s Homeland Security department has already identified the kind of “extremists” his administration is concerned about, including soldiers returning from foreign wars, people who support 2nd Amendment gun rights and 10th Amendment federalism, and who oppose illegal immigration and abortion.  Is it a big leap to reclassify someone you consider an extremist as potential terrorist?

Apparently, according to a Department of Homeland Security report, I’m a “rightwing extremist.”

A footnote attached to the report by the Homeland Security Office of Intelligence and Analysis defines “rightwing extremism in the United States” as including not just racist or hate groups, but also groups that reject federal authority in favor of state or local authority.

“It may include groups and individuals that are dedicated to a single-issue, such as opposition to abortion or immigration,” the warning says.

First off, you can see the transparently political agenda here in that last bit.  People aren’t opposed to immigration. They’re opposed to illegal aliens entering the country unlawfully.  They COULD get the facts straight, but they don’t want to.

Anyway, if you’re opposed to abortion or illegal immigration, you’re a rightwing extremist now, according to this report that was compiled by Homeland Security and distributed to police departments all over the country.  Furthermore, if you are in favor of the Constitution’s requirements for limited federal government, you’re an extremist.  That’s right: support of the fundamental law of the land is extremist.

George Orwell is somewhere whispering, “I told you so.”  We are being marginalized.  We are being portrayed as kooks, out of the mainstream.  We’re being characterized as dangerous, racist, potential criminals who the local authorities must be made aware of.

The timing of this is curious.  It’s released a day or two before thousands of people across the country gather to attend the tax day Tea Parties in their local cities to oppose the expansion of the federal government’s scope, power and control over their lives.  We’re not citizens exercising our Constitutional rights anymore.  We’re extremists.