>>>>Well, the use of the term 'terrorist' is no longer used for extremists and 'terrorists' overseas, but it is here at home:
>>>>
>>>>http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123992665198727459.html
>>>>
>>>>If you are a veteran, Big Brother is watching you...
>>>
>>>But don't call them terrorist. They are "domestic contingency operatives".
>>
>>Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano defended the report Thursday, but she said the definition of right-wing extremism that was included in a footnote should be changed.
>>
>>In the report, right-wing extremism was defined as hate-motivated groups and movements, such as hatred of certain religions, racial or ethnic groups. "It may include groups and individuals that are dedicated to a single issue, such as opposition to abortion or immigration," the report said.
>>
>>
>>http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D97JU0881&show_article=1
>>
>>I'm always astounded that no seperation is made between those who oppose immigration and those who only oppose illegal immigration. They are not one an the same.
>
>Aren't you jumping to a conclusion here? The report says opposition to immigration, not opposition to illegal immigration. how do you conclude that they are not making a distinction?
>
>Further, if a veteran or group of veterans joined a white supremacy group and created chaos and maybe even death on U.S. soil, a lot of people would be jumping all over the FBI for ignoring the possibility. Now when they refuse to ignore possibility, they get jumped on for targeting vets. As I read the report, they are not targeting vets, they are merely refusing to ignore the possibility that a vet (who has special skills) might become another Timothy McVeigh. They'd be derelict if they didn't.
>
>And the statement by David Rehbein that "To continue to use McVeigh as an example of the stereotypical 'disgruntled military veteran' is as unfair as using Osama bin Laden as the sole example of Islam" is a bit of a misrepresentation. Note the first part "To continue to use McVeigh as an example..." vs his last part "...using Osama bin Laden as the sole example...". Now exactly how is that a valid comparison?
>
>If you are a veteran, Big Brother is watching you.... You make it sound like they are following vets around and spying on them, and I doubt very much that that's what is happening.
>
>They need to watch the looney right just as much as the looney left, and if the looney right has a few vets among them, the they deserve to be watched too.

That wasn't the report, but rather a media story on the report.

Here is the actual memo (warning it is 1.94 gb):

http://www.gordonunleashed.com/HSA%20-%20Rightwing%20Extremism%20-%2009%2004%2007.pdf

The report has an entire subsection on 'Illegal Immigration.' That is the immigration they are referring to, not immigration in general.

I agree that there are extremists on both sides and they need to be watched and prepared for in order to ensure the public safety. However, the wording was poorly chosen in this memo.