As to the reasons for this rising extremism, he argued that “military institutions tend to become more conservative and isolated from civilian society” and that “these conservative tendencies are constantly reinforced, and young military members can be easy prey for the extreme right-wing groups that relate through similar conservative ideology. Unfortunately, the United States Criminal Code and the Uniform Code of Military Justice do not currently provide the tools to deal with this crisis, as they do not treat domestic extremism as a specific criminal offense,” he wrote, adding, “Codifying domestic extremism as a punitive article under the military code would provide a means for commanders to adequately address the rising tide of domestic extremism.” [More]
While everyone else is understandably focused on the outrage of this embedded enemy within greasing the skids for terrorists, I’d like to call at least some of the attention to another motive at work here. This Lt. Col. Michael Schrama character is a fine one to talk about extremism in the ranks.
The masters he serves are intent on purging Oath Keepers and ensuring all orders, no matter how unlawful will be obeyed.
Meanwhile, the left has hijacked the concept to call for disobedience of lawful ones.
Note the fixation on a threat from extremist right wing groups with no acknowledgement that equivalent extremist left wing groups even exist. That flies in the face of where the overwhelming bulk of extremist driven political violence in the USA originates.
The extremist left is flush with cash. Enough to have BLM cash siphoned off by leaders intent on getting rich in LA’s real estate market. Meanwhile SPLC has to buy cross burning supplies and robes for cash strapped KKK units.
First, what DDS said.
Second, of course there’s no codified offense of “domestic extremism.” It’s a thought, idea, or set of beliefs, not an action. If they had said “domestic terrorism” or any other action, we can discuss, but they’re literally talking about what’s in a person’s head that they’re NOT acting upon.
IOW, they’re looking to codify a punitive article against “wrongthink.”
Paired with what DDS said, it’s clear which direction is to be considered “wrongthink” and which is “goodthink.”
I would say, “Good luck proving what someone is thinking to themselves,” but something tells me, if they get their way, the mere accusation will be proof enough to convict.