Is the extremist right entirely wrong?

Indeed, many Americans seem to believe that anyone with the slightest connection to the "patriot movement" or militia groups poses a serious and potentially violent threat to the internal security of the United States.

Before the bodies had been cleared from the rubble, opportunist lawmakers proposed a rash of draconian "anti-terrorism" laws, including increased electronic surveillance, secret national security" courts, and heightened involvement of the military in civilian law enforcement. Commentators, legislators, and talk-show hosts called for a thorough government investigation of the patriot movement, with many Democratic politicians leading the charge.

This rush to judgment has been accompanied by a near, total avoidance of rational analysis. And those few brave souls who were openly critical of the Clinton administration's proposed Omnibus Anti-terrorism Bill have found themselves accused of callous disregard for the bombing victims and their families! But it is the obligation of reasonable and responsible people to insist on careful fact-finding, especially if restrictions on the personal liberties and protections of American citizens are offered as solutions to the "problem." The advocacy of reason and restraint in the face of terrorist acts does not indicate indifference to such violence; on the contrary, it is because these terrorist acts are so heinous that we must not fall victim to the consequences of panic.

Much of the readily available "information" about militias and the patriot movement is being disseminated by "anti-hate" organizations with their own agendas. One such group is the Southern Poverty Law Center, whose recent direct-mail materials indicate a surprising attitude. Rightly acclaimed for its effective lawsuits against racist groups that commit acts of violence, the SPLC says it has recently established a massive computer database of "hate groups," including reports on 14,000 individuals who have "committed hate acts" or who are "affiliated with hate groups," as well as "extensive intelligence" on more than 3,200 "hate and militia organizations."

From a civil-liberties standpoint, these tactics are a little too reminiscent of organizations like the John Birch Society, which kept extensive records on "communists and communist sympathizers." Moreover, the SPLC campaigns for laws that will effectively deny free speech and freedom of association to certain groups of Americans on the basis of their beliefs. Six times a year, the SPLC's letter boasts, the center reports its findings to over 6,000 law-enforcement agencies; then, with no discernible irony, it goes on to justify its Big Brother methods in the name of tolerance:' arguing that "paranoid militant groups" are seeking protection from "imagined threats" to their freedoms.

In America, we don't arrest and imprison citizens because they hate blacks or jews or gays or the government - or because we think they may commit crimes in the future. in the words of Justice William O. Douglas, a champion of individual freedom who also harbored a deep distrust of government: "The views a citizen entertains, the beliefs he harbors, the utterances he makes, the ideology he embraces, and the people he associates with are no concern of government."

Although realistic estimates are difficult to uncover, after careful research I would venture a guess that the number of "hard-core" militia members is wen below the 10,00 estimated by the more reasonable advocates of alarm. But even at that number, these armed dissidents obviously not do not pose a serious military threat to the federal government. The patriot movement (loosely defined) has long existed on the margins of American society, though it has definitely grown in recent years. With the end of the Cold War and the economic and social upheavals of the past two decades, a large - and still growing - number of Americans have become disaffected affected from and alienated by a government that seems indifferent, if not hostile, to their concerns.

But the beliefs and politics of "patriots" and their like are anything but monolithic. Those subsumed under this amorphous populist movement include anti, Semites, white supremacists, "Identity Christians:' homophobes, survivalists, and anti-choice militants. Also included are tax protestors, constitutionalists, gun collectors, hunters, and ranchers, farmers, and loggers upset by federal land-use controls. Most of these Americans are working people with families.

There is no central control or leadership among these fiercely independent individuals and small autonomous groups. In fact, they deliberately avoid structure or leadership. Wild and generalized charges that all "patriots" are white supremacist, anti-Semites, or neo-Nazis - or uniformly anti-choice, homophobic, or misogynist - are misinformed and simplistic.

Additionally, like underground groups in the 1960s, the militias are splintering further over the question of using violences. Some patriot groups are armed and state that they will countenance violence under certain conditions. At least an equal number, however, are unarmed and do not countenance violence (and some of these actively ferret out and isolate violence-prone individuals).

"The vast majority of people in the militias are not violent or dangerous," says James Aho, a sociologist at Idaho State University, who has interviewed hundreds of self-identified patriots. Other psychologists declare that many members of militias and similar groups are ordinary people who feel they have been pushed to extremes.

The one basic attitude which all of these people have in common is a deep distrust of government. After much inquiry, I have formulated the following statements which, I believe, accurately reflect the beliefs and concerns shared by most Americans who consider themselves "patriots":

1. Both the federal and state governments are violating their constitutions in numerous major and dangerous ways, particularly regarding the individual rights guaranteed to all Americans in the Bin of Rights. 2. These documents are contracts between government and its citizens with the primary purpose of limiting government power, scope, and functions. As a result of these violations of the rights of the people, we no longer have the same government; government will do whatever it can get away with; government can be manipulated to the advantage of those wielding the reins of power - and their cohorts, associates, and financiers. 3. This type of government and social order is contrary to everything the founders of our country tried to create. 4. The average American worker now pays over 50 percent of his or her earnings in taxes - income tax, excise tax, sales tax, property tax, and so forth, and the huge hidden tax of government. Given the size of the federal budget and our rapidly decreasing standard of living, many Americans wonder where their hard-earned dollars are going. 5. People within the U.S. government and power elites are trying to subsume our country under a United Nations-controlled one-world government, endangering the sovereignty of the United States and the validity of its constitution. 6. Beneath all the rhetoric, the New World Order is simply the concentration of power into a few hands and a global monopoly over the sources of wealth. 7. The mainstream media, both print and electronic, is controlled by the same big-money monopolies working hand-in-glove with the government, resulting in a public over, whelmed by trivia and dangerously uninformed about the issues that affect them most. 8. America's founders warned that, somewhere down the road, citizens might have to defend their free form of government from usurpers - whether within or without the country's borders - and such a time may be close at hand.

If you sympathize to any extent with these statements, you share some of the grievances of the patriot movement. Perhaps you even find yourself, as I do, in strong agreement with many of them. Clark McCauley, professor of psychology at Bryn Mawr College, states: "If you think these people are crazy, you have to ask [if] there [is] anything the federal government could do that would make you willing to take up arms against it. If you can answer no, then you're entitled to think these people are crazy. But if you say yes, then you'd better hazard a thought that [militia members] are human beings just like you."

Due to the reprehensible act of terrorism perpetrated in Oklahoma City and the fear and hysteria it has provoked, however, agreement with any of the above concerns may result in feelings of discomfort or even guilt. But if we are to be honest and reasonable and preserve our liberties in these dangerous times, we cannot surrender to irrationality and fear.

Unfortunately, President Clinton has responded to what he calls "anti-government citizens" by asking for unlimited power to designate groups and individuals as terrorists and to act against those he opposes. That this request comes from the president who swore to defend our constitutional rights should alarm all civil libertarians. This is precisely the trend that "anti-government" groups are protesting. In trying to discredit and counter those who fear greater government infringements against liberty, the president proves them right.

A recent letter-writer to the Seattle Times goes even further: "It is not enough to track the individuals who actually planted the bomb. War has been declared. It's time to show these people that we can utterly destroy them. I expect the government to retaliate in kind, swiftly, and in a deadly manner. If this goes against the rules, it's time to change the rules."

Never mind that there are already more than adequate laws to prosecute those engaged in actual organized criminal activity. Never mind that the kinds of totalitarian measures now advocated, had they been in place earlier, still wouldn't have prevented the Oklahoma City tragedy.

All civil libertarians know that it's easy to forget about civil liberties when they're somebody else's. But, as Stephen Jones, Timothy McVeigh's attorney, reminds us, "Here's the bottom line: if Tim McVeigh's legal rights are protected, then yours and mine are. If his rights aren't protected, then yours and mine may not be. Who wants to take that chance?" Jones has also stated that, in the government's zeal to seek the death penalty in this case, it has hampered federal prosecutors who might have been able to obtain crucial information in exchange for a lesser sentence. Jones hopes to use the trial to douse the "endless conspiracy theories" emerging from the media frenzy. I, for one, fervently hope he succeeds.

For, as was the case during the McCarthy era, guilt and condemnation are being conferred even upon those who "sympathize" with the concerns of certain groups. Terrorists express great distrust of government and fear and outrage at where its policies are leading us. Therefore, others who express similar distrust and outrage are said to have contributed to the "atmosphere" which "led" to the bombing in Oklahoma City.

Several events did, I believe, "create an atmosphere" which fueled that ghastly act. When camouflaged and heavily armed federal agents crawled through the woods in Ruby Ridge, Idaho, three years ago, they set off a chain of lawlessness and violence that continues today. Space does not permit an in, depth review of the tragic events of that deadly fiasco. In public hearings still in progress, we - the citizens and taxpayers whose money bought the guns and bullets and paid the salaries of the gunmen - are learning the appalling truth about the 11-day standoff which led to the shooting deaths of Randy Weaver's wife, his 14-year-old son, and a deputy marshal. Now we know that Weaver's "paranoid fantasy" that the government was conspiring against him was true. We also know that these same government officials then brazenly and repeatedly lied to us about virtually every aspect of what happened.

In the hearings, representatives of several federal law, enforcement agencies have declared that Randy Weaver bears sole responsibility for all three deaths because he sold two sawed-off shotguns to an extremely insistent undercover agent. When the highest officials of federal law enforcement bluntly inform the American people that the sale of two illegal weapons is justification for the violent death of three American citizens, shouldn't we all be seriously alarmed?

It has been confirmed that there were numerous problems with the conduct of the FBI, the ATF, and the federal marshals. These included "revised" (and unconstitutional) rules of engagement involving the use of deadly force, numerous shortcomings in command and control, and failure to use basic crime-scene techniques in collecting evidence after the crisis was over. High, ranking officials discarded guidelines drafted in the 1970s to rein in FBI abuses of citizens' rights and to prohibit federal law, enforcement agencies from gathering information on citizens or groups unless a criminal investigation is underway. Even the Justice Department's own internal review criticizes government prosecutors' decision to seek the death penalty for Randy Weaver and Kevin Harris.

Then, of course, there was Waco. Again, space doesn't permit an in-depth review of the immoral (and illegal) conduct of law-enforcement officials. As the world watched, our government used tanks, helicopters, tear gas, assault weapons, and psychological warfare techniques against over 80 American citizens, two dozen of whom were children. It was this kind of lawless law enforcement to which Justice Louis Brandeis referred when he said, "Crime is contagious. If the government becomes a lawbreaker, it breeds contempt for the law and invites anarchy."

And Alexander Cockburn has written:

It took the slaughter at Waco to display abusive

police power at its most grotesque. That inferno

was engendered by a contempt for human and

legal proprieties, in turn nourished by thousands

of daily affronts to justice provoked by hatred

of the have-nots and the marginal in a society

of widening economic and social divisions.

I am not so optimistic that the horror of Waco has been perceived by most Americans. Where was the grief and outrage? Where was a national day of mourning? When did it become acceptable (albeit "unfortunate") for the United States government to kill children? A quote from Jon Snyder of the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms is appropriate: "We're particularly concerned about the growing power of federal law enforcement and an arrogance bred by federal officials' distance from local communities"

Most reporters and journalists ignored the larger civil-liberties issues raised by Waco and Ruby Ridge. Broader issues - like search and seizure, the role of the military in domestic law enforcement, and religious freedom - were only superficially addressed. Ruby Ridge and Waco illustrate a widespread mindset rampant within law enforcement in America, where civil liberties are an inconvenience and deadly force is used with impunity. "Little Wacos" occur every day in this country. Unfortunately, it's unlikely that the politicians now expressing their outrage at federal law-enforcement abuses during the Ruby Ridge hearings will apply the same scrutiny to the far more widespread epidemic of violations perpetrated by local law, enforcement officers. After all, these are the same lawmakers - Democrats and Republicans alike - who have spent years increasing police power and breaking down the legal protections of the accused. These are the same politicians who have so increased the number of illegal acts classified as federal crimes that it is relatively easy to hold radical or unpopular individuals in violation of something and give them long sentences in federal prison.

So the current stepped-up surveillance of "patriots" and militia groups will only confirm their suspicions of a government out to get them. Extreme actions spark extreme reactions, and suppressing the free speech of dissidents is the perfect recipe for inflaming an already grievous situation. Only by providing as many outlets for free speech as possible can we create the critical safety valve needed for the venting of anger, alienation, fear, and, yes, hatred. The worst possible response to these volatile emotions is to bottle them up until they explode into violence.

All Americans must remain free to discuss and support any legal cause, regardless of its popularity. Patriots of whatever stripe - no matter how hateful - must be free to speak, write, and use the same public-access media and technological communication available to others. To paraphrase Justice Thurgood Marshall, history teaches us that the gravest threats to liberty come in times of urgency, when constitutional rights seem too extravagant to endure. We must not sacrifice the essential rights of a free people because of terrorist actions.

We have an obligation instead to fight fear with reason. To whatever measure we are successful, to that extent will we preserve our liberties.

Barbara Dority is president of Humanists of Washington, executive director of the Washington Coalition Against Censorship, and cochair of the Northwest Feminist Anti-Censorship Taskforce.