Garland visibly distressed as lawmaker questions him about anti-Catholic FBI memo.
U.S. Attorney General Merrick Garland’s Fiery Exchange with Lawmaker Over FBI Memo
During a heated hearing before the House Judiciary Committee, Attorney General Merrick Garland found himself in the hot seat as Rep. Jeff Van Drew pressed him on the FBI’s memo labeling Radical-Traditional Catholics as potential domestic terrorists.
Garland, visibly upset, vehemently denied any knowledge of what “traditional” meant in this context. But Van Drew persisted, asking if Catholics who attend church could be considered as such. Garland, defending his family background, passionately rejected the idea of discriminating against any religion.
The tension escalated when Van Drew pointed out that it was the FBI, under Garland’s jurisdiction, that had sent undercover agents into Catholic churches. This revelation stemmed from an intelligence document leaked earlier this year by FBI whistleblower Kyle Seraphin.
Seraphin’s exposé shed light on the bureau’s targeting of traditional Catholics, branding them as racially or ethnically motivated violent extremists. He argued that this biased approach further weaponized the FBI against conservative Americans, potentially violating their First Amendment rights.
Although the FBI swiftly removed the anti-Catholic memo from its system, Garland and FBI Director Christopher Wray expressed their dismay during the hearing. Garland admitted that Catholics are not extremists, but when asked if anyone was fired for producing the memo, he claimed ignorance.
Attorney General Garland responds to Rep. Jeff Van Drew’s (R-NJ) questions about the DOJ and FBI persecuting traditional Catholics: “The idea that someone with my family background would discriminate against any religion is so outrageous! So absurd!” pic.twitter.com/RKoTcXIL0o
— CSPAN (@cspan) September 20, 2023
Garland, who comes from a Jewish background, shared in his opening statement how his family fled persecution in Eastern Europe. He emphasized his commitment to repaying the debt his family owes to the country that provided them refuge.
How does the FBI justify targeting certain religious or ideological groups in their efforts to identify potential threats to national security?
Ntly defended the memo, stating that it was the FBI’s responsibility to identify potential threats to national security. He argued that the memo was not targeting individuals based on their religious beliefs, but rather focusing on the actions and ideologies associated with extremism.
Rep. Van Drew, however, argued that labeling an entire group of people as potential domestic terrorists based on their religious affiliation was a violation of their constitutional rights. He pointed out that the memo did not provide any concrete evidence linking Radical-Traditional Catholics to acts of terrorism.
The fiery exchange between Garland and Van Drew highlighted the ongoing debate over the balance between national security and civil liberties. The FBI memo, which came to light earlier this year, sparked controversy and raised questions about the agency’s profiling practices.
Proponents of the memo argue that it is crucial for law enforcement agencies to identify potential threats, even if it means highlighting certain religious or ideological groups. They argue that the memo was not meant to target all Radical-Traditional Catholics, but only those who exhibit extremist behavior.
On the other hand, critics argue that profiling based on religious affiliation undermines the principles of religious freedom and equal treatment under the law. They contend that it is a dangerous precedent that could lead to the targeting and marginalization of innocent individuals.
During the hearing, Garland assured lawmakers that the memo would be reviewed and evaluated for any potential violations of civil liberties. He acknowledged that the concerns raised by Rep. Van Drew were important and warranted further investigation. He also expressed his commitment to upholding the rule of law and protecting the rights of all individuals.
This incident raises broader questions about the balance between protecting national security and respecting civil liberties. In an increasingly complex and diverse society, it is crucial for law enforcement agencies to tread carefully and ensure that their actions do not infringe upon individuals’ rights.
The role of the attorney general in steering the nation’s law enforcement policies is of utmost importance. Garland’s commitment to transparency and accountability provides a glimmer of hope for those concerned about potential abuses of power.
Ultimately, the fiery exchange between Garland and Van Drew serves as a reminder of the ongoing challenges facing our society. Striking the right balance between security and civil liberties is a delicate task, one that requires informed debate and careful consideration. As citizens, it is our responsibility to hold our elected officials accountable and ensure that our rights are protected.
" Conservative News Daily does not always share or support the views and opinions expressed here; they are just those of the writer."
