1. Define civil liberties and extremism as used in the article.

2. How did the DHS respond to objections about their report "Right-wing Extremism" from their Office of Civil Rights and Civil Liberties?

3. DHS would not say what the Civil Liberties Office objected to, or if DHS Head Janet Napolitano was made aware of the objections. Secretary Napolitano is ultimately responsible for reports that come from her department. Do you think she used good judgment in releasing the report? What responsibility do you think she had to read the entire 9-page report and evaluate the objections before releasing the document to law enforcement officials nationwide?

4. How is Democratic Rep. Bennie Thompson, chairman of the House Homeland Security Committee, reacting to Homeland Security's report?

5. How did Secretary Napolitano respond to veterans and other citizens' objections to the report?

6. How do the reactions from VFW commander Glen Gardner (para. 16-19) and Vets for Freedom chairman Pete Hegseth (para. 23-25) differ?

7. a) Name the seven Republican senators who sent a letter to Secretary Napolitano defending those described in the report as potential terrorists.
b) How did the senators defend those identified in the report?

8. Read the following information on the purpose of the DHS from wikipedia.org:
The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) is a Cabinet department of the federal government with the primary responsibilities of protecting the territory of the U.S. from terrorist attacks and responding to natural disasters. Whereas the Department of Defense is charged with military actions abroad, the Department of Homeland Security works in the civilian sphere to protect the United States within, at, and outside its borders. Its stated goal is to prepare for, prevent, and respond to domestic emergencies, particularly terrorism.
Should citizens object to DHS's report "Right-Wing extremists?" Explain your answer.

9. Regarding the DHS definition of "right-wing extremist," the blog redstate.com says: the second clause is both far too broad (as it stands, it could be taken to mean anybody who espouses a federalist position) and downright offensive (apparently, federalists are as bad as racists & anti-Semites). Unfortunately, it's also written down - which means that intent doesn't really come into it. Somebody in the government who gets this document isn't going to try to figure out what the author(s) meant before they craft policy based on it; they're going to go with what the text says, because that's how government officials keep their jobs.
Do you agree with this assertion? Explain your answer.

10. Law enforcement officials nationwide have been given this DHS report, which says people who oppose abortion or illegal immigration, as well as veterans, could be a potential threat to national security. Is it enough for DHS Secretary Napolitano to apologize for offending veterans? What action, if any, should she take?