http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/01/n...?_r=1&ref=nyregion&pagewanted=all&oref=slogin Thought this was an interesting development in our Post-9/11 world and wanted to share.
While I don't necessarily agree with the methods used, I would just as soon shoot any gangster in the face with a 12 ga. shotgun loaded with buckshot, than to look at them. Besides, there are several similarities to insurgents and terrorist suicide bombers killing innocent civilians and ghetto gangsters that kill innocent bystanders. If labelling gansters as terrorists will allow law enforcement to lay a harsher smack down on those degenerates, then I'm all for it. I have no regard for anyone who has no regard for human life.
I'm all for strengthening the power of law enforcement, but i'd rather have a new set of rules/legislation giving them the powers than using the terrorism law, because the moment we confuse terrorism with regular violence, we can confuse opposition with terrorism as well.
I see your point, but I've always considered street gangs (especially the bigger organized ones like MS-13) to be a form of terrorist groups anyway. I agree with having a new set of rules for them, but I also think those rules should fall under a form of terrorism and they should receive similar treatment as terrorists. They have no regard for the law or innocent human life. If they want to kill each other, that's totally fine by me. That's 'natural selection' that cops won't have to worry about, but if/when one of their stray bullets kills a child, the law should show the same regard for them as they did that child. Put 'em all in the chair and fry them!
That's absolutely fine with me - current sentences are far too light anyway. And I agree with the one who said that street gangs are terrorists - they CERTAINLY are!! Their actions fit the definition perfectly.
just create a set of Domestic terrorism laws, just don't let it take away any of your rights thoiugh.
But the definition of terrorism includes motivation, not merely action. The essence of all the definitions of terrorism is: A form of extortion, Conducted by attacking civilians and civilian infrastructure, In the hope or expectation of forcing them to support a cause that is so unpopular among them, That the terrorists can find no other way to enlist this support. One of the things gangs routinely do that DOES qualify as terrorism is to kill people who have testified against them. In my recollection this is the most spectacularly successful terrorist strategy (involving Americans) in 62 years. There is a huge "Don't Snitch" campaign sweeping our inner cities. Rappers brag about it in their videos. People refuse to even talk to police, much less testify in court. A crime can be committed in front of twenty eyewitnesses and they will vanish before the police arrive to investigate. Anyone who is suspected of talking to police is labeled a "collaborator" and is assassinated as an example to intimidate everyone else in the region. Gangsters are killing civilians, in the expectation of eliciting their support, at least their passive support by refusing to cooperate with the authorities. This is terrorism. It's hardly in a class with Al Qaeda, but it may have exceeded the body count of the IRA. AFAIK, the last time a campaign of terrorism involving Americans was this successful was in 1945, when our military destroyed the cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki with nuclear weapons. It had the desired effect of terrorizing Japan's civilians into ceasing their support for the war effort and urging their own military to surrender. Since Japan had no hope of winning the war, its no-surrender policy would have resulted in the deaths of tens of millions of Japanese civilians and military personnel on both sides, probably doubling WWII's death toll of sixty million, until the last six-year-old girl was gunned down while charging a battalion of U.S. Marines with the samurai sword she pulled from her dead daddy's hands. (Terrorism looks a whole lot different from the standpoint of the terrorists, especially in the rare cases when they (we) win, doesn't it?) We need to know more about the shooting in question before we can classify it as terrorism. Was this an assassination for the purpose of intimidating witnesses, or in some other way to gain passive support for a gang? If it was "merely" a revenge shooting, punishment of a rival gang by killing their children, or just a thrill killing, it's murder and a lot of other things, but it's not terrorism. Terrorism is extortion. What was the killer trying to extort?
Most of this part I'll buy - especially about needing to know more about the circumstances. But even a revenge killing is STILL an attempt to terrorize as much as it is anything else. Along with the revenge factor it clearly carries a warning as well - "don't mess with us." Would you dare deny that????? In the meanwhile, until more facts are available, I'll still stick with my stand on the issue - including the part about violent crimes not drawing serious enough sentences under the current laws in most states.
Hum. Forum a little slow today. I know: I've never understood why it is that motorcycle gangs like Hell's Angels et al are just allowed to wander about, buy property, bid to get their little clubhouses back and so forth. Same with the mafia. The police know full well who they are. Why can't we just have a nice little clear and sweep and shoot them all? A little revolution. Cheers!
'Cause the mamby-pamby, doo-gooder liberals don't like us shooting those vicious, murdering criminals .....they prefer that those vicious, murderin' savages have the freedoms to kidnap, rape and kill more little girls! Vicious, murderin', rapists are people, too, ya' know. They should be afforded all the freedoms and rights to commit crimes against little girls if they want to. Baron Max
It appears from the news report that the boys were a regular nuisance. What worries me though, is that this boy was previously arraigned on a misdemeanour charge which was later converted to a shooting charge with terrorism attached. Of course, his stepfather cannot be considered an unbiased party, but since most of the gang members have run away, or have made deals with the cop, it looks like this guy is going to be the "example". The evidence is also part of a deal: Its hard to know what the truth is.
No, it's called proof under a court of law. Sure, we all think we know what the mafia (or whichever group) does, but if nobody catches em in the act or has proof that so-and-so did what, then it's a no-go. - N
Naomi Wolf, among others, predicted that the anti-terrorism laws passed in the wake of 9/11 would be used against American citizens in cases of ordinary crime - something specifically denied by the proponents of these laws, both before and after enactment. It was obvious, reading the Patriot Act and watching it's enactment for example, that these new laws had little to do with combatting Islamic jihad or AQ type terrorism. They are going to be a lot harder to repeal than they were to pass. Panic and cowardice makes people do strange things.
The scumbag deserves death. The increase in his sentence, whatever it may be, is just. Really, the law should be changed so that any "civilians" killed by gangs should all be considered first degree murder with a sentence of death or, at the very least, life without the possibility of parole. But, we should not mix anti-terrorism with normal crime. I support damned near any measure against terrorists. It's war. But there should be absolutely no blurring of the line between terrorism and crime. It's just this sort of thing that is the best argument against the agressive measures we've been using against terrorists.
