| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I agree with the article that gang bangers should be treated like terrorists. Living in Chicago I'm on the periphery of the violence but not out of the line of fire.
This conversation got derailed from another thread and hope to get some good back and forth dialogue.
|
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Absolutely, 100% not. First of all, it amazes me that we would even begin to consider expanding the definition of terrorism when we're already reluctant to apply it in appropriate scenarios. (Every time a Christian fundamentalist bombs an abortion clinic or murders a doctor that's an act of terrorism. But you never hear it called that.)
Secondly, it's bad enough that if one is suspected of terrorism (suspected, mind you) their civil liberties are completely squashed in the name of 'security'. The last thing we need is to expand that definition to start including citizens without ties to political or revolutionary religious organizations.
We would be much better served by investigating and eliminating the poverty and prison culture that creates gang bangers in the first place, but unfortunately we're far more interested in this country in skipping right to the most asinine, violent solutions possible.
No we should not have gang member encouraged by right wing pundits to attack abortion clinics.
Hey, why not. We already kill people all over the world based solely upon who they associate with. Why stop at other countries? Personally I find it abhorrent, but pretty much everyone else is cool with it.
Edit- And there is absolutely no way that this idea would ever be abused. Gotta crack a few eggs to make omelets, eh? But Im guessing this is why Gitmo is getting the 40 million dollar upgrade.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
It just occurred to me:
Wouldn't unleashing RICO on gangsters be treating them like, uh, gangsters?
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Nope, we shouldn't be using the word terrorists in the first place.
We should be accurately defining them as a private militaristic criminal organization.
Just as we should be defining private militaristic religious organizations overseas as, well, private militaristic religious organizations.
Which is a definition we should also apply to several militias and legal organizations in the US.
"Terrorist" is an emotional label, not a rational one.
"He's a terrorist" tells me very little.
"He's a member of an privately funded Islamic military organization with a tendency to attack civilian targets" tells me everything I need to know.
Remember, one man's terrorist is another's freedom fighter.
They may use IED's on our troops, and we call that "cowardly" but in the revolutionary war against the British, Americans hid behind trees which was considered just as cowardly in those days.
No tactic is cowardly or brave, they are only tactics meant to achieve victory.
Absolutely, 100% not. First of all, it amazes me that we would even begin to consider expanding the definition of terrorism when we're already reluctant to apply it in appropriate scenarios. (Every time a Christian fundamentalist bombs an abortion clinic or murders a doctor that's an act of terrorism. But you never hear it called that.)
Secondly, it's bad enough that if one is suspected of terrorism (suspected, mind you) their civil liberties are completely squashed in the name of 'security'. The last thing we need is to expand that definition to start including citizens without ties to political or revolutionary religious organizations.
We would be much better served by investigating and eliminating the poverty and prison culture that creates gang bangers in the first place, but unfortunately we're far more interested in this country in skipping right to the most asinine, violent solutions possible.
When is the last time someone bombed an abortion clinic? Or murdered an abortion Doctor? How frequent does that happen?
Thats is not an honest comparison with the gang violence that kills everyday in Chicago alone.I disagree with you but I have enough respect not to call you're solution and analysis asinine.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Absolutely, 100% not. First of all, it amazes me that we would even begin to consider expanding the definition of terrorism when we're already reluctant to apply it in appropriate scenarios. (Every time a Christian fundamentalist bombs an abortion clinic or murders a doctor that's an act of terrorism. But you never hear it called that.)
Secondly, it's bad enough that if one is suspected of terrorism (suspected, mind you) their civil liberties are completely squashed in the name of 'security'. The last thing we need is to expand that definition to start including citizens without ties to political or revolutionary religious organizations.
We would be much better served by investigating and eliminating the poverty and prison culture that creates gang bangers in the first place, but unfortunately we're far more interested in this country in skipping right to the most asinine, violent solutions possible.
When is the last time someone bombed an abortion clinic? Or murdered an abortion Doctor? How frequent does that happen?
Thats is not an honest comparison with the gang violence that kills everyday in Chicago alone.
I disagree with you but I have enough respect not to call you're solution and analysis asinine.
When was the last time that someone blew up a skyscraper in the US? If you're saying that we should end the "War on Terror" altogether, I'm with you.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Yay for slippery slopes. I am all for doing whatever you want, Aretas, so long as you promise to not cry foul on that day in the future when they decide to start using the same logic to begin labeling "Die-hard conservative RPG messageboard posters" as terrorists as well, because you are inciting unrest and possible violence with your inflammatory words.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
More people in the UK die from bee stings every year than from "terrorism".
Bees are now terrorists.
BEES!
So, if we're going to treat the gang problem as terrorism, what do we mean by that?
Shall we all the government to detain without charges anyone suspected of gang activity? Shall we deploy drones to assassinate suspected gang leaders? Shall we wiretap any suspected gang members and anyone who has contact with them? Shall we make it a crime to support, in any way, gang activity or gang members? That would include, not only family members, but non-profits trying to help kids get out of gangs, possibly schools who have gang members as students, any employers who hire gang members, etc.
You also forgot to blow up gang "signature sites" (areas that look like a place that gangs might be) goodbye poor neighborhoods! By the way, how are we going to pay for these massive new increases in police weaponry? Most states and municipalities couldnt afford it and the Federal government is 16 trillion in the red, last I checked.
|
I did ask this of the OP in another thread and would like to get an actual answer to it.
If you are wanting civil rights repressed for gang members and for gang members to be treated as the US has been treating those accused of terrorism in an effort to end the gang-related violence in Chicago and other cities in the US, are you willing to accept the fact that innocent people will be caught up in this process and have their civil rights repressed, to be treated as if they were a suspected terrorist, as well through being misidentified as being gang members or of being affiliated with gangs?
If the person was you who was misidentified, or your parents or your children, would you still think this was a good idea?
Assuming your answer to be yes (and forgive me for assuming it if this is not the case), at what point does the cost to innocent people become to high to continue?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
When is the last time someone bombed an abortion clinic? Or murdered an abortion Doctor? How frequent does that happen?
Those are excellent questions. Restricting myself to the US:
The last time someone bombed an abortion clinic was April 1, 2012.
The last time someone murdered an abortion doctor was May 31, 2009.
How frequent is this stuff? Wikipedia has what is probably an incomplete list. The short answer is that it's a hell of a lot more frequent than terrorists driving planes into buildings.
And yes, RICO was designed to fight gangsters. Its anti-terror use is the novelty, not its anti-gang use.
|
I agree with the article that gang bangers should be treated like terrorists. Living in Chicago I'm on the periphery of the violence but not out of the line of fire.
This conversation got derailed from another thread and hope to get some good back and forth dialogue.
Given all crime is an assault on the state and therefor Treason - you could just call them all Traitors and shoot them without Trial - but it also applies to little Kimmy selling lemonade from her illegal lemonade stand.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think the most effective way to deal with crime is to prevent it before it happens, not punish it after it does. When it does happen, rehabilitation is preferred over punishment.
There is a direct correlation in the US between education levels and crime rates. States with high crime also have low education and lower average IQ.
While correlation doesn't equal causation, I don't think it's a stretch to say that stupidity and lack of education are more responsible for crime than anything else.
When you educate kids and get them involved, they don't have any reason or desire to join a gang in the first place.
If the US wants less crime, they should overhaul their education system and adopt the Finnish system, or a variation of it, which removes all competition from school (and scores between the 1st and 3rd best education system on Earth). They don't even have testing until the age of 16, as far as I have understood it.
Next should be funding university education for all citizens of the US who have the desire and ability to do it.
The crime rate would plummet with an entire generation of university educated people.
No.
Next question?
When was the last time that someone blew up a skyscraper in the US? If you're saying that we should end the "War on Terror" altogether, I'm with you.Absolutely, 100% not. First of all, it amazes me that we would even begin to consider expanding the definition of terrorism when we're already reluctant to apply it in appropriate scenarios. (Every time a Christian fundamentalist bombs an abortion clinic or murders a doctor that's an act of terrorism. But you never hear it called that.)
Secondly, it's bad enough that if one is suspected of terrorism (suspected, mind you) their civil liberties are completely squashed in the name of 'security'. The last thing we need is to expand that definition to start including citizens without ties to political or revolutionary religious organizations.
We would be much better served by investigating and eliminating the poverty and prison culture that creates gang bangers in the first place, but unfortunately we're far more interested in this country in skipping right to the most asinine, violent solutions possible.
When is the last time someone bombed an abortion clinic? Or murdered an abortion Doctor? How frequent does that happen?
Thats is not an honest comparison with the gang violence that kills everyday in Chicago alone.
I disagree with you but I have enough respect not to call you're solution and analysis asinine.
9/11/2001
I believe we will never end the "war of terror" unless we know our enemy. That enemy is radical militant Islam. Now can we please stay on the topic of gangs in America.
Yay for slippery slopes. I am all for doing whatever you want, Aretas, so long as you promise to not cry foul on that day in the future when they decide to start using the same logic to begin labeling "Die-hard conservative RPG messageboard posters" as terrorists as well, because you are inciting unrest and possible violence with your inflammatory words.
In the future die hard conservatve RPG posters will still be called patriotic Americans who care more about their communities than evil gang bangers.
Please stay on topic with the gang issue.
When is the last time someone bombed an abortion clinic? Or murdered an abortion Doctor? How frequent does that happen?Those are excellent questions. Restricting myself to the US:
The last time someone bombed an abortion clinic was April 1, 2012.
The last time someone murdered an abortion doctor was May 31, 2009.
How frequent is this stuff? Wikipedia has what is probably an incomplete list. The short answer is that it's a hell of a lot more frequent than terrorists driving planes into buildings.
And yes, RICO was designed to fight gangsters. Its anti-terror use is the novelty, not its anti-gang use.
I should have said right to life folks have nothing to do with homicidal gang bangers who live by the sword.
If you wish to compare/contrast right to life folks to evil gangbanging thugs please do it in another thread.
Yay for slippery slopes. I am all for doing whatever you want, Aretas, so long as you promise to not cry foul on that day in the future when they decide to start using the same logic to begin labeling "Die-hard conservative RPG messageboard posters" as terrorists as well, because you are inciting unrest and possible violence with your inflammatory words.In the future die hard conservatve RPG posters will still be called patriotic Americans who care more about their communities than evil gang bangers.
Please stay on topic with the gang issue.
Uh-hunh. And exactly how long ago was it that members of the current administration labeled the Tea Party as "terrorists"? See that's the funny thing about tyranny. Eventually it gets turned against you.
Edit-and since your'e so conservative, tell me what is being conserved by this? Definitely not money (drones, spy-tech, jail terms for those just not assassinated aren't exactly cheap, you know). Definitely not civil liberties or Constitutionality. What's being conserved?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Comrade Knife, if you would like to talk about the Tea Party, please start another thread.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
8P If you wish to tell me to start another thread, please start another thread.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Yay for slippery slopes. I am all for doing whatever you want, Aretas, so long as you promise to not cry foul on that day in the future when they decide to start using the same logic to begin labeling "Die-hard conservative RPG messageboard posters" as terrorists as well, because you are inciting unrest and possible violence with your inflammatory words.In the future die hard conservatve RPG posters will still be called patriotic Americans who care more about their communities than evil gang bangers.
Please stay on topic with the gang issue.
In the future gang-bangers will swim in piles of dough, own dozens of phat ridez, and have bizznatches galore at their beck and call, having finally realized the American dream by way of one of a very few means their culture deems possible or acceptable.
Please tell me exactly where you draw the line, and who gets to draw it? Because whether you like it or not, the situation that I described in which people such as yourself get labeled as domestic terrorists is just as plausible and agreeable as the drivel with which you responded to me, or the situation I outlined above, only in one scenario you get to define things, and in the other scenarios someone else gets to decide.
That is to say, all three are laughable, but frighteningly possible. I am very much on topic.
Please remove your blinders and realize that there are acceptable and very well-reasoned worldviews other than your own.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Moro, maybe we should start a gang so we can get these bizznatches for ourselves.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
In the future gang-bangers will swim in piles of dough, own dozens of phat ridez, and have bizznatches galore at their beck and call, having finally realized the American dream by way of one of a very few means their culture deems possible or acceptable.
Yeah, yeah, I know, if I want to post Ice-T videos...
EDIT: In retrospect and reading the post closer I am uncomfortable with "their culture deems possible or acceptable."
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Edit (also highly off-topic)---Also, since I didnt get a chance to post it in another thread before it got locked: (enjoy, Comrade!) Constitutional scholar on 2nd amendment
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
When is the last time someone bombed an abortion clinic? Or murdered an abortion Doctor? How frequent does that happen?Those are excellent questions. Restricting myself to the US:
The last time someone bombed an abortion clinic was April 1, 2012.
The last time someone murdered an abortion doctor was May 31, 2009.
How frequent is this stuff? Wikipedia has what is probably an incomplete list. The short answer is that it's a hell of a lot more frequent than terrorists driving planes into buildings.
And yes, RICO was designed to fight gangsters. Its anti-terror use is the novelty, not its anti-gang use.
I should have said right to life folks have nothing to do with homicidal gang bangers who live by the sword.
If you wish to compare/contrast right to life folks to evil gangbanging thugs please do it in another thread.
See ...
When is the last time someone bombed an abortion clinic? Or murdered an abortion Doctor? How frequent does that happen?
Thats is not an honest comparison with the gang violence that kills everyday in Chicago alone.
I disagree with you but I have enough respect not to call you're solution and analysis asinine.
You opened the door. Samnell was obliged to respond.
Therefore, you should allow him latitude instead of quelling him to not discuss it (in case it may do something other than bolster your position).
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm not sure we should be treating foreign terrorists like domestic terrorists.
No.
Its a criminal problem, if you want to solve it buy a few less F whatever jets that we were going to buy from Lockheed martin and throw some more police at it.
Or better yet, buy a LOT less jets and fix the underlying problem for why people need the gangs in the first place.
Or better yet, buy a LOT less jets and fix the underlying problem for why people need the gangs in the first place.
Too hard. Easier to throw a bunch of people in prison for being part of a problem we created. It's against the American Way to find actual solutions to problems.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
When is the last time someone bombed an abortion clinic? Or murdered an abortion Doctor? How frequent does that happen?Those are excellent questions. Restricting myself to the US:
The last time someone bombed an abortion clinic was April 1, 2012.
The last time someone murdered an abortion doctor was May 31, 2009.
How frequent is this stuff? Wikipedia has what is probably an incomplete list. The short answer is that it's a hell of a lot more frequent than terrorists driving planes into buildings.
And yes, RICO was designed to fight gangsters. Its anti-terror use is the novelty, not its anti-gang use.
I should have said right to life folks have nothing to do with homicidal gang bangers who live by the sword.
If you wish to compare/contrast right to life folks to evil gangbanging thugs please do it in another thread.
He was not comparing them to gangbangers, he was comparing them to other religiously motivated terorists, which your deceptivly inocuous sounding "right-to-life folks" happen to actualy be if they are setting bombs and killing doctors.
On the original topic, we should absolutely not. Completely aside from the fact that our methods of dealing with terrorists leave quite a bit to be desired, our system of rights only works when everyone gets them, even people who you abhor.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
When did terrorist become a worse term than murderer anyway?
Wasn't murderer sufficiently bad?
You know, the FBI and various state and local law enforcement actually did a really good job in the last half of the twentieth century in pushing back and breaking up organized crime. They didn't do a perfect job, but we came a long way from the Twenties and Thirties.
Then we gutted funding for fighting organized crime and threw all that money at a much smaller problem that has killed and injured far fewer people: Terrorism. Cue the mafia renaissance.
Way to go, America.
you know who did the best job at fighting the mafia? the 21st amendment. We learned our lesson that prohibition is counterproductive, then we took that lesson and started the war on drugs. Hunh?
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
you know who did the best job at fighting the mafia? the 21st amendment. We learned our lesson that prohibition is counterproductive, then we took that lesson and started the war on drugs. Hunh?
You guys don't take those lessons very well.
Rambo even told you to stay out of Afghanistan in 1988 and you still went (we came with you, so we also didn't listen to Rambo).
How do you not listen to John Rambo?
He's Rambo.
When is the last time someone bombed an abortion clinic? Or murdered an abortion Doctor? How frequent does that happen?Those are excellent questions. Restricting myself to the US:
The last time someone bombed an abortion clinic was April 1, 2012.
The last time someone murdered an abortion doctor was May 31, 2009.
How frequent is this stuff? Wikipedia has what is probably an incomplete list. The short answer is that it's a hell of a lot more frequent than terrorists driving planes into buildings.
And yes, RICO was designed to fight gangsters. Its anti-terror use is the novelty, not its anti-gang use.
I should have said right to life folks have nothing to do with homicidal gang bangers who live by the sword.
If you wish to compare/contrast right to life folks to evil gangbanging thugs please do it in another thread.
What other domestic terrorists were you talking about in this thread then? the only other incidents I can really remember recently were mass shooting and those usually happen alone so why would those two be comparable?
When did terrorist become a worse term than murderer anyway?
Wasn't murderer sufficiently bad?
Yes, but murderers still have rights and are entitled to things such as due process. It is much more...convenient for those who advocate this type of thing to simply have them lumped in under a blanket label that just happens to strip away anything resembling rights, so that they may be tossed into cells with impunity and left to rot.
All well and good until those who control the edges of the blanket decide that a category that you fall into needs to be covered with it as well.
What was the old quote?
"First they came for the communists, and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a communist.
Then they came for the trade unionists, and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a trade unionist.
Then they came for the Jews, and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a Jew.
Then they came for me and there was no one left to speak out for me."
Niemoller, I believe, and it can easily be applied no matter what political ideology you espouse. American politics has devolved into an "if you're not with us, you're against us" free-for-all, and it is only a matter of time before one side or the other manages to maneuver themselves into a position where they'll be able to brand their opponents as criminals, terrorists, or traitors, unless something drastic happens to change the current course.
If you are in favor of such things, best hope the side you agree with are the ones who have the upper hand when something like this comes to pass.
Our normal criminal laws should be sufficient.
Now, there are techniques and tactics (proactive, intelligence-led) that should be used against gangs to a greater extent than "regular" criminals.
But we already have all the relevant legal tools we need.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Actually, crime and murder rates have been dropping pretty steadily for the last 20 years or so.
Now why might that be, I wonder?. I know that this research is still a little controversial, but at least it presents something empirically proven to benefit society.
Yay for slippery slopes. I am all for doing whatever you want, Aretas, so long as you promise to not cry foul on that day in the future when they decide to start using the same logic to begin labeling "Die-hard conservative RPG messageboard posters" as terrorists as well, because you are inciting unrest and possible violence with your inflammatory words.In the future die hard conservatve RPG posters will still be called patriotic Americans who care more about their communities than evil gang bangers.
Please stay on topic with the gang issue.
In the future gang-bangers will swim in piles of dough, own dozens of phat ridez, and have bizznatches galore at their beck and call, having finally realized the American dream by way of one of a very few means their culture deems possible or acceptable.
Please tell me exactly where you draw the line, and who gets to draw it? Because whether you like it or not, the situation that I described in which people such as yourself get labeled as domestic terrorists is just as plausible and agreeable as the drivel with which you responded to me, or the situation I outlined above, only in one scenario you get to define things, and in the other scenarios someone else gets to decide.
That is to say, all three are laughable, but frighteningly possible. I am very much on topic.
Please remove your blinders and realize that there are acceptable and very well-reasoned worldviews other than your own.
There are other world views that I respect and listen to, but I do not find the one you posted as very effective. You have to remove you're blinders friend. Talk to some people on the street about this issue, see what they say.
News crew asking conservative RPG gamers about the violence in their community
Actually, crime and murder rates have been dropping pretty steadily for the last 20 years or so.
Even in Chicago. This year seem to be spiking a bit, but I'd really hesitate to take drastic measures until we see if it's a trend or just an anomaly. I'm not saying don't react, but don't throw away civil law in the process.
I agree to an extent. I would advocate for "Stop and frisk".
Our normal criminal laws should be sufficient.
Now, there are techniques and tactics (proactive, intelligence-led) that should be used against gangs to a greater extent than "regular" criminals.
But we already have all the relevant legal tools we need.
Would "Stop and frisk" be considered violating civil rights?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Why wait until there's something to frisk for when we can work on preventing the person from joining the gang in the first place?
Don't treat a symptom when we can cure a disease.