TERRORISM: Gang Member Tried As Terrorist

The state of New York is preparing to put a terrorist on trial. He's not a member of Al-Qaeda though; he's a member of the St. James Boys, a Mexican-American gang. The terrorism charge added to the murder case against Edgar Morales will remove all options for sentencing except life without parole.

---

I consider a gang member to be among the lowest forms of criminal- second only to congressmen. There probably should be laws which add to the sentences of gang members- in some states they are already in place. That being said, no such law exists in this case and the misapplication of the terrorism law sets an extremely dangerous prescedent.
I find it digusting that law enforcement would twist and manipulate the events of 9/11 and the preventative measures enacted afterward to achieve other social aims which they have been unable to pass into law on their own merit. If they want to crack down on gang members they need to pass an applicable law, not misapply other laws.

[edit on 29-12-2004 by Banshee]

Now it is exactly because of this kind of misinterpretation of the law that so many people are not in agreement with some of the provisions of the Patriot Act(s). The dangerous precedent was already set with the passing of the PA. We are just seeing part of the effects.

It comes as no shock to me since our government is run by terrorists. We fund terrorists. We train them. I would exepect someone like that to twist and abuse the law like that. BTW... I consider funding Saddam and supporting Israel part of this terrorist affiliation. As well as many other acts pulled off by the CIA. And the misinformation campaign and the BS terror warnings themselves are an act of terrorism.

why don't you two just give osama and saddam a big kiss. you're OBVIOUSLY terrorist sympathiser lefty liberals with an agenda. this gang member could easlily have flown a jumbo jet into YOUR living room. it is only a matter of time before the common gang related term 'drive-by' becomes 'fly into', and YOU are supporting this clear case of terrorism. she was TEN, for god's sake! have you no conscience?
you people are trying to destroy america with your leftist anti-american agendas.
get over it.
let it go.


this message brought to you by the Neocons After Zen Intelligence Society.

Any tool that can be used to fight the scourge of gang violence is a good thing. Terrorism is terrorism whether it is international in scope or on your block, foreign in origin, or homegrown.

I guess I shouldn't be surprised that we have members here who shed tears for the Crips, the Bloods, and the St. James Boys while they indict the Bush Administration for prosecuting a war against international terrorists who murder the innocent daily.

well, here is one Liberal you wont hear complain about this conviction. You really cant say that they twisted the law, because the patriot act is more like a blanket law that covers what ever the government wants it to cover. It was made this way to better keep controle over its citizens.

[edit on 12/29/04 by Kidfinger]

OH yeah? Then fine, why the hell didn't they just come right out and say all criminals are terrorists and will be prosecuted as such under the PA? No, instead they gotta right some constitution-circumventing document, with stupid grey areas, so they could interpret the law anyway they want, when it's convenient for them. It figures that you would take my response as condoning the murderer. I don't condone the crimes, and if he is convicted of murder, then the corresponding federal sentances should apply. But this guy is not a terrorist. Not in the classic sense, and not in the sense that the PA so disgustingly facades.

Tell you what... in honor of people like you why don't we just dispose of the consititution. I mean it seems to me you guys think its pointless. Because you'll let your government make up any excuse and just tie it to terrorism and you guys buy it. Why don't we just take away all YOUR rights just in case maybe you have a connection to a terrorist somewhere. After all we are fighting the war on terror and we can't be too careful. Right? I mean thats what you right wingers want.

I certainly don't want to dispose of the constitution. It is the constitution that will protect us from abuses caused by this law or any other. I'm certainly not going to scream bloody murder because a punk gang-banger gets his just due because the we're getting tough on criminals.

I'm old enough to remember when America's streets were safe for anyone to walk anytime day or night. Such is not the case anywhere in America today and, frankly, I'm sick of it.

But when you leave your government unaccountable you start seeing stuff like this. Yes today its some worthless waste of oxygen getting charged with some BS that doesn't apply. But unless you stand up against them it will be something else next time. Maybe they won't like you buying your favorite product because they think maybe the company that makes them might have a tie to terrorism. They don't even have to prove it. They just have to bring it up. Maybe they don't like the news paper you read so it gets pulled off the shelf because the government thinks it stirs up anti American feelings. Maybe the news broadcast you watch gets sensored for the same reason. Perhaps you are no longer allowed to send or receive email from certain countries just in case someone MIGHT use the email for the wrong reasons. Where do you draw the line and tell your government that if they take one more step you will throw them all out?

typical grady philpott. nobody 'shed tears' for violent criminal gang members. that is just something you've painted onto people who are aware of the power of legal precedent. people who realise that 'any tool' is a weapon in the wrong hands.
the bush administration murders innocents daily. we both know this. the difference is, you condone it. you vote for it. you defend it. you want to roll up your sleeves and start dealing it out(refer to your 'why haven't you enlisted?' thread). that makes YOU a terrorist, grady bin laden.

if a tool is needed to fight gang violence, then LEGISLATE one. the way it is, EVERYONE is a terrorist, just for possessing independent thought. i think iraqi/afghanistani innocents shouldn't be murdered by the army, and i'm a 'terrorist sympathiser'.
for the sake of rational humanity, stop making the huge and ridiculous extrapolative leaps.

I want you to look at this quote from the article. I don't know what Ms. Mendez's tolerance for crime is but those listed in this indictment are not the kind of things I would tolerate in my community.

Boo Hoo!



My heart bleeds.

Has anyone been confronted by gangsters?
If not, then let me tell you something about them. For one they are terrorists they know how to terrorize the neighbourhood with their crackhouse parties to extorting shop owners to there drive byshootings in daylight with kids in the middle of the gunfire. This is just one of the reasons why street and international gangs (Hells angels) are just as guilty as Osama and his gang.

I want you to show me one credible source of this claim. It is a lie and it is not to be tolerated. The US is prosecuting a war to free the people of Iraq from the terrorism of those who have enslaved the people of Iraq and threatened the whole of the Middle East. Nothing happens in a vacuum and if we care not to have anymore 9/11s, then we need to fight these scum till there are no more. That is the call of the future for those who wish to be free.

The Patriot Act is fraught with the possiblity of abuse, but then, so are all laws. It just so happens that the time has come to put away the lame tactics of those who have allowed America to be harassed and intimidated by punks and worse.

Let this be a clarion call to all.

[edit on 04/12/29 by GradyPhilpott]

I agree with this statement in a vacuum. The problem is that it weakens the standard for conduct of prosecutors. If when facing the lack of appropriate laws a prosecutor creatively trumps up the case to an appropriate level you run into the potential for people to be over-charged for minor or accidental crimes. The answer is to enact the right laws, not twist the wrong ones.
Suppose plain old ordinary joe gets into a fist fight that he didn't start and wins. The district attourney who handles the case just happens to have a particular aversion to violence, which right or wrong is entirely separate from the law. This DA is unhappy with the light sentence that he expects from a battery charge, especially under these circumstances, so the DA trumps up the case with this very same anti-terrorism law by saying that all violence is terrorist in nature. Well now if the defendant looses the stakes are WAY too high, so he has almost no option but plea bargain, and he's going down for a crime he never comitted because the personal beliefs of law enforcement officials were taken as license to manipulate the law in ways not approved through our democratic process.

Forgive me for making assumptions about your personal beliefs, but as a Marine I would expect that you place a high value on the system of justice and democracy which you have defended. From that standpoint doesn't it only make sense that we should pressure our officials to use that system and get things done the right way? Isn't that preferable to improvising in ways that undermine our system and could perchance lead us down the slippery slope?


Don't look at me. I've grown up brawling with gang members my whole life, and I can't say I won as often as I'd like because these people have no honor will go to any length to keep a person from fighting back.
I'm not attempting to present this as a political abuse by the Bush administration either. I'm presenting in isolated incident in which expedience was placed ahead of the American way, and I'm suggesting that as a society we should demand that our officials get to work and do what is necessary to
1. Make sure that all gang members and other domestic terrorists are dealt with strongly- not just the ones who run into creative law enforcement officials.
2. Make sure that our tradition of rule by law and justice through due process are upheld and preserved for generations to come.
3. Deprive those who question the war on terror of fuel for their arguements such as this case which can easily be blown out of proportion to feed their rhetoric.

[edit on 29-12-2004 by The Vagabond]

He's being tried under NY state law, not under provisions of the Patriot ACT. There's a big difference. Not a good difference, but a difference none-the-less.

are you saying that every single life of the THOUSANDS lost in afghanistan and iraq due to american state sponsored terrorism was the life of a terrorist? should i post some pictures of little kids and dead babies?
it is not a lie, and what do you mean 'not to be tolerated'? i thought you defended free speech.

[edit on 29-12-2004 by billybob]

The prosecution always runs the risk of getting an aquittal when they over charge a defendant. From the sound of the indictment, this was not a single event, but a campaign carried out over a period of time and culminated in a senseless death of a child.

If the jury believes that the punishment does not fit the crime, jury nullification is an option, which is basically what happened with OJ, though there may be nuanced differences.

At this point, the constitution nor the freedom of the law-abiding are hardly threatened. I wouldn't advise people to drop their guard, but I would be just a tad more discriminating in my outrage.

[edit on 04/12/29 by GradyPhilpott]

Agreement on all 3 points, especially in being discriminating about the level of outrage expressed over this particular event.

I would reitterate that appropriate laws should be enacted though because it reduces the chance of jury nullification in cases like this where the perpetrator really deserves what he stands to get.

slippery sliding slope....will the judge have the 10 commands on his robe as well?

Well most of us certainly can agree that gangmembers should receive a firm punishment for having little children caught up in their crossfire, therefor riding on top of public sentiment (wich I partly share) I think this case could set the precedent for further implementation of the policestate (that's the part i don't share)

Today gangmembers, Tomorrow: ciritcs of the government.