It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

TERRORISM: Gang Member Tried As Terrorist

page: 3
0
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 12 2005 @ 01:12 AM
link   
Gang members are terrorists. They terrorize the streets that your loved ones walk on. They help further the advance of vicious aspects of subculture that do nothing but promote violence. I say it's about damn time we stopped treating them like jay-walkers and more like abominations.




posted on Jan, 12 2005 @ 01:19 AM
link   
But what about mystery solving gangs? The 'Black Hand' gang were just pre pubescent kids after all. They never bought speed from the Hells Angels or terrorized anyone.



posted on Jan, 12 2005 @ 01:29 AM
link   
Um, mystery solving gangs? I think there's an obvious difference between the box car children and the bloods, or ms-13. MS-13 is getting big in the DC area, and if law enforcement keeps treating these people with an incident by incident attitude, it's going to get out of control. An iron fist is necassary with these criminals.



posted on Jan, 12 2005 @ 01:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by goregrinder
Gang members are terrorists. They terrorize the streets that your loved ones walk on. They help further the advance of vicious aspects of subculture that do nothing but promote violence. I say it's about damn time we stopped treating them like jay-walkers and more like abominations.


Maybe so but they dont work outside their own own country.



posted on Jan, 12 2005 @ 02:02 AM
link   
Look I know that you guys must have some pretty hardcore gangs over their in the US but i really think that you should lay off the 'Black Hand' gang with your iron fists and earth face wiping hijinx. I know that the books werent all that great but before you go all vigilante (Probably in gangs) remember that some of us quite liked them once and probably wanted to be a part of the gang when we were young and impressionable so all this metal handed facial hygene might provoke a unfavorable response from all gangs alike, mystery solving ones too.



posted on Jan, 12 2005 @ 04:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by goregrinder
Gang members are terrorists. They terrorize the streets


Oh really, and the Patriot Act has a clause in it for this? Gangs have been around for hundreds of years, why not continue to punish as they had before??? The fact is that gang members are not "terrorists" in the sense of the word this Patriot act serves.
Stop making excuses for the degenerates in DC

[edit on 12-1-2005 by dgtempe]



posted on Jan, 12 2005 @ 05:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by goregrinder
Gang members are terrorists. They terrorize the streets that your loved ones walk on. They help further the advance of vicious aspects of subculture that do nothing but promote violence. I say it's about damn time we stopped treating them like jay-walkers and more like abominations.


I agree with you on all of the statements you have made, but I draw a different conclusion than you do (I am assuming that your post implies support for the application of anti-terrorist laws to gang members).

There is no doubt that gang members would fall under the broad definition of terrorism. What they call "respect" is actually fear, or terror- they are all about inspiring terror and doing harm to others for their own gain.
People who act in this way must be dealt with firmly. I believe that participating in gang related crimes involving violence, firearms, or narcotics should be punishable by death because it represents a clear and present danger to the peace and security of the United States.

Where my opinion differs from yours is that I believe this must be brought to pass with new and applicable laws. The prosecution in this gang member's case has admitted that they are applying the law outside of its original intent. That is exceptionally important when you read between the lines.
The original intent of the anti-terrorism laws passed after 9/11 was not to target the broad definition of terrorism. These laws were intended to target terrorists who have it as their one and only goal to kill people. That law makes terrorism punishable by death because it is intended for those terrorist organizations which are implicitly working towards the comission of murder with every action they take. Therefore, if an Al Qaeda terrorist steals chemicals to make a bomb, he should be punished for his murderous goals, not for his actual act of theft. That is why this law exists.
Gang members, however deserving of death they may be, do not fall under the same catagory as Al Qaida. Their primary end is to carry out profitable organized crime, not to commit murder. It follows that not all gang related crimes should be considered as a means to murder and therefore the death penalty is not appropriate under the spirit of current laws for gang activity unless murder is specifically comitted or attempted.

Because the spirit and intent of current anti terrorism laws do not apply to gang activity it is morally necessary to pass new laws which do apply. If one values our democratic system they have a moral obligation to promote its proper use instead of the use of loopholes as expedients.
Pen anti-gang laws which deal with gang members appropriately. Get those laws enacted by state or federal legislative bodies on their own merits instead of sneaking them under the guise of defense against foreign terrorists. Doing these things continues the precedent of proper democratic rule. Failing to do them sets a precedent for working around democracy which in the future could be used to end that form of government in this country.



posted on Jan, 12 2005 @ 08:45 PM
link   
i find it hard to believe you feel gang members should be put to death for drugs, as there have been many cases where the government got them the drugs in the first place. now i dont mean that in the conspiracy theory sense of the statement, i mean it in the sense that many many government agents acting outside the government either singularly or as a small team.

when i got busted for pot, the cops took my kind buds (extremely high grade marijuana) and kept it - and busted me with the brown mexican dirtweed. Do they deserve the death penalty for acting as a 'gang' (there was more than one cop) and violating drug laws?



posted on Jan, 13 2005 @ 01:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by jprophet420
i find it hard to believe you feel gang members should be put to death for drugs, as there have been many cases where the government got them the drugs in the first place. now i dont mean that in the conspiracy theory sense of the statement, i mean it in the sense that many many government agents acting outside the government either singularly or as a small team.
when i got busted for pot, the cops took my kind buds (extremely high grade marijuana) and kept it - and busted me with the brown mexican dirtweed. Do they deserve the death penalty for acting as a 'gang' (there was more than one cop) and violating drug laws?


Do not worry "Jprhophet420"; I can see why you would be worried about the prospect of drug crimes being made punishable by death. You're missing my intent, probably because I should have been more specific.

I'm not saying that possession should be grounds for execution. I'm saying that to manufacture, trafficking, or distribution of large quantites of narcotics such as meth and heroine ought to be punishable by death.

I think weed and E should be legal- I don't see what the problem would be if we sold and regulated those substances the way we do alcohol.

On the other hand, there is an obvious danger created by the meth trade, when you've got people producing and trafficking a substance that kills people and engaging in all manner of violence to protect their share of the trade- even the users are dangerous with that stuff. Tweakers commit theft and violence for strange reasons in addition to the obvious reason of supporting their habit. I've wanted to kill every tweaker I've ever been around, my little brother included until he recovered.



posted on Jan, 13 2005 @ 01:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by jprophet420
i find it hard to believe you feel gang members should be put to death for drugs, as there have been many cases where the government got them the drugs in the first place. now i dont mean that in the conspiracy theory sense of the statement, i mean it in the sense that many many government agents acting outside the government either singularly or as a small team.

when i got busted for pot, the cops took my kind buds (extremely high grade marijuana) and kept it - and busted me with the brown mexican dirtweed. Do they deserve the death penalty for acting as a 'gang' (there was more than one cop) and violating drug laws?


With all due respect, this reply (with not even being sure as to who it was directed) makes no sense. Nowhere, in any of my posts, did i say i condone the death penalty for selling drugs. In Richmond, Virginia, where i lived during my college years, i don't think the government was handing out the crack that was sold all over the street outside of my house, and i'm not sure there's proof of any government foul-play in the gang related murders that would occur around my residence and the college campus.

Violent gangs are a disease, period. If this is what it takes to disband them, or at least shrink their numbers, i'll agree with it.



posted on Jan, 13 2005 @ 03:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by goregrinder
With all due respect, this reply (with not even being sure as to who it was directed) makes no sense. Nowhere, in any of my posts, did i say i condone the death penalty for selling drugs. In Richmond, Virginia, where i lived during my college years, i don't think the government was handing out the crack that was sold all over the street outside of my house, and i'm not sure there's proof of any government foul-play in the gang related murders that would occur around my residence and the college campus.

Violent gangs are a disease, period. If this is what it takes to disband them, or at least shrink their numbers, i'll agree with it.


Actually he was responding to me Goregrinder. I'm the one who thinks we should be frying gang members. I think we ought to be zapping them faster than retarded people in Texas.

Like I said earlier, I agree with you about wanting to put these cowards away, but I don't believe we need to bend our values to do it. You can't say "I'd support anything it takes". Those who would sacrifice their freedom for safety deserve neither. Let's pass anti gang laws which make all gang related felonies punishable by death instead of abusing anti-terrorism laws to do it. Protect your safety AND your freedom.

EDIT:
There have been many allegations of CIA involvement in the coc aine trade, which is how the government theoretically could tie into your neighborhood crack trade. I dont know if its true or even what sort of evidence exists, I'm just letting you know where that idea came from. Michael Ruppert has talked a lot about this I understand.

[edit on 13-1-2005 by The Vagabond]



posted on Jan, 13 2005 @ 03:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by TrueAmerican
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?



And while we're at it, we can simplify the constitution to define things on a case by case basis as either good or bad. Point being that specific definition is required to prevent inaccurate portrayals, which further grey our ability to look at context. And that is a keyword, context. Gang-Member or not, his intent was probably not to create a residual emotional impact upon the society. You can argue that he was making a statement against his rival gangs, but that only implicates his intention towards a very specified group. The Terrorists on which our wonderful(media-friendly)war has been based upon had the desire and will to inflict a lasting emotional scar on the American Public - a different act by magnitude of effect. The gang member should be tried for murder as the act he is suspiced to have committed is more easily viewed as a personal atttack, not terrorism.

This is another example of how easily contorted our definitions are becoming....no wonder Bush can get away with what he has, he was merely misinterpreted....Not! Good eye Vagabond, yet again I see a negative example by which to gauge our system, disturbing indeed....



posted on Jan, 13 2005 @ 06:22 AM
link   
i do indeed see your point vega, and i can see why you would want the death penalty for such acts. i dont necasarily agree but the point that meth, H, and crack are terrible drugs and should be dealt with.

point is NONE of those things we are questioning should be dealt with under the PA. I think it is very sad that someone would condone using a law intended to squelch terrorists on another problem that was in existance and out in the public before any of this mess started. Its called robbing peter to pay paul and all it does is piss peter off.

[edit on 13-1-2005 by jprophet420]



posted on Jan, 13 2005 @ 05:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by jprophet420
point is NONE of those things we are questioning should be dealt with under the PA. [edit on 13-1-2005 by jprophet420]


I think it is relevant to note that the Patriot Act was drafted in response to an international threat and this article represents the manifestation of the fear some had in its infancy, the justification of interpretations made applicable to the domestic population and the further dilution of the lines that dictate are rights. Make no mistake - murder is a crime and should punished severly. But it was not terrorism, that's assuming to much about the intentions of the gang member when it was most likely a reactive behaviour....Vagabond, is there any info regarding the indentity of the victim and his relationship with the gang member?

I happen to be liberal in my views, but I do not support liberal interpretaions of our laws and guidelines.



posted on Jan, 13 2005 @ 07:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by MemoryShock

Originally posted by jprophet420
point is NONE of those things we are questioning should be dealt with under the PA. [edit on 13-1-2005 by jprophet420]


I think it is relevant to note that the Patriot Act was drafted in response to an international threat and this article represents the manifestation of the fear some had in its infancy, the justification of interpretations made applicable to the domestic population and the further dilution of the lines that dictate are rights.


Precisely- both of you are right on the money.



Vagabond, is there any info regarding the indentity of the victim and his relationship with the gang member?


The victim was a little girl caught in the cross fire. If that little girl had been any relation of mine the shooter wouldn't have existed anymore by the time the police got to him, but that's another story.
The problem here isn't that this gang member shouldn't fry for his actions. The problem isn't even that his actions don't fall under the general definition of terrorism. The problem is that everyone agrees the law he is being attacked with does not apply to him according to its original intent, and a precedent for disregarding the intent of extremely generic laws such as the Patriot Act (although this gang member is being tried under a state law, not the patriot act) is being set.



I happen to be liberal in my views, but I do not support liberal interpretaions of our laws and guidelines.

I applaud you in this. One's politics should reflect his stance on the issues, not dictate it.



posted on Jan, 13 2005 @ 07:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by The Vagabond



The victim was a little girl caught in the cross fire. If that little girl had been any relation of mine the shooter wouldn't have existed anymore by the time the police got to him, but that's another story.

I agree with that, and I think this would support my thoughts on context - a gang war is not an act of terrorism, though the subsequent media expression and biases could instill terror.



I happen to be liberal in my views, but I do not support liberal interpretaions of our laws and guidelines.

I applaud you in this. One's politics should reflect his stance on the issues, not dictate it.


Thank You.



posted on Jan, 13 2005 @ 08:04 PM
link   
They are terrorist if you look at the definition in the Patriot act and for that matter they should be locked up. They are a allowed scurge on our society and kill, mame,rape and pillage just like any other terrortist but because in some areas many are minorities nothing will be done. Remember some of the liberals feel that these people do these things because they are down trodden and discriminated against and it has nothing to do with making 5000 a week selling drugs and robbing people. However if you are going to charge them with terrorisim then the Catholic Church would be just as guilty for organized crime against children.



posted on Jan, 13 2005 @ 08:42 PM
link   
Has anyone taken into consideration the 10-year old girl whose life was taken by this so called "Billy-bad-a$$"?

He was "hanging with the Homies", instilling fear in innocent bystanders and now a little, innocent child is no longer with us!

Wake up people. Gangsters are terrorists! In every way, shape and form!



posted on Jan, 13 2005 @ 09:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by factfinder38
....if you look at the definition in the Patriot act and.....



Good Idea. First, a link - Patriot Act


Now an excerpt:

2) DEFINITION- Section 2510 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by--
(A) in paragraph (17), by striking `and' after the semicolon;
(B) in paragraph (18), by striking the period and inserting `; and'; and
(C) by inserting at the end the following:
`(19) `foreign intelligence information' means--
`(A) information, whether or not concerning a United States person, that relates to the ability of the United States to protect against--
`(i) actual or potential attack or other grave hostile acts of a foreign power or an agent of a foreign power;
`(ii) sabotage or international terrorism by a foreign power or an agent of a foreign power; or
`(iii) clandestine intelligence activities by an intelligence service or network of a foreign power or by an agent of a foreign power; or
`(B) information, whether or not concerning a United States person, with respect to a foreign power or foreign territory that relates to--
`(i) the national defense or the security of the United States; or
`(ii) the conduct of the foreign affairs of the United States.'.


This defines the use of information obtained via newly expanded allowances of duty to be used for the purpose of the united states to protect against a foriegn entity.


The Act goes on to give authorized authorities the right to any and all information,;oral, wire, and electronic; as well as a delay on the notification of a warrant issuance where conditions have been met to satisfy a definition of national threat. Also, Bank Accounts are subject to control by authorized authorities where the identity of an accountholder is synonomous with national threat. Financial Institutions are also not liable for disclosure of any pertaining information where suspicion of illegal activity has been encountered....please note that this also means that there would be no liability if a suspicion did not pan out. Also, as stated by section 351(3)(B)(1), a financial institution can be held liable if the accused where to be a government insitution!! Very Interesting..



"SEC. 360. USE OF AUTHORITY OF UNITED STATES EXECUTIVE DIRECTORS.
(a) ACTION BY THE PRESIDENT- If the President determines that a particular foreign country has taken or has committed to take actions that contribute to efforts of the United States to respond to, deter, or prevent acts of international terrorism, the Secretary may, consistent with other applicable provisions of law, instruct the United States Executive Director of each international financial institution to use the voice and vote of the Executive Director to support any loan or other utilization of the funds of respective institutions for such country, or any public or private entity within such country."

Again, President has power to respond to foriegn threat.



And Finally:
"SEC. 411. DEFINITIONS RELATING TO TERRORISM.
...`(VI) has used the alien's position of prominence within any country to endorse or espouse terrorist activity, or to persuade others to support terrorist activity or a terrorist organization, in a way that the Secretary of State has determined undermines United States efforts to reduce or eliminate terrorist activities, or....
...(B) by redesignating clauses (ii), (iii), and (iv) as clauses (iii), (iv), and (v), respectively;....
....(F) by amending clause (iv) (as redesignated by subparagraph (B)) to read as follows:

iv) ENGAGE IN TERRORIST ACTIVITY DEFINED- As used in this chapter, the term `engage in terrorist activity' means, in an individual capacity or as a member of an organization--
`(I) to commit or to incite to commit, under circumstances indicating an intention to cause death or serious bodily injury, a terrorist activity;
`(II) to prepare or plan a terrorist activity;
`(III) to gather information on potential targets for terrorist activity;
`(IV) to solicit funds or other things of value for--"


Now, I love legalese because it is all over the place but essentially this means that the reference to "terrorist activity" in Sec.411.(VI) would be amended to include as contained in lines iv)(I)(II)(III)(IV). The relevant point of the definition is the term alien used to qualify an individual in question in the opening sentence of Sec.411.(VI). The term alien is defined as a foriegn-born individual, i.e. not a citizen.



posted on Jan, 13 2005 @ 09:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by factfinder38
They are terrorist if you look at the definition in the Patriot act...



SEC. 802. DEFINITION OF DOMESTIC TERRORISM.
`(A) involve acts dangerous to human life that are a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or of any State;
`(B) appear to be intended--
`(i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population;
`(ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or
`(iii) to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping; and
`(C) occur primarily within the territorial jurisdiction of the United States.'.
(b) CONFORMING AMENDMENT- Section 3077(1) of title 18, United States Code, is amended to read as follows:

`(1) `act of terrorism' means an act of domestic or international terrorism as defined in section 2331;'. "


This would, by definition of the Patriot Act, qualify said gang member as a terroist....though depending on the charges of the other 18 guys, I wonder if they would fall into the "terrorist" category.

Aack, this country is painful......



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join