What would you say if street gangs were legally designated as terrorists?

As always with Hate Whitey preachers, they are Fairness Fairies.

 

What you are describing is a military dictatorship. Central and South America are full of examples of how great military dictatorships work out. You should talk to some people that have lived under this type of government and ask them how great and safe it was.
The term "terrorist" has already been so stretched and misused that it is beyond meaning. Enacting policies like the ones you describe, opens the door for anyone speaking out against government actions to be labeled a terrorist and be denied all rights which are guaranteed by the constitution.
The police are already over militarized and the results have been terrible. People are already being arrested by paramilitary police with machine guns for such grand offenses as selling raw milk, or rumors of drugs which later turn out to be false.

Is there ANY reason to believe that the military would do a good job at policing a nation? Can you find any examples from recent history that are not littered with scandals, abuses of power, and murder of innocent civilians?

Here is an example of the military acting as police and jailers:
From late 2003 to early 2004, during the War in Iraq, military police personnel of the United States Army and the Central Intelligence Agency[1] committed human rights violations against prisoners held in the Abu Ghraib prison. They physically and sexually abused, tortured,[2][3][4] raped,[2][3] sodomized,[4] and killed[5] prisoners.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abu_Ghraib_torture_and_prisoner_abuse
This is how you think a free nation should be run? Just keep in mind that not everyone arrested or killed is guilty, and these types of laws always start against an out group, but eventually apply to everyone. If you open the door for this type of policy to fight the boogey men, it will eventually be used against you (see TSA, domestic spying, etc).

 

It's a good thing they don't have any authority then, huh?

 

There is no "Legit" terrorists. Anyone who uses violence to coerce or intimidate a person or people is a terrorist. Thaf is the definition used under the patriot act. Many gangs use violence to scare witnesses. This, on it's own, makes them terrorists.

 

https://www.aclu.org/national-security/how-usa-patriot-act-redefines-domestic-terrorism

So it doesn't look like the Patriot Act includes intimidation of individuals under that definition. It does include intimidation of a population and I guess they could define "population" in any manner of ways.

 

That's not what I remember being the definition - if it is, it's far too lose. "Anyone who uses violence to coerce or intimidate a person"? In that case, call me a terrorist. I was in the service.

 

I prefer the Condoleezza Rice definition of terrorism. She believed that a terrorist was part of a non nation organization waging war against a nation. A gang is simply a criminal organization seeking power and profit not to topple our country.

This is how the Bush administration defined terrorism. The left largely thinks they had no definition for terrorism because well, they tend not to be able to read or listen well.

 

I'm cool with that if you can also do the same with white nationalists and outlaw militias.

 

LOL, using that definition then every government I know of would qualify.

Your OP sounds like a excuse to remove constituional rights from Americans. They maybe criminals but still deserve rights and due process.

Kind of related to the thread. If you go to the actual website you can click the links that take you to where they got info on each potential terrorist group. However if you do so you are a terrorist. Dang it, that means I am on the list, friggen NSA.

http://thetruthwins.com/archives/72...l-terrorists-in-official-government-documents

 

Again I was much happier with the Bush definition. Obama considers us all terrorists.

 

Bye bye Bill of Rights.

 

The OP is not a representative of the right. I'm fairly right wing, and the whole scheme suggested by the OP is repulsive to me.

 

Exactly. From the FBI report on terrorism:

 

Nope. From http://www.fbi.gov/stats-services/publications/terrorism-2002-2005

Street gangs do not meet that definition. I think the better way is to just prosecute them under current law. I'm not going to give away freedom for security.

 

Those wanting to protect criminal gangs are using alarmist tactics when they construct a sliippery slope where harmless but unpopular groups will go down next. How is this different from saying that the 100,000 or more Americans who killed the enemy face to face in World War Two should have been unable to snop their killer impulse when they came back home? It didn't happen. If you want to find material for scare stories, go into the ghetto at night. If armed civilians declare open season on these feral packs, you lose real life scare-story material and have to go back to your Hug a Thug fairy tales.

If the government sends police or the military to protect subhuman criminals from vigilantes, how will that look? What jury will convict a vigilante charged with murder? Besides, most of the government forces will refuse to carry out that order or even join in to enforce natural justice.

 

end prohibition... the gangs will then be defunded

 

Actually the definition specifies civilians as being the target of the intimidation.

 

You do realize that the constitution already allows rebels and terrorists to be stripped of their rights and shot on sight, right? The only limit is that the government can not suspend habeas corpus except for cases of rebellion or invasion. An act of domestic terrorism is viewed by the government as rebellion, and so they are within their authority to suspend habeas corpus.

 

id be very happy with that, they are terrorists and should be shot dead on site. Everyday they take action to terrorize hundreds of peoples lives and use intimidation to control neighborhoods and they could care less about innocent people.

Another great idea would be to snatch up all gang banging losers and put them on a remote island so they can slaughter each other like the animals they are. We could set up cameras and make a PPV event out of it as we get to watch some of the worst scum of the earth eliminate each other in a final fight for survival.

 

It's only a slippery slope if it is a fallacy. Many of the counter terror policies passed in fear post 9/11, have come to apply to American citizens. It is now supposedly legal to execute American citizens without a trial for example. We are all treated like criminals and suspects before any probable cause or reasonable suspicion of guilt. Our phones are tapped, our press is controlled, and our government sees most of us as the enemy according to their own internal communications. Things like this used to be the rantings of madmen, and now it is open policy.

The police were originally militarized to fight the war on drugs, now it is just a war on the American people in general. Swat teams with machine guns are used against people for selling milk or taking care of a baby deer. Our police officers, mostly grown men, routinely use tasers on old women and children; sometimes to the point of death. And when the police commit these crimes their punishment is usually no more than paid leave.
I'm not sure where you live, but I live in Los Angeles (we have no shortage of gangs) and I can tell you without hesitation that I am more afraid of the LAPD than I am of any gang members I might come across. The police here already behave like an occupying army; adding the military to this situation is only asking for an escalation in the accidental deaths of innocents. The military is designed for one purpose, to destroy and occupy an enemy. The American people should never be the enemy of the American military.

Why this sudden push for military dictatorship now? Violent crime has been going down since the 70's. Gang violence specifically is way down since the 90's (down to 1/3 the level of 1993 here in LA). Why bring in the military now, if we didn't need them during the crack epidemic when most of the gang violence occurred? Gangs are not this nation's problem. American citizens are not this nation's problem. We have a cancer in the mechanisms of government and it is metastasizing. They have been chipping away at freedoms every single year since the WOT began. Every national tragedy and every crime seemingly requires the innocent people of this country to sacrifice just a little more freedom to be safe. Every misfortune is an opportunity to herd the people into subservience and reliance on the state. Where has it gotten us? We are now a country with free speech cages for demonstrators, that openly advocates torture of prisoners, and that has no expectation of privacy. If I lose more rights every year, what exactly am I being protected from?

 

I could say that your 'shoot first, ask questions never' style of justice terrorizes me. Does that make you a terrorist? When your state puts out an anti drunk driving commercial threatening retribution to coerce behavior, is that terrorism? Or is it possible that "terrorism" has been so watered down that it has lost all real meaning and is little more than a political tool for presenting facts through the lens of a false good/evil dichotomy?

If you want to clean up the gangs, arm the neighborhoods. It is working pretty well in Mexico right now.

 

i dont know what you are reading but the neighborhoods are getting their asses handed to them by drug cartels. the neighborhoods dont have any weapons to defend themselves with, its very hard for a regular mexican citizen to get a gun legally because of very strict gun laws in Mexico, and even then they are limited to what type and caliber.

and that wont change since the cartels own the government, military and police because they know a truly armed country would be bad news for their business.

And yeah, my "shoot first" style may terrorize you, but let me guess you have nothing at all against street gangs and their daily use of "shoot first" on civilians and children. You are gonna call me a terrorist for wanting the bad guys gone? well then that makes gang bangers the literal spawn of satan.

 

The Mexican militia groups are forming
http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2013/04/mexico-vigilante-militias/

As for our government executing a shoot first policy or even getting the military involved in domestic affairs hell no. I don't understand how anyone could see that as reasonable. As bad as the gangs are that is no excuse to suspend the constitution. That kind of mentality is much more dangerous than the gangs. Again if you ever wonder how (*)(*)(*)(*)ed up third world countries end up murdering their own people, look in the mirror.

 

LMAO 800 vigilante's armed with machete's,hunting rifles and shotguns.......against heavily armed drug cartels packing fully automatic weapons, grenades,grenade launchers,rpg's and even tanks lol. yeah, thats working out just great. im sure they love handing in the guppies, but they wont stand a chance against the pack of sharks that will mow them down in a matter of minutes. And the only reason they are allowed is because there is nobody else to fight back. hell you can bet your ass that the majority of cops are in it with the cartels, as well as military. And its not because they want too, but because they better or they and their families will have their heads sitting on stakes by morning.

Its a nice feel good story, but the truth is it dont mean much.

You would have a point if we were talking about killing people with different political ideologies, or because they are just different than what you wanted them to be. But we are talking about loser ass criminals who kill OUR PEOPLE on a daily (*)(*)(*)(*)ing basis and then they take welfare from our tax dollars.

If a true war on sorry ass gang bangers started tomorrow id be having a field day.

 

If this nation went to war against its own citizens tomorrow I'd be headed to Canada. I cannot believe you would support such a thing.