77 replies to this topic

[Hilander]

Quote

ALBANY, N.Y. In August 2002, a New York City street gang crashed a christening party, shouted out their superiority, confronted a rival and started a fight that left a 10-year-old girl dead and someone else paralyzed.
On Tuesday, New York's top court will consider whether one of the gang members is a homegrown terrorist.
NY court considers: Is gang member a terrorist?

Do you think gang members are home grown terrorists and should be tried as such?  They are organized to commit crimes, they do terrorize people in their neighborhoods.  I see them as terrorists but I don't want the term terrorist to be applied to all crimes.

[Sir Wearer of Hats]

well whatever suits the crime really.
although there is something to be said about how the word "terrorist" is being expanded to cover a multitude of sinners (to coin a phrase). Julian Assange is a terrorist, although he's more akin to a journalist or a purveyor of stolen goods, Ahminadinnerjacket is a terrorist although he's more like a schoolyard bully...

[Michelle]

I think they should tried as organized crime or habitual criminals. Whatever happened to three strikes you're out? I'm sick of seeing violent inmates being let out of prison, after a few years, that have a vast amount of arrests on their record for violent crimes.

[and then]

I think domestic gang members can resort to terrorism but just membership in a gang should not be equated to terrorism.. If the definition of that word keeps being changed to suit a prosecutor or cops then soon EVERYONE will be guilty.

[aztek]

Hilander, on 09 October 2012 - 10:01 PM, said:

  I see them as terrorists but I don't want the term terrorist to be applied to all crimes.

me too, unfortunately gvmt doesn't see them as such,

[Hasina]

My question is, are Juggalos gang members, thus making them terrorists? Gosh I feel bad for fans of the Insane Clown Posse.

[MstrMsn]

Title 18 of the US Code, Chapter 113B subsection 2331, paragraph 5.....

"(5) the term “domestic terrorism” means activities that—
( 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
© occur primarily within the territorial jurisdiction of the United States."
According to this, yes, they are. However, without having read this at all, I would say yes. Now, I am also including ALL forms of organised crime, not just gang members.

Edited by MstrMsn, 10 October 2012 - 08:16 AM.

[Realm]

Yep, terrorist. They should be warned of an eye for an eye, then tell them to get down with their bad self.

[preacherman76]

Sure. Dont cha know, everyone is a terrorist. And I mean everyone, according to DHS.

But seriously no way. Thats ridiculas. They are criminals who deserve due process if they are caught commiting a crime. Our justice system doesnt have any problem putting away gang members. The prisons are full of them.

Edited by preacherman76, 10 October 2012 - 09:59 AM.

[MstrMsn]

preacherman76, on 10 October 2012 - 09:53 AM, said:

Sure. Dont cha know, everyone is a terrorist. And I mean everyone, according to DHS.

But seriously no way. Thats ridiculas. They are criminals who deserve due process if they are caught commiting a crime. Our justice system doesnt have any problem putting away gang members. The prisons are full of them.

No way? Why not? By their actions, they are terrorists. Just like by their actions, terrorists are criminals.

Labeling them as domestic terrorists doesn't mean they would be denied due process. There are already examples out there of groups labeled as domestic terrorists that haven't had their constitutional rights stripped away, so this wouldn't be any different.

And you do understand that DHS doesn't run everything, right?

[preacherman76]

MstrMsn, on 10 October 2012 - 10:19 AM, said:

No way? Why not? By their actions, they are terrorists. Just like by their actions, terrorists are criminals.

Labeling them as domestic terrorists doesn't mean they would be denied due process. There are already examples out there of groups labeled as domestic terrorists that haven't had their constitutional rights stripped away, so this wouldn't be any different.

And you do understand that DHS doesn't run everything, right?

They made NDAA for a reason. Thats to denie those deemed possible terrorists of thier constitutional rights. If this government had complete faith in the court system, they would have never felt the need to create such legislation. Whether or not they strip said person of thier constitutional rights is irelevent. The fact that its even possible is just horrible. But there is no way you can say with 100% certainty that this guy wont be stripped of his rights. Cause its fully within thier unconstitutional power to do so. The rule of law, and due process is what seperates us from the lawless. If he will recieve due process, then why the need to call him a terrorist? If he was the one to kill that kid, chances are he will be doing 25 to life for murder. This is just another example of this government trying to keep in our minds that anyone can be and probably is a terrorist.

A terrorist is someone who inflicts fear in order to achieve a political goal. Clearly that isnt the case here. They have redefined the word so vaguely that this very post Im typing could be considered a act of terrorism. If this guy is actualy brought forth as a terrorist, then we have just entered a very slippery slope where nearly anyone could be considered the same for damn near any violent crime.

I never sad DHS runs everything. But they do run everything that is terror related. And the powers given to themselfs makes them a total dictator over the lives of any so called possible terrorist.

[lightly]

As MstrMsn posted:
Title 18 of the US Code, Chapter 113B subsection 2331, paragraph 5.....

"(5) the term “domestic terrorism” means activities that—
( A ) involve acts dangerous to human life that are a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or of any State;
◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊
Which means that a new law has been created that redefines terrorism.  Now ANY violation of federal or state law ,dangerous to human life,  is defined as an act of domestic terrorism.  

  Which means running a red light , drunk driving, or jaywalking could now be construed, and prosecuted, as an act of domestic terrorism.

  As to  Hillander's question,  "is a gang member a terrorist?'   I would say Not necessarily .  Gang membership is not a violation of law dangerous to human life.  

Terrorism and terrorist have been redefined so as to make the terms nearly meaningless .      (2¢)

[thewild]

I think they should all be terrorists, as they induce terror in others. Literally. For instance, anyone with the Nazi party back in the 2nd world war induced terror. Gang members merely have to suggest that they are in a gang and folks are afraid of them. This is my own opinion, though, feel free to attack terrorize me lol

[Corp]

Terrorists? Maybe. I kind of view them more as lazy rebels. I mean they claim territory where they try to enforce their own rules in, have their own military forces, and actively fight authority. They just haven't gotten around to going the extra steps of expanding their attacks and trying to set up a counter government in the territory they control.

[supervike]

Eeks...talk about a slippery slope.

Should someone be rounded up, sent to an internment camp, and held indefinately, without charges, until further notice?

If that could apply to 'gang members'...why not 'militia members'....'gun owners'...  Etc. etc.

Not advocating gang banging at all, but calling them terrorists, and all that implies could be extremely dangerous.