Gang Member To Be Tried As Terrorist

[Geronimo]

-I edited this into my earlier response but it's probably long enough after the fact that I should repost it here rather than expecting anybody to re-read the previous pages-

Originally posted by GePap

There is no clarification of what the phrase means in the constitution- criminal statutes are more detailed than that-not the same. This is not a game of guessing what long dead men thought-this is looking at the statute on the books and deciding which is proper.

The men involved in drafting the constitution were not generally dead much less long dead when the courts added seperation of church and state to the US constitution.

I should also point out that the first amendment is worded as follows:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances"

You seem to be claiming that this is somehow vague which allowed for the courts to step in and clarify it to mean that no government entity of any branch of government shall make any statement, expression, or action that may be construed as endorsing or belonging to any particular religon whether congress makes a law or not.

I would like you to point out where the vagueness of the 1st amendment is and how the anti terrorism law was somehow less vague than the first ammendment was.

[Proteus_MST]

Per the same Definition used against Gang Members (and KKK)
you could state that violent members of Anti-Abortion Groups (who intimidate or even murder Abortion Doctors [AFAIK there have been some cases in the past]) are to be considered terrorists.

After all they use Violence/Murder to propagate a social Agenda (i.e. say "No" to Abortion)

[GePap]

Originally posted by Dr Strangelove


They do want a new regime, but only in their neighborhoods. They're like warlords, their political agenda is despotism.

We all know what despotism does to productivity, growth, and public morale.

Please. If a gang "gains control" of a neighborhood, that is purely a function of the regime being neglectful- the regime never loses control of the area- it can and does enforce its will on it all alongst- it simply has allowed criminality to run rampant due to neglect. The state can, if it whishes, end the problem, and swiftly, if it does not care about certain niceties.

[GePap]

Originally posted by shawnmmcc
And possibly your family as well. When a certain individual, Stalin, did that (killing innocent people and families as well as opponents) it was called the Terror. Guess why?

Stalin WAS THE REGIME. A Despot is VERY different from a gang member.

[Mr. Harley]

GePap (and I've been enjoying your counter-posts, you are very consistant) my point was not that gang members and Stalin were the same. My point was what constitutes "Terror," and implicit then what the definition of terrorism can include. A person living in a gang-controlled area, red-lined by law enforcement, lives a life of much greater terror than the average citizen of a country targeted by a major terrorism attack (Israel and Iraq are two exceptions, that's why I specified "a"). Stalin's "Terror" does not fit the definition of terrorism because as you state he was the regime. To me, for the people living through it, it WAS the same. Random, violent, unpredicable, targeting family members. Terror is terror, and should be punished.

[GePap]

Originally posted by shawnmmcc
GePap (and I've been enjoying your counter-posts, you are very consistant) my point was not that gang members and Stalin were the same. My point was what constitutes "Terror," and implicit then what the definition of terrorism can include. A person living in a gang-controlled area, red-lined by law enforcement, lives a life of much greater terror than the average citizen of a country targeted by a major terrorism attack (Israel and Iraq are two exceptions, that's why I specified "a"). Stalin's "Terror" does not fit the definition of terrorism because as you state he was the regime. To me, for the people living through it, it WAS the same. Random, violent, unpredicable, targeting family members. Terror is terror, and should be punished.

The original definiton of Terror (in a political sense) was during the French revolution, and meant to describe the political murder going on as the revolutionaries got rid of their enemies- over time the definition has changed to where it is today, but one thing has always been constant- the Terror is different from fear spread by criminals- Terror is more than just making people live in fear, which is what people living in crime riden area do. Terrorist don't aim to make people live in fear, their aim is to shock, and to use that shock to force change. That makes it different from Fear, which is what everyone here thinking this is OK is really talking about.

What Stalin did was a great Terror, and certainly people lived in fear, much fear, but what makes what Stalin did State Terror (not terrorism) was its aim-it was not run of the mill repression, which also makes people afraid (are we saying that dictatorial regimes are inherently terroristic?) but that the aim was to cleanse the state of threats to his power permanently.

This is the disticntion that people are not making, and they are not making it because they are misusing the word Terror- a simple thing to do in English, as so many words are so similar- but lets not forget what Terror means- its not just fear, its closer to Awe, or Horror, ie, fear and apprehension based on the enormity of something, on the "grandeur" of something. Stalin's Terror was Awesome, as was the Terror of the Jacobins. What AQ does is very often Awesome, specially massive attacks. Given the modern definiton of terrorism, even mundane political killing becomes Terror, but there is a line- mundane, run of the mill criminality, banal criminality, that of gangs, does NOT count as terror. Yes, I am sure people who live in crime ridden areas live in fear, but fear =/ terror.

That steps its an abuse. Its essentially destroying the very worth of the distinction.

And all because one DA is not happy with 25 to life, and feels life without possiblity of parole is what he feels like shopping for.

[Jaguar]

Originally posted by GePap
Gangs have no specific political agenda. How can they be carrying out terrorism?

GePap posted something intelligent and right for the first time in a while!

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by GePap


Please. If a gang "gains control" of a neighborhood, that is purely a function of the regime being neglectful- the regime never loses control of the area- it can and does enforce its will on it all alongst- it simply has allowed criminality to run rampant due to neglect. The state can, if it whishes, end the problem, and swiftly, if it does not care about certain niceties.

by that definition, there are few genuinely warlord controlled areas in Afghanistan. I expect Karzai will continue to respect niceties, however, as will Mayor Bloomberg.

[GePap]

Originally posted by lord of the mark


by that definition, there are few genuinely warlord controlled areas in Afghanistan. I expect Karzai will continue to respect niceties, however, as will Mayor Bloomberg.

NO, because warlords in Afghanistan do have raw political power (military might) sufficient to pose a serious challenge to the regimes control, and there are areas were the regime can only carry out its business with the say so of said warlords, or the regime can't at all.

There is no place in the US were that is close to truth.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Jaguar

GePap posted something intelligent and right for the first time in a while!

Jaguar posts something I actually take the time to read and respond to in a long time

[Verto]

GePap meets Jaguar's insult and raises him a Christmas smiley.

[Mr. Harley]

GePap, the DA is using the strategies provided to him by a broken system. Think about it. A child is dead, due to gang violence which by definition is not accidental. He uses a law to go after individuals who fit the definition, though admittedly not the spirit of the law.

If that is what it takes to lock up this kind of person permanently, so be it. The legislature can amend the law at any time it wishes, and those actions have been taken when laws needed to be rewritten. If you want to argue that it's not a good system, the way DA's, judges, juries, laws, and plea bargains interact in the United States, I won't argue. But as someone who lived in the New York area, as long as the DA does not step over the line (concealed evidence, perjury, etc.) and the individual involved receives due process, I am not going to complain ovrly much. I am much more concerned with the sad quality of government provided defense attornies (legal aid) than I am over stretching the law like this.

[GePap]

Originally posted by shawnmmcc
GePap, the DA is using the strategies provided to him by a broken system. Think about it. A child is dead, due to gang violence which by definition is not accidental. He uses a law to go after individuals who fit the definition, though admittedly not the spirit of the law.

If that is what it takes to lock up this kind of person permanently, so be it. The legislature can amend the law at any time it wishes, and those actions have been taken when laws needed to be rewritten. If you want to argue that it's not a good system, the way DA's, judges, juries, laws, and plea bargains interact in the United States, I won't argue. But as someone who lived in the New York area, as long as the DA does not step over the line (concealed evidence, perjury, etc.) and the individual involved receives due process, I am not going to complain ovrly much. I am much more concerned with the sad quality of government provided defense attornies (legal aid) than I am over stretching the law like this.

If the system is "broken", ask the legislature to change the law and up the penalties for killing kids, or simply the penalty for 2nd degree murder.

You don't "fix" a broken system by abusing it and streching definitions (and weakening them in the process).

I also live in the NY system, and given what my job is, yes, the public defender system is horribly underfunded, and getting good legal advice here if you are poor is hard- that said, even if we had a GREAT public defendor system, this is an abuse.

And perhaps, even if you don't like it, maybe 25 to life is the right punishment for this crime- at least, that is what the legislature felt was appropriate for the crime that youth committed.

[Guynemer]

A killer is a killer.

I think the error is that we have "terrorism" laws. Bin Laden is a murderer, just as this man allegedly is. That ought to be enough.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Guynemer
A killer is a killer.

I think the error is that we have "terrorism" laws. Bin Laden is a murderer, just as this man allegedly is. That ought to be enough.

for certain purposes we need terrorism laws. For example its against the law in the US (and in the EU?) to send money to terrorists. The punishments are not significant. If we were to make it a crime to send money to any organization that has commited any crime, this would place an excessive burden on charities etc. There are, IIUC, a number of similar considerations.

However IIUC that can all be handled (in the US) through Federal law. There doesnt necessarily have to be seperate consideration in state law.