Gangs as domestic terrorists...

Im writing an argumentative paper that argues whether domestic violent gangs such as MS-13, Aryan bortherhood, Black Disciples ets...should be labeled as Domestic Terrorist Organizations and targeted and prosecuted. Also, I know about Posse Comitatus and the rule of law, but what about "...All enemies, foreign and domestic." Feel free to pipe in however you feel about it.
Cheers,
Josh

 

Sounds like an interesting paper.

America gives her citizens much more than many of her citizens give back (in my opinion). Don't get me wrong, there's a fair amount of people out there who give back to America, but there's quite a few that don't. It's when those people don't return the favor that things start to go downhill. I see those 'domestic violent gangs' as an example of that. And I believe that that gives the government the right, and perhaps the responsibility, to intervene.

 

MS 13 isn't actually a domestic gang (some part of Latin America), so you might want to leave it out of your paper. You could argue KKK or some domestic militias, however.

 

They originated from latin America, but are active here with US citizens in their ranks. If we declared them an INT'l organization, like Al-qaeda, it would still be the same for the US cells.

 

MS 13 originated in Los Angeles

 

Problem is there really isn't a great definition of terrorism. You can go w/ the standard Webster Dictionary definition, but it leaves a lot to be discussed.

I've always wondered why organizations like the KKK or even the new Westboro Baptist Church weren't considered terrorist organizations as they all are anti-government and use fear as their main instrument, which pretty much describes a terrorist organization.

 

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


(C) occur primarily within the territorial jurisdiction of the United States
The Patriot Act definition also includes WMD's and kidnapping and assasinations.

 

ibtl

 

Just heard on the news tonight that more Americans have been killed in Chicago so far this year than soldiers in Afghanistan & Iraq combined.

Dunno if you could call it domestic terrorism or not, but I found that pretty astounding.

 

for those that vote no, could you please elaborate why? I am not trying to start a political debate, but I would like to hear your arguments.

 

I would absolutely be in support of such a measure. Gangs fit the definition of domestic terrorism to a "T". If you want to fix a lot of the "problems" in this country, get the gangs out of here.

 

I voted no. Gang members have different ideas/goals/mind sets than terrorists.

 

i voted no because I believe the patriot act to be unconstitutional. Right to a trial by your peers? not under that patriot act. Unreasonable searches and seizures? patriot act bypasses that. and so on...

Because "domestic" in this case most likely means US citizen i must vote no. It sets a dangerous precedent of bending the constitution. Its not that i don't believe that those scum deserve to rot, trust me i do. Its that I fear that the patriot act will be abused, and rights guaranteed by the constitution will be thrown away to gain some safety.

[FONT=georgia, bookman old style, palatino linotype, book antiqua, palatino, trebuchet ms, helvetica, garamond, sans-serif, arial, verdana, avante garde, century gothic, comic sans ms, times, times new roman, serif]"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." ~Benjamin Franklin, Historical Review of Pennsylvania, 1759

[/FONT][FONT=georgia, bookman old style, palatino linotype, book antiqua, palatino, trebuchet ms, helvetica, garamond, sans-serif, arial, verdana, avante garde, century gothic, comic sans ms, times, times new roman, serif]"He that would make his own liberty secure, must guard even his enemy from opposition; for if he violates this duty he establishes a precedent that will reach himself." ~Thomas Paine[/FONT]

 

I voted no- mainly because we don't need to apply new or broader laws to them (Like the Patriot Act).

Better enforcement of the current laws would be sufficient to stop/control the damage that gangs cause.

 

I stand corrected. Though, initially, they weren't American citizens. So partial credit

 

With the amount of crimes and violence the illegal aliens are committing here I think you need to add them to your list also.

 

If I wasnt doing it on gangs specifically, I would have chosen to argue border violence and securing the southern border while maintaining the American ideal of welcoming immagrants who seek a better life and opportunity.

Note:I appreciate everyones input, keep it coming.

 

i think they should be considered mored dangerous than terrorists...there i usually gangs in driving radius of any city thus making them more of a threat to people....i watch gangland on history channel and they kill people for fun in order to get into the gang and shit...thats pretty fucked up

 

I do like the feel oh this topic. Here is my input.


Enemy as defined in the Webster dictionary is " a person who feels hatred for, fosters harmful designs against, or engages in antagonistic activities against another; an adversary or opponent. 2. an armed foe; an opposing military force: The army attacked the enemy at dawn.3. a hostile nation or state.4. a citizen of such a state.5. enemies, persons, nations, etc., that are hostile to one another: Let's make up and stop being enemies. 6. something harmful or prejudical: His unbridled ambition is his worst enemy. 7. the Enemy, the Devil; Satan"

Seeing as these groups do not "feels hatred for, fosters harmful designs against, or engages in antagonistic activities against" the United States, I find it hard define them as Americans. Many of the gangs in America have roots in the formations of America and or its communities [see Gangs of New York(though not a formal factual reference you get my point].

Though there intentions are not always in line with policy of the United States or the local laws, until they plan and/or act on plans against the United States they are not enemies of the state and therefor not terrorists.

On the other hand if you really want to put things into perspective think of money. Will the United States benefit from labeling these groups as terrorists? Or is it a possible money pit that federal tax dollars could be wasted on? Money that could have gone to your pay part of our 8 trillion in debt (new data on this daily) Will the politicians who elect to eradicate these terrorists be re-elected?

I can tell you as a member of the intelligence community that threats to the homeland are assessed whether or not they are labeled terrorist publicly or not. This is foreign and domestic.

Hopes this helps with the brainstorming. Let us know how it goes.

 

GM1,
What college are going to?