Urban Terrorists?
One of my readers, effaridi, alerted me to a trial that took place in the Bronx. In State Supreme Court in the Bronx, jurors for the first time found a defendant guilty under New York’s anti-terrorism statute, passed by the state legislature even as the Twin Towers smoldered days after the attacks of 9/11.
A law originally designed to prosecute members of al Qaeda is being used to prosecute gang members that are American citizens, and exposes those persons convicted under the laws to harsher penalties. In part, the law defines terrorism as, and allows longer sentences for those that use, acts meant to “intimidate or coerce a civilian population.”
Some background in this case: the defendant, Edgar Morales, is a 25-year-old immigrant who worked as a construction worker. He shot and killed a 10-year-old girl on Aug. 18, 2002. Malenny Mendez, the victim, went to a christening party at a local church, a party to which Mr. Morales and his gang, the St. James Boys, had not been invited. They had also come with at least one handgun. At the party, the St. James Boys set upon -- and were bested by -- some local rivals. Upset at losing, Mr. Morales and crew left.
They returned and started shooting up the place. Morales killed Malenny with his gunfire, and wounded the intended target three times, leaving him paralyzed.
So with the background, and knowing the outcomes, the question is, should we use laws designed for terrorists, against U.S. citizens.
My unequivocal answer, in this case, is yes.
Let's face it, most people of color live or have lived with urban terrorism for years. Random gunfights over drug turf, real or imagined slights of man- or increasingly woman-hood, and just plain lack of respect for human life leave hundreds, if not thousands, of dead, and probably ten times that wounded. Let's not even talk about the traumatized residents who witness such attacks. Most of them suffer post-traumatic stress, and simply desensitize themselves to the violence in order to survive.
The brazen nature of some of these acts defy belief: for example the firebombing of a Baltimore house, resulting in the deaths of six, because a woman dared call police and testify against drug dealers in front of her home. Or what about the indiscriminate discharge of large capacity firearms in crowded areas. We've all heard the stories, and more often than not, the victims aren't even the intended target.
Just like this case.
Truth is, Mr. Morales and his gang had, in fact, terrorized Mexicans and Mexican-Americans in the West Bronx for years through violence and intimidation. They relied on the (well-founded) fear that those who spoke out would be punished -- maybe even killed -- to wield control over their area. I'd also add that the sometimes random nature of the attacks would leave people in a perpetual state of anxiety, in what should be their place of peace: their home and neighborhood.
Sounds familiar to me.
Look around at say, Baghdad, or Gaza, or any of twenty other places elsewhere around the world and you'll see roughly the same thing.
But why look that far away when you can jump on Southwest Airlines, fly to any of twenty locations in the United States and see first hand fear, distrust, and random ultra-violence. Hell, if you're in the Tristate area, drive I-95 less than three hours, and you can hit three spots right off: parts of Philly, Baltimore, and Washington, D.C.
Atlanta, Miami, Chicago, Dallas, LA, Oakland. All these places have areas that are virtually off-limits to outsiders, and where the residents are scared to sit outside on some summer nights.
So why shouldn't we treat our own domestic terrorists the same as we wish to treat foreigners? At least our terrorists get (relatively) far trials, with a competent, if overworked, defense, and the presumption of innocence.
If you prove that innocence, or can show you were simply defending yourself, great. But if you're guilty as sin, maybe you should be treated as a terrorist. After all, you are, in fact, scaring and hurting a lot of people, the vast majority of whom shouldn't have to live in perpetual fear.
A law originally designed to prosecute members of al Qaeda is being used to prosecute gang members that are American citizens, and exposes those persons convicted under the laws to harsher penalties. In part, the law defines terrorism as, and allows longer sentences for those that use, acts meant to “intimidate or coerce a civilian population.”
Some background in this case: the defendant, Edgar Morales, is a 25-year-old immigrant who worked as a construction worker. He shot and killed a 10-year-old girl on Aug. 18, 2002. Malenny Mendez, the victim, went to a christening party at a local church, a party to which Mr. Morales and his gang, the St. James Boys, had not been invited. They had also come with at least one handgun. At the party, the St. James Boys set upon -- and were bested by -- some local rivals. Upset at losing, Mr. Morales and crew left.
They returned and started shooting up the place. Morales killed Malenny with his gunfire, and wounded the intended target three times, leaving him paralyzed.
So with the background, and knowing the outcomes, the question is, should we use laws designed for terrorists, against U.S. citizens.
My unequivocal answer, in this case, is yes.
Let's face it, most people of color live or have lived with urban terrorism for years. Random gunfights over drug turf, real or imagined slights of man- or increasingly woman-hood, and just plain lack of respect for human life leave hundreds, if not thousands, of dead, and probably ten times that wounded. Let's not even talk about the traumatized residents who witness such attacks. Most of them suffer post-traumatic stress, and simply desensitize themselves to the violence in order to survive.
The brazen nature of some of these acts defy belief: for example the firebombing of a Baltimore house, resulting in the deaths of six, because a woman dared call police and testify against drug dealers in front of her home. Or what about the indiscriminate discharge of large capacity firearms in crowded areas. We've all heard the stories, and more often than not, the victims aren't even the intended target.
Just like this case.
Truth is, Mr. Morales and his gang had, in fact, terrorized Mexicans and Mexican-Americans in the West Bronx for years through violence and intimidation. They relied on the (well-founded) fear that those who spoke out would be punished -- maybe even killed -- to wield control over their area. I'd also add that the sometimes random nature of the attacks would leave people in a perpetual state of anxiety, in what should be their place of peace: their home and neighborhood.
Sounds familiar to me.
Look around at say, Baghdad, or Gaza, or any of twenty other places elsewhere around the world and you'll see roughly the same thing.
But why look that far away when you can jump on Southwest Airlines, fly to any of twenty locations in the United States and see first hand fear, distrust, and random ultra-violence. Hell, if you're in the Tristate area, drive I-95 less than three hours, and you can hit three spots right off: parts of Philly, Baltimore, and Washington, D.C.
Atlanta, Miami, Chicago, Dallas, LA, Oakland. All these places have areas that are virtually off-limits to outsiders, and where the residents are scared to sit outside on some summer nights.
So why shouldn't we treat our own domestic terrorists the same as we wish to treat foreigners? At least our terrorists get (relatively) far trials, with a competent, if overworked, defense, and the presumption of innocence.
If you prove that innocence, or can show you were simply defending yourself, great. But if you're guilty as sin, maybe you should be treated as a terrorist. After all, you are, in fact, scaring and hurting a lot of people, the vast majority of whom shouldn't have to live in perpetual fear.
0 TrackBacks
Listed below are links to blogs that reference this entry: Urban Terrorists?.
TrackBack URL for this entry: http://www.obsidianhustle.com/cgi-bin/mt/mt-tb.cgi/98
Soryy Hustle-man, but I really do have to disagree with you. Yes, it is true that gangs has for all civil definitions terrorized neighborhoods. But so have the police, so have bad government policies, so have poor educational systems... And in cases where laws can be proven broken, there are penal consequences already established.
For all of this individual's actions, prison was already in his future. But charging him as a terrorist completely misappropriates the the law's spirit. By loosely generalizing terrorists to overlap gangs, then the already pitiful "War on Gangs" (with its already harsher penalties directed towards hispanics and african americans) and the "War on Drugs" (with additional harsher sentencing again rained upon blacks and hispanics) and the additional federal sentencing increases for handgun use in the commision of crimes (increasing the sentences of african americans and hispanics)- adding us into the fold of terrorists just adds to already existing laws with racial bias.
This conviction, handed down while folks who we consider terrorists rot in Guantanamo without any convictions or due process, just shows that we as Americans have no clue what is a terrorist and what to do when we do catch one.
You and I agree that police, government, and the educational system have failed communities of color in many ways. But, let's be honest, we're not always quite so helpful to our own cause, so let's not gloss over that fact.
As to the application of this statute to Mr. Morales and those who might follow, it's not that I don't have some reservations. I just don't have enough to say definitively "no" to its use against gangs, the mob, the outfit or their members.
Sure, Morales was jail-bound for murder and attempted murder. But that fact doesn't make his crime any less terroristic. His actions were calculated to intimidate and establish his gang's dominance and control. To, in short, instill terror in those that were witness to his act.
Thusly, he's a terrorist.
But for a moment, let's assume the logic you apply. By your implied logic, there would be no need for bias-crime legislation either, as people that brutalize, kill or intimidate others on the basis of race, religious choice or sexual orientation are already committing an underlying crime of assault, battery, or homicide. In the bias case, I think the reason one committed the crime makes them worthy of special contempt, and I'd bet you do too.
Same thing in the terrorist appellation.
Lord knows, I don't want to see another brown, or black, or red go into the penal system. But The Good Lord knows that what I hate more, is roving bands of hooligans who can't shoot straight, killing the innocent while attempting to protect turf, intimidate others or show dominance.
Really though, there is a simple solution: avoid involvement in gangs, avoid being called a terrorist. You did it; I did it. Others can do it too.