Treat Chicago gangs as terrorists You know things in Chicago are bad when 70 murders in the first quarter can be seen as a good thing. But context is everything: Last year at this time there had been more than 120 murders, so I guess we should thank God for small favors. It seems inconceivable that the city President Barack Obama calls home is also the city where his family may be least safe. Just this Monday a 15-year-old boy was found shot dead in a backyard only four blocks from the president's house. What's responsible for the bloodshed? Gang violence, as usual. Police estimate that of the 532 murders in 2012 -- nearly 1.5 a day -- about 80 percent were gang related. And yet, despite that rather staggering statistic, the national outcry is muted at best -- nothing, to say the least, like the kind we saw last week in Boston. What is it about the word "gang" that brings out the apathy in us? Would we view Chicago differently if we called the perpetrators something else? I'm not saying the people of Boston do not deserve our sympathy; they do. Nor am I suggesting the apprehension of Boston terror suspect Dzhokhar Tsarnaev was not essential. But how do we explain our habit of greeting terrorists with 24-hour news coverage and relentless wrath while overlooking the gangs that terrorize our streets daily -- as if terrorism were only an enemy state and not a concept. The murder numbers may be slightly better in Chicago, but they do not fully communicate the city's state of siege. In February CNN reported that some children living in gang-ridden parts of the city carry guns because, to them, getting caught and serving time for possession of a gun is better than getting caught without one and dying. Last month, city officials announced the closure of 54 "under-resourced" schools, which will force some kids to walk across warring gang territory to get to school. For example, in the seven blocks between George Manierre Elementary and Jenner Elementary there are three gangs fighting over territory: Black P Stones, Conservative Vice Lords and Gangster Disciples. If it all sounds scary, it's only because it is. And if the name attached to all of this violence were al-Qaeda instead of Gangster Disciples; or if instead of "gang violence" the bloodshed were called "terrorism;" or if instead of calling the people spreading fear and mayhem gangs we were to call them what they really are -- terrorists -- the nation would demand more be done. After all, if children are afraid to walk to school because they might get killed or if residents are afraid to identify perpetrators for fear of retaliation, I think it's safe to say they are being terrorized. What seems like a linguistic shell game is really an exercise in empathy. The thought of elementary school kids walking across areas of a city controlled by three terrorist groups becomes unacceptable to everyone, not just their parents. Hearing that 25 Chicagoans were shot in one weekend becomes a threat to national security, and not just the mayor's problem. The story of 15-year-old Hadiya Pendleton, who was caught in the crossfire of a turf war days after performing during the presidential inauguration, was of interest briefly but her story has since faded. She, too, died just a few blocks from the Obama's home. Jonylah Watkins, a 6-month-old girl, was shot in March while sitting on the lap of her father, Jonathan, the intended target and a gang member. Last week, millions watched as an entire city was shut down to look for one guy. Every major news station was covering the pursuit of one guy. We all know the face and relatives of this one guy. And it's all because he is an alleged terrorist. But more American were murdered in the south and west sides of Chicago than there were U.S. servicemen killed in Afghanistan last year, and yet for some reason we don't view those neighborhoods as terrorized. Last week, Abdella Ahmad Tounisi was arrested at O'Hare Airport because the FBI believed he was on his way to Syria to join a terrorist organization. Tounisi reportedly thought he was in contact with a recruiter for a jihadist militant group, but it was actually an FBI agent. I would love to see the FBI's anti-terrorism resources used in that matter to stop would-be gang members from flooding the streets of the country's third-largest city. Maybe Cornelius German, the boy found dead down the street from Obama's house, would still be alive. Maybe Pendleton, who was playing in a park with her friends, would still be alive. Maybe Watkins, who was sitting on her father's lap, would have had a chance to live. Their deaths wouldn't be considered "Chicago's problem" if authorities suspected terrorists were involved. But it's "gang-related," so...
Treating gangs like terrorist is a slippery slope. It would end up becoming a war in minority communities, which innocents would be caught in the cross fire. Gangs aren't exactly prison gangs with only shanks. They are armed very well, and lots of gang members have military backgrounds. And hate police and the united states government, if we treated them like terrorist, it would ground zero in every major city in America. With that said... I hate gangs, and hope the worse of them die horrible deaths
I'm all for this. Mo fos need to get got! The violence is out of control across all major cities. Drug cartels in Mx should also be treated as terrorists. What happened to those times when being in a gang was all about family and getting to wear baseball uniforms with crazy makeup?
If most of Chicago doesn't care about the gang problem and killings of african americans, why should we expect anyone else to care? Chicago is the most segregated city in the United States. It isn't Atlanta, or any other southern city.... it is also overwhelmingly ruled by supposed Democrats, that are corrupt and immoral. The city treats african americans like scum... you cannot take an entire group of people, throw them in slums, use politics to keep them down and then be racists against them and be surprised that there is a gang problem. The issue will ebb and flow, but it isn't going away, mostly because Chicago doesnt really care... and the folks that do care, that live in the violent areas are poor and beholden to corrupt leaders.
End the War on Drugs and you put a stop to the incentives that keep gang warfare occurring in places like Chicago. Of course, they won't do that, so more power to the gangs!
gang violence just isn't as exciting as international terrorism... gangs are normal to american society. we just say hey, theres gangs, there will be gangs. and to be honest there isn't anything that can be done other than improve education and just wait for conditions to improve. which is what is happening. we just dont notice because its a slow process. maybe terrorism should be treated the same way. just let it be. roll with its punches instead of trying to eradicate and reform.
Maybe; if middle-class whites, at any time in the last 40 years, went to black neighborhoods for something other than drugs or fellatio. Otherwise, you'll just take away the one practical deterrent that responsible, but option-less, young black men have to an ultimately destructive career choice.
Indeed......skip to around 4:00 of the vid and you have a good explanation. Amazing how Bill just kept it moving when the reporter made his comment. <iframe width="560" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/LwSuaj5064c" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>
This...many whites don't care because it isn't their family members dying or happening in their neck of the woods. To think legalizing drugs will solve the problem is simplistic.
The fear mongering against libertarians on this board is ridiculous. Don't you ever get tired of having a schtick? These are serious problems that any decent person should & would care about. Saint-like big-government liberal or otherwise.
This is a political party that was founded in the '70s but still feels compelled to oppose the Civil Rights Act, and wants to abolish public education in an information and consulting based economy in a country of 300 million, and abolish drug laws for good measure. These three things would re-segregate the country and destroy the black male population overnight; and pretty much force whites to discriminate against them and immigrants educationally, professionally and economically across the board. And don't equate yourself to slave-emancipating, industry de-monopolizing, Canal-that-keeps-all-ships-from-having-to-sail-around-an-entire-continent-constructing, global-reserve-currency-creating, atom-splitting, Two-World-Wars-and-a-Holocaust-end-ing, school-desegregating, internet-infrastructure-and-technological-industry-subsidizing, spousal-rape-outlawing, moon-interplanetary-and-intergalactic-exploring "big government" politicians: liberal or conservative, until your party can win one state-wide or major city-wide election out of the thousands that will be held in the next 40 years. Just one.
