Should American gang members be designated as terrorist?

Question

For example, the bloods, crips, the latin kings, etc.

Gang members terrorize communities and often kill innocent people.

Answer 1

Not if we are going to use the term terrorist to justify holding a person without trial and torturing them.
For awhile they were using the term "eco terrorist" to describe people who used illegal acts of vandalism to make a political point. If we start using the term terrorist to describe every criminal, the term will no longer have any meaning.

Answer 2

I would say no. And while it is true that gangs do terrorize people and kill innocent victims they generally do not have a political agenda...which is I believe part of the criteria for being considered a "terrorist" (according to the US State Dept).

But I would consider the Columbian drug cartel and perhaps the Mexican Z gang as terrorist organizations.

Answer 3

Yes and actually why not just designate everyone who breaks the law as a terrorist. Let's face it, law breaking is a form of terrorism it's like saying I can do what I want and I don't care about anyone - these people are a threat to organized power.

I say call them all terrorists and cart them off to Guantanamo then torture them until they confess which would also save valuable police time so you'd need less police (if any, why not just use soldiers?) and therefor pay less tax - savings for us decent law abiding citizens.

And no exceptions - someone breaks the speed limit Guantanamo - someone drops chewing gum on the pavement Guantanamo!

Hey, this could be the path to Utopia! Don't you just love George Bush Junior and Jesus!

Answer 4

While gangs routinely use intimidation and extortion, those activities are distinct from terrorism in that they do not attempt bring about political change or win concessions from an entire populace - they just want to control thier territory, keep witnesses from testifying and so forth. So, not terrorists because they lack a broader political cause - they're just using fear and intimidation to advance thier personal interests.

That doesn't make them any 'better' than terrorists, though.

Answer 5

Possibly.

In general, gang members go after members of other gangs.

Terrorists tend to kill indiscrimiately. Real terrorists want to take down our government. Gang members just want a 'turf'.

Answer 6

no they shouldnt because the definition of a terrorist is-a radical who employs terror as a political weapon; usually organizes with other terrorists in small cells; often uses religion as a cover for terrorist activities - gang members hardly ever employ terror as a political weapon, there crimes are simply for their own personal benefit aka monetary gains

Answer 7

Of course not, they are not terrorists...they are just porr misunderstood minorities that need the federal governments help.

well...according to the Democrats that is.


OF COURSE they are terrorists and should be treated as such. There is no reason to be in a gang except to commit crimes and violence. All gang members should be arrested on sight.

Answer 8

See, we already have this designation known as "Criminal."

We have a legal system that demands our government deals with criminals - in a just way, including: warrants, right to representation, and a trial.

Designating a criminal as a terrorist does nothing but short-circuit our civil protection, criminal or not.

Answer 9

Why do you say American gangs? Most of the gang members I've seen are not "Americans" I would classify them as illegals.
Punishment should fit the crime, so it would be a good idea.

Answer 10

no, becuase terrorists target innocent people, and gang members kill mostly rival gang members, key word 'mostly' not alwys.