Results 1 to 8 of 8

Thread: Chicago writer requests "troop surge" to squash gang violence

  1. #1
    Regular Member Flintlock's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Alaska, USA
    Posts
    1,224

    Post imported post

    http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/o...,3667893.story


    Dennis Byrne
    May 12, 2008
    T[/i]he only thing we haven't tried in our desperation to end Chicago's violence is a troop surge.

    So then, why not a surge? Give people whose 3-year-olds get shot playing outside what they most want and deserve: security. Call out the National Guard. After all, a surge finally established some degree of security in Baghdad, and if we're to believe what we read, parts of Chicago are no less of a war zone.

    How close are we to an insurrection when gangs have usurped legitimate civil authority and pretty much govern how the people in the neighborhoods shall live, i.e., in terror. The shooters are terrorists as much as the Iraqi "insurgents." Flood violence-torn neighborhoods with visible signs of authority. Troops carrying automatic weapons, if need be. Armored Humvees. Martial law. Curfews. Let the punks and gangs know that they're in a war in which they're outmanned and outgunned. Let them wonder whether their drive-bys will be greeted with return fire from locked-and-loaded troops. Let them see the Air National Guard patrolling overhead in helicopters.

    Of all the harebrained ideas, this might be the worst, you're probably thinking right now. I can't be serious, right? Treating any Chicago neighborhood as occupied territory?


    Well, yes, there are a ton of reasons why a military—or whatever you want to call it—solution is unthinkable. The armed forces are not trained to do police work. It could deprive innocent citizens of their rights. Raging gun battles could break out between troops and gangs, endangering innocent people. And here's probably the most shocking reason: The Illinois Constitution, while permitting the deployment of the Illinois National Guard to "enforce the laws, suppress insurrection or repel invasion," also names the governor as commander in chief. That would be the screw-loose Rod Blagojevich. Yikes.

    Then again, why not? We've tried all the "root-cause" solutions, and now Blagojevich is jumping in with more: $150 million the state doesn't have for summer jobs programs, after-school programs and what-not programs. Mayor Richard M. Daley has appointed a study group, whose scholars will come up with "new" solutions, but if they do find just one, something that already hasn't been tried and whose failure can't be explained away by "lack of resources," then surely they'll be in line for the Nobel Peace Prize, and we'll all be grateful.

    It's always the same old stuff. In trying to "address underlying and systemic causes of the at-risk population," we've filled the landscape with jobs, education, development, housing, incentives, community involvement and other programs, not that there's anything wrong with that, and, yes, there always can be more, and how unsafe would neighborhoods be without them, but . . .

    In a twist on lyrics by the immortal Everly Brothers: "Programs, programs, all day long. Will my programs work out right or wrong?" Truth is, community activists can march until kingdom come, demanding they be "empowered to take back our neighborhoods," and little will happen. The media will dutifully show up to tape, we'll feel deep sympathy for the marchers' frustration and the punks will laugh it up.

    If my neighborhood were being torn up the same way, I'd demand full deployment. Check points. IDs. Explanations of intent from assorted roving bands of punks. Stop and frisk to enforce the city's tough gun-control laws. The easily excitable and offended will scream that it amounts to a neighborhood lockdown, even a police state. OK, maybe it shouldn't be the National Guard. Maybe it should be something like the more aggressive policing (including constitutional traffic stops to ask, "What are you doing here?") that has significantly reduced homicides and other crimes in Berwyn.

    But, I'll not accept the slander that the people struggling for safety in violent neighborhoods are so much different that they don't yearn for the peace and security that the rest of us enjoy, and which is the first and necessary condition for any of us to realize our potential.

    They, like I do, want to be able to walk safely with their grandchildren, to shop, to not worry about a stray bullet ripping through the front window and to be unafraid of the violent consequences of so minor an offense as looking at someone funny. You wouldn't find me rushing to the usual media whiners about how the authorities are unfairly picking on our young men, because our young men—as well as our young women, children and grandparents—now would be safe. Or at least safer. For a change.


    Peace through superior firepower

    Luke 11:21
    "When a strong man, fully armed, guards his own house, his possessions are undisturbed.

  2. #2
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Bedford, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    11

    Post imported post

    I thought Chicago all but made it impossible to have a gun. Wait a minute, I forgot, criminals don't follow the law.:quirky



    Someone in government and the media are once again showing thier ignorance over the law. The Posse Comitatus Act forbids this. Back in the 80's there was talk of using Guard units (which I was a part of) to bust crack houses in Richmond. This idea was quickly quelled because of this act.

  3. #3
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Joliet, Illinois, USA
    Posts
    237

    Post imported post

    Yeah. They should just pass a fuckin Concealed Carry Law already and let the shitbags get shot at in return. That'll stop em

  4. #4
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Centennial, Colorado, USA
    Posts
    1,412

    Post imported post

    The only thing we haven't tried in our desperation to end Chicago's violence is a troop surge.
    You haven't tried arming the victims. That could work.

  5. #5
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Bedford, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    11

    Post imported post

    FogRider wrote:
    The only thing we haven't tried in our desperation to end Chicago's violence is a troop surge.
    You haven't tried arming the victims. That could work.


    Every study proves it. Every stat proves it. Doesn't matter to the libs. They don't want results, even when they could save innocent people, they want power.

  6. #6
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Tucson, Arizona, USA
    Posts
    293

    Post imported post

    Putting the National Guard to work in the Big Easy hasn't made it any safer. Why should the Windy City prove any different?

  7. #7
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    275

    Post imported post

    Well, taking away everyone's guns didn't help in New Orleans either. Besides, now I see more and more cops than I do National Guard patrols, and eveerybody knows the cops are dirty. We've got one car that roams outside New Orleans East (the bad area) with two guys in it. I don't go to NOE very often, so I couldn't tell you how many NG are still up there.

  8. #8
    State Researcher
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    , Alabama, USA
    Posts
    935

    Post imported post

    mxwelch wrote:
    Someone in government and the media are once again showing thier ignorance over the law. The Posse Comitatus Act forbids this. Back in the 80's there was talk of using Guard units (which I was a part of) to bust crack houses in Richmond. This idea was quickly quelled because of this act.
    You need to keep up mxwelch....Posse Comitatus has been dead since Oct '06.....

    Quoted from: http://www.towardfreedom.com/home/content/view/911/

    "In a stealth maneuver, President Bush has signed into law a provision which, according to Senator Patrick Leahy (D-Vermont), will actually encourage the President to declare federal martial law (1). It does so by revising the Insurrection Act, a set of laws that limits the President's ability to deploy troops within the United States. The Insurrection Act (10 U.S.C.331 -335) has historically, along with the Posse Comitatus Act (18 U.S.C.1385), helped to enforce strict prohibitions on military involvement in domestic law enforcement. With one cloaked swipe of his pen, Bush is seeking to undo those prohibitions.

    Public Law 109-364, or the "John Warner Defense Authorization Act of 2007" (H.R.5122) (2), which was signed by the commander in chief on October 17th, 2006, in a private Oval Office ceremony, allows the President to declare a "public emergency" and station troops anywhere in America and take control of state-based National Guard units without the consent of the governor or local authorities, in order to "suppress public disorder."

    Before you dismiss this as "conspiracy theory", be sure to note the sources at the bottom of the page....


Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •