Latest Post | Last 10 Posts | Archives
Previous Post: Correct diagnosis, but the cure is lacking
Next Post: Lack of sunshine in concealed carry bill
Posted in:
* I’m glad that the two men have decided to talk…
Sen. Mark Kirk’s proposal for mass arrests to dismantle Chicago’s Gangster Disciples triggered a small protest outside his Chicago office Monday just as Rep. Bobby Rush — who dismissed the plan as an “upper-middle-class, white-boy solution” — announced that he will meet with Kirk on Tuesday to talk about the issue.
Kirk, a Republican from Highland Park, told reporters last week that he wanted the 18,000-strong Gangster Disciples crushed and would seek $30 million in federal money for the effort. Last month, Kirk told Fox News in Chicago that he favored a “mass pickup” of the Gangster Disciples and wanted to “put ‘em all in the Thomson correctional facility,” which Illinois sold to the federal government last year.
Sen. Kirk’s proposal to aim massive federal police powers at the Gangster Disciples is probably a good idea. The gangs have to be broken. Drug legalization would probably do far more to hurt the gangs, but there’s no doubt that the gangs have way too much influence and they need to be attacked. The federal government shut down Boston after terrorists set off two bombs. There was an overwhelming Chicago police response when some kids decided to cause trouble on Michigan Ave. But persistent lawless behavior in poor neighborhoods too often gets short shrift.
However, Sen. Kirk’s hyperbole about rounding up all the gang members and putting them into prisons was downright stupid. Do we make everybody on the South and West Sides wear special ID badges? Do we create concentration camps to handle all the new inmates? Where does it end? Does some 12 year old selling individual cigarettes on the corner get rounded up with the murderers? Kirk really needs to disavow the idea. This is America. We don’t roll that way.
posted by Rich Miller
Tuesday, Jun 4, 13 @ 12:12 pm
Sorry, comments are closed at this time.
Previous Post: Correct diagnosis, but the cure is lacking
Next Post: Lack of sunshine in concealed carry bill
WordPress Mobile Edition available at alexking.org.
powered by WordPress.
probably not the smartest move by kirk to directly target one of the nationwide street gangs that seems to has more reach nationwide then he does.hope hes got a security team with him.
Comment by cm Tuesday, Jun 4, 13 @ 12:26 pm
Figures that the only time we hear from Bobby Rush is to trash senator kirk who frankly has now offered more solutions to the raging gang problems in Rush’s district than he has and probably is a lot more engaged with his district than the congressman.
The only time congressman rush has been in the news over the last decade has been about his primary win in 2000. Like many chicago congresscritters/aldermen /state legislators (except for the ones that are on trial or that live in dc or that go mia-which appears to be about half) he seems to collect a paycheck, maybe show up at a parade once a year or to greet obama getting off a plane and that’s about it.
Comment by shore Tuesday, Jun 4, 13 @ 12:26 pm
Due respect, Rich, but I think you’re dabbling in your own “stupid” hyperbole . “Special ID badges?” “Concentration camps??” Those phrases conjure up very specific images, none of which are applicable here. To say that Mr. Kirk’s proposal is tough would be an massive understatement. You can even reasonably argue that it borders on draconian (in the classic sense). But to imply that it constitutes some sort of urban kristallnacht is ridiculous. I think Mr. Rush’s initial response was less inflammatory and offensive.
Comment by grand old partisan Tuesday, Jun 4, 13 @ 12:44 pm
Did anyone see Ald. Mitts talk about this she said she wouldn’t have said what Rush said however she decided to take a swipe at Sen. Kirk’s illness.
Comment by Levois Tuesday, Jun 4, 13 @ 12:50 pm
GOP, then you tell me what rounding up 15,000 people without charges and putting them in a massive holding compound is if it’s not a concentration camp. Look up the definition. That’s exactly what it is.
And how do you identify these people? Who decides who gets locked up and who doesn’t?
The truth is, this is an entirely undemocratic idea. No hyperbole in that at all. Kirk needs to back off.
Comment by Rich Miller Tuesday, Jun 4, 13 @ 12:57 pm
@Levois - seriously?
Please don’t tell me that someone piled on the “elitist white-boy” commentary with a stroke joke or something even more tasteless.
I didn’t see anything in the news, but it wouldn’t stun me if another goofball made another goofy comment.
Really hope you’re wrong, but you’re probably right.
Geez.
Comment by Formerly Known As... Tuesday, Jun 4, 13 @ 1:01 pm
NPR interview on topic by Michel Martin with Congressman Danny Davis, former federal prosecutor Ron Safer, and reporter Rob Wildeboer for those who might have missed it. Worth a listen:
Two parts:
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=188339385
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=188339387
Comment by Anonymous Tuesday, Jun 4, 13 @ 1:19 pm
When I heard what Senator Kirk said I assumed he was pandering to the extremists in his party.
Comment by Chavez-respecting Obamist Tuesday, Jun 4, 13 @ 1:20 pm
I never understood how our nation is willing to spread billions around and win “hearts and minds” in Iraq and Afganistan as part of a counter insurgency strategy, but not in our own neighborhoods. It would seem to me that gangs and the neighborhoods that support them constitute in some ways a low intensity insurgency. Way more Americans have been victimized by street gangs then Sunni’s or Shia groups in Iraq. Must be no strategic value in South Chicago.
Comment by Anon Tuesday, Jun 4, 13 @ 1:21 pm
And I agree re: “This is America. We don’t roll that way.” Furthermore, I’m a bit surprised that someone who allgedly prides himself as a “human rights activist”–regardless of whether he’s being a statesman or a “shock jock”–would prematurely roll out a “plan” that is no where near “a plan.”
There are “complexities” pertaining to innocents that unless you’ve lived and/or worked in certain Chicago neighborhoods are impossible to even imagine.
Comment by Anonymous Tuesday, Jun 4, 13 @ 1:24 pm
Maybe it’s time to narrow the focus, Mr. Kirk, to understanding the issues here within the U.S.–and I’m not one who would normally make such a general statement.
Comment by Anonymous Tuesday, Jun 4, 13 @ 1:26 pm
I am all for a war with the gangs, but if you start that war you better have a plan that goes beyond “lock em up!”. Those neighborhoods have many problems, problems that create gangs. So lets hear the Senator’s plans for improving education, social services and access to meaningful employment before we call in the calvary.
Comment by Lil Squeezy Tuesday, Jun 4, 13 @ 1:28 pm
Rich, did Kirk ever say that they should be held without charges?? I’m seriously asking, because I don’t remember that but I could be wrong. But from what I’ve heard him say about it, I don’t believe that is what he is proposing, and that right there is the crux of it. Now, if I’m wrong about that, and they are to be held without charges, then you are right, that would be a “concentration camp” (in the strictest technical definition). But if they are being charged, then it’s simply a detention facility, no different in legal/moral/ethical terms than our current jails and penitentiaries.
My interpretation of Kirk’s proposal is that it’s basically an expansion of RICO, albeit a massive and judicially untested one. And I think that there is something to the idea that anyone who participates in and supports the criminal organization should bear some responsibility for its crimes against the community – not just the leaders. Again, there’s room to argue the merits of that, but I think it’s a far cry from how you’ve characterized it thus far.
Comment by grand old partisan Tuesday, Jun 4, 13 @ 1:33 pm
=My interpretation of Kirk’s proposal is that it’s basically an expansion of RICO…=
OK. Maybe I missed something. In our history, when did an “expansion of RICO” involve a mass-sweep of 18,000 people?
Comment by Anonymous Tuesday, Jun 4, 13 @ 1:38 pm
And AMERICANS at that.
Comment by Anonymous Tuesday, Jun 4, 13 @ 1:42 pm
Chavez-respecting Obamist, perhaps you should consider giving “extremists” (however you personally define them), the “benefit of the doubt.”
We have more in common than we don’t.
Comment by Anonymous Tuesday, Jun 4, 13 @ 1:46 pm
I think that this could be a very lucky stroke of political lightening. Kirk and Rush- two people who could not more different- finally have people talking about actually fix this.
Comment by Come on man! Tuesday, Jun 4, 13 @ 1:52 pm
Anonymous, to answer your question: never. That’s why I stipulated that it was “massive and judicially untested.”
Comment by grand old partisan Tuesday, Jun 4, 13 @ 1:54 pm
Really? Then Kirk “first.” Knock of the “mindless hyperbole.”
Comment by Anonymous Tuesday, Jun 4, 13 @ 1:55 pm
Thank you for the clarification, GOP.
Comment by Anonymous Tuesday, Jun 4, 13 @ 1:56 pm
Yes, there’s a term for what Kirk proposes: martial law. Short of that, yes this is going too far. Pick people up and jail them for a suspected or even known affiliation but not based on probable cause to suspect they actually committed a crime? No habeas corpus? I don’t know off the top of my head the capacity at Thomson but I doubt it’s 1/10 of 18,000. A quick Google search shows Sing Sing has a capacity of 1,799, for example. San Quentin has a design capacity of 3,302, and is overcrowded at 5,247. Stateville has a total capacity of 3,868, and cost $30,055/inmate/year in 2010. So, round up 18,000 people for no probable cause, deny habeas corpus, and put them where and at what cost?
Short of invasion or insurrection, this is clearly unconstitutional; and crazy, to boot.
I don’t care much for Rush, but he wasn’t all that wrong about this.
Comment by Harry Tuesday, Jun 4, 13 @ 2:03 pm
And I don’t have to tell you what you can do with your “carbon reduction plan ‘kitty,’” Mr. Kirk, do I?
Comment by Anonymous Tuesday, Jun 4, 13 @ 2:09 pm
Hyperbole is used by politicians, journalists, and just about anybody who wants to make a point and get a discussion going. So is Kirk the problem or gang violence?
Comment by Anonymous Tuesday, Jun 4, 13 @ 2:12 pm
Another “kitty”, Anonymous, 2:12?
Comment by Anonymous Tuesday, Jun 4, 13 @ 2:13 pm
Mr. Kirk, you REALLY need to think about the “marketing execs” you’ve hired as “communicatios specialists.” You’ve really crossed the line this time, insulting the public’s intelligence and tolerance to this degree.
Comment by Anonymous Tuesday, Jun 4, 13 @ 2:16 pm
I hope you’re truly thankful that Mr. Rush is the gentleman that he is, Mr. Kirk, and that perhaps you’ve learned something from him.
Comment by Anonymous Tuesday, Jun 4, 13 @ 2:23 pm
That is all.
Comment by Anonymous Tuesday, Jun 4, 13 @ 2:25 pm
Just one more observation, Mr. Kirk: That motion you had made, wiping your nose. Was it remorse? Was you nose running? Or, did you feel “heat” in that general vicinity of your face?
Comment by Anonymous Tuesday, Jun 4, 13 @ 2:34 pm
@ Grand Old Partisan:
You asked, “Rich, did Kirk ever say that they should be held without charges??”
Yes, in effect, he did. He said, “My top priority is to arrest the Gangster Disciple gang, which is 18,000 people”, but he has certainly not stated what the legal basis for such arrests might be. It is not, of course, illegal to be a gang member, so we cannot help but be left with the assumption that there wouldn’t be any charges.
Comment by Joan P. Tuesday, Jun 4, 13 @ 2:38 pm
==Another “kitty”, Anonymous, 2:12?==
Apparently.
Comment by Anonymous Tuesday, Jun 4, 13 @ 2:47 pm
Honesty for a change, Anonymous 2:47? Keep working at it–it might become a VIRTUE some day.
Comment by Anonymous Tuesday, Jun 4, 13 @ 2:49 pm
Joan,
(a) so, just because “he has not stated what the legal basis for such arrests might be,” that means we can assume there won’t be any??? That’s a leap you have to want to make, I guess.
(b) in terms of it not being “illegal” to be in a gang, read up on the history and purpose of RICO, then come back to me….
Comment by grand old partisan Tuesday, Jun 4, 13 @ 2:52 pm
Do you want me to start citing cases, GOP–especially those in Illinois? It’s probably outside the context of this thread and I’m going to guess that you’re already familiar with them.
And, out curiosity, just how many children are included in the 18,000–and therefore, I’m assuming, are outside of the context of RICO in general, but who might be included in the sweep of 18,000?
Comment by Anonymous Tuesday, Jun 4, 13 @ 2:57 pm
OK, Rich. I’ll phrase my last post in another way: Is the focus on “has an agent, or transacts his affairs?”
Comment by Anonymous Tuesday, Jun 4, 13 @ 3:05 pm
==Honesty for a change, Anonymous 2:47? Keep working at it–it might become a VIRTUE some day.==
Not in Illinois it won’t.
Comment by Anonymous Tuesday, Jun 4, 13 @ 3:31 pm
This is an excerpt from the interview link that Anonymous gave us (Ron Safer is a former federal prosecutor; Danny Davis is the West Side congressman):
DAVIS: It’s almost like the creation of a police state. First of all, even the data - I mean, he doesn’t know whether or not there are 18,000 members of the Gangster Disciples. I don’t think anybody knows that. And I don’t think anybody knows where they are, or where you would find them, or who they are. I mean, you’d be running through the community like Gestapos. You’d be, you know suspending people’s rights. You’d be doing all kinds of ridiculous things. And that’s why it’s a ridiculous statement. It’s a ridiculous comment.
MARTIN: Is part of your objections, Congressman, the fact that you - neither you nor Mr. Rush, who was also not available today nor the other congresswoman whose district encompasses the city core - were consulted on this. Is that also part of the - your concern?
DAVIS: Well, I would have thought that if he was serious about it, that perhaps we would have been consulted. And, but I think more than that, it’s just the articulation of an approach that would be absolutely foreign to the principles and practices in our country. I mean that’s just not the way to do it and…
SAFER: …And I agree with that…
Comment by been there Tuesday, Jun 4, 13 @ 3:43 pm
And Rich, thanks, but I’d rather have a glow-in-the-dark hat than an ID badge, please, so the hovering helicopter cops (helicops?) can watch and be sure that I’m safe outside at night.
Comment by been there Tuesday, Jun 4, 13 @ 3:49 pm
Speaking of RICO, I wonder if Rahm and the feds ever thought of using that law to undo the parking meter deal. Everyone in that deal had to know that it was a theft of taxpayers’ funds. The only question is whether they could use the civil or criminal RICO law.
Comment by funny guy Tuesday, Jun 4, 13 @ 3:57 pm
Let’s assume Rush has no credible plan to deal with this violence other than name calling and race baiting.
Comment by Downstater Tuesday, Jun 4, 13 @ 3:58 pm
Years ago Dan Walker proposed that we should declare Marshal Law on the South Side, send in the guard, and confiscate all weapons on a house to house basis. Kind of like the Kirk plan.
Comment by Barney Tuesday, Jun 4, 13 @ 4:37 pm
Kirk really needs to disavow the idea. This is America. We don’t roll that way.
_____________
This is Chicago. Lock them up, beat a confession out of them, throw away the key. That’s how they roll.
Comment by Pete Tuesday, Jun 4, 13 @ 6:17 pm
Kirk’s idea makes no sense. First off, you probably need to multiply that 18,000 number by five or six. The Gangster Disciples are one gang, what about the Vicelords, heck, what about the Latin Gangs?
Comment by Guzzlepot Tuesday, Jun 4, 13 @ 6:51 pm
“…before we call in the calvary.”
Lets keep religion out of this.
Comment by wishbone Tuesday, Jun 4, 13 @ 7:31 pm