Slayings Lead L.A. to Vow Gang Crackdown

By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
Published: January 21, 2007
Filed at 8:20 p.m. ET

LOS ANGELES (AP) -- A 14-year-old girl was killed by Hispanic gang members who police say were targeting blacks. A 9-year-old girl died after being hit by a stray bullet as gang members exchanged shots near her home. A cop was wounded in a gunbattle with a suspected gangster.

The soaring violence is prompting police and politicians to promise one of the toughest crackdowns against gangs in city history.

''This is the monster, this is what drives people's fears,'' said Deputy Chief Charles Beck, who oversees a South Los Angeles district where gang-related crime jumped 24 percent during the year ending in November.

However, the effort has met skepticism in the city that has an estimated 700 gangs with 40,000 members -- about four for every police officer -- and that gave birth to some of the nation's most notorious gangs, including the Crips, Bloods and Mara Salvatrucha, or MS-13.

''It's too big, it's too entrenched, it's too intimately connected with the urban setup here,'' Malcolm Klein, a gang expert at the University of Southern California, said of the gang problem. ''You can reduce it. But the idea you can somehow eliminate it is ridiculous.''

Gangs have thrived for generations in Los Angeles, but the especially violent past year caught police brass off guard. Citywide crime rates fell in 2006 but gang-related offenses increased 14 percent -- the first hike in four years. In the San Fernando Valley, gang murders, assaults, robberies and other crimes jumped 42 percent.

Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa has appealed to U.S. Attorney General Alberto Gonzalez for millions of dollars in anti-gang funds and for more federal prosecutors to pursue racketeering and other charges mostly used in the past against organized crime.

FBI Director Robert Mueller has assigned agents to an anti-gang task force in the San Fernando Valley to work alongside police deputized as federal officers.

Authorities promise to increase enforcement in afflicted neighborhoods. The officers will be armed with injunctions forbidding gang members from assembling in certain areas, lawsuits aimed at shutting down gang hangouts as nuisances and probation orders barring gang members from returning to their neighborhoods after their release from prison.

In some ways, the approach mirrors a multi-agency Boston campaign in the 1990s, known as the Boston Miracle, that resulted in a dramatic decline in gun violence and murder rates.

Past efforts in Los Angeles, however, have produced mixed results.

''We've seen this movie before,'' said Mario Corona, a former member of the Pacoima Criminals gang in the San Fernando Valley who now works to rehabilitate gang members.

The city has been hampered in the past by a lack of resources and changing department priorities, according to a city-funded report by civil rights attorney Connie Rice.

And a 1980s anti-gang unit known as Community Resources Against Street Hoodlums, or CRASH, was disbanded after allegations of police corruption. Few of the thousands of suspected gang members in South Los Angeles were ever charged.

Residents are demanding renewed action while trying to stay out of the line of fire.

Esteban Martinez, 41, hears gunshots at night in the San Fernando Valley, where he lives with his wife and four small children.

''Everybody is afraid, but they don't speak (to police) because they are afraid to get into trouble with the gang members,'' Martinez said. ''I'm worried about my family.''

Two weeks ago, an officer searching a house in the area for wanted gang members was wounded in the leg when a gang-banger fired through a closed bedroom door.

Nothing has outraged the city more than the gang slayings of children. Last month, 9-year-old Charupha Wongwisetsiri was standing in her family's kitchen when she was struck by a stray round from gang crossfire in Angelino Heights near downtown.

That came just five days after the shooting death of Cheryl Green, a 14-year-old black girl, who was talking to friends in the Harbor Gateway area. Two Hispanic gang members, who police said were intent on killing blacks, were arrested.

Alex Sanchez, a former MS-13 member who now runs a gang intervention program, said police moves to identify the worst gangs could instead lead to more crime.

''It's feeding the egos of gang members,'' Sanchez said. ''They're all going to want to be on the top 10.''

Others said nothing will change without more jobs and better education.

''Until we get those gangsters into real jobs, we are going to have a lethal ongoing problem, pure and simple,'' said Jorja Leap, a social welfare professor and gang expert at the University of California, Los Angeles, who advises the mayor. ''It will never change.''

More Articles in National »

Editorial Reviews
From Booklist
Among possible U.S. terrorist targets listed by the Department of Homeland Security are a petting zoo in Alabama and a roadside water park in Florida. By listing such unlikely targets, the administration has heightened fear and the cost of protecting citizens, according to Mueller, a political science professor and national security consultant. He examines how terrorism hypervigilance is threatening civil liberties, the economy, and lives. Mueller explores three themes: terrorist threats are overblown; we can learn from the lessons of previous international threats that they are often exaggerated; and by applying these lessons, we can create policy that reduces fear and the cost of overreaction. Among other observations, Mueller notes that despite fears of chemical attacks, most such weapons are "incapable of perpetrating mass destruction," and our counterterrorism tactics tend to be expensive "self-flagellation" that bolsters the image of the terrorists. If the objective is to keep Americans frightened and willing to spend money and relinquish freedom, then the terrorists are winning, Mueller maintains. Interesting reading on a subject that will continue to hold great political sway. Vanessa Bush
Copyright © American Library Association. All rights reserved

Book Description
Why have there been no terrorist attacks in the United States since 9/11? It is ridiculously easy for a single person with a bomb-filled backpack, or a single explosives-laden automobile, to launch an attack. So why hasn't it happened? The answer is surely not the Department of Homeland Security, which cannot stop terrorists from entering the country, legally or otherwise. It is surely not the Iraq war, which has stoked the hatred of Muslim extremists around the world and wasted many thousands of lives. Terrorist attacks have been regular events for many years -- usually killing handfuls of people, occasionally more than that.
Is it possible that there is a simple explanation for the peaceful American homefront? Is it possible that there are no al-Qaeda terrorists here? Is it possible that the war on terror has been a radical overreaction to a rare event? Consider: 80,000 Arab and Muslim immigrants have been subjected to fingerprinting and registration, and more than 5,000 foreign nationals have been imprisoned -- yet there has not been a single conviction for a terrorist crime in America. A handful of plots -- some deadly, some intercepted -- have plagued Europe and elsewhere, and even so, the death toll has been modest.

We have gone to war in two countries and killed tens of thousands of people. We have launched a massive domestic wiretapping program and created vast databases of information once considered private. Politicians and pundits have berated us about national security and patriotic duty, while encroaching our freedoms and sending thousands of young men off to die.

It is time to consider the hypothesis that dare not speak its name: we have wildly overreacted. Terrorism has been used by murderous groups for many decades, yet even including 9/11, the odds of an American being killed by international terrorism are microscopic. In general, international terrorism doesn't do much damage when considered in almost any reasonable context.

The capacity of al-Qaeda or of any similar group to do damage in the United States pales in comparison to the capacity other dedicated enemies, particularly international Communism, have possessed in the past. Lashing out at the terrorist threat is frequently an exercise in self-flagellation because it is usually more expensive than the terrorist attack itself and because it gives the terrorists exactly what they are looking for. Much, probably most, of the money and effort expended on counterterrorism since 2001 (and before, for that matter) has been wasted.

The terrorism industry and its allies in the White House and Congress have preyed on our fears and caused enormous damage. It is time to rethink the entire enterprise and spend much smaller amounts on only those things that do matter: intelligence, law enforcement, and disruption of radical groups overseas. Above all, it is time to stop playing into the terrorists' hands, by fear-mongering and helping spread terror itself.

See all Editorial Reviews

From Booklist
Emerson is a somewhat controversial independent journalist who dedicated his career to alerting the public and the government about Islamic terrorism well before the 9/11 attacks. Consistent with his recent American Jihad: The Terrorists Living among Us (2002), which warned of domestic threats (as well as chronicling Emerson's struggle to convince a skeptical public), his latest selection vociferously asserts that terrorists "have insinuated themselves in the structure of American society," pursuing violent ends through "advocacy groups, an array of disingenuous charities and foundations, corporate financing networks, and the halls of academia." Here, Emerson matter-of-factly names and catalogs a host of such organizations and narrates each group's specific activities, footnoted to news articles and government reports. Given the nature of the topic, it is difficult to tell which of Emerson's many claims are credible and which err on the side of overstatement (something Emerson has been accused of before). This book will be most sought after by readers hungry for factual specifics about possible threats rather than for more nuanced theoretical or historical approaches to the topic. Brendan Driscoll
Copyright © American Library Association. All rights reserved

Book Description
The Investigative Project on Terrorism, founded in 1995 by Steven Emerson, maintains the largest nongovernmental data and intelligence library in the world on militant Islam. The Project assists the White House, the FBI, the Justice Department, Department of Homeland Security, and other government departments with counterterrorism activities.
Together with a staff of experts, Executive Director Steven Emerson has compiled this thorough factual overview of the Islamist terrorist threat to the United States. Unlike the Final Report of the 9/11 Commission, which was focused mainly on the retrospective analysis of al Qaeda activities leading up to the attack of September 11, 2001, this work emphasizes current radical activities in the United States and the threat they might pose to national security. Divided into three sections, the work first sets the stage for the current situation by reviewing the lessons learned from previous terrorist plots and attacks both within our borders and against American interests abroad. Emerson and colleagues profile key players in the terrorist network and describe their various criminal activities before and since 9/11. The second section analyzes organizations in the Middle East besides al Qaeda that are hostile to the United States: Hamas, Hizballah, the Palestinian Islamic Jihad, and radical groups in Pakistan. The third section analyzes the subtle, wide-ranging support system for terrorist activities that exists within our own borders: charities and foundations that secretly solicit for terror; the complex corporate web of companies, charities, and nonprofit corporations known as the SAAR network; mosques that provide cover for terrorists; the use of the Internet for terrorist communication; and lobbying efforts by Muslim American organizations to influence the top echelons of the federal government. In a dangerous age, this is an important book for all Americans to read.

See all Editorial Reviews

It doesn't take a rocket scientist to know that it is impossible to communicate and/ or negotiate with someone who isn't sitting across the table from you.

This kind of strategy, or LACK OF STRATEGY which virtually every professional seems to support, that is to NEGOTIATE, with Iran, is where the BUSH ADMINISTRATION will go down in history as the unfortunate white hat cowboy whose linear thinking takes our country backwards and damages democratic efforts in the world.

Should the bombing of Iranian nuclear facilities happen at the hands of the US president, the ripe democratic movement in Iran will be also 'blown away'. The highly nationalistic Iranians and students will turn against the west quickly.


---------------------------------------------------------------------------
January 21, 2007
Op-Ed Columnist
Hang Up! Tehran Is Calling

By NICHOLAS D. KRISTOF
One of the most worrying parts of President Bush’s Iraq strategy doesn’t have anything to do with Iraq. It’s the way he’s ramping up a confrontation with Iran.

Across a broad spectrum of policy levers, Mr. Bush is raising the pressure on Iran, increasing the risk that he will drag the U.S. into a third war in an Islamic country in six years. Instead of disengaging from war, he could end up starting another.

We could have taken another route. In 2003, Iran sent the U.S. a detailed message offering to work together to capture terrorists, to stabilize Iraq, to resolve nuclear disputes, to withdraw military support for Hezbollah and Hamas, and to moderate its position on Israel, in exchange for the U.S. lifting sanctions and warming up to Iran.

Some diplomats liked the idea, but administration hawks rejected it at once. Lawrence Wilkerson, a former chief of staff to Colin Powell, says that the State Department sent a cable to the Swiss ambassador in Tehran, who looks after U.S. interests in Iran, scolding him for even forwarding the package to Washington.

Obviously, Iran’s offer might have led nowhere. But it’s plain where rejection of the offer has taken us: more Americans are dying in Iraq, and some experts worry about clashes with Iran itself.

The Iraq Study Group proposed engagement with Iran, but instead Mr. Bush has been escalating the rhetoric and military pressure.

“When you have such a buildup and have zero communications, and you have an arena like Iraq where you may step on each other’s toes, you could have rapid escalation,” warns Vali Nasr, an expert on the region at the Naval Postgraduate School.

It doesn’t appear that Mr. Bush wants a war with Iran. His aim seems to be a show of force to deter Iran and reassure our allies in the region. But he is on a path that may easily lead to escalation.

It’s unfortunate that we are ratcheting up the military pressure, because the administration has quietly taken one very useful step against Iran: squeezing its access to international banking transactions. That has caused real economic pain and has added to the unpopularity of Iran’s hard-line president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. Those banking sanctions, not military moves, are a reason Mr. Ahmadinejad has been rebuked by the country’s supreme leader.

Unfortunately, both Mr. Bush and Mr. Ahmadinejad benefit from confrontation. Both are unpopular domestically but can use a crisis to distract from their policy failures.

“The current strategy benefits Ahmadinejad,” says Professor Nasr. “It’s going to divert attention at the popular level from democracy.”

Mr. Ahmadinejad is facing growing criticism: he has been heckled by university students and scolded in the press, and his candidates did poorly in recent elections. Ordinary Iranians love the U.S. — it’s the most pro-American country in the Middle East I’ve visited — and a civil society is struggling to be born.

“If there is any military strike on Iran, all this movement will end,” said Shirin Ebadi, the Iranian lawyer and Nobel Peace Prize winner.

Even some Republicans opposed to a “grand bargain” favor some kind of engagement. Mitchell Reiss, a former senior State Department official under Mr. Bush, proposes technical talks with Iran about drug trafficking and maritime security. “Even if they are a nonstarter for Tehran, I think we score points in the region for trying,” Ambassador Reiss said.

Granted, Mr. Bush is right to be frustrated by Iran and the way it’s defying the international community with its nuclear program.

Unfortunately, Mr. Bush’s military pressure may end up making Iraq bloodier than ever. Instead of being cowed, Iran may use its proxies in Iraq, Afghanistan, Lebanon and elsewhere to kill more American officials and troops.

Or even ordinary Americans here at home. “It’s a pretty good assumption that they have, if not operatives, at least sympathetic actors and affiliated groups” in the U.S., said Henry Crumpton, the State Department coordinator for counterterrorism.

Mr. Bush is absolutely right to denounce Iran’s leaders for stealing elections, suppressing their people and dabbling in terrorism. But we ourselves are partly to blame for the awful government in Tehran.

By instigating a coup in 1953 and seeking special legal privileges for American troops in 1964, we empowered extremists like Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini and allowed them to tap nationalist outrage. So it would be in keeping with tradition if Mr. Bush, by shortsightedly stoking a confrontation with Tehran, now inadvertently helped Iranian hard-liners crush Iran’s democracy movement.

___
Last month I launched a contest called "Your Turn" for readers to submit their own writing about Darfur, using my reporting or other source materials. I'm pleased to announce that Melissa Fitzgerald submitted the winning entry. Congratulations, Melissa!

To comment on this column, please go to Nicholas Kristof's blog.

URL: http://www.knoxnews.com/kns/opinion_columnists/article/0,1406,KNS_364_5291617,00.html
Barnett: Facing disasters anywhere
By THOMAS P.M. BARNETT, tom@thomaspmbarnett.com
January 20, 2007

In the future dystopian film "Children of Men," Britain soldiers on with a Ministry of Homeland Security whose forces scour the island for illegal immigrants. Evoking a siege mentality in a world suffering from an infertility crisis, security equates to sealed borders that hold a chaotic world at bay.
General David Petraeus, new commander of U.S. forces in Iraq, tells of encountering the man-on-the-moon syndrome among Iraqis following Saddam's fall: "If America can put a man on the moon," they surmised, "then surely it can rebuild Iraq quickly!" Following Hurricane Katrina, that naive assumption seemed wholly disproved back home. We couldn't manage New Orleans, so what made us think we'd fix Baghdad?

Those twin images define most Americans' rather dismal appreciation of our Department of Homeland Security, a fear-threat reaction to 9/11 that reveals more vulnerability and incompetence than it solves. Our initial efforts in this long war against radical extremism resemble our early bumbling attempts to conquer fear at the start of the Cold War; yesterday's "duck and cover" becomes today's "duct tape and plastic cover."

But America will eventually mature on this subject, and DHS will grow up with it. We'll stop defining ourselves by our weaknesses and start defining ourselves by our strengths, meaning not how we prevent disasters but how we recover from them so resiliently.

That's how we'll master this allegedly chaotic world: recalling that we're history's first and most wildly successful multinational economic and political union. Our greatest source of stability is our vast web of horizontally connecting networks. Unlike the rest of the world, America is not defined by top-down hierarchies of power.

Simply put, there's no head worth decapitating here. Imagine this seemingly worst-case scenario: During the president's State of the Union address, terrorists strike the capital, wiping out our entire federal leadership in the process. We'd be lost, right?

Pick a country - anywhere in the world - where you'd rather live through a terrorist strike or natural disaster. Frankly, when calamity strikes, you're better off being a family pet in America than a citizen in the vast majority of the world. As for still-sore spot New Orleans, compare life there 18 months post-disaster to Indonesia's Aceh province two years after the tsunamis or Pakistan's Kashmir two-plus years after the quake.

Because of our free press and amazingly accessible judicial system, America's private and public sectors are constantly driven to improve.

Our screw-ups do not go unexamined for long. Blaming America first is fine, so long as improving America comes next.

Resilience is not a short cut but a learned skill. It is the purest expression of American patriotism: We stand tallest when we lean on each other.

Long before the United Nations formed or the European Union coalesced, these uniting states yielded the United States.

The Department of Homeland Security needs to rekindle America's awareness of its own resilience.

A good start is seen in a new research and development program dubbed the Southeast Region Research Initiative (SERRI), which taps decades of mutual-aid experience found in our southeastern states' annual responses to hurricanes.

Katrina notwithstanding, cooperation among these states on hurricane relief is this country's least-appreciated example of resiliency, a knowledge base that's informed national responses to challenges as diverse as Y2K and avian flu.

SERRI's core mission is to incubate regionally interoperable systems that will form the backbone of our nation's next-generation emergency response network.

That internal evolution is crucial to America's external conduct of this long war: The more we understand our innate capacity for resilience, the better we'll conduct post-conflict and post-disaster military operations overseas.

In the end, our failures in New Orleans and Baghdad are one in the same, meaning America must once again learn how to put that man on the moon.

As with so many challenges posed by globalization, the way ahead is found by looking within.

Thomas P.M. Barnett is a strategist at the Oak Ridge Center for Advanced Studies and the senior managing director of Enterra Solutions LLC. Contact him at tom@thomaspmbarnett.com.