The knee jerk reaction(s) seen already in relation to the events at Sydney's Domestic Terminal, in terms of taking out gang(s) say we do...

But do we really? Quite simply, as a society, can we win such a war?

I am not into hyperbole, this is a serious question... Given that these "gangs" are financed by illegal drugs (the manufacture, distribution & sale of), given that something like 20% of our society is daily acting contrary to law in using these same drugs, is our society capable of sustaining an all out war with "crime"?

Simply put, when 20% of a democratic society is outside the law, given no opportunity to alter the laws so as to bring their actions back within the law and facing the daily reality of violent, home invasion by law enforcement as a consequence, is our society all that democratic to begin with?

What will be the response of these gangs, which are known to be heavily armed and without regard for "civilian" life? What will happen when they are forced outside the law, the protection and the restrictions thereof?

Quite simply, we run a real risk of setting in track an open conflict which we cannot, as a society, win. Police cannot protect those who support society openly (quite frankly, they cannot protect witnesses, those in highly policed public areas or even their own stations), while they cannot touch those who support the criminal gangs... As the majority of society will not put themselves and their families at risk, where does that leave democracy?

Maybe it is time to reevaluate drug prohibition? Put most of that 20% of Australian citizens back in the mainstream? Remove there antipathy toward law enforcement & bring them back to respecting the 'rule of law'? Because as it stands at the moment, they are reliant for their supply upon the same criminal element who threaten society openly.

Police and other law enforcement agencies are powerless to stop them, yesterday's brazen actions demonstrated that. Maybe it is time to stop the flow of recruits?

I think that declaring "War" on criminals is likely to be about as sucessful as the so-called "Wars" on drugs and terrorism.

Speaking of which, the affray at Sydney Airport makes something of a joke all the ridiculous indignities, inconveniences and imposts imposed on air travellers in Australia in the recent past as part of the "War on Terror". From yesterday's Crikey email:

<< The amount of taxpayer money soaked up by the post 9/11 pretence at airport security must run into the hundreds of millions. How many shoe searches? How many sheep yard herds of frustrated travellers shuffling toward hypersensitive metal detectors? How many confiscated nail files? All for our own good of course.
All just slivers of comfort and convenience willingly sacrificed in the noble cause of fighting terror and making the skies safe for the innocent traveller. What piffle.

If one thing is proven beyond doubt by the bikie brawl at Sydney airport it is that the gestures of the past decade toward airport security are nothing more than a highly expensive, inconvenient public relations posture. Never mind the strictest security strictures imaginable, all you had to do to kill on the check-in concourse, was reef a lump of metal out of the ground and swing it with a will.

Proof that in this instance governments have acted not because through acting they could make us safer, but because they needed to be seen simply to act. >>

HB, while I agree with the central idea and general tenor of your question, I feel you've confused a few things.
The Bikies are central to the Amphetamine trade, not the general drug market. Very few aussies are into speed and it's derivatives, even allowing for the ecstasy usage by the young. The 20% figure would seem to relate to smoking grass, and on that I support legalisation.
I don't think personally that it's this area that has lead to people not respecting police, or the law, although it contributes. The actions of the police themselves world-wide, media-hype, hollywood, bad laws, there are many causes.
The general unwillingness to get involved is symptomatic of our self-centered society, and the break-down of a central ethos.
The police can only react to events, would you want them arresting people because they MIGHT commit a crime? Given the will, laws, and money, they could greatly reduce the hard-drug trade, in time.
Although Bikies like to call themselves 1%ers, even if you take the media hyperbole of 20,000 bikies and affiliates, that's only 1% of 1% of the population, an insignificant number really. On top of that most of them are working men, holding down jobs, paying off mortgages, raising families. They may not be nice people overall, but that's not a crime. If the inner-circle, hard-core bikies who run things could be dealt with, the rest aren't fools, break the ring-leaders and the rest will fold, it's the way groups work.
We'll never be rid of the edge-dwellers, every society has them, the violent, the criminal, the dis-affected, the plain stupid ones. Our social and legal systems can increase or decrease the numbers, but they'll still be with us, nothing's perfect, ever.
I don't know if a "war" is a good description, but it's not a bad prescription, if the powers-that-be would actually fund one, it works when focused properly.
Democracy is an illusion, an attempt, a wish, but it's the best we've got, and given time and the will, it might even come true one day.

Maximillion is unfortunately correct. I can only amplify some of the points.
“War on...” is sheer rhetoric a knee jerk response to placate the plebs.
In truth it probably means a dedicated task force and effort to combat their activities and in that I agree if only for the fact that our society must make a stand against those who behave in an organized fashion to be outside the law.

While I don’t ride a motor bike (two wheeled coffins) I feel obliged to make the distinction between bikers and bikies. We are talking about the latter a sub culture of deliberate misfits. But the rule of law must be maintained (such as it is).

I think the security issue of the airports is a whole different issue and one that needs a serious look. In think that CJ and others need to be careful not to throw the baby out with the bath water. i.e. Where dit the shooting take place in a secured area or inside the front foyer?
The whole issue of Australia being a front line target for 911 style actions are open to debate but we don’t want to become a hub for easy access to other parts.

To the question of whether we can totally win a war against criminality I think the answer is no. Even if the authorities managed to pick off the gang leaders, another two heads of the hydra tend to pop up and take its place. Recent events would suggest that all authorities have to do is patrol their turf and largely let the gangs take care of themselves on their side of the fence.

The best the law enforcement agencies can do is put a line in the sand and pick off any nasty or criminal element that crosses it. It's best for society overall if the police are reactive rather than proactive (as all being proactive does is smoke criminals out of their holes and accelerate their actions). Then the authorities need to look harder at their own actions like airport security checks and objectively assess what difference they make to the security of society.

On a positive note, the recent gang violence may have the unintended consequence of forcing the security services to make their airport security more well-rounded.

Well in terms of the phrase, "War on" , I was merely paraphrasing one of the News Ltd Editorials (Age IIRC)...

How exactly can you separate so easily the pot trade from that of amphetamines? The distribution networks are essentially the same parties, it involves a hell of a lot more money than most would realise. You would doubt that the effect of making 20% of the population criminals, is to make them less respectful of society's rules & police in general? Really?

I honestly doubt the Taliban at any one time had the lukewarm support of 20% of the population of Afghanistan, yet they would have won any general election held while they held sway... Why? Because enough people would be forced to examine their reality and conclude that their personal safety and that of their families required them to take the 'easy' option.

As to Airport Security & the AFP.... Putting aside my distaste for ethnic/racial profiling... Exactly how where 15-20 armed males, of middle-eastern appearance (some admittedly are Greek) and of military age, allowed to hastily enter, disturb the peace and then run amok in Sydney's Domestic Airport (assuredly given the Geo-political reality, a serious potential target), bashing one man to death, without anyone reacting to prevent their leaving?

Where would we be now if they had backpacks?

Seriously, by entering that airport normally, with bags, two or three suicide bombers could do more damage in the check-in lines than they could by downing 2-3 planes.

Hmmmm, no easy solutions.
I would just remind you of how drug wars can get out of hand as in Mexico.

HB: The daily reality of the Australian drug trade is that the only reason hard and recreational drugs are supplied through similar sources is the Law itself, making grass illegal lumps it together with the hard drugs. And if you look closely, the Bikies don't trade much in it at all, it's too bulky, and there's far more profit in the harder drugs.
Many many grass dealers won't touch the hard stuff, the same applies to their customers. Remove the legal link and you remove that link too.
As I said earlier, that Law is only a part of the reason a lot of people have lost respect for the whole legal system. Corruption, privilege, media hype, all contribute, as well as other factors.
Look you to Holland. Grass is largely legal there, within certain boundaries. They have the lowest hard-drug addiction levels of the entire western world, and the junkies they do have a largely left-overs from prohibition days, their average age is in the 40's, in Oz and elsewhere it's in the 20's. And strangely enough, they also have the lowest usage rates for grass amongst their young, take away the thrill of "naughtiness", and the youth don't take to it so readily.
As for the reasons put forward for it's proscription, look at the rest of the world, there are places it's been consumed for centuries, even possibly millenia, the Middle East, India, Asia, where are the horrible effects, the birth defects, the insanity, all the other bs attributed to it's usage?
Most Australians know people who smoke it these days, some for decades, and live positive, productive lives. When those "experts" start railing against it and proclaim it's horrors, Aussies look to their family or friends or neighbours, and see that it's largely untrue, yet again reducing respect for the system.
Lets not even mention alcohol, an addictive, poisonous, destructive drug, yet not only legal, it funds our Sports and quite a bit else. Making a medical/psychological argument against grass begs the question, why not ban alcohol too? It's far far worse a drug, no contest.

Using the term 'war' on anything is pure propaganda hype. This is a huge problem and by all accounts a growing one. While law enforcement will always be needed to varying degrees, the root causes of crime continue to be ignored.

Why has the crime rate increased? Why is gang violence on the increase? If we can find the cause we are closer to finding the cure.

I was listening to a Muslim fellow on an Ethnic affairs program recently who talked about the disenfranchisement of young middle-eastern males who are attracted to gangs for the sense of 'family' or brotherhood and strong support structure. The sort of support and acceptances they perceive as lacking in the wider community. Give a boy a man's job and he will generally take up the responsibility. We should seek to include rather than exclude and that would go a long way to solving some of these issues of gang violence.

On the subject of drugs mentioned previously, alcohol is already legal lets not increase our social problems by legalising grass and illicit drugs. This just makes it commonplace, we think nothing of having a drink now and then, I would hate to see the same nonchalance about drug use. Just visit a few hospital wards to experience the increase in the incidence of schizophrenia and early-onset dementia in the late 20s age-group to be fully put off the whole idea.

Sorry Pelican, but I think you're just repeating the propaganda put out by the alcohol industry.
Can you prove a direct causative link between those patients and grass usage? no. Can you even show, let alone prove, that they wouldn't have ended up there anyway if they hadn't smoked? no.
As I said above, look to the countries where it's use is centuries old, where are the victims? Sorry, that hype just doesn't bear close examination.
If you look closely, every single one of them has been drinking water all their lives, it's statistically obvious that water causes their problems, isn't it?
Or try breathing, toilet use, listening to music, take your pick, they're far more statistically likely to be the cause than grass, lol.
As for your thoughts on the youth/gang/crime problem, I actually agree with you there, and it's not just ethnic, it's across the board, and I think it is a result of our modern ego-centric society, we just abandon our youth to the winds, and hope for the best. Given the harsh realities of the capitalist system and the unreal expectations foisted on them by the education system and the consumer society, it's a recipe for disaffection. And what does the government focus on? Punishing the victims of that sorry state of affairs, instead of, as you say, solving the causes.

Max
I respect your views and have had many tussles with other OLO particpants on the drugs issue, even with those I am normally in agreeance on many other issues.

I admit my experiences have shaped my views on this, and I guess you could say I have seen a biased sample - all drug addicted. However, I can tell you that the cause of these people's illnesses were absolutely drug-related. I think we are long past the debate on this with medical research having proved a causative link with marijuana for those who are genetically succeptible. As for the obvious effects of other illicit drugs like ICE, there can be no doubt of the awful consequences.

There are many links to the research.
http://www.abc.net.au/catalyst/stories/2402434.htm

Alcohol is also a drug but it is legalised and that is exactly my point. Once something is legalised it is difficult to decriminalise it. We could do more such as banning alcohol sponsorship or advertising but I don't see that happening in the short term due to monetary interests but we live in hope.

Your comments are spot on about youth. There is so much more to this debate than OLO allows on word limits, but so much of our economy is based on the workforce and 'working families' (growth economics) rather than just on families and providing nuturing foundations for our kids.