# The Fate of Lt. Colonel West: You can help!



## Karazenpo (Nov 14, 2003)

Lt. Colonel West is the U.S. serviceman who was interrogating an Al Queda operative. He fired two rounds in the vicinity of, not at,  the operative. The subject immediately cooperated and the information he supplied prevented an attack on the Colonel's company. Please, let's not compare this to police interrogations in our country, let's just take it for what it is. From the information I have, the suspect was undenieably an Al Queda agent. It was believed he poccessed valuable life saving information regarding attacks planned on our troops. As it panned out, this was an accurate accessment. Again, please do not take this out of context as a breach of our civil rights as U.S. citizens and this becoming a police state. Treat it for exactly what it is in response to military warfare and what's been happening to both innocent civillians and our brothers and sisters overseas. The Colonel is facing a court marshal,  loss of his, I think it's  a 21 year pension and a possible 8 years in prison. There is a White House information number you can call to give your opinions on current events. They do listen to this and take into account what the bulk of the feelings are on a particular situation, after all its votes and an election is coming up. The # is 202-456-1111. Monday through Fridays, I think 9-5pm. What say you? It was brought up to me recently if I thought that the fact Col. West is a black man has anything to do with it. I hope the hell not but I really don't believe that's the case, however, something's wrong somewhere.
I say enough is enough with all these stupid politics, especially when it can cost us lives.


----------



## arnisador (Nov 20, 2003)

> _Originally posted by Karazenpo _
> *I say enough is enough with all these stupid politics, especially when it can cost us lives. *



It isn't politics if he broke the rules. There's sort of a military tradition of someone breaking a rule in a case like this for the good of all and realizing that because of the rule of (civilian) law that he'll get punished. Is that a bad thing--he gets the info. they need, but the govt. reasserts the rule of law?

In my experience in cases like this--if all is as you've heard--they give a discharge plus a slap on the wrist punishment so we can say we punish rule-breakers but with a wink-wink/nudge-nudge.


----------



## Karazenpo (Nov 21, 2003)

Arnisador, as a veteran police officer (para-military) I totally understand what you mean and agree with you. At first glance my feelings were even though they got the info they needed, the political (more right wing) machine behind the military had to appease or throw a 'bone' to the more liberal left wing side. I hope this is not the case and your perspective and final judgement weighs out. Thanks for the response! Respectfully submitted.


----------



## Elfan (Nov 21, 2003)

I agree with arnisador, military organizations can not afford to bend the rules just because it turned out okay in the end.  Mr. West may have obtained valuable information, but it was through a direct violation of  US law and he should be disciplined accordingly.  I'm reminded of the classic Star Trek movies where Kirk disobeys a direct order and "saves the world," but is still court martialed.  Of course he did end up with a slap on the wrist punishment.


----------



## michaeledward (Nov 22, 2003)

At what point do the actions of Lt. Colonel West become 'Terrorism'?

I am reminded everyday that it is a group of 'Radical Islamic Fundamentalists' leading the attack against the United States

Yet, in this country, some 75% of the population believe that Judge Moore *should have the right* to exercise his 'Radical Christian Fundamentalist' beliefs.

At what point, does one become the other? 

Please realize that I am not saying that Judge Moore is knit from the same cloth as Osama bin Laden. But haven't 'Radical Christian Fundamentalists' attacked reproductive health centers? Haven't 'Radical Christian Fundamentalists' assisinated doctors who practice procedures they find objectionable?

I can connect the dots between Radical Religous behavior and Terrorism. Which is why we must never allow our government to start down that path of torture. The operative was in custody and, I would imagine, unarmed. The ends can not be used to justify the means.

This is one reason why the Commander and Chief of the United States military is a civilian. It is too easy to justify Lt. Colonel Wests behavior from a military point of view. 

I believe he should be punished. I believe he should have know better. I hope that he never, in my name, acts this way again.

Sincerely - Michael Atkinson


----------



## Karazenpo (Nov 26, 2003)

Okay, I've had a little while to listen to the news stories on this and read other peoples' posts and I have mixed emotions on this one. Please let me express why. I know being in law enforcement(paramilitary) for almost three decades that when a police officer walks outside the rules and regulations or violates the civil rights of a citizen then action to some degree must be taken, all according to the severity of the violation. That goes undisputed. No argument from me. However, when I posted this question on Lt. Colonel West I asked please keep this seperate from the states and our rights in regards to law enforcement and our citizens. In one news story I heard it was stated the two situations are two different animals. We are talking about the 'theatre of combat' and not Main St. USA. Whether we want to admit it or not or the President wants to declare it or not, there is a war going on. For example, I just heard this morning that the wife and daughter of a 'bigwig' in Saddam's hierachy who is believed to be the one organizing the attacks on our troops have been taken into custody, held against their will and currently being interrogated. Now, as of yet nobody has been complaining about that but imagine if the police did that to family members of a fugitive criminal here in the states? A most definite civil rights violation! because Main St. USA is not a 'theatre of combat'. We cannot compare the two. As far as Lt. Colonel West goes I'll say this and I will stand by it no matter what anyone says. According to my information an Iraqi woman was interrogating the terrorist and was not getting anyway. They had enough previous information that something was going down and the life of many or our troops, a company of men and women under Lt. Colonel West were on the line. The Colonel stepped in and took over the interrogation and yes, he did fire two rounds, not at, but in the same room of the terrorist. As a matter of fact, he reported what he did to his superiors. No one was hurt including the 'primitive barbarian' and many of our U.S. troops were taken out of harm's way-their lives were saved!!! What if some of you reading this had family out their serving in Lt. Colonel West's company? How would you feel then? Would you want to see them come home in body bags because we are all so concerned about the 'rights' and treatment of ruthless killers of not only our troops but innocent men, women and children? Have you seen the mass graves there? There's no question in my mind. He saved the lives of many men and women who are serving for us, I say God Bless him and I wouldn't have wanted to see it handled any other way. A martial artist once said and I'll have to paraphrase because I can't remember the exact quote but this is close enough: "Martial artists who are totally pure of heart do not have what it takes to battle evil. Evil will overwhelm them, consume them and destroy them." I read this maybe 15-20 years ago. It's all about the 'yin & the yang'. I respect everyone's opinion, this is just mine and I'm sure many others too.  Our guys come first against these animals and that's the bottom line! If something similiar to Lt. Colonel West's incident happened right after 9/11, we'd be having a ticker tape parade for him! How quick Americans seem to forget or it least lose their fighting spirit with time. What if the same siutation would have prevented 9/11? You mean to tell me you would speak out against this guy? Survey the families of 9/11 victims and see what they have to say? That he did the wrong thing and should be punished? Not to mention, imagine this gets out to the enemy which I'm sure it has by now, do you realize how many of our own will die because these barbarians know that we have to wine and dine them if they're captured! This is why these 'people', and I use the word people loosely, consider us 'weak' and feel we don't have the 'stomach' to defeat them. Some will throw at me 'the end does not justify the means', well, I think we ought to regroup on that one and truly understand who this enemy is and what they are capable of accomplishing if gone unchecked. We are battling a totally different enemy and different strategies may have to be used or we're going down! it's as simple as that.  To Lt. Colonel Allen West, God Bless, 'Best of Luck' and Thank You for serving! By the way, there were many of his troops at his hearing for moral support. A news correspondant was saying you should have seen it. These U.S. soldiers in fatigues and full combat gear, 'crying' during his testimony. Don't their opinion count too? After all, they won't be sitting around a table tommoro in a warm house stuffing their face with turkey, instead they'll be thousands of miles away dodging rocket propelled grenades! Please give that some thought over the upcoming holidays!  Respectfully submitted, Shihan Joe Shuras who's Dad was declared missing in action, wounded and captured, ex-POW, Purple Heart and Bronze Star and lives with the memories to this day. As you can tell, I'm very passionate when it comes to the ones who protect us in uniform and I have the right to be! "Happy Holidays to All and God Bless!"


----------



## John Bishop (Nov 26, 2003)

A little more about the story:

West's unit was stationed in Tikrit, a stronghold for Saddam Hussein's loyalists where American soldiers face attacks almost daily. West had information about an imminent terror attack, and was interrogating a terror suspect.
Getting nowhere with him, Lt. Col West fired his pistol twice  to scare the man into divulging information. The man got scared, gave up the information that West needed, and the attack was avoided. 
So what's the problem, you're asking?
West's firing his weapon was a violation of the Geneva Convention , and as a result, he now faces a court martial for communicating a threat and aggravated assault. 
West has been offered a choice. He can resign from the Army immediately, and forfeit his 20 year retirement, or he can face criminal charges which carry up to 8 years in prison.
This is wrong.  I just don't believe the American people would have a problem with scaring a terrorist in order to save American lives. I do not advocate pulling out his fingernails or cutting off his toes, but I do not have any illusions that terrorists are complying with the Geneva Convention either. And that's why Lt. Col. West needs our help today. 
Just ask yourself this question. You are in the military and someone you love like your daughter or son is in danger of getting killed. All you have to do is scare a terrorist to save them. Would you do it? You'd be guilty of violating the Geneva convention, but you would still do it wouldn't you? That's what Lt. Col. West did.
Situations like these are the reason the Secretary of Defense is given the power to intervene and stop the prosecution of Colonel West. They're also the reason the power of the pardon is given to Governors and to the President.
This is not warfare in World War II or I. Remember, this is a war on terrorism, and personally, I don't think the Geneva Convention applies. I would certainly want my commander to do the very same thing as Colonel West if it was my son's life on the line. Simply put, he deserves better than this.
Please go to the link below and sign the petition to Sec. Rumsfeld asking him to have the charges against Lt. Col. West dropped.
Our nation is at war. This isn't the time to go wobbly about getting tough with terrorists.
Please join me and ask Sec. Rumsfeld to drop the charges against Lt. Col. West. Sec. Rumsfeld may receive criticism if he intervenes on behalf of Lt. Col West. We need to let him know that he has the support of millions of Americans. That means forward this to your friends and family too! Every person helps!

Click Here
http://www.millionsofamericans.com/home/west.cfm


----------



## lvwhitebir (Nov 26, 2003)

> _Originally posted by John Bishop _
> *So what's the problem, you're asking?
> West's firing his weapon was a violation of the Geneva Convention , and as a result, he now faces a court martial for communicating a threat and aggravated assault.
> West has been offered a choice. He can resign from the Army immediately, and forfeit his 20 year retirement, or he can face criminal charges which carry up to 8 years in prison.
> This is wrong.  I just don't believe the American people would have a problem with scaring a terrorist in order to save American lives. I do not advocate pulling out his fingernails or cutting off his toes, but I do not have any illusions that terrorists are complying with the Geneva Convention either. *


* 

Did he get vital information?  I guess so.  Did he commit a "crime" in order to obtain it?  Yes, so he should be punished.

I know you want to keep the way US law operates and the way the military operates separate in this discussion, but it's difficult if not impossible.  We have a specific process for the two that are identical.  In both, the end doesn't justify the means.

So, I can't agree with you for two reasons:

1) We're a party to the Geneva Convention and try criminals based on it.  If we violate it, it's a little stupid for us to try to enforce it in the future.  Do the terrorists abide by the Convention?  Probably not, but criminals don't abide by US laws either and our law process seems to work just fine.  Criminals and terrorists have some basic rights that we must abide by or else we fall to their level.  Some people already equate our actions with terrorism.  Do you want to prove them right?

2) Where do you draw the line on what's a reasonable interrogation technique?  What if scaring them with the tactic he used didn't work?  What else was he prepared to do?  The Geneva Convention defines the line, if we want to change it, change the Geneva Convention agreement.

As far as what the "American people" think, it's typically short sighted and based on emotions.  The process of law is to try to remove emotion from the equation and think about the long-term and often unintended consequences of our actions.

WhiteBirch*


----------



## Karazenpo (Nov 26, 2003)

I know where I draw the line. Many U.S. families will have a very Merry Christmas this year because of Lt. Col. West their loved ones won't be coming home in body bags! And that's the bottom line. Fight these barbarians clean and you will lose and many will die and keep on dying, not only Americans but world citizens.  Ideals and realities are sometimes, unfortunately, very far apart. I think I would be pretty comfortable having Lt. Col. West leading me into battle, for he puts the lives of his unit first and that's what a true leader is all about. It is often said, 'I'd rather be judged by 12 than carried by 6', I wonder how that cliche came into being. It is obvious the Colonel felt this way about his company. Respectfully submitted and a Thumbs Up ! to Sigung John Bishop for his post.


----------



## Disco (Nov 26, 2003)

This country has been brain washed into political correctness. We care more about what other countries think of the way we do business, than how we take care of our own. We have people without health care, without food, without jobs, without housing, without whatever. Still our elected powers that be would rather spend, spend, spend on foreign aid that primarily go into the pockets of the heads of the countries were trying to assist, then take care of their own. Now this harming of a good man that did take care of his own. The geneva convention was a well meaning attempt to keep warfare civilized. WAR IS KILLING, THERE IS NO CIVILITY IN WAR. If you have never been on a field of battle, then you would never understand. The really sad part about all of this is that many people in this country (America), still really think that we are the guardians of all that is right in the world. If people only knew how far fetched that once noble mindset is. I fear that this man, Lt.Col West, will become the scapgoat for our showing the world how "good " we are, when everbody knows the vast majority of the world can't stand us. 

There is an old saying in the political arena, "A conservative is a Liberal that's been mugged". When we were attacked on 9/11, there wasen't a liberal thought to be found on the political front. Same as in WWII when the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor. Now because it's not on our front door, it's OK again? The only thing we actually show the world is how willing we are to place one of our own on the alter of sacrifice for nothing more than public opinion. 

SHAME on ALL of us for allowing this travisty of justice to common sense prevail.

Someone mentioned the Law. Military law and civilian law are two seperate animals. Look at the confinement of terrorists in cuba to prove the point.


----------



## Karazenpo (Nov 26, 2003)

Very, very well said, Disco, I salute you. God bless and have a great Thanksgiving!


----------



## michaeledward (Nov 26, 2003)

> When we were attacked on 9/11, there wasen't a liberal thought to be found on the political front.



Rest assured, my thoughts were still quite liberal. Very clearly defining right from wrong.



> Lt. Colonel West is the U.S. serviceman who was interrogating an Al Queda operative.



Perhaps you haven't heard, the ruling powers in Iraq are Sunni Muslems. They are not, nor ever have been members of Al Qaeda. 



> I just don't believe the American people would have a problem with scaring a terrorist in order to save American lives.



I am a natural born citizen of the United States of America, and I object to this action.



> We are talking about the 'theatre of combat' and not Main St. USA.



Our rules are good enough for us, but not good enough for all? That runs counter to the 'All men are created equal' equal thing, doesn't it? 

Yes the rules of combat are different, but there are still rules --- strange, one of the rules is that you don't invade another country, unless threatened --- from the evidence I have seen, we were not threated. Of the 29 specific items Secretary of State Powell brought before the United Nations in January of 2003, *exactly zero* of these items have been proven true in the 6+ months since the president has declared the end of major combat operations (which means the war is over, doens't it - sorry that is rhetorical).

Let us also be clear, the United States Military is living and working and sleeping *in the country of Iraq*. There is an argument that can be made that the person being interrogated was not a terrorist, but a patriot, fighting for the freedom of his country (I am not making this arguement, but there is some validity to it)

Again ... I can understand and appreciate Lt. Colonel Wests desire to reduce the human costs of this engagement. The Ends Can Not Justify the Means. Laws were broken. Penalities must be paid.

Mike


----------



## Karazenpo (Nov 26, 2003)

quote: Lt. Colonel West is the U.S. serviceman who was interrogating an Al Queda operative.  

An excerpt from Mike's post:

Perhaps you haven't heard, the ruling powers in Iraq are Sunni Muslems. They are not, nor ever have been members of Al Qaeda. 

quote: I just don't believe the American people would have a problem with scaring a terrorist in order to save American lives.  


I am a natural born citizen of the United States of America, and I object to this action.

quote: We are talking about the 'theatre of combat' and not Main St. USA. 


Our rules are good enough for us, but not good enough for all? That runs counter to the 'All men are created equal' equal thing, doesn't it? 

I say: 

Perhaps, in all due respect (and I mean that) you haven't heard but the 19 hijackers of 9/11 were all muslim. It appears to me and many others that in regards to what is going on in the middle east that all muslims are not terrorists but all terroists are muslims, REMEMBER, I'm saying the current problem we are facing now, not historically. Secondly, when I originally started this topic I expressed it to be a matter of politics, then I was swayed by another poster. However, I'm diverting back and here's why. Lt. Col. West is being made an example of by the Army for political correctness. They want to show the world that we are good so everyone will like us, which will never happen anyway. The incident was made public, now they can act on it and essentially use him as a sacrificial lamb or scapegoat. Do you know that these actions in warfare have been going on forever? Why do you think in the begining of this war, pows were taken to Egypt by our forces for interrogation? The answer is simple. Let's just ay it's about Egypt's, 'aggressive' methods of extracting information from prisoners. Everyone knew this, I knew it, why didn't anyone say anything about that? Our government simply turned their heads and let it happen-why? because it would save lives and the end justified the means!I'm not even getting into the CIA, that's can be a whole other post! Now, this same military wants to court martial the Colonel for what? He scared, yes SCARED one of these low-life subhuman cold blooded killers? Poor baby! Because he 'scared him"! Give me a break! These are the guys that fly planes into buildings so they can go meet their 76 virgins!,lol. Did you know that there is talk now about sending pows to Jordan due to their 'aggressive' interrogation methods, I hear no one beating the drum about that? This is WAR and as some one else said in another post  on another forum, war is killing. The rules of engagement are not the same as arresting criminals on Main St. USA who have rights under our US Constitiution. If we continue to be soft in these areas and condemn soldiers like Col. West, don't worry about being a natural born citizen of the U.S. anymore because that will only make you a TARGET! And don't worry about the US Constitution either, because if we lose, there won't be one anyway. We'll all be either dead or bowing to Allah. There's a saying that goes like this: "Sometimes to catch a rat, you have to jump in the gutter". If we weren't prepared to do this then we should go home and live in a closet. In all seriousness, Mike, thanks for your responses. To me there is nothing wrong with two opposing sides duking it out!, lol. It leads to a more thorough understanding and respect for other people's prespectives. Have a great Thanksgiving and God Bless! "Joe"


----------



## rmcrobertson (Nov 26, 2003)

I agree with Michael. In the first place, this nonsense about Sept. 11 doing away with liberals--apparently on the theory that there are no atheists in foxholes--is a beautiful case of what rhetoricians call, "false alternatives." It simply isn't a matter of choosing between loving your country, being pissed about evil murdering creeps, and recognizing reality on one hand, and being a candy-***, America-hating, bleeding-heart fantasy monger on the other. And since many seem to have forgotten, a) politics is more complex than liberal vs. conservative, unless of course you happen to be a right-wing talk show host who gets paid for saying so, and b) last I checked, Americans were SUPPOSED to disagree on important issues.

As for political correctness--in the first place, lefties invented the damn phrase, to make fun of other holier-than-thou lefties. Do you really think that we don't occasionally notice the wacko, smug-from-a-position-of-privilege approach to the world taken by, say, half the sophomore class at UCSC? 

And does anybody think that conservatives and right-wingers don't have their own political correctness? Come on--every time these questions come up, the same things get said by people smugly identifying themselves as patriots, and it gets said again and again and again. No thought, no facts, just hostility towards anybody who dissents or even asks questions. (Does the term, "Dittoheads," ring a bell?) If that isn't a political correctness as profound and obnoxious as anything I met in Boulder, CO, back in the 70s, I'll be damned if I know what is.

Sorry. These accusations that anybody who disagrees hates their country and its military really ring my chimes.

As for the Colonel, well, here's the first question: did he violate the UCMJ?

Second question: did he violate the unspoken rule (see Lee Marvin in, "The Dirty Dozen"), and be stupid enough to get caught?

Third question: are the higher-ups and people in, say, Congress once again playing political games at the expense of a good officer's career, or is this guy a lousy officer and this was just the last straw?

Fourth question: how often does this stuff actually happen in Iraq?

And here's an old-fashioned idea: I was brought up to believe that our guys--American soldiers--didn't DO this crap of torturing prisoners. They taught me that we were the GOOD guys, and that one of the things that made the bad guys bad guys was that THEY tortured the helpless, and got what they wanted by any means at all, and ignored international law, the Geneva Convention (can't tell you how many movies and TV shows featuring the sneering evil villain, saying, "you Americans with your foolish, impractical little rules," in one of a dozen accents), and denied every moral rule anybody ever heard of. 

I was taught that John Wayne might occasionally go nuts and shoot a sneaking enemy who had seemed to surrender after he killed a young soldier, but that the Duke would never torture anybody.

So our position, now, is that we're just another bunch of guys that throw the rules out the window whenever we feel like it, and do whatever we feel needs to be done to Get It Done? is that the argument I'm reading? 

I thought we were supposed to be better than that.


----------



## Karazenpo (Nov 26, 2003)

Quote from Robert:

"I thought we were supposed to be better than that."

I do know what you mean Robert, I really do but I just can't bring myself around to trade lives, especially US lives for a rule book that no one else goes by half the time. I would have to say I do not feel that way about our domestic situation, we would have chaos but this is an entirely different ballgame. As I stated and others, this is war and very 'dirty' war at that, where the enemy has no problem taking their own life to take yours. Totally different and just like the art of kempo evolves we better start evolving in the way we are handling things or our country and others are going to be in serious trouble in 5-10 years. We have to protect our children and take care of our own. We owe them that, we owe no one else anything. They come first! If I was the one to knock on Mrs. Smith's door to tell her that her son or daughter won't be coming home, I would want to, in my mind, to be able to know and assure her that nothing could have been done that would have prevented that ultimate sacrifice.


----------



## michaeledward (Nov 26, 2003)

> Perhaps, in all due respect (and I mean that) you haven't heard but the 19 hijackers of 9/11 were all muslim.



I think part of the problem is that you seem to be connecting to disconnected things.

A). Criminals hijacked planes and crashed them into buildings.
B). The United States Military invaded a sovereign country.

These actions, and the reactions too them are different. Muslems crashing airplanes into building is a criminal action. Criminal actions are prosecuted in a courtroom, not a battlefield.

That these actions were done to 'terrorize' the public has led us to begin a 'War on Terror' (much like the war on drugs). However, countries wage war against each other (Much like the United States invading Iraq), war can not be waged on a person (Osama Bin Laden) or a word (Terror). There is usually a clearly defined end of a war (treaties, surrenders, toppling of statues, mission accomplished banners).  But were we to decide to wage war on a person (We'll get Osama Bin Laden, Dead or Alive) - to date, we have failed by that measure as well.

Question - How will we know when this 'War on Terror' is won?
Answer - We won't. But as long as we continue to contract Halliburton, and Lockheed, what does it matter.

Please don't buy into the invasion of Iraq as a component to the 'War on Terror'. The way to defeat the criminals who commit their crimes as terror is to send the police after them. To send the FBI after them. To send the CIA after them. It will also require the assistance of investigators from other countries.  Bombs are not the appropriate tool to win the 'War on Terror'. Courtrooms are.

It is my opinion that the Invasion of Iraq occurred because the Vice President of the United States had a temper tantrum that the citizens of Iraq had not completed the war he waged 12 years ago as Secretary of Defense. It is my opinion that the Invasion of Iraq occurred so that the current Secretary of Defense could move past those photographs of himself and the President of Iraq from the early 80's. It is my opinion that the Invasion of Iraq occurred because Deputy Secretary of Defense Wolfowicz bought into a bunch of crap about the US Military being welcomed to the Country of Iraq with Rose Petals and Chocolates by a power hungry expatriot (Ahmed Chalabi). It is my opinion that the Invasion of Iraq occurred because the current President of the United States believes he has been ordained by the Christian God to bring Jesus' teachings to heathens.

And for all those reasons, I think this War (the one in Iraq, that we started) is wrong. And adding bad behavior to our already misguided actions does no one any good.

Happy Thanksgiving to you too - Mike

P.S. I am also 100 percent against the death penalty, so if Lt. Colonel West is courtmartialed, I would object to him being taken to the gallows.


----------



## rmcrobertson (Nov 26, 2003)

I see. So we are no better, and shouldn't try to be. They, whoever they are, fly planes into building filled with people, and plead necessity. We get people to do our torturing for us, we plead necessity. We're right, they're wrong. 

Sorry, but that's a shameful argument. I've hated it ever since I ran into it in Tom Clancy's "Clear and Present Danger," where he at least had the decency to present the information extracted through torture as dangerous.

Here's an idea you're really not gonna like: the way we're behaving expresses our fear, our laziness, our lack of imagination, not some fantasized necessity. Oh, I've heard and read this before. My Lai? Well, these things happen. Dresden? Perfectly OK. Bach Mai hospital? They asked for it. Tokyo fire radis? We hadda; they asked for it. 

Part of the reason those rules are there in the UCMJ, the Geneva Convention, is to protect soldiers. From their being exhausted, their fears, their lazy superiors, from the quite-understandable desire to cut a few corners. 

They are also there because, in the long run, terror breeds terrror. 

I still say that I thought we were better than that.


----------



## Rich Parsons (Nov 26, 2003)

Question:

Would it have been acceptable to then fire two mroe shots near his head? or his feet on the ground? Would it have been better to bring in a Dentist and start up the drills? and see if he could handle a root canal without pain killers?

Or should we just hit the whole countrywith everything we got. Say about 100 tactical Nukes. This would stop the loss of Lives from the USA. This was the decision to use them in WWII, to stop the loss of life in the Pacific theater. Where does it being and where does it stop?

I knew guys who had cleared themselves or others in physcial checkups in the reserve so they could continue to collect their checks. They were suprised when they were activated. They knew the risk and took it. Some retired on the spot. The Colonel, knew the risk, and he took it. Should he be shoot at Dawn? No way. Should he go unpunished? No way.

There are two ways to loose to terrorism. One to be so afraid to live your life that the terrorist has won. The other is to become just like the terrorist.


With All respect to those who Serve in the US Armed Forces. I personally would not like to see another person die. I would not like to see another person hurt. I would like to see them all home and happy. Yet, they volunteered. This is the risk they accepted. HAve we gone so far now that all individuals including those with most of the tradition and honor in the US, the Armed Services no longer take responsibility ofr their actions. Has this country gone so far as to no longer take responsibility for its' actions. If so, then what the rest of the world says about how the Evil Empre of the USA wishes to come into their home and destroy their way of life. By ignoring the rules of engagement and teh Treaties we are a party too, we just opent he door for our enemies to do as they pease and for our allies to condem us or to become our enemies as well.

My Opinion, and I do not claim it to be the right one for society.

With Respect
:asian:


----------



## Disco (Nov 26, 2003)

Lots of opinions and arguments to defend such positions. Hey that's the American way. For the political correct, position points:

1) The end has allways justified the means. Look back, not glance back, but look back thru history. Just this subject could fill an entire thread and then some. Quick examples; The A-Bomb on Japan, Agent Orange in Nam, Not being allowed to bomb Hanoi (Sam City), The Civil war, The Indian wars, etc. 

2) Service people volunteered, so what they get is what they deserve? I volunteered to serve my country and DEFEND it. Not to fight on a whim of politicans that have serious alterior motives and who seem to be filling their pockets with blood money. Viet Nam taught us nothing cause were back in the same fix in a different part of the world. Politicans started both wars and controlled both from the oval office, with little regard for the people doing the actual fighting. Read the papers for how they treat vets and take benefits away every chance they get. 
Do I think the war is right? NO! Do I support it? I have to because my son is there and I want him to come home in one piece. Most of you guys here at MT are fairly young and have not had the opportunity to get hosed by our system. Good for you and I hope you are lucky enough to avoid it alltogether. Doubtful, but one can hope.

You can defeat terrorism in the courts........ Mabey in front of Judge Judy, but not in the real world. How in the hell are our internal criminal laws going to stop brainwashed religious zealots? We can't even put a dent on our WAR ON DRUGS (LOL).
And just for the record, 9/11 was not accomplished by criminals. It was accomplished by people that worked, educated and trained like an ARMY. Their leader openly declared war on the U.S. 
Semantics be damned. You don't kill people with words, you kill with weapons.

As for the ideal, "I thought we were beter than that". If the people of the United States of America ever found out the real truth behind what has happened throughout all the wars we have been in, we would fill the streets with vomit. Watch the history channel sometimes and you may pickup on some minor secrets that slip through the cracks. I find it hard to believe that so many people are that gullible to firmly believe that this country is totally the picture of the good guy in the white hat. They either can't see what's confronting them or they just refuse to accept it. Either way, their living in a false sense of trust and reason. Have we learned nothing from all the politicans being indited for criminal and moral offenses and then being allowed to go their merry way with no repercussions. 
It's nice to be able to view people in a gracious light. When I was young, I too looked thru rose colored glasses. Age and lies have remolded my inner person, and my inner person now views everybody in power with a jaundice eye.

Anyway, for all and I mean ALL...... "HAVE A BOUNTIFUL, HEALTHY AND HAPPY THANKSGIVING".......... My prayers go to the families and all who are serving their country. The country who asked them to do a dangerous and dirty job, in the name of JUSTICE.


----------



## Karazenpo (Nov 27, 2003)

Mike, Robert & Rich, I was going to respond to your posts but after reading 'Disco', I don't have too because I can't improve on the truth. I think everyone who has never donned a uniform outside of a karate gi should listen a little bit to one who has, he's been there and done that and now his son is there. It's so easy to make these 'righteous' decisions when you've never walked in their boots. Kind of like the overweight, non-athletic beer drinking armchair manager of the football and baseball games.  God bless and a Happy Thanksgiving to all! Respectfully submitted. PS: Thumbs up to 'Disco' and I thank you and your son for serving. I pray that he has a safe tour of duty and returns home soon.


----------



## Karazenpo (Nov 27, 2003)

I just had to post this. It's a copy and paste from a veteran on a forum of which I'm a moderator. We are having the same discussion there, too. "Joe"

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
There was a bumper sticker that said, "If you can read this, thank a Teacher, and if it is in English, thank a Veteran.

Having been in Beirut under lousy rules of engagement I cannot believe we still have people who think combat is all knights in shinning armor.  Combat is kill, or be killed plain and simple.  Do what is takes no matter what to ensure you, your buddies and other innocent people are safe and come home.

Col. West did not kill anyone during this ordeal but saved lives, there is a fine line and he did not cross it.  I wonder how many letters he had to send home on those under his command who were killed, that has got to be unnerving.  What could I have done to save him/her has to cross his mind as he sat down to write those letters, or worse, holding a mortally wounded American as their life leaves their body with then asking you to take care of their new born, wife, children.  Makes you think doesnt it?

I will be spending Thanksgiving in the comforts of my own home with loved ones gathered around.  I will also raise a toast to those proud Americans I knew and did not know who gave the ultimate sacrifice, their life so I can raise that toast.  People lets raise a toast and support our troops, no matter where they are.

Thank you Col. West for serving I will not forget and have logged on to support you.

Respectfully Dennis Peterson U.S.M.C Semper Fi all.


----------



## Karazenpo (Nov 27, 2003)

Please do my a favor, I really mean this. It's not a put down to anyone, so please don't take it that way. If you are a non veteran and never served rent the movie "BlackHawk Down!", please! According to those that lived it, this movie is an 'on the money', extremely accurate, historical re-enactment but they also stated it still wasn't as 'horrible' as the real thing, which is unimaginable! See "BlackHawk Down!" and even though we have opposing views, please be open minded. After viewing it, then we all can talk more on the Geneva Convention and the fate of Lt. Colonel West!  "BlackHawk Down!" Not the book, for the full effect, see the movie.  Respectfully, "Joe"


----------



## michaeledward (Nov 27, 2003)

> When I was young, I too looked thru rose colored glasses.


At 39 years old, I am old enough to be aware of the consequences of my point of view.



> I volunteered to serve my country and DEFEND it.


If the actions we are talking about were required to *defend* our country, perhaps the arguments you put forth would carry a bit more credibility. The actions in Iraq are not based on defense.

As mentioned earlier, the 29 premises put forth by the Secretary of State an the United Nations Security Council meeting of this past January, have not been found to be true; NO evidence of against these 29 accusations used to justify our invasion (based on immenent danger by Iraq) has been discovered in the six plus months since we declared the end of Combat. (Please note, that Secretary Powel did not put forth the yellowcake arguement made by the President in the State of the Union address).

Was the government of Iraq cruel and oppressive. Absolutely. But they were not a threat to the sovereignty of the United States of America, and very little threat to our allies in the region.



> You can defeat terrorism in the courts........


Well, it seems we aren't doing a very good job on the battlefield either. In fact, Secretary of Defence Rumsfeld recently stated that we do not even have the ability to measure our progress in the War on Terror (...are we capturing or killing them faster than the massadras' can recruit them...).

We have not captured or killed (to our knowledge) Osama (dead or alive) bin Laden. Since our military has removed the governing bodies of Afghanistan and Iraq, there have been successful Al Qaeda attacks in Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Indonesia, and elsewhere. It seems that Al Qaeda continues to conduct operations at the time, and in the place, of their choosing.

I have just read parts of Lt. Colonel Wests email to the Washinton Post newspaper. In response to their questions the Lt. Colonel admits that what he did was wrong. And as punishment he says he is will to accept 'Retirement at the level of Major'.

_I was wrong ... so please ... promote me, retire me, and allow me to get the hell out of Iraq ... and everything will go away quietly._ 

I once thought that such hubris was reserved for Presidents, Vice Presidents, and Secretaries of Defence (past & present).

Health and Happiness to all - Mike


----------



## Karazenpo (Nov 27, 2003)

Excerpt from Mike's post:
I have just read parts of Lt. Colonel Wests email to the Washinton Post newspaper. In response to their questions the Lt. Colonel admits that what he did was wrong. And as punishment he says he is will to accept 'Retirement at the level of Major'.


But Mike, c'ome on now, what's he supposed to say? He's facing the loss of his pension and up to 8 years in prison! Do you think he really, I mean really means it? I bet he would do it all over again in heartbeat given the same circumstances. Imho, he knows he's up against the system, he's not going to beat it any other way so he's telling them what the want to hear-it's simply another form of 'survival'...just a different kind, it's called 'political suicide' if he says the wrong thing. How many people on this board have gone to job interviews and to get the job told the interviewer what he/she wanted to hear? but not what you really would like to say. How many times have you decided to be politically correct in your job with someone you would have rather said, 'Go f.... yourself!' Know what I mean? or telling someone there is no hard feelings when there is?   Have a great turkey day, lol, Respectfully, Joe


----------



## Rich Parsons (Nov 27, 2003)

> _Originally posted by Disco _
> *
> How in the hell are our internal criminal laws going to stop brainwashed religious zealots?
> *



Disco,

I have never served this is corrrect. I have never put on a badge and I have not protected and served as a police officer or law enforcement. Yet, I will still reply.


How do you explain the extreme religious right here in the USA buying Radio stations in the MId East and sending over radio waves that all Muslims are evil and Dogs and Devil Worshippers? HOw is that these Christians can set the tone for us civilians and soldiers and politicians? I mean as far as they are concernt we have declared war on them. We have told them as much in the radio annoucements, that we are going to change their way of life. THat their culture is not the right culture.

Would not some Americans do something violent, if this was done to our country. THis in no ways excuses what Happened on 9/11. And I apologize for the way this may sound. I have the out most respect for all those who do serve and those who perished.

Since in your mind this is an unjust war, does you son ave the option to resign early? or is he locked into to his hitch no matter what? I am curious nothing more. 


Thank You
:asian:


----------



## Rich Parsons (Nov 27, 2003)

> _Originally posted by Karazenpo _
> *Mike, Robert & Rich, I was going to respond to your posts but after reading 'Disco', I don't have too because I can't improve on the truth. I think everyone who has never donned a uniform outside of a karate gi should listen a little bit to one who has, he's been there and done that and now his son is there. It's so easy to make these 'righteous' decisions when you've never walked in their boots. Kind of like the overweight, non-athletic beer drinking armchair manager of the football and baseball games.  God bless and a Happy Thanksgiving to all! Respectfully submitted. PS: Thumbs up to 'Disco' and I thank you and your son for serving. I pray that he has a safe tour of duty and returns home soon. *




You are correct as I just posted I never did serve.

Question, have you ever been shot at? At close range? How many knives at one time have your fought against? How many people was a normal fight even if no weapons were visible is normal for your experience.

Just because someone has not served does not mean theh have not seen action or been involved in our own streets. Just because you are in service and doing one of the 7 to 9 jobs requried to keep a front line soldier in the field, does not mean you have seen action either.

No Disrepect to any one who has to live in the fear of losing a loved one or for actually living through scud attacks or street attacks. I hope everyone makes it home safe and sound.

:asian:


----------



## Rich Parsons (Nov 27, 2003)

> _Originally posted by Karazenpo _
> *Please do my a favor, I really mean this. It's not a put down to anyone, so please don't take it that way. If you are a non veteran and never served rent the movie "BlackHawk Down!", please! According to those that lived it, this movie is an 'on the money', extremely accurate, historical re-enactment but they also stated it still wasn't as 'horrible' as the real thing, which is unimaginable! See "BlackHawk Down!" and even though we have opposing views, please be open minded. After viewing it, then we all can talk more on the Geneva Convention and the fate of Lt. Colonel West!  "BlackHawk Down!" Not the book, for the full effect, see the movie.  Respectfully, "Joe" *




The History Channel version is great representation of what actually happened in my mind as it has actual interviews. Check this version out as well, it is only an hour long though.



And Yes, I have opposing views, and I have seen it over a year ago. War sucks. It is horrible. People get stabbed and die. People get shot and die. People get bombed and die.

From the replies here I see that my opinion does not count since I have not served let alone seen battle as a soldier. I see that it is ok to support a 100% push button war, where none of our soldiers are at risk. This is how I am reading it from the replies.

I apologize for upsetting anyone, and will not reply since my opinion is not desired nor being productive to your discussion.  I will only reply if someone directs something to me in person.

One again my apologies
:asian:


----------



## michaeledward (Nov 27, 2003)

> If you are a non veteran and never served rent the movie "BlackHawk Down!", please!



You aren't seriously suggesting that as a citizen of the United States, my freedom of speech concerning the international affairs of our country, requires that I first watch a movie, are you?

How did Thomas Jefferson ever write the Constitution without Ridley Scott?

This suggestion weakens all of your other positions.

Peace - Mike


----------



## Karazenpo (Nov 27, 2003)

Hi Rich, please don't feel that way. I really don't think those that oppose your views would think your opinion doesn't matter and that you are counter-productive to this conversation. After all, they served and fought for just the opposite reason, so you can voice your own opinion, speak out and not be punished. I think they would be the last ones to stifle you. As far as I go, I didn't serve in the armed forces, my Dad did. I just missed Vietnam, it was close though, and believe me at the time I was sweating bullets, lol, so to speak but I was not called. Often I feel guilty I didn't enlist, maybe that's a subconscience reason why later I joined the force. I even put in to be a police training adviser to the Iraq  Police Force but they decided to take only chiefs of police and a guy I met once who is chief in a neighboring municipality was one of 20 that got it and he's there now and recently had a narrow brush with one of those RPG's.  God bless him! I totally have the utmost respect for those who enlisted in Vietnam.  At the time, the war was very unpopular in the school systems as I'm sure you're well aware of from history. There were demonstrations and the like of which I was totally against because it made the guys who went feel like the enemy. That's how the demonstrations were then. However, later in 1977 I began my public service and started my career in law enforcement of which I still proudly serve. Here's probably the 'friction' you feel in some of our posts. It's the same as being a police officer. We get upset when civillians second guess us, especially in life/death situations. Why? because we feel they shouldn't be 'talking the talk' because they never 'walked the walk'. Some people criticize us in a 'use of force' situation when they themselves have never gotten into a fight in their life! Another example is civillian police defensive tactics instructors. Many, the vast majority of cops won't give these people a chance no matter how good they are and why? The answer you'll get is "he's showing me how to take a guy down and put the handcuffs on him when he's never 'rolled around on the sidewalk' and did it himself?" This is probably what you're feeling but I feel those posting are simply trying to make you see their point and how they feel because they have a more hands on view of what really went down. It's like myself, I can tell you what's it's like to work the streets but I will never say I know what it feels like to be in Iraq right now.  My Dad told me that if they ad a Sgt. who took them through hell and back over and over again and they sent some young Lt. to their platoon just out of West Point, well, on paper he was the boss, in actuality, he took a back seat to that Sgt. because that Sgt. 'made his bones', had done that, been there and the rookie Lt. knew that and didn't buck it. So, Rich, please, your input and opinions are appreciated and believe it or not, I do leave myself open to understand where you're coming from along with the others.  Any time you make some one think, you're doing a good thing and you did make me think! Happy Thanksgiving, Respectfully, "Joe"


----------



## Karazenpo (Nov 27, 2003)

Mike, we are not talkng about Thomas Jefferson. This is the 21st century and it's not just a movie. Believe me it isn't! I took the advise of Jay Sevrin, an extremely popular radio talk show host who used to work at the White House, I believe. He had suggested before the war in Iraq that we should see this movie. This is a true story, the movie was made to educate and get the word out rather than entertain, it was made to honor our soldiers and show the people what happens in these foreign conflicts when you're dealing with 'primitive barbarians'. See the movie, you'll know what I mean or take Rich's advice about the one hour documentary on the history channel!


----------



## Karazenpo (Nov 27, 2003)

Question, have you ever been shot at? At close range? How many knives at one time have your fought against? How many people was a normal fight even if no weapons were visible is normal for your experience.

This is to Rich: Rich, yes I have and I shot back and its something I would only discuss either by private e-mail, in person or phone and would be inappropriate to deal with in an open forum. I have had more than one situation and it is all documented, no bullsh.t! Knives, too. My career spans over 27 years I worked the narcotics unit and the Southeastern Massachusetts Task Force. Please don't second guess me, I never bull...t anyone. What you see with me is what you get! Again, send me a private e-mail if you'd like to talk off the forum. Please respect and understand my reasons. Sincerely, Joe


----------



## Rich Parsons (Nov 27, 2003)

Karazenpo,

You see, I did not serve. I did bounce and do security work. And this is how I see it. SOme part time police officer and even full time who has never worn a bullet resistant vest on duty, because he does not have too. Yet, he shows up where I am at and wants to take me to the police station because I only have bruises against four, five or even six guys. Yet, some of them have to go to the hospital. They do not understand the force I had to use to survive that moment. They do not understand what I was and was NOT thinking. They do not understand that when I call them I need their help. And when they get done their existing call and arrive, and the bad guy with the gun is gone, and all is alive, and I am told it was not a real gun by someone who was not there. I then asked this police officer, How do I know his gun is real, and his badge is real, he could be fake. BTW,  was waling into him at them time. Why, I was still on the adrenaline rush. Still in combat mode. A Sgt pulled me off, and told me to calm down. I jsut turned to him and said please call the state police so I can file my report with an agency that cares.

So, when people who serve this great country and have never seen live action in the streets make comments that I do not understand comabat or Adrenline rush or even being addicted to Adrenaline, all beacuase they served in peace time and I never did serve.

Believe me I have extreme respect for anyone who served. Even if they did nothing but load the plane here in the US to send supplies over. They were and are doing a required job to keep people in place to face the enemy. And yes, they are the enemy, when they can shoot you.

Yet, you see, I had to live by the laws of this land. I could nto just beat someone up, for hitting one of my female employees. I had to fight in court and police stations over my rights to defend myself against people with guns, and with knives. Yet it is the law. I believe in the law and the US Constitution that generates and authorizes all of our laws. If I do not like something I have the right to try to change it. I do not have the right to break a law and expect no punsihment.

This was my point.

Believe me, in the heat of expectant combat, when people under you are going to die, and you can do something to get this dirt bag to talk. All you need is for this little dirt bag to talk and you can save lives and capture or kill the enemy. What Can I do? Time is running out. THis little S* Head would kill me in a minute, why do I care  about anything that anyone has said in the past, THis is now.  have people to save and people to lead into battle.

**BANG BANG **

Are you going to talk now?


I could see this happening. Heck I have been insituations where I had to strike a superior number of opponents first, before they pumped themselves up for the battle.  SO, when one of the other guys went to hit himself and another one moved toward me. I Garbbed and choked him out. Others were shocked, I then proceded to wade into the group opposing me. I choose to that to survive the moment. I also had to pay for it later.

My Apologies for my Ramblings.

With Respect to those here and the Armed Serves
:asian:


----------



## Karazenpo (Nov 27, 2003)

Rich, no ramblings at all, excellent post. Now I know a lot more of where you're coming from and a lot more about you and I'll say this. We may have opposing views on this issue but I'll tell you, after reading that post, we have a lot more in common then you can imagine,lol. Maybe we should talk privately someday, it would be very interesting to say the least. Hey, I gotta go eat my turkey now so I won't be on-line until tommoro, so have a good Thanksgiving and be safe, Sincerely, "Joe"


----------



## Disco (Nov 27, 2003)

Age is not a prerequisite unto itself to determine qualified viewpoints. Opinions yes, but not judgements. Since the mantel of World's Police Officer has been bestowed upon America, (not saying it's right or wrong - just stating a fact), our people are always being put in harms way by the Politicans. We are in agreement that we feel this war was/is not fully justified under the guise of defending America proper. The military is subservient to the actions of the electorial and the politics at hand dictate the actions of the military. There is a catch 22 to all of this. The president is in fact the commander and chief of the military. Like anything else in the military, the officer in charge is to be held accountable for the actions of the subordinates. That's the way the UCMJ is interpeted. If the full intent of the law is to be inacted, then not only LC West but the president should be charged and held accountable. Will that happen? Sure, you bet, without question....... If anybody believes that, then I've got some ocean beach front property in Oklahoma for sale. Point being is what was stated prior. LC West is being used as a scapegoat to make Political America look good. Does anybody honestly think that the people we are engaged in leathal combat with give a tinkers damn about our self effacing judicial system?

You don't have to be in the military or worn a badge to see injustice. Those that serve just see it firsthand, close up and personal. It's easy to be detached when you are not physically and emotionally embroiled in life or death situations. 

Rich, your opinion does matter. The part of society that has opposite views keeps things in balance. We actually need each other, but at somepoint we have to find a common ground for agreement, otherwise nothing gets accomplished and everything becomes stagnant. That's when as a society in general, we all become vulnerable to outside influenece's. A good example is what you referenced on the Ultra Right Wing Christian radio broadcasts. In my opinion, that's the politicans at work again. They allowed this to happen, for what reason I can't fathom. I can only see this as a detriment to the well being of our troops. I too would be inflamed with hatred if the opposite were to occur here. And yes our cities see plenty of urban warfare. Losts of shootings, stabbings and crime in general. So one dosen't have to be a soldier to be involved. The big difference here is that a soldier is required to stand and fight, a civilian is required to run away if possible. Even if you should be one of the 7 to 9 who support the front line soldier, at any given time you can be called to now be on the front line and you must respond. The specific questions you asked in the prior post (assume it was addressed towards me),  my answer is yes to all. In depth is not required. Surfice to say I served and also wore the badge. What all this actually boils down to is a simple premise. I will attempt to use the Martial arts as an example. People in general view the arts with a lot of misunderstanding. Are we in general agreement on this statement? That misunderstanding changes with knowledge and knowledge is only attained by participating. I think we can all see the correlation. Rich, no appology necessary. It's your right as a free willed and free politically to express your views. :asian:


----------



## rmcrobertson (Nov 27, 2003)

Well, I could argue this till the cows come home, have baths and hot cocoa, get a story, and drift off to dreamland.

Doesn't matter. I thought this country was supposed to stand for something, and I am distressed, a bit, to see that people are perfectly content to throw that ideal out the window. 

So here's my last word on the topic:

A fig for the justification of torture, and I don't give a damn what the circumstances are.


----------



## Disco (Nov 28, 2003)

I have finally come to a rational reason to be thankful for something other than me and mine. I am thankful for the absense of people (who choose to live in a utopian mindset), that they are not in positions of real power. What I don't understand is the fact that people on this site are (assuming) martial artists. We train for hand to hand combat and everybody has agreed that there are no rules in a real fight on the street. We have heard and read numerous times that everything is a target and your personal survival is paramount. Now here we have people that are distressed with the fact that someone didn't follow somebodies idea of fair play. If you are training in the arts and believe in so called fair play, your being hypocritical. I remember reading in history about Gen. Black Jack Pershing and what he did during the fighting in the Philippines. Nobody was screaming, off with his head and Oh what a bad officer - he should be removed and punished. Perhaps back then, people in general understood the value of saving our own. Anybody can justify in their own mind that detached actions by another is wrong. But just let that same person become attached or someone close to them become part of the action and watch how fast their viewpoints change. Opinions are welcomed, but a condescending attitude is not.


----------



## Karazenpo (Nov 28, 2003)

Disco wrote this in response to some opposing viewpoints on  'the end justfying the means':

1) The end has allways justified the means. Look back, not glance back, but look back thru history. Just this subject could fill an entire thread and then some. Quick examples; The A-Bomb on Japan, Agent Orange in Nam, Not being allowed to bomb Hanoi (Sam City), The Civil war, The Indian wars, etc. 

  Now, I would like to elaborate on this a bit. 

  "THE END ALWAYS JUSTIFIES THE MEANS IN TIMES OF WAR"

    World War 2. Hiroshima & Nagasaki

    2 atomic bombs dropped on civillian populace

    Many innocent men, women & children killed

    The End: 500,000 to 1,000,000 U.S. soldiers lives saved.


   "THE END ALWAYS JUSTIFIES THE MEANS IN TIMES OF WAR"

   Perhaps, if President Truman took the opposing stand and didn't do what he did some on this forum reading this today 
may not have ever existed because their father, mother or 
grandfather serving would have been one of those 500,000 to 
1,000,000!  Now, how can anyone argue that?  In closing I was telling my Dad yesterday of some of the opinions on Lt. Col. West. He was disgusted and stated in WW2, his C.O's would have done and had done a lot worse than that if they knew the enemy held key information that would could take a company of soldiers out of harm's way. This is not and never will be a perfect world and sometimes you do what you have to do to take care of your own, what man wouldn't?  Respectfully submitted.

PS: Excellent posts, Disco.


----------



## rmcrobertson (Nov 28, 2003)

Hm.


----------



## Touch Of Death (Nov 28, 2003)

> _Originally posted by rmcrobertson _
> *Well, I could argue this till the cows come home, have baths and hot cocoa, get a story, and drift off to dreamland.
> 
> Doesn't matter. I thought this country was supposed to stand for something, and I am distressed, a bit, to see that people are perfectly content to throw that ideal out the window.
> ...


Robert,
I'm not going to try to justify tourture; however, once we have allowed ourselves to become targets with no means of gathering information from our captives. Why take captives at all? Sounds as if we should just kill them on sight and devote our energies elsewhere. That would be the legal way to go, but I doubt it is more moral. I'm with you though, this guy has to go down or the US Loses face.
Sean


----------



## Rich Parsons (Nov 28, 2003)

Hi Disco,



> _Originally posted by Disco _
> *I have finally come to a rational reason to be thankful for something other than me and mine. I am thankful for the absense of people (who choose to live in a utopian mindset), that they are not in positions of real power. What I don't understand is the fact that people on this site are (assuming) martial artists. We train for hand to hand combat and everybody has agreed that there are no rules in a real fight on the street. We have heard and read numerous times that everything is a target and your personal survival is paramount.
> *



In Combat, I have teh assumption that soldiers are allowd to fire, and or stab or break arms/legs and necks as needed. This is Combat. On the street it is the same.

No let me ask, if you quit fighting on the street, and I tie you up and take you back to my hide out and then proceed to beat the crap out of you. This is not combat. This is not for survival. On the streets, you will find to suvivalist who will take honor in this deed. You will find no law officer or DA who says that YES you were still defending yourself.

Now, if during the battle you did a foot sweep and the bad guy went down and hit his head and was either a vegetable or dead, most people would ask for the trial, but would expect for you to be found innocent for your self defense.

In Combat, if they had shot him, and he started yelling that he hadinformation to give them to not shoot him again. I would see no problem with this.

There are rules of engagement, and of force use for both our Military and for our Civilian police officers and also for the citizens. If you ignore them then the government that has protected you, is expected to also prosecute you to protect the ideas of this country and also the other citizens.

Do, I for one believe this Lt Col should see 8 Years? No way. Do I think he should retire? Yes. My Opinion. Now should he loose, all of his pension for his service up to this point? No Way. Once again My Opinion.




> _Originally posted by Disco _
> *
> Now here we have people that are distressed with the fact that someone didn't follow somebodies idea of fair play. If you are training in the arts and believe in so called fair play, your being hypocritical. I remember reading in history about Gen. Black Jack Pershing and what he did during the fighting in the Philippines. Nobody was screaming, off with his head and Oh what a bad officer - he should be removed and punished. Perhaps back then, people in general understood the value of saving our own.
> *



Well I do not think I am a hypocrit, for the above reasons I posted. I Also think that there were no treaties in affect at the time that prohibited such action. Yes, the Spanish American War was a horrible little war, that the USA went into trying to get land and build an empire. We also treated American Indians like dirt. Even breaking our own Treaties with them. Was this right? Oh we got around it by pushing them to the breaking point where they would attack and then of course we had to go in and retaliate and teach them another lesson, and take their land that we wanted now.



> _Originally posted by Disco _
> *
> Anybody can justify in their own mind that detached actions by another is wrong. But just let that same person become attached or someone close to them become part of the action and watch how fast their viewpoints change. Opinions are welcomed, but a condescending attitude is not. *



As I stated before, I have never served. I have what I would call in my opinion street action, and times when I did not know if I was going to survive. I did what I had to do, most of the time. Yet even when I was out numbered 5 or 6 to one or even more. I took them out in a maner that tehy were still alive, and not dead. You see, the police do not like bodies that cannot respond. It makes all the paperwork oh so much more.

As to Attitude, that is why I left this thread the first time, Because I was presented with an attitude that my opinion was not wanted. That I did not understand. That  was this little civilian who was monday morning arm chairing an event. I was told I was wrong, and that I had no place. What about these attitudes?
I could pull out the Mod Card and tell you all to go play nice, yet what would that solve. Nothing. This is personal to many of you, It is personal to me on other levels. Yet, I feel just as much condescending attitude from you sir, about your postition as I do from anyone.

Were you spit on, while you walked through protesters of ODShield and the later ODStorm? Just to get to your job? Did your car gat kicked, and did people threaten yuo just so you could go to work to build a better M1A2 tank for our men in the field? DId you work on a Better Fox NBCRS Vehicle to detect the Nuclear/Biological/Chemical Reconaisance Systems?

So, in your mind, I should have stopped gotten out of my car, and walked up to these people and just killed them because they spit on me or my car, kicked my fender. When the law clearly states that I had no right to escalate the level of violence up to that level. In matter of fact I was supposed to call the police.  Yet the police all get bent when a civilian takes the law into his/her own hands. Almost like they take it personally. You cannot have it both ways, in my opinion that would be hypocritical.

So Disco, is my condenscending tone not welcome again? Or should I go enlist, and watch some real combat movies to get a better idea of what it is all about. Since you replied yes to all my questions I would assume that we can talk since by using your logic, you have meet my requirements of similar situations to understand my point of view. Yet like I said I may not have enough to talk to you?


Let me reiterate something.

In Combat anything goes. In Questioning a prisoner there are rules and international laws. In questioning a suspect, there are rules also. If a police officer was to get into a scuffle and then the bad guy gets restrained. Yes, there will be questiosn about the bruises. It sucks, yet the system is their to prevent the bad cop from abusing is power and authority, as opposed to the good police officers who beleive in their responsibilities. This good officer may have to answer questions on why this guy has a bruise.

Heck I know an officer that was on leave until the DA decided to clear him on a shooting. He showed up during the fire fight. He was able to fire and hit the bad guy. He had to be cleared. He had to prove he did not know this guy or had prior relations he had to prove that he did not wish ill intent. No one questioned that he was being fired upon. No questioned he took a clear shoot. And yes he hit center mass, to the point that the bad guy knew he was in trouble and shot himself in the head, so as to not be taken alive. He was cleared, yet he had to go through the procedure. Why to avoid the Bad cops being given free reign.

Have you ever been beaten by a Cop? I have have. And All good police officers (* And I know many *) are going to reply he must have done something to deserve it. Yes there was a car with two guys a beige 1977 Buick Regal, with Landau top that were doing lawn jobs in the rich neighborhood. I was with four otehr guys in a 1980 White Oldsmobile Delta 88 Regal. Now White to Beige could be an easy mistake. Two guys to five, could be someoen did nto see everyone. The real big issue is that the Regal was a two door, and the Olds was a four door and about two feet bigger. Also we were in a total different neighborhood then the crimes. I looked older, only because I was taller and had facial hair. The officer asked me, as he as questioning each one of us with out coats in February, since coats could hiude weapons, and the windows of our car had to be down so as to avoid steam on the windows, he asked me How Old are You? I said Sixteen, Sir. He replied Idiot your Seventeen.  I said, No Sir, in September I will be Seventeen Sir. I then proceded to take on in the ribs. Did I mention that my hands were being held behind me by another officer. As I doubled over, I took a knee to the face. I tried to colapse to the ground I did not even try to free my hands. Yet the knee kind of stook me up. I to two shoots to the kidneys. One from a diiferent cop each. As I was fallen forward I then took another fist shoot to the face as the original officer cleared his pistol. As I was a young Punk in the wrong nighborhood identified by witness, the police defense, and I had resisted and cause tried to get physical, and it was my single word against six police officers. It did not go anywhere. The driver was also issues a speeding ticket for not speeding yet, it justified the pull over. After a total of an hour plus of freezing in the cold I was thrown into the back of a police car wiht hand cuffs (* Because I am a dangerous person *) and the cop yelled at me and told me to not not move, to not talk and to not breath, So I laid there with my head against the cage and my legs out the door, until the oficer of the vehicel came over and said, you can sit up punk. I slowly moved into a sitting position. I did not say a word. This officer then started talking to me. After a few minutes of no responce he told me I could respond. You see I was taking the Cops word of nto talking. You see that wanted all of to confess to do the vandleism. And, I had times and locations of where we were and who to ask for verifications. This seemed to upset the poilce more. I was lectured by many of them to not call them sir. I was trying to be respectful. So, this officer of the car I was in, started asking me questions. I answered as I had all night long. He asked me then why are we even talking to us, and why had I tried to swing at the other cop. I replied I never took my hands from my back until I was falling. He was very confused.

In the end the let us go. Want to know why. They threatened to take us in call our parents. At that point I replied (* Sarcastically, hell I already been beat up *) I asked for that before. I believe my parents woudl like to know why this happened to me. You see, after almost two hours they realized or suspected they might have the wrong people.  Interesting concept. Yet, they tought they were doing the right thing.

I could never, get recourse on this issue.

So, would you like to come back to a country that supports this? for your children and grand children. That any officer can pull them over and beat them and freeze them and refuse minors access to their parents? This is why there are checks and balances, and rules and laws. I may not like them, and if I dislike them enough I try to change them from within the system. I do not go out side the system.

So, once again, I apologize for my Attitude and Condenscending Opinions to those who will not take a step back and take a deep breath and realize that, that is not my intention.

I am expressing my opinions, and using the system as it stands to show reasons why my opinions are the way I believe. You can disagree. You can not reply. You can put me on the ignore list. Please do not call me names, and insult me about living in Utopia. I live where I live and do not believe in a perfect world. I know from experience that it is not. This is why I beleive in the existing system of a jury trial to prove your case. 

With Respect to those here and to those that have and are, and will serve this country.
:asian:


----------



## michaeledward (Nov 28, 2003)

> This is a true story, the movie was made to educate and get the word out rather than entertain, it was made to honor our soldiers and show the people what happens in these foreign conflicts when you're dealing with 'primitive barbarians'.



Well, I am so relieved that we are not actually bombing human beings. 



> I took the advise of Jay Sevrin, an extremely popular radio talk show host who used to work at the White House, I believe. He had suggested before the war in Iraq that we should see this movie.



I listen to Jay. I hold the vitriolic and bigoted points of view he spews with the same respect I hold for the dog waste I pick up from my two dogs. Popularity is not a good way to measure right from wrong. 



> Mike, we are not talkng about Thomas Jefferson. This is the 21st century



Let us together give thanks to Thomas Jefferson, who concieved of the First Amendment to the Constitution, so that you and I, and Jay Sevrins would have the ability to speak freely.

Peace - Mike


----------



## Disco (Nov 28, 2003)

Rich, first I am sorry for the situation you had to indure. You had a first hand hosing by the system. You were unjustly treated and I am disgusted with the badge heavy treatment given by the officer's. I've always hated guys that hid behind the badge and I knew a few of them. I would'nt work with them. Secondly, the comment of condesending attitude was not for you. We have agreed on several points. An opinion is just that, somebodies viewpoint that is OPEN to discussion. When somebody dictates that they don't give a damn for what has happened, that is closed minded and not open for discussion. They have stipulated that their viewpoint is unyielding and therefor a waste of time to try to engage in dialog. 

There is a major point that I think everybody has overlooked. The Col. did not tortue this prisoner, he threatened/bluffed him. We see people in everyday life issuing threats. You have most likely done thin yourself sometime in your life. We all have, including yours truly. Our jails and courts would be totally inundated with people from all walks of like if we tried to punish everybody that makes a threat. If it's followed up with action, now that's another story. 

You kind of got a little over the top with the car and spitting and shooting retort. Kind of lost me there sport. I can understand were your coming from and why your position is as it is. You were unjustly accused and they tried to make themselves look good at your exspense and then blocked any counter. Not to be to off course, it happens every day in this country. Can it be eliminated? yes to a large degree. Will it happen? No because our laws evolve around lawyers and money, but that's another thread alltogether. What I find perplexing is that the Col. is going thru something similiar in nature to what you experienced. Did you do anything wrong? No..... Has the Col. actually done anything wrong? To many of us No..... He is being accused of a crime that has not been committed. Semantics in a court room is the high point of law. Perhaps many would care to rethink their position with this aspect in mind.


----------



## Rich Parsons (Nov 28, 2003)

> _Originally posted by Disco _
> *Rich, first I am sorry for the situation you had to indure. You had a first hand hosing by the system. You were unjustly treated and I am disgusted with the badge heavy treatment given by the officer's. I've always hated guys that hid behind the badge and I knew a few of them. I would'nt work with them. Secondly, the comment of condesending attitude was not for you. We have agreed on several points. An opinion is just that, somebodies viewpoint that is OPEN to discussion. When somebody dictates that they don't give a damn for what has happened, that is closed minded and not open for discussion. They have stipulated that their viewpoint is unyielding and therefor a waste of time to try to engage in dialog.
> *



Disco,
I am always open, as it is people with different views that I may learn from. Yet, if they do not have an open mind then there is no point, for it is not both directions.



> _Originally posted by Disco _
> *There is a major point that I think everybody has overlooked. The Col. did not tortue this prisoner, he threatened/bluffed him. We see people in everyday life issuing threats. You have most likely done thin yourself sometime in your life. We all have, including yours truly. Our jails and courts would be totally inundated with people from all walks of like if we tried to punish everybody that makes a threat. If it's followed up with action, now that's another story.
> *



Ahh torture or the the threat of torture. I have threaten to beat lots of people. No witnesses and therfore unable to prove beyond a doubt, and therfore hard to bring to case. If you threaten someone here on this board with bodily harm you will get time off. It is about (Credible) witnesses and being caught.



> _Originally posted by Disco _
> *You kind of got a little over the top with the car and spitting and shooting retort. Kind of lost me there sport. I can understand were your coming from and why your position is as it is. You were unjustly accused and they tried to make themselves look good at your exspense and then blocked any counter. Not to be to off course, it happens every day in this country. Can it be eliminated? yes to a large degree. Will it happen? No because our laws evolve around lawyers and money, but that's another thread alltogether. What I find perplexing is that the Col. is going thru something similiar in nature to what you experienced. Did you do anything wrong? No..... Has the Col. actually done anything wrong? To many of us No..... He is being accused of a crime that has not committed. Semantics in a court room is the high point of law. Perhaps many would care to rethink their position with this aspect in mind. *




The Car thing. It is ok to shoot a gun while questioning a prisoner, and then you tell me that the life and defense we practice on the street are the same thing, and that I was trying to save lives myself by designing a better tank. Therefore these detractors deserved death or threat of death because they were inhibiting me from doing my job of making a better tank so less of our boys could die and more of theirs could. Does it make sense now sport? BTW: it is the little things in life that deal with the tone of the written word. Either you just wrote this out of habit, our you meant something by it. This is how I read it. Got it Sport. Kind of condenscending, in my book.

As to semantics, there are witnesses to his actions. If someone as an officer of the law was to pull there weapon and fire it with wtinesses, there would be an investigation. And yes our laws are all about semantics.

As to the event being a bad thing. I found it funny/wierd, how I remember it like it was yesterday over 20 years later.


Now as to the similarities to this case and mine. Like I said, I did nothing I was no where in the area. This is the case of he did something in front of witnesses and admits to it. His greatest problem is that he got caught.

:asian:


----------



## Disco (Nov 28, 2003)

You want to make an issue out of nothing, be my guest. We can agree to disagree. You've got a burr in your saddle because of what happened and now it seems anyone in authority should be taken to task if you feel they are wrong. OK, your opinion and viewpoint have been dually noted. We were having a fairly adult discussion until you chose to interject total BS. By you working in a factory being a small part of building something that may or may not even be brought into action and then use that as an equal example to what has transpired, is beyond contemplation. You want the moral highground..... Hey it's yours and best of luck with it. As you readily admit, you have never been there so a totally objective viewpoint is out of the question. The only thing that can be accomplished here is that people will get banned because it's starting to get too personal. I suggest closing the thread. This horse has been beaten enough and the people really affected by all this could give a damn about what we have to say.


----------



## Rich Parsons (Nov 28, 2003)

> _Originally posted by Disco _
> *You want to make an issue out of nothing, be my guest. We can agree to disagree. You've got a burr in your saddle because of what happened and now it seems anyone in authority should be taken to task if you feel they are wrong. OK, your opinion and viewpoint have been dually noted. We were having a fairly adult discussion until you chose to interject total BS. By you working in a factory being a small part of building something that may or may not even be brought into action and then use that as an equal example to what has transpired, is beyond contemplation. You want the moral highground..... Hey it's yours and best of luck with it. As you readily admit, you have never been there so a totally objective viewpoint is out of the question. The only thing that can be accomplished here is that people will get banned because it's starting to get too personal. I suggest closing the thread. This horse has been beaten enough and the people really affected by all this could give a damn about what we have to say. *



Disco Sir,

First, I do not deserve teh high ground.  I was trying to say that by using your arguement, in defending lives of Americans and doing what it took, I had the right to do what it took to do this task. I personally do not think I do.

As to working in some lant somewhere, Nope Sorry, I am an engineer I write and design and test software. You know the point and shoot technology that everyone loves.

As to a totaly objective viewpoint. Have you lead men into a firefight under command, in the armed forces?  As to authority, I respect authority, I do not like the abuse of authority or powers granted by posistions of authority. 

If you think I am really out of ordern, then please feel free to report this post or any other post I have made to the moderators. In this case it will go to Nightingale and KenpoTess and all of the Adminsitrators. Or feel free to make a PM to any of the Mods mentioned or the Admins. Your report or message will be taken seriously, even if it is nothing more than just closing the thread at your request.

As to the sport comment, I replied, not to cause you to get upset. To mention that this in my opinion was some of those condenscending comments that you were upset about from others. Just so that you would not be projecting attitudes you yourself did not like.

My Apologies to you and the rest of those on this thread.
:asian:


----------



## Disco (Nov 28, 2003)

Rich, It's I who apologize. I misconstrued the intent of the writtings. Surfice to say, we can discuss pointed subjects somewhat objectively. If we all thought alike, it would be a very boring planet. Much like the engineer's and scientists who created the bomb, they were torn between two alternatives. You have my respect for engaging in the genesis of something used for destructive purposes and still feel that restraint in actions is paramount to civilized societies. It's a very thin line that is easy to cross in the heat of the moment. 

Did I ever lead men in combat? No.  Have I ever been lead into combat? Yes. We are in agreement as far as abuse of authority is concerned.

Do we need to have our discussions reported to / regulated by a third party?  Not to my way of thinking. We've just encountered a glitch in our communications interface.

Respectfully
Disco


----------



## Karazenpo (Dec 4, 2003)

Alright, I'm hearing about 'condoning' torture, that we are better than that, etc., etc. Let me run this past you because it has happened and is currently happening right now in a missing girl who is believed to possibly be kept somewhere alive. Police have the suspect in custody. I'm sure you heard  of it, it's getting national attention. Here's my example and I would like an honest answer with no 'spin' what-so-ever, fair enough? Okay, you have a five year old child, some sexual predator has kidnapped. The police have the suspect in custody and there is no doubt it is him in your mind and the police. Your five year old child is buried alive in a box with enough oxygen to last one hour. The maggot isn't talking. What would you say to the police if they began 'aggressively' interrogating him? Please don't hit him, don't scare him, don't abuse his constitutional rights, please go by the rulebook, whatever you do, please don't fire a gun near him, after all that's not right, you would have to be punished for that! After all two rights don't make a wrong. This man has his rights!!! 
Bullsh_t!!!!!!! and you know it! If you disagree with this example in any way shape or form,  please don't call yourself a parent 'cause you're not!  By the way, for the poster who badmouthed Jay Sevrin, my example was taken from his show today. It's a little different when it hits home, isn't it? because I'll tell you this, if it were my loved one, parent, child, wife, etc., I would do everything I had to do to save them. I can't believe, for the life of me, someone will call me on this one but they probably will and if they do, I say BULLSH_T!  Sincerely, "Joe"


----------



## arnisador (Dec 4, 2003)

Sure, but it's the same story as usual--if someone murdered your child you'd want to kill them, but would you really want a general policy of people going around killing people who had wronged them?

Isn't this the question that was asked of Michael Dukakis?


----------



## Karazenpo (Dec 4, 2003)

Ah, but Arnisador, respectfully, I think you missed my point. You wrote:

Sure, but it's the same story as usual--if someone murdered your child you'd want to kill them, but would you really want a general policy of people going around killing people who had wronged them?

I say I'm not talking about reeking revenge on someone who has already killed a child or loved one BUT to SAVE the child or loved one's life!!!!! Big difference! Once the child is killed nothing, obviously, can bring them back BUT you have a chance PREVENT his/her untimely death, see what I mean? A whole different ballgame. Who wouldn't go that extra mile if they could? Not revenge but rescue! Respectfully, Joe  PS: See ya tomorro, I'm going to bed.


----------



## michaeledward (Dec 4, 2003)

> The police have the suspect in custody and there is no doubt it is him in your mind and the police.


What is in "my mind" is irrelevant. The man has the right to the assumption of innocence until proven guilty by a jury of his peers. That is the way our system is set up. If you don't like it, move to some other country, which perhaps doesn't have such a forward thinking system ... let's say North Korea.



> Your five year old child is buried alive in a box with enough oxygen to last one hour.


This assumption doesn't make sense. How could such facts be 'known', without being able to save the child. As long as this fact is in the realm of 'uncertain', then our actions must be guided by the principles of law.



> If you disagree with this example in any way shape or form, please don't call yourself a parent 'cause you're not!


But accused criminals are guaranteed to the right to trial by a jury of their peers. Not to a trial by a victims parent. In our system of jurisprudence, many people are wrongly accused and wrongly convicted. Perhaps you have heard the state of Illinois has put a moritorium on state executions because of the uncertainty of the convictions of the current 'death row' inmates.



> By the way, for the poster who badmouthed Jay Sevrin, my example was taken from his show today.



Like Rush Limbaugh, Bill O'Reilly, et al. The 'Non-Guested Confronational Radio Show' is really not a very good source for policy decisions reguarding our society. We should be allowed to freely examine all sides of an issue before reaching a conclusion. Yet when these radio guests have 'callers' on their shows, there is no discussion going on. The caller makes a statement, the host disconnects the phone line, and either re-inforces their own unchallenged point of view, or defames (as O'Reilly puts it) the caller. 

Please bring your own thoughts to the discussion. If I wanted to rant at Severin, I can turn on the radio.

Our society has decided that it is better to occasionally let a guilty man go free, rather than imprision an innocent man. Despite this cautionary approach, sometimes we still screw up. And until we can remove all such screw ups from our system, we do need to err on the side of caution and preservation of civil liberties for all.

And you don't need to swear at me - Mike


----------



## Karazenpo (Dec 5, 2003)

Hey Mike, I apologize if you took it that I swore at you, when I wrote Bullsh-t I only mean't it as a generic self expression at my fustration and passion on this issue, not at you but at what may be said. In my opinion I really don't consider it a swear but I will use a more appropiate adjective in the future, like "BullFeathers!" lol. It was not directed at anyone personally. As far as the example of the five year old kidnapped and having the suspect in custody-that's about as real and on the money as you're going to get!!! It's playing out right now in real life, the only difference is, it's a 22 year old woman! You are telling me you would still have this viewpoint if she were your daughter or loved one? I really hope not. There is nothing wrong with bringing other viewpoints to the forum by quoting someone as I did Jay Severin. If you check prior posts just about everyone here has quoted something or other that someone has said, be it a no- name or celebrity-type status.  Just because you may not care for Jay and his views is no reason to tell me I can't quote him or bring up a topic from his show. This is the "Locker Room", isn't it called that because it's about the talk in the locker room, more or less?  As you said, to paraphase, it was people like Thomas Jefferson that allows Mr. Sevrin to speak his opinions on the radio, well that goes for me too! The other thing is many, many people, both civillian and police are soooooooo sick of hearing of the rights of criminals and please don't mention innocent until proven guilty, I'm for everyone having a fair trial, if I were on a jury I would carefully listen to both sides to make a fair and honest judgement.
Hey, sometimes I go on a call and at the beginning, I may feel one party is wrong but I don't pass judgement until I hear both sides and I have changed my original opinion many times when this happens. The liberal left is always talking of criminal rights, hell, they even make it easy for them with a get out of jail early card. Let me say this, in many cases forget about rehabilitation because it doesn't work. This guy on the missing 22 year old girl was cleared and deemed rehabilitated after 23 years for kidnapping and raping another young woman! Go give your viewpoint to her family and see what they have to say. They speak from the trenches. Our liberal criminal justice system let him out! I cannot believe anyone would think he would not strike again. These people cannot help themselves anymore than I can help my self from being hetersexual or a gay man from being homosexual! So, if we are going to protect our loved ones it's about time we started thinking more of the victims' rights and not these low lifes. They say a 'conservative' is a 'liberal' who was mugged! In my opinion there's some credence to that. Respectfully, Joe


----------



## Karazenpo (Dec 5, 2003)

Let me give this clear example. I would appreciate as many responses as possible. Yes, it is hypothetical but it is based on a real ife situation. Now, please, just a yes or no answer, no 'spin' no gray areas, nothing, that's what I mean by hypothetical or better yet, we'll call it an experiment with controls but no variables. It will be a barometer to measure everyone's viewpoint on this issue-I would like to see if I am alone on my views and what the popular opinion really is. That being said, please don't critique the example, it's just an experiment (but based on reality).

The scenerio that is going on in real life as we speak is a 22 year old woman who was at a shopping mall parking lot speaking on her cell phone to her finance. Suddenly she was heard saying something like, Oh no! or Oh my God, no! and was cut off. A short time later another call went through to her finance but again the line went dead. I believe much later there may have been a third call, not sure though. The police arrested a 50 year old sex offender who did, I believe, 23 years for the kidnapping and rape of a young girl. He was supposed to have gotten something like life as a max but they let him out after serving the lower end of the sentence. You know how that goes, like when they give someone 20 to 30 years, they can let you out on the 20. He was cleared as being 'safe' to let out on the streets. Police aren't saying much right now and rightfully so, but from what I understand he was positively identified as being in the mall lot at the same time the girl was reported missing. He also didn't show up for work that day. Obviously, the police, to have a judge ok and arrest warrant have more probable cause than this. The DA and police are speaking as if the girl is still alive being imprisoned somewhere. Okay, this is what I am going to base our hypothetical situation on:

It's your finance that was abducted. The suspect is arrested. He tells police yeah, he took her. (remember, this is hypothetical, now, so let's not question the facts and circumstances, this is what you have to base your answer on). So, he says he took her, he's got her held somewhere and she'll be lucky if she survives the weekend. Women reading this post just pretend it's a 'he' and it's your fiance being held.  Okay, this dirtball says you may have me arrested but she's going to die because I'm not telling you anything. You have the sole authority to have the police use very aggressive means to extract the whereabouts of your fiance before she expires, however, his rights will be violated such as in the case of Lt. Col. Allen West. Remember, this is just a test case to see where the majority stands so let's not pick the scenerio apart, what's important is your answer. One of two words: "YES" or "NO" -nothing else. Let's try this. You know where I stand.


----------



## Rich Parsons (Dec 5, 2003)

Let us assume just for a moment that they have a person locked up for questioning under investigation for a suspected crime.

Lets call this person Rich or maybe Karazenpo.

So if either of these guys was locked, and being asked questions about some crime. Now each of these guys know they did not do it, yet there is circumstantial evidence that makes a lot of people believe the might have done it. Would you know condom the use of torture to get the information?

Would not the information in question be suspect, knowing that the infomration was gathered under duress, and said person may have said anything to get the pain to stop?

I know this Rich did not apprecate being beaten for information I did not have or know about.



(* Now to discuss the other Hypothetical *)

Yes, if a loved one is in danger, any normal person would want to do anything to save that person in danger. So, I could see people thinking about violence and even venting their frustration. Yet I still do not see myself torturing or killing someone to get possible information.

It Sucks.

You have some options, discuss it here and elsewhere and try to raise a level of concern to get laws changed.

Or you can move to some other country that has Military Law, or Subjects or what have versus Citizens and their rights as written in th U.S. Constitution.

Everyone is for this violence as long as it happens to someone else.

Just My Opinion
:asian:


----------



## arnisador (Dec 5, 2003)

I don't think it differs too much--would you want people torturing people they _think_ know something? Would you authorize the govt. to do it? It may sound defensible in any single case, but is it defensible _policy_?


----------



## Karazenpo (Dec 5, 2003)

Rich, you're right, it does suck! It's a horrible situation to be in but it does happen as we know with the Colonel. Arnisador, respectfully, I don't say on information he 'might' have but information that you 'know' he has access to but you don't know the exact details that you need to prevent it. I don't condone torture in the sense of the things Sadam and his sons did but I could relate to what the Colonel did. So they guy had to change his underwear after the shots went off, no harm done, just a laundry bill, LOL. Great discussion guys!


----------



## OULobo (Dec 5, 2003)

The big problem is that it is impossible to say for sure that this person is indeed the kidnapper and that, even if he is, his info can be trusted. How will that parent in the case feel if he was torturing, say another parent, and then found out that, not only was the suspect not guilty, but totally uninvolved. Could you face the child of the tortured innocent man and say, "I'm sorry for emotionally scarring and psychologically traumatizing your father without a trial and to no productive end besides exercising my own frustration and anger on an innocent man."? Even if he is guilty and lets say the torture worked. What if he tells you she is already dead? Then the idea of saving someone who is living verses vengance is after the fact isn't it. What if he gives you the location and for some, unseen by the kidnapper, reason she is gone. While it might inspire no sympathy for the guilty, the torture would continue because the torturer would just think he is lying and will tell the truth with more torture, but the truth has been told and now he is being tortured for no reason besides spite and vengance. Obviously these are hypothitical and that is the problem, nothing can be confirmed until after the fact so there is no justifiation for torture to effect the future.


----------



## OULobo (Dec 5, 2003)

A second posting about the loss of American lives because we won't torture people. The loss in American life is because we believe in the unhumanity and injustice of torture, and American people have been dying for centuries to uphold and inforce American morals and values, the morals and values of the Constitution.


----------



## Karazenpo (Dec 5, 2003)

Yes, but OULobo, I don't think that's the case. In other words, I believe our government to insure national security over the years has done a lot of things that may even shock the conscience. The only thing Colonel West did was he was open and honest about it. I can only imagine what is in the files of the Central Intelligence Agency. No country can survive, be as strong and hold the position of being the #1 spot in the world heirarchy and be lily white and innocent of bending the so-called rules from time to time.  Remember, in my example, I said we are sure we have the right man and if she is dead when we get to her, I have no reservations wht-so-ever about what I did because I know I did everything in my power to save my loved one. I have ot believe life is about choices, the choices you make dictate the lives you lead and with these choices come consequences. I would take the consequences to protect my family. The problem with the criminal element is they hurt people, they know what they're doing but they're also too cowardly to accept the consequences of their actions, so they cry for their rights! Personally, I could not live with myself knowing I could have done something to save a loved one. Hopefully, it will never come to that because as stated earlier, it sucks!


----------



## lvwhitebir (Dec 5, 2003)

> _Originally posted by Karazenpo _
> *You have the sole authority to have the police use very aggressive means to extract the whereabouts of your fiance before she expires, however, his rights will be violated such as in the case of Lt. Col. Allen West.
> 
> [snip]
> ...



NO.  I would want probably want to beat it out of him for the immediate gratification, but the law works for long-term consequences.  My beating him is only to work out my frustration and emotions.  That's why the victim's family doesn't get to question the guy.  I have no real proof that the guy is telling the truth (maybe he says he did it because he wants television exposure) and I know I wouldn't want to torture an innocent man.  I couldn't live with myself afterwards.

And I would like to know that if I were accused and was sitting in his spot, I wouldn't want to be tortured over something I was innocent about.

In the case of Col. West, he didn't know what the guy knew or not (supposedly).  All he knew was that he was going to force something out of him.  Torture such as that doesn't always get the truth anyways.  Typically the subject will say *anything* in order to get you to stop.

WhiteBirch


----------



## OULobo (Dec 5, 2003)

I will say that the Col. is getting a bad rap. I will say that military actions are not / should be subject to civil law, but there other rules for them to follow. Yes, our country has done nasty things, but as was stated earlier, they were done legally (read: loophole) or they were done and never discovered (back to the "just don't get caught" thing). When our country does something ethically wrong and actually illegal, the criminals do pay the price. That's what the Ethics and Intelligence comitees in congress are for, I believe. The issue here is that he chose to do it in a blatant way and against well known policies. Punishment is expected and due. This is regular army, not black ops or CIA, he knew this would happen and took his chances to save his soldiers. In my opinion he made a good, but not the best, choice. My personal belief is a retirment that saves his pension and all that he has gained for his service, but he must be discharged, to a man like this, that is punishment enough. This is prolly a good example of where an intelligence officer could have handled the situatuion with more. . . tact. 

As for my previous post, my objection is to agknowledged torture, in any form, as acceptable, in any situation, on US soil. There are rights for US citizens and as has been said before, if we take them from anyone the possiblity is there to have them taken from everyone. If you torture a suspect, personally, I don't condone it, but I can't / won't stop you, however I think that you must also accept the punishment for your illegal actions. The sticky part is that the police are required to stop it.


----------



## Karazenpo (Dec 5, 2003)

WhiteBirch, it seems no one is going by the controls of the question. It's a black & white scenerio, just a scenerio. Please don't read too deep into it. The controls stated he DEFINITELY confessed to the abduction and all facts and circumstances show he is our man. He DEFINITELY knows the whereabouts of your finance and the clock is ticking. Also, you are not the one interrogating him, I said the police are but you can either tell the police you want all his rights protected and make sure you do nothing to scare him that would be unconstitutional. What say you now? or let me put it another way.  Again, hypothetically, he can be interrogated in the USA with all his rights in check or Egypt- for those who think the US is lily white, they sent captured POW's to Egypt for interrogation because of their 'aggressive' methods! Please, anyone responding, re-read my post carefully and stick to the guidelines of the scenerio, otherwise we're going to have all different scenerios which will never answer my original question. Thanks. Joe


----------



## OULobo (Dec 5, 2003)

> _Originally posted by Karazenpo _
> *Again, hypothetically, he can be interrogated in the USA with all his rights in check or Egypt- for those who think the US is lily white, they sent captured POW's to Egypt for interrogation because of their 'aggressive' methods!  *



If time allowed this would be the best option for effectivness and legality, but that doesn't justify it ethically. This what I was trying to allude to in terms of "tact".


----------



## Karazenpo (Dec 5, 2003)

OULobo wrote:

If time allowed this would be the best option for effectivness and legality, but that doesn't justify it ethically. This what I was trying to allude to in terms of "tact".


OULobo, don't get me wrong, I try to be a good cop and I respect peoples' rights of all colors and religious backgrounds without question. I make judgement calls, not on race and/or religion but on right and wrong. However, there is a line I will cross- Now, don't think I'm a bad guy,lol, but do you really think I would lose any sleep over an ETHICS violation if I saved my finance's life????????   Sincerely, Joe


----------



## OULobo (Dec 5, 2003)

> _Originally posted by Karazenpo _
> *OULobo wrote:
> 
> If time allowed this would be the best option for effectivness and legality, but that doesn't justify it ethically. This what I was trying to allude to in terms of "tact".
> ...



I'm sorry I should have been more specific. I meant this as a comment on the Col.'s case no the hypothetical situation. Sorry 'bout that.

PS. I think you mean fiance', not finance. If you mean finances, well then I'd kill them all to get my money back. The fiance' we can bargin for. lol. I can only get away with that becasue I know she doesn't read the forums.


----------



## Karazenpo (Dec 5, 2003)

PS. I think you mean fiance', not finance. If you mean finances, well then I'd kill them all to get my money back. The fiance' we can bargin for. lol. I can only get away with that becasue I know she doesn't read the forums. 


Good one! LOL, yeah I did mean fiance'. You're lucky though, I have to be careful, sometimes my significant other reads the forums-so I would have to state I would go to any length to save her, LOL, at this time, anyway!  LOL,    "Joe"


----------



## rmcrobertson (Dec 5, 2003)

Gee, aren't some of you the guys who argue, "slippery slope," on moral issues? Uh...a big part of the point of what the UCMJ, the Geneva Convention, AND THE MORAL CODES OF EVERY RELIGION I'VE EVER HEARD OF, have to say about these issues is that torture in the name of expediency corrupts us.

I'm not impressed by the examples, either. It's easy to construct hypothetical examples to justify absolutely anything you want to do at all, up to and including the Holocaust.

Sure, our government has done all sorts of things in the name of national security. Why this should make anyone feel any better, or justify their actions, I cannot imagine. For one thing, it just amazes me that many of the folks who go off about the ATF, the IRS, the damn government, suddenly decide that they absolutely trust the gov't when it comes to abusing prisoners for "good reasons."

For another--and incidentally, it seems now that two ex-JAG heads, admirals both, and a passel of other folks, are protesting the government's holding people incommunicado in Guantanamo Bay precisely because of the effect it will have on our civil rights and moral authority--we have no right to do whatever the hell we want and then claim necessity. Don't you get it? The proper American answer to these demands is, "Yeah, Mac, that's what all them murdering bastards say." 

And shipping them to Egypt is in some ways worse. Hell, Heinlein will tell you that a man shoots his own dog, if the dog has to be shot.

I note that nobody deals with this question: so, what makes us different from them, then?

It's one thing to collapse under the demands of the moment. It's quite another to work out an elaborate, abstract and fantastic set of moral justifications for torture.

Again: did the Colonel violate the UCMJ? Was the violation of a serious nature? has he done this before? is somebody playing politics at his (and our) expense? how often is this sort of crap going on? 

Sorry if my tone's indignant. Americans--Americans, fer crying out loud!--advocating torture as a policy makes me indignant.


----------



## Karazenpo (Dec 5, 2003)

Quote:
For another--and incidentally, it seems now that two ex-JAG heads, admirals both, and a passel of other folks, are protesting the government's holding people incommunicado in Guantanamo Bay precisely because of the effect it will have on our civil rights and moral authority--we have no right to do whatever the hell we want and then claim necessity. Don't you get it? The proper American answer to these demands is, "Yeah, Mac, that's what all them murdering bastards say." 

I say:
Right! and if you've been following this, one of the animals that is scheduled for release is an Al Qada operative who is responsible for the death of a U.S. soldier!!! When the hell are we going to get our heads out of the sand and start fighting fire with fire. I've said it once and I'll say it no matter how many times it takes: This is a war on terror. It's the war of the future. The rules of engagement are nothing like we've ever seen before. Like any species facing a threat if we do not adapt we face annililation. It's that simple.  It is so unbelievable how many forget what happened just a few years ago, why? well, it didn't affect them. Their families are secure (right now, anyway) so let us pass moral judgement on the people in the trenches who are trying to keep us safe while we sit behind our computers in our nice warm houses in suburban America. This is common sense, so please let us not hide behind fancy words, civil rights issues and so-called ideals that aren't even close to realities. 



Quote:

I'm not impressed by the examples, either. It's easy to construct hypothetical examples to justify absolutely anything you want to do at all, up to and including the Holocaust.

I say:

I'll speak for myself in that I didn't post an example to impress anyone, I could care less, I am trying to drive home a point. So for those of you who wish to wine and dine these cold blooded killers, go right ahead. Hey, maybe I'm wrong. You can give them counciling too if you'd like. They could have been abused as a child, maybe they are acting out. Let's rehabilitate them and while we're at it let's compensate them for their detention. Why not? We're the good guys, aren't we? Wasn't it a great idea that those liberal Supreme Court justices the other day called one of the new anti-terrorist laws unconstitutional. You know, the one that said we can't hold private groups who train terrorists' camps responsible anymore! I think I'm going to throw up!


----------



## OULobo (Dec 5, 2003)

> _Originally posted by Karazenpo _
> * Why not? We're the good guys, aren't we? Wasn't it a great idea that those liberal Supreme Court justices the other day called one of the new anti-terrorist laws unconstitutional. You know, the one that said we can't hold private groups who train terrorists' camps responsible anymore! I think I'm going to throw up! *



Well here goes another tangent, but my answer is that its great that they called it unconstitutional. Private meetings were outlawed once, by the British, because they bred dissent among the citizens. How long before all our meetings and rallies are all outlawed, because the gov. likes its sheeple separated, they get less ideas that way. Consequently, I was in a group of people that were doing a few annual martial arts camps and it was investigated by federal agents. They didn't like people training martial arts and crawling around the woods. Hell, we could be training terrorists! Come on, this is getting a little too (pardon the term) police statish if you ask me. The big question is what happens if/when Bush and his boys don't win re-election and the possible new Pres. starts pulling his backing from the Pat. act and all the police state/"anti-terrorism" laws.  Who says 1984 was years ago, sounds like its happening now to me. You'll have to excuse the stronger language, but I personally loath the Pat. act and think that it is the most blatant disregard of civil rights ever in this country.


----------



## rmcrobertson (Dec 5, 2003)

I see. Anything, absolutely anything, that we do is justified, because they are the BAD GUYS. Anybody who argues that this is wrong, that it violates our Constitution, the Geneva Convention, AND EVERY RELIGIOUS PRECEPT I EVER HEARD OF EXCEPT FOR THOSE OF THE CHURCH OF SATAN, well, they're (at best) naive morons who are aiding and abetting terrorism.

Oh, incidentally--those JAGs? One of the thing they mentioned was that in the first Gulf War--remember that one?--the several thousand "enemy non-combatants," all got processed through assorted tribunals within six months. Ten or twenty percent of them turned out to be completely cleared. But what the hell, huh? Screw the innocent, they're all (insert racial slur of choice here) anyway? That the logic I'm reading?

I realize that bluster about the military's having gone soft and releasing people who've killed Americans is easier than knowing what we're talking about, but sheesh already. How does anybody know who did what? No trials, no tribunals, no investigations, nothing public, zip, nada. But sure, we can trust the military with absolute power over civilians. That's never created any problems....Ollie North ring a bell? G. Gordon Liddy...who certainly got on American radio and made what I would consider to be a terrorits statement or two.

This stuff is not hard to handle. Drag their collective asses into court, under the UCMJ is necessary. Investigate in public as much as possible, and publish the damn results. Put the murdering SOBs on the air, so everybody with a brain can see what they are. What's the cliche? "Let justice be done, though the heavens fall?" I thought we were the guys who acted differently from Them. I thought we believed in our country enough that we weren't afraid to be open. You're damn right they should be on trial. They get convicted, throw their collective asses into Leavenworth for an hundred years. 


I am sorry to see Americans denying their long, proud traditions of civil rights, open justice openly arrived at, and the law. I am sorry, too, to see Americans so--frightened--that they forget great lines such as, "those who will trade their Liberty for a little Security, deserve neither Liberty nor Security."


We've got laws. Let's use 'em.


And as for the international issues? Well, bad crap happens in war. But we have no right to forget that with all this high-minded, over-intellectual talk about practicality, what we are really talking about is killing people. Young men, and women, and kids. remember Reagan' ordering the F-111 bombing raid on good ol' Quaddafi, that pseudo-socialist, lying murdering SOB? We--our country-- we killed a year-and-a-half old baby girl. 

Really something to wave the flag about, ain't it?


----------



## michaeledward (Dec 5, 2003)

NO ! ! !


----------



## michaeledward (Dec 5, 2003)

> It's your finance that was abducted. The suspect is arrested. He tells police yeah, he took her. (remember, this is hypothetical, now, so let's not question the facts and circumstances, this is what you have to base your answer on). So, he says he took her, he's got her held somewhere and she'll be lucky if she survives the weekend. Women reading this post just pretend it's a 'he' and it's your fiance being held. Okay, this dirtball says you may have me arrested but she's going to die because I'm not telling you anything. You have the sole authority to have the police use very aggressive means to extract the whereabouts of your fiance before she expires, however, his rights will be violated



As you have pointed out .. this fine upstanding member of the community being interrogated is a criminal, with a criminal past ... and now you want to accept his words as 100 % truthful. That defies logic.

You can construct these hypotheticals anyway you want ... the end result is always a fallacy, because there is no way you can "KNOW" something without evidence. That is why we have trials, to present evidence of innocence or guilt. It is also why the standard of a criminal conviction is 'beyond a reasonable doubt'. It is why we place the accused before an *impartial jury of their peers* and not the loved one of the accused.

Don't try and pull a Michael Dukakis on us. It was a dirty trick in that campaign and it is a dirty trick now. Either this country stand for the rule of law, or it doesn't ... and you are asking us to choose, not just for our own persons, but for all of society. 

The real circumstance you are framing as a hypothetical certainly does appear that the person in custody could be involved in some way. But *RIGHT NOW* he is guaranteed the assumption of innocence.

Do you remember Richard Jewell? Wen Ho Lee? James Yee?

These men were tried and convicted in the court of public opinion, however, when it came to a court of law ... the first two were not guilty of the charges, and I think we will find the same result with Mr. Yee. 

Michael


----------



## rmcrobertson (Dec 5, 2003)

Oh yeah...I forgot...

"The essence of the law is that the sweets of private vengeance shall be denied."

--Sinclair Lewis, "Cass Timberlane"


----------



## Karazenpo (Dec 5, 2003)

Post Preview: 
As you have pointed out .. this fine upstanding member of the community being interrogated is a criminal, with a criminal past ... and now you want to accept his words as 100 % truthful. That defies logic.

Here's my point, Mike. I'm not putting you down and I don't know what you do for a living but your obviously not in law enforcement because our best informants are NEVER fine upstanding members of the community because if they were then they would not know anything of value to help us. I worked the drug task force and the narcotics unit in our P.D. We made some major busts and who do you think our infromation came from? The respected bank president across the street? Of course not, it came from the lower level dirt balls who would rat on anyone to cut a deal for their own skin. Yes, they all lie but it's up to us, the cops, as professionals, to check out their information, double check it and triple check it. Ask any judge who approves search warrants where the information usually comes from and he'll tell you exactly what I said. So, Mike, that does not defie logic, it's the reality of the streets. Please give me that much, I've worked them for over 27 years! Hey, you guys make some good points and don't think I don't consider them because I do. Now, here's one that will aggravate OULobo,lol. i was driving home late tonight and heard Laura Ingraham , a talk radio host. She stated the whole badmouthing of the 'Patriot Act' is another desperate attempt by the democrats to unseat President Bush. It was all 'bunk'. Mayor Koch was involved with the article and others who I can't recall at the momnet.  Did you guys know that the P.A. was around for quite a long time only it covered organized crime, pornograpy and drug trafficking. It has just recently been expanded into international terrorism and this section refered to as the Patriot Act. How come you guys aren't upset with it being used against organized crime, pornography and drugs in the past? The New York Post featured an article today, 12-5, and rebutted all the nonsense that has been flying around on this Act. Laura said she is going to post it on her website verbatim from the paper on her website. Let me see if I can find the website and I'll post it. Hang on!
__________________


----------



## Rich Parsons (Dec 5, 2003)

Karazenpo,

I hope the young lady in question is truly found and is alive.

My expectation though is that she is already in a bad state or dead and he (The Bad Guy) is hoping that the police will violate his rights and thereby get off with murder of this young lady.

I truly would like to see her walk into her home safe and sound.


Like I Said previously, it is a bad situtation and it sucks. I agree with you that the police are responsible for double and triple checking the infomration. Yet, it is how they get that information, that is my issue.

My Apologies for sounding cold.

Hopeful Thoughts
:asian:


----------



## michaeledward (Dec 6, 2003)

Karazempo ... I asked you earlier to bring your own thoughts to the discussion, and not to parrot the hosts of *Non-Guested Confrontational Radio Shows*. 



> i was driving home late tonight and heard Laura Ingraham , a talk radio host. She stated the whole badmouthing of the 'Patriot Act' is another desperate attempt by the democrats to unseat President Bush. It was all 'bunk'.


Inferring from the title of Miss Ingraham's latest book, I see that she has the protection of the first amendment, but she is not willing to extend that same protection to, say, Barbara Streisand, right? 



> Did you guys know that the P.A. was around for quite a long time


Really, did you hear this from Miss Ingraham? You see, I thought that the bill HR 3162 RDS was the _Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Requird to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism (USA PATRIOT ACT) Act of 2001_. I thought this bill was passed by the 107th Congress of the United States on October 24, 2001. I am pretty certain, that I saw the President sign the USA PATRIOT ACT into law on October 21, 2001. 

But all of this must be wrong, because it is not 'The Way Things Ought To Be', which in turn means, it must be LIES, and I must be one of the Lying Liars who tell them.

Let's take a closer look at this law ... to see how it defends our civil liberties and protects not just from pornographers, but also from terrorists. (The actual USA PATRIOT ACT is well over 100 pages in text, so I will not reproduce the entire thing here, but here is one clear section of the the law).


               TITLE II--ENHANCED SURVEILLANCE PROCEDURES

SEC. 201. AUTHORITY TO INTERCEPT WIRE, ORAL, AND ELECTRONIC COMMUNICATIONS RELATING TO TERRORISM.

    Section 2516(1) of title 18, United States Code, is amended--(1) by redesignating paragraph (p), as so redesignated by section 434(2) of the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (Public Law 104-132; 110 Stat. 1274), as paragraph  (r); and (2) by inserting after paragraph (p), as so redesignated by section 201(3) of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 (division C of Public Law 104-208; 110 Stat. 3009-565), the following new paragraph: ``(q) any criminal violation of section 229 (relating to chemical weapons); or sections 2332, 2332a, 2332b, 2332d, 2339A, or 2339B of this title (relating to terrorism); or''.


Don't you feel safer already?

Look, leaving aside whether the USA PATRIOT ACT is a good law, or not; there is little doubt that it a) expanded the role of the federal government, b) placed additional restrictions on the civil liberties of the citizens c) requires money to enforce.  

I remember a time when 'Republicans' or 'Conservatives' or 'The Right' fought *for* smaller government, less intrusive government, and fiscal responsibility. On these factors alone, Republicans/Conservatives/The Right should be fighting to remove the Bush / Ashcroft adminstration from power.

I'm tired of the conservatives fighting for the TAX CUT and SPEND INTO DEFICIT policies that they have always opposed.

I really like Jimmy Buffet's Parrotheads much better. So, please Karazempo, listen to music on the way home.


----------



## Karazenpo (Dec 6, 2003)

Rich, no, you didn't sound cold, I appreciate your response. Good post! Rich, the bad news is I heard lst night the police found blood in the suspect's vehicle matching the type of the victim. We're waiting to hear DNA now. I think your worst fears on this is coming true but then again I would have bet anything Elizabeth Smart was dead. my firsr intincts was that the 22 year old woman was murdered but then the police seemed to have some hope otherwise. We'll have to wait and see. Hey, Rich, can you believe what Michael said to me?, LOL...........................


Michael wrote:Karazempo ... I asked you earlier to bring your own thoughts to the discussion, and not to parrot the hosts of Non-Guested Confrontational Radio Shows. 

Michael, c'ome on. I don't want to get into a pi ssing contest with you but you seem to be so concerned with freedom of speech and civil rights and rights for terroists and criminals then you tell me what I can write and not write in my posts and like I have to listen to you. Please, Michael, think of what you said:Karazempo ... I asked you earlier to bring your own thoughts to the discussion, and not to parrot the hosts of Non-Guested Confrontational Radio Shows. The title of Miss Ingraham's book is "Shut up & Sing"! Would you like it if I said to you, Shut up & don't tell me who I should quote! Think about it, that wasn't right!

I told you last time when you made that statement to me not to tell me who I should quote, parrot or who's thoughts I should share. Sounds like you're trying to suppress my freedom of speech along with other conservatives because it doesn't fit your political agenda. If I said to you what you just said to me all the liberals on this forum would be all over me and they would be right! I think you should stand corrected on that statement to me other than that I appreciate your viewpoints also.

The article on the Patriot Act should be posted on LauraIngraham.com.  Now, you don't have to like her or her views but go there just for the article from the N.Y. Post so you'll know what I'm talking about. Isn't the Post a liberal paper, anyway?

PS: Michael, I see at the end of your post you also are telling me what I have to listen to on the radio, too? What kind of liberal are you anyway? or maybe you feel terrorists and criminals have more rights than police officers, lol! Don't take it personally, just kidd'n around with what you said to me! Sincerely, Joe


----------



## michaeledward (Dec 6, 2003)

> then you tell me what I can write and not write in my posts and like I have to listen to you.


* I'm sorry if you misinterpreted what I said. What I thought I said, or if I mis-spoke, what I meant to say was "Bring your own thoughts to the discussion". Laura Ingraham can speak for herself, she's got a radio show, a web site, a couple of books. I can find her opinions quite easily. If you and I are going to have a discussion, let's use our own words and thoughts, not someone elses. 
* You used Laura Ingraham's Radio Show a primary source to  make the statement that the Patriot Act has been around for a long time. I'm sorry that I pointed out the *FACT* that the President signed this bill into law on October 24, 2001. The law has *not* been around for a long time.
* I also think you can listen to Miss Ingraham as much as you want to gather information to help you form your opinions. I hope you consider many sources of information when forming your opinions.



> The article on the Patriot Act should be posted on LauraIngraham.com. Now, you don't have to like her or her views but go there just for the article from the N.Y. Post so you'll know what I'm talking about. Isn't the Post a liberal paper, anyway?


* Whether the Post is a liberal paper or not is irrelevant. This article in question *is not the opinion of the New York Post*. This article is the opinion of Representative Peter King, a Republican, who is also a member of the House of Representatives Homeland Security Committee.  And Ed Koch was the mayor of the city that was subject to the attacks of September 11, 2003.  
* This is a common way that Radio Talk Show Hosts mis-lead their listeners. Because the words appear in a (so-called) Liberal Paper, they are ascribed to the (so-called) Liberal Paper.
* Now, concerning the article, I did read it before I replied to your earlier post. And I noted that the opinions of Representative King and Mayor Koch were putting forth the proposition that the War on Terrorism and Democrat Presidential Candidates opinions on the USA PATRIOT ACT were mutually exclusive; that in order to fight the war on Terrorism we must have the USA PATRIOT ACT. They also point out in the article that perhaps President Bush has over stepped the bounds of civil liberties when he says 'Enemy Combatants' can be taken and held without access to lawyers, courts, and due process. That the law is too susceptible to "Well Intentioned Error - let alone abuse - without built-in judicial safeguards"



> maybe you feel terrorists and criminals have more rights than police officers





> I worked the drug task force and the narcotics unit in our P.D. . . . Please give me that much, I've worked them for over 27 years!


* So, my question to you is, at what point in those 27 years did you stop respecting the laws you were trying to enforce?


----------



## Rich Parsons (Dec 6, 2003)

> _Originally posted by michaeledward _
> *. . .
> I'm tired of the conservatives fighting for the TAX CUT and SPEND INTO DEFICIT policies that they have always opposed.
> . . .*





I do not like anyone, no matter what party or independant causing a bigger deficit.

Yet muc of the deficit are own own loans to are self and the interest, that keeps things running. A portion of those loans are the defaults from other countries of their loans to the USA. Yes, other countries through history have defaulted on their loans to the USA, usually with a new government that does not recognize anything from the previous government, including debt. Now some of the big history ones were the French that defaulted after their own revolution, yet before anyone gets upset, it was the USA that taught them this trick. We took money from France to help us in our fights for freedom from that evil empire of the British. Yet, afterwards the Confederated Government did not recognize it, and the Government established by the US Constitution also did not recognize it.

I have to pay my bills, I have to be responsible, I wish that my Government would also take the responsibility and pay its' own bills. Yet, every two years we ave a silent revolution and elect new Representives and a new Congress, and thereby a new government. Many of them only work on what they believe is important to their own voters back home and public opinion. This allows for the people back home to say look my Represenative/Senator is doing good for me and it is the other person's representation that is not doing the right thing.

They are all not doing the right thing. OH they might be for a small group, or for a particular issue, yet not for the system. I know it will not solve itself. I know it will not just be an easy task to accomplish nor will it be overnight.

So, it is not the Right or the Left or the Conservatives or Liberals or the Greens or the Working' or the Fill in the blank, etc, ..., .

It is all of them and everyone one of them.

Just my little opinion
:asian:


----------



## michaeledward (Dec 6, 2003)

> it is not the Right or the Left or the Conservatives or Liberals or the Greens or the Working' or the Fill in the blank, etc, ..., .


There is a certain amount of truth in this statement and your post. For many years, the Republican Party in the United States used the phrase 'Tax and Spend' to describe the Democratic Party in the United States; and they didn't mean it in a nice way.

Currently, the House of Representatives (where all tax bills must originate) is controlled by the Republican Party. They, and the Republican Party controlled Senate, are submitting the 13 US Appropriation Bills to a Republican Executive branch in the government. And since the Oath of Office was taken by President Bush, not one spending bill has been vetoed.

When President Clinton left office (in January 2001), the US Government and a budget surplus. Currently, the US Government is working under a budget defecit.

I understand there are many factors that contribute to these facts ... but there are two facts that are indisputable:
1 - The US Government is currently controlled by the Republican Party.
2 - The US Government is currently spending more money than it is taking in.

I'll add one more thought ... that is perhaps less of a fact, but I find interesting none-the-less ... the Republican Party is praising the latest numbers being released  concerning the economy (jobs, spending, etcetera):  Whenever I rack up huge debts on my credit card, I feel like I'm living pretty good too, but boy-oh-boy, does it suck when I have to begin paying off those credit card bills.

Mike


----------



## Karazenpo (Dec 6, 2003)

Hi Mike, no problem, misunderstandings happen. I'm my own man and always give my own opinions but I also learn from and respect others and when I hear something I relate to I reference it. I don't feel there's anything wrong with that. Hey, if you say something I relate too, I'd quote you, too!, lol.

* So, my question to you is, at what point in those 27 years did you stop respecting the laws you were trying to enforce?

Mike, I respect the laws but I don't enforce the laws as written in every situation and why? because you, John Q. Public, would be in an uproar. You see, police use what is called 'selective enforcement', before you jump on this, selective enforcement is what the public wants and expects. My example is the co-habitation laws still on the books in Massachusetts. I could have a field day and a lot of overtime with that one, lol. There are many other laws, many regarding Sundays, that are even more ridiculous. Technically, look at the speeding laws. We give people at least 10 over the limit in our community before we stop them on radar patrols and even then we may decide not to fine them. If I go by the book, I'll be collecting a lot of revenue for the municipality and the state!
As far as to what I am saying is many of our laws need to be modified or revised for today's problems. Co-habitation may have been something frowned upon many years ago but it's totally accepted today. Know where I'm coming from? Everything in life evolves but we are still quoting the founding fathers of the 1700's verbatim like it's all applicable today. 
    Please don't misunderstand and think I want to see the Constitution done away with, no way, that's not the case. It should be the core of our country. However, as I'm sure you don't train and fight with the same style and techqniques as the founders of your system then why do you expect we today not to revise and modify cetrain laws to fit today's problems. It makes no sense not to. We improve on everything, technology, teaching methods, medicine and why? because we either have to adapt to change or we just find a better way of doing things. Why should we remain stagnant in our laws? The founding fathers weren't Gods! We could elect a diversified group of intelligent and respected law makers, again, 'elected' by the people and for the people to make these revisions or at least try too. Wasn't it Bob Dylan that wrote; "Times are a chang'n". Don't be upset 'cause I quoted someone again, lol. So, Mike, I do respect the laws but I also respect change, when and where needed. This is a different world today than it was over 200 years ago and some people use are Constitution for self serving and evil purposes. Hey, did you know this one? Ice-T, the rapper, stated that the first ammendment rights give the people the right to kill police officers. Now, this isn't heresay or a misquote. Check it out. See what I mean? Some people use our laws to fit their own warped views of reality. Okay, you're round!   Sincerely, Joe


----------



## michaeledward (Dec 6, 2003)

> You see, police use what is called 'selective enforcement'


I understand about selective enforcement. Are you condoning selective enforcement in the interrogation booth, when it comes to threating or coercing (through force) a subject? I see that as very different from letting a car go down the highway at 70 miles per hour.



> Hey, did you know this one? Ice-T, the rapper, stated that the first ammendment rights give the people the right to kill police officers.


Can you please provide the source of this statement? I would be very surprised if Ice-T said that murder, in any circumstance, was acceptable. He may be crazy, but I don't think he is a lunatic.

I have just searched Google and can find no such statement. I did find this:


> "You have the right to say anything," said Ice, "but be prepared for the ramifications. You can go out and say, 'cop killers,' but you better be prepared for people to come after you."


* That quote looks like he says it is okay to *say* something. Which, of course, is very different from *doing* something. Of course, you claim about his statement may have a different source, I am willing to read it.

I do know that Eric Clapton said it was Okay to shoot the sheriff, or was that Bob Marley?


----------



## rmcrobertson (Dec 6, 2003)

Ah yes, improving those wacky old civil rights.

Remarkable. Isn't it the conservative types who're always telling us that some values are absolute and never change? Who's pushing "situational ethics," now? Looks to me as though where expediency, jingoism and capitalism come together, "situational ethics," are just the ticket.

As for the organized crime statues mentioned above, they're the RICO statutes. And the ACLU, despite the remark about, "you guys," not protesting them, has repeatedly challenged these statues in court. As have a number of other lefty and civil libertarian groups. If memory serves, the last time the ACLU went after them was within the last two years--after they got used against anti-abortion groups that were coordinating their attacks on women's clinics.

I really wish folks would stop taking Rush's and Laura Ingraham's and Ann Coulter and the rest of those shills at face value. Mostly, they just make their stuff up, you know.


----------



## Karazenpo (Dec 7, 2003)

Mike's quote:
I understand about selective enforcement. Are you condoning selective enforcement in the interrogation booth, when it comes to threating or coercing (through force) a subject? I see that as very different from letting a car go down the highway at 70 miles per hour.

Mike, I have to honestly say that if I heard that the 22 year old girl in question life was saved by an aggressive interrogation of the person known to have positively perpetuated the crime, it would not keep me up tossing and turning all night. I bet many, many in this country are sick and tired and feel the same way.

As far as international terrorism goes, yes, they should most definitely interrogate these 'subhumans' in Egypt or Jordan. There's an old saying, Mike, and you may not like it but it goes like this: Sometimes to catch a rat, you have to jump in the gutter.
You may get a little dirty so to speak. Why? because that's the real world. There is no Utopia, idealism doesn't exist. We are dealing with imperfection because we are dealing with the human condition. I am not calling for wide spread abuse of civil rights, c'ome on now, but the methods you support aren't working, are they? Robert can knock some conservatives but that's fine with me, I have too. Ann Coulter can get under your skin, lol. I was a democrat in my beliefs as a kid with Jack & Robert Kennedy but they were more conservative democrats. Over the years the party swung too far to the left, in my opinion. I would consider myself more of an independant. I could swing to a democratic presidential candidate but I haven't seen one lately that I think could cut it. By the way I was a supporter of Bill Clinton while he was in office, believe it or not! Robert, if what you said is true about the comments from the conservative groups, I also have no problem with that. I may currently agree with overall agenda of the conservative party as we speak but it doesn't mean they dont screw up and make mistakes. I don't agree with everything they say and do. However, I noticed democrats, like 'The Fonz' on the old Happy Days show have great difficulty in saying they're wrong about anything. When was the last time you heard that party say they were wrong? When was the last time any of you conceded to something? Guys', you can't be right 100 per cent of the time on every issue here, c'ome on now! If so you should be running the country! great debate, keep it going! Sincerely Joe


----------



## Karazenpo (Dec 7, 2003)

Democrats get on President Bush's case all the time, hell, the guy can't breath but it was okay to have a democratic president getting b-jobs in the oval office not to mention accused of rape in the past.  He was also impeached, true? I hope you guys aren't going to make excuses for that type of conduct. And we all know he never inhaled, lol or 'he did not have sex with that woman'. Man, I can't believe now I supported that guy! What the heck would the dems do if Bush was acting that way? Public hanging? If that was his method of operation, I wonder how many other improprieties went on during his terms in office. How about the mysterious deaths in the Whitewater case? How about Whitewater period?? And Robert, so you think we are being unfair to organized crime with the RICO act? Give me a break! Why don't we all just submit to criminals and terrorists and just live in fear for the rest of our lives, if we live at all!!!!!!!!!!!

Sincerely, Joe


----------



## michaeledward (Dec 7, 2003)

> When was the last time you heard that party say they were wrong?



Perhaps you heard Howard Dean talk about his 'Pickup Truck and Confederate Flag'.

When was the last time you heard the President admit he was less than truthful?

The Fake Turkey on Thanksgiving?
The Air Force One encounter with a British Airways liner? (Gulfstream 5, yeah right).

Mike


----------



## michaeledward (Dec 7, 2003)

> How about Whitewater period??



Read the facts concerning Whitewater. Here is one quote, I'm sure you can find others.

Starr's report mentions no impeachable offenses by Clinton as a result of the investigation into the Whitewater land deal, which took up the bulk of Starr's four-year, $40 million inquiry into the president. Indeed, in the entire 445-page report, Starr alludes only once to the Whitewater investigation, citing suspicious parallels between Vernon Jordan's efforts to help convicted Whitewater figure Webster Hubbell financially and to find Lewinsky a job, presumably to buy their silence. 

So, Whitewater cost the US Taxpayers 40 million dollars and discovered the president was responsible for, essentially, nothing.


----------



## Karazenpo (Dec 7, 2003)

Mike, so the BJ's in the White House were acceptable since I noticed you shyed awy from any comments on that one, not to mention the past allegations of rape.  Mike, there are problems on both sides, no doubt about it but the fact is certain revisions in policy has to be made on both the international and national levels. That is my point. It is unacceptable to me on a national level that this low life, subhuman, dirtball, Rodriguez, who kidnapped and raped a woman in 1973 should have been let out of prison and has now been arrested in the kidnapping and possible murder of another young woman. There is something wrong about a system that protects the guilty and doesn't seem to give a damn about the innocent! On an international level, again, we need to regroup if we are going to survive in the 21st century. Mike, the writing is on the wall!   Sincerely, Joe


----------



## michaeledward (Dec 7, 2003)

> Mike, so the BJ's in the White House were acceptable


Of course, they are acceptable ... and I hope my current president is getting his fair share. The last thing we need is a president that is wound too tight. You see ... I think that what two adults do with each other is none of anybody's business.

Now ... Certianly ... there is a bit of hyperbole in my response. And when you say White House, what you really mean is the Oval Office.  I will grant you that a president should be getting BJ's from his wife in the residence. But if he, and his wife, have come to an understanding of what happened, it is not place to judge them.

Let's remember ... Bill Clinton has two fewer ex-wives than Rush Limbaugh or Newt Gingrich.


----------



## michaeledward (Dec 7, 2003)

> It is unacceptable to me on a national level that this low life, subhuman, dirtball, Rodriguez, who kidnapped and raped a woman in 1973 should have been let out of prison and has now been arrested in the kidnapping and possible murder of another young woman.


Once again, I ask ... when did you stop respecting the laws you are enforcing? Why is this accused not given the protections of the Laws of the United States?

He may be guilty as hell, but, you have already convicted him, haven't you?


----------



## Karazenpo (Dec 7, 2003)

Mike's quote:


Of course, they are acceptable ... and I hope my current president is getting his fair share. The last thing we need is a president that is wound too tight. You see ... I think that what two adults do with each other is none of anybody's business.

Mike, I'm laughing my *** off right now because I defended Clinton back then with the exact same statement, only I called it his 'stress relief' but I'll tell you it didn't go over to big with some people!, lol. And be honest, if I it were the other way around and I said that, you'd be all over me!,lol.


Mike wrote:


Once again, I ask ... when did you stop respecting the laws you are enforcing? Why is this accused not given the protections of the Laws of the United States?

He may be guilty as hell, but, you have already convicted him, haven't you?

I say: In a way you are right, Mike, YES, only I convisted him in 1973 when he kidnapped and raped the other young woman! HE SHOULD HAVE NEVER BEEN LET OUT! No offense, but it's this far left liberal attitude that put him back out on the streets! Please see my point. Yes, I have him convicted and found guilty but once, in 1973...........he should have been incarcerated for life! How many chances do want to give someone like that? I say: none. When you are a classified as a dangerous sex offender as Rodriquez was, he shouldn't have never seen the light of day!

Hey, I'm off to meet some friends to watch the football game, take care, talk to you later "Joe"


----------



## rmcrobertson (Dec 7, 2003)

The problem here, K'zenpo, is that you continually attempt to shift the terms of the argument. In fact, you're attempting continually to rewrite what was written in the past.

First off, the reason I mentioned the ACLU's response to the RICO statutes was that you had claimed that "you guys," had nothing to say about civil liberties when these statues were passed and applied against various groups. That's simply not true. Nor is your weird claim about my support for organized crime (say what?) relevant to that point. However, it is somewhat better to immediately attempt to change the terms of the discussion when you don't like the way things are going. 

Second off, I see that once again you--and again, it's a tactic frequently employed by Limbaugh et al--have "answered," a question with a claim that anybody who disagrees with your vision of America must be a commiesymp, or terrorism supporter, or fan of criminals, etc., etc. etc. I won't dignify such twaddle with a denial or an attempt to explain (it's an old LBJ technique and yes I'm aware that he was a Democrat--"make the SOB deny it"); I will only note that once again, you refuse to take a realistic look at the past or examine the contradictions in your own arguments. Case in point: I ask about using the RICO laws against groups like Operation Rescue, you respond that supporting Bill Clinton contributes to the (fantasized) moral decline of America.

Third off--uh...hate to tell ya, but Bill Clinton is not the Fount of All Evil. I didn't vote for the man either time--seemed like a slippery yuppie to me, though I realize that the fact that those of us who simply disagree with you don't all fall into lockstep behind the Democrats will not fit into your world-picture--but frankly, looking at Bush II, I'm a bit regretful. But if I were you, in fact, I'd have been ashamed at some of the tactics employed by the likes of Ken Starr, Tom DeLay and that crowd. Or don't violations of the morality thrown at us by Republicans and rightists bother you?

Clinton had sleazy moments; hey, there's a shock. And I don't much care for the Pres doing some chubby, unhappy, emotionally tattered 23-year-old--ick. Then, he turned gutless on the health care issue...punk.

But how do you feel about:

Henry Hyde: prime mover of anti-abortion policy in the Senate, drove his girlfriend (he was married at the time, I believe) to have an abortion, then claimed "youthful indiscretion," when the news got out. He was 40.

Tom DeLay: Took illegally-obtained copy of lawyer/client conference, edited the tape to make it sound as though Hillary Clinton knew all about Whitewater.

Newt Gingrich: Used taxpayer money to fiddle government support for a seminar he was, "teaching."

Ollie North, Geo. Bush I, Ronald Reagan: Traded missile parts and sundries to Iran (illegal), used proceeds to fund Contras in central America (illegal).

Wm Bennett: Ex-Secretary of Education, author of several "Readings From the Book of Morals," travels country lecturing on the decline of morality in America, the leftist assault on American values in schools, and the need to set moral examples for kids and young people. Compulsive gambler.

Pat Robertson: TV preacher. Owns several multi-million dollar estates. After 9/11, blamed disaster on liberals, the ACLU, lesbians. 

Oral Roberts: TV preacher. Once raised money by claiming that a 600-foot Jesus had appeared to him, and announced that unless parishoners anted up, he would be ending Oral's life.

Rush Limbaugh: ....well you know as well as I. Frequently lectures on the weakness of drug laws and "free will," as solution to all problems. Addict; presently under investigation (in a Republican-controlled state!) for violation of assorted drug laws.

Richard Nixon: buried illegally in mom's back yard, Yorba Linda, California.

Geo. Bush II: avoided Vietnam after family pulled strings to get him into the Texas ANG. Flew F-104s for around three years; military record includes remarks that his performance could not be evaluated for the final year, since {paraphrase}, "Lieutenant Bush had not been on the base nor reported for training during the last year." Obtained early discharge from ANG to attend Yale University the following year.

Last point: I realize that this doesn't fit your world-view. But those of us who're liberal-to-left-wing criticize libs-to-left-wingers all the time (re-read this post!), so tell me: don't ANY of the moral violations by the self-appointed guardians of America's morality bother you? I mean, this stuff all seem OK to you? One wonders what Barry Goldwater would've said...

What to change the subject to this time?


----------



## michaeledward (Dec 7, 2003)

> Yes, I have him convicted and found guilty but once, in 1973...........he should have been incarcerated for life! How many chances do want to give someone like that? I say: none. When you are a classified as a dangerous sex offender as Rodriquez was, he shouldn't have never seen the light of day!



I won't argue here with the sentiment. But what does the law say? Is the convicted eligable for the chance of rehabilitation? 

Also, why is Lt. West eligable for such lienency, if you are not willing to grant it to Rodriquez?

There seems to be a disconnect between these two arguments... In one case, you want the accused to be given a pass, in the other, you want to hang the convicted without a second thought .... Hmmmm


----------



## Karazenpo (Dec 7, 2003)

Hi Mike, I'm back, had to check in. Curious about your responses.
Robert, I told you , I'm an independant, I'm my own man, I'll go after anyone I don't agree with. Listing names of right wingers that screwed up only supports my stand. I stand for my perspective and mine only!  Robert, I never changed the terms of the discussion. Here it is in a nutshell: Liberal America is too soft on crime and too soft on repeated offenders. Liberal America is too soft on terrorism and the terrorists know it and they are laughing at you!!!!!!!!!!!!  I stand by that and that is the whole nucleus of my position, now, in all due respect, which part of this don't you understand? To Robert; I am not a fan of Rush Limbaugh, nor have I quoted from him. Now, if you take the adivice of Michael, don't quote or parrot these radio right wing talk show hosts, come up with your own ideas and thoughts!!!!!!!!!!!!! Isn't that what you said, Mike? See how you guys constantly contradict yourselves! I know though, you'll come back making me look misunderstood, misinformed and the evil demon, typical of the current democratic party! Hey, I don't take it personally, again, great discussion, fire back,  let it fly, I've got my bullet proof vest on!  Sincerely, Joe-Michael call me Joe not Karazenpo we're beyond that!, lol.


----------



## Karazenpo (Dec 7, 2003)

Mike wrote:


Of course, they are acceptable ... and I hope my current president is getting his fair share. The last thing we need is a president that is wound too tight. You see ... I think that what two adults do with each other is none of anybody's business.

 I say: Mike you should take your own advice and Robert you should take Michael's, guys..... relax, don't get so uptight, don't get so wound up! You need a little of the 'Clinton Stress Relief' therapy! Hey, I'm only having some fun with this, not being sarcastic!  "Joe"


----------



## rmcrobertson (Dec 7, 2003)

So the complete contradiction between what they're saying and what they're demanding that the rest of us do doesn't fuss you at all. Huh.

As for "liberal America," well, I guess it's totally a coincidence that I've heard every single one of your arguments, virtually word-for-word, about 80 times before. 

Apropos of changing the subject, please go back and read the posts: you commented that liberals never complained about the RICO statutes, I responded that yes they had, you replied that liberals were in favor of organized crime.

As for my tone--well, I tend to write a little more nicely when I don't get accused of sponsoring terrorism, being ignorant of reality, and hating my country, in a conversation.

Once again, let's hear three cheers for Freud's bucket joke.


----------



## Karazenpo (Dec 8, 2003)

Robert wrote:


I really wish folks would stop taking Rush's and Laura Ingraham's and Ann Coulter and the rest of those shills at face value. Mostly, they just make their stuff up, you know.

I say: Whenever a democrat can't answer the allegation they come back with 'they're aking their stuff up'.  It's getting old.

Robert, if you heard  those arguments 80 times before, maybe you should listen, there may be some truth in them!

Respectfully, Joe


----------



## OULobo (Dec 8, 2003)

Okay I have to catch up, I was busy this weekend training with the most esteemed Guro Inosanto. I know, I know, but please contain your jealousy everyone. It is funny that he chastised some of us for spending too much time on line when he said he would rather be training. On to the subjects.



> _Originally posted by Karazenpo _
> *Please don't misunderstand and think I want to see the Constitution done away with, no way, that's not the case. It should be the core of our country. However, as I'm sure you don't train and fight with the same style and techqniques as the founders of your system then why do you expect we today not to revise and modify cetrain laws to fit today's problems. It makes no sense not to. We improve on everything, technology, teaching methods, medicine and why? because we either have to adapt to change or we just find a better way of doing things. Why should we remain stagnant in our laws? The founding fathers weren't Gods! We could elect a diversified group of intelligent and respected law makers, again, 'elected' by the people and for the people to make these revisions or at least try too. Wasn't it Bob Dylan that wrote; "Times are a chang'n". Don't be upset 'cause I quoted someone again, lol. So, Mike, I do respect the laws but I also respect change, when and where needed. This is a different world today than it was over 200 years ago and some people use are Constitution for self serving and evil purposes. Hey, did you know this one? Ice-T, the rapper, stated that the first ammendment rights give the people the right to kill police officers. Now, this isn't heresay or a misquote. Check it out. See what I mean? Some people use our laws to fit their own warped views of reality. Okay, you're round!   Sincerely, Joe *



I think that the problem is that the Pat. act that it is not changing the the Constitution, but it is directly opposing it. It is good that laws evolve with the times, but only the details and enforment of the Constitution, not the principles of the Constitution. The Pat. act opposes the Constitution on principle.

I believe, as was mentioned, that Ice-T only asserted that he has the right to say killing cops is "cool", and, I for one, think he does have that right no matter how distastful what he has to say is. He is only restricted in his action against police, not his speech. 



> _Originally posted by Karazenpo _
> *There is something wrong about a system that protects the guilty and doesn't seem to give a damn about the innocent!*



First of all, there are no innocents, only people who are not guilty. There are plenty of laws to protect the public that do not trample the rights of the public. The issue is that there has to be a trial before a condemnation and punishment, there has to be realism and public support in the laws' foundation, efficiency in the proceedings and there has to be equal and just methods of enforcment. These things have to be balanced and have to change to remain balanced. The pendulum ubruptly swung to the side of efficiency at the cost of equal and just application, during a short period of time when public opinion was effected by horrendous occurances. The administration took unfair advantage of the temporary condition of the public. Now they are griping when people are coming to their senses and realizing what they sacrificed. We want are freedoms back and in the interest of concerving the balance, we need to repeal the law.



> _Originally posted by Karazenpo _
> *I say: In a way you are right, Mike, YES, only I convisted him in 1973 when he kidnapped and raped the other young woman! HE SHOULD HAVE NEVER BEEN LET OUT! No offense, but it's this far left liberal attitude that put him back out on the streets! Please see my point. Yes, I have him convicted and found guilty but once, in 1973...........he should have been incarcerated for life! How many chances do want to give someone like that? I say: none. When you are a classified as a dangerous sex offender as Rodriquez was, he shouldn't have never seen the light of day!
> *



The problem here is that the people of the US, as a whole, in a trial, are the ones who have the right to decide, not only if he is guilty, but if he deserves a second chance, how many chances and if he should be punished or rehabilitated. As of now this decision is different per state and is dependant on the severity of the crime, as the chance of a repeat of certain crimes are too high to justify giving the convicted a chance to be rehabilitated. In 1973 the people voiced, through a jury, that the convicted's chance for rehabilitation was high enough to outweigh the possibility that he would repeat the offence. 

Now my personal belief is that, in most cases, people should be given a second chance and then watched for repeat of an offence, however I also believe that if the people insist on life imprisonment, therein saying that due to the severity of the crime, the convicted is too high a risk and should never see the light of freedom, then the convicted should just be executed. There is no point in the continued existance of a burdon on the people, that has no chance of being an asset in any way in the future.


----------



## rmcrobertson (Dec 8, 2003)

I see--if you repeat a lie often enough, it graduates to truth. Huh.

It might be helpful if you'd actually read the posts. That way, you wouldn't have to rely on the notion that leftists, whatever that means, never say anything bad about Democrats.

Again: did the Colonel violate the UCMJ? was the violation serious? did he have a history of this crap? did somebody play politics with the issue?


----------



## Karazenpo (Dec 8, 2003)

Welcome back, OULobo, Tuhon Inosanto, you're right, I'm jealous! he helped out police in the 80's as a technical advisor to the Calibre Press who was putting on Officer Survival seminars. He even put out a tape called "Surviving Edged Weapons". I never got to take a semianr with him but I did get to do a weekend seminar with Tuhon Leo Gaje. You can't beat those Filipino's when it comes to sticks and knives!

OULobo, you've covered a lot in that post, so I'm just going to highlight what sticks out at me. As far as second chances go, here is how I feel. Any crime against humanity or that shocks the conscience there shpould be no chance of parole. I think that is very reasonable. Other crimes, most definitely. Peole make mistakes and people do change. However, violent sex offenders cannot, I am totally convinced of that and it's not worth taking the chance of ruining innocent lives but putting them back out on the streets. By the way, I beg to differ when yuo stated there are only guilty parties and not guilty parties or you misunderstood what I said. A victim of a sex crime as we were discussing be it child or adult is an innocent victim. You can't tell me a five year old child isn't an innocent victim? Right?

As far as the Pat. Act goes if I recall, isn't it going to expire in 2004. Then, we can regroup, put something else on the table and send it to the house and congress. The thing is, it has to have some teeth in it. Remember this cliche': Foolish you, bring a knife to a gun fight'. We can't bring a knife to a gun fight in the war against terror. It's that simple. We also cannot treat these animals with all the rights afforded a U.S. citizen, whay should we anyway? Hey, all I'm saying we have to be more aggressive, if not we might as well just throw in the hat.

As far as Ice-T goes and other rappers, I think they're taking advantage of the first ammendant. Maybe its their right, but it doesn't excuse them for being more responsible as entertainers, especially geared toward impressionable youth. Some kids are easily led down the wrong path with what they hear especially when it comes from a celebrity icon.

Okay, to sum it up here are my feelings and i really don't think they're off the wall:

1) We are too soft in the criminal justice system. Too many repeat offenders. Too many priviledges in the jails. More emphasis should be put on the rights of the victims and the rights of possible future victims.

2) War was declared on us on 9/11. We're into it up to our eyeballs. We need an aggressive game plan to defeat terrorism. As I said before, we can't take a knife to a gun fight.

3) Show me a democratic candidate with some teeth and stomach to handle the current situations and if I think he can do a betterjob than the President, I would have no reservations to supporting him. Are you and others on this board open minded enough to do the same? Fair question, or will you back the democratic party because that is your alliegence? 

4) God help us if Hillary Clinton gets in. I am not against a woman as president, however, in my opinion, she is definitely not for the job. Hell, she can't even handle her own husband and she's going to lead us into the 21st century with all these problems? I don't think so.

Always a pleasure, OULobo, Sincerely, Joe

PS: One of my instructors, Hanshi Seavey, says the same thing that Guru said about getting off the computers and get back to the workout, lol. I enjoy working out and never stopped since I started in high school but I've also learned a lot since corresponding with others on these froums. I've made friends too . So, I think it's a good thing!


----------



## Karazenpo (Dec 8, 2003)

Robert, you're not following me. I said there are problems on both sides. The right wing tbrows dirt at the left wing, the left wing throws dirt at the right wing. I hope you don't think one side is 'holier' than the other? That's why I'm independant. Just right now, I feel the democrats are too sheepish to handle today's situations. Relax and don't take it so personal. It's only a political discussion! Ya know, in the last election I was hoping Al Gore came in but now I feel that would have been a mistake. I feel it's best to be open minded in the politcal arena, that's all. We can all express ourselves without throwing  personal 'digs' at each other, can't we?


----------



## Karazenpo (Dec 8, 2003)

Alfonso Rodriquez...........we were discussing the second chance he was given, well, I just heard on the Fox News network, it was his third chance! He got a get out of jail free card in the 1973 kidnapping and rape and was arrested in 1979 for the attempted abduction of a yuong woman off a sidewalk. They also reported that in at least one of these crimes a weapon was used! Two chances!!!!!!!! See what I mean? This subhuman degenerate  should have never been let out on the streets and he was, not once but twice!! There's something wrong with this picture and its things like this we, the people, should be focusing on.  Agreed?
I swear, no one seems to care about the victims any more or future victims for that matter.  Robert, you may have heard it 80 times over as you said, well, when are we going to do something about it? How many more victims before as a country we wake up?  Sincerely, Joe


----------



## michaeledward (Dec 8, 2003)

> Whenever a democrat can't answer the allegation they come back with 'they're aking their stuff up'.


And yet, Joe, many of the questions I have asked througout this thread are not going answered by you.

As one example ... I asked for the source of the statement about Ice-T saying it is okay to kill a cop. You never answered my question, but you did say:





> I think they're taking advantage of the first ammendant. Maybe its their right, but it doesn't excuse them for being more responsible as entertainers


.
* It seems obvious to me that the purpose of an Amendment to the Constitution is so that we can all take advantage of it. If you choose to own a gun, you are taking advantage of the Second Amendment, aren't you?
* Obviously, you are not familiar with the song 'Cop Killer'. It was not written as an 'Entertainer', but rather as an 'Artist'. An entertainer provides entertainment. An Artist causes the person witnessing the art to experience an emotion. There is a difference in these points of view.
* The song cop killer is about a gangster in South Central Los Angeles fighting back against 'POLICE BRUTALITY'. It specifically references Rodney King (and did so before the verdict of the trial was announced). I do not support vigilantism in any form. http://it.uwp.edu/gangsters/ice-t.cop.killer.html

* This all leads us back to the question of 'Who Watches the Watchers?' If the police, or Lt. West, went beyond the prescribed bounds of acceptable behavior, it is my belief that, because of the higher level of responsibility, there should be a higher level of accountability.


----------



## michaeledward (Dec 8, 2003)

> As far as the Pat. Act goes if I recall, isn't it going to expire in 2004.





> SEC.224. SUNSET
> 
> (a) IN GENERAL- Except as provided in subsection (b), this title and the amendments made by this title (other than sections 203(a), 203(c), 205, 208, 210, 211, 213, 216, 219, 221, and 222, and the amendments made by those sections) shall cease to have effect on .*December 31, 2005* .



Of course, what exactly this provision is rolling back is clear as mud. You may have noticed that from the first post I made concerning the USA PATRIOT ACT of 2001


----------



## OULobo (Dec 8, 2003)

> _Originally posted by Karazenpo _
> *
> By the way, I beg to differ when yuo stated there are only guilty parties and not guilty parties or you misunderstood what I said. A victim of a sex crime as we were discussing be it child or adult is an innocent victim. You can't tell me a five year old child isn't an innocent victim? Right?
> 
> ...



The reason I object to the term innocent is that it paints people as saints to jurrors. If you have a convicted criminal that wins a defense on a second crime, he shouldn't be found innocent as he is far from it, he's just not guilty. This is an extreme example, but I think everyone has a little smudge atleast somewhere on their gi, if you know what I mean. Unless you are talking about an infant, there are no real innocents. Are 5 yr olds innocent? How about the cases where children in elementary and middle school are pulling a Columbine and bringing a gun to shoot up the place with? Age is not a determiner of "innocence".

As far as the gun fight. I think I would wear some kevlar and call some friends with guns, but either way it's not a valid comparison because these guys don't show up at high noon, they spark some TNT when you are in the sack with Lil' Red upstairs in the saloon. Gun or knife, neither helps. Catching a smart and determined rat requires a better mouse trap (preferably one that keeps the rats out of the house, not necessarily catches or kills them), not a bigger one or one that hits harder. Stopping terrorists requires better intel, not more legal powers. 

For the rapper thing, they don't want to be role models and shouldn't be held to those standards. Truth be told, he wouldn't have gained the popularity he had if the FOP hadn't have gotten him so much publicity.  Eitherway he faded from the rap scene and ironicly now plays a cop on Law and Order. 

1) Agreed. 

2) It ain't a gun fight, its more like a game of hide and seek. This isn't about firepower, legal or physical, it's about intelligence and information. Strongarm tactics and machismo (not that you are exibiting either) aren't going to win this, if it can even be won in confrontation. 

3) How 'bout Clark or Dean.  If you like the muscle without the diplomacy, these are great choices. Hell,  I'm even thinking about Clark. If you want a "wartime" pres. I think a former general is a better choice than an apish nitwit fratboy that liked to think he was Maverick in Top Gun and figured he'd stop the people from looking at domestic issues by smacking around the guy that tried to get his Daddy. To me he figures its more fun to play with his toys in the sand and endanger American soldiers than deal with current and pressing issues. Done with the party line rhetoric. At least if you give Clark the Big Gun he knows that the most important parts of having it are knowing where to point it and how best to shoot it, not how many rounds he can get off or who's watching the show. I know that I'm throwing some name-calling into my argument, but I'm just venting a particularly anti-bush mood right now (still steaming about the steel tariff drop).

4) You're right, God help us. 

Keep up the good fight Joe.


----------



## OULobo (Dec 8, 2003)

> _
> * This all leads us back to the question of 'Who Watches the Watchers?' If the police, or Lt. West, went beyond the prescribed bounds of acceptable behavior, it is my belief that, because of the higher level of responsibility, there should be a higher level of accountability. [/B]_


_ 

This is exactly what I say too. Nice post._


----------



## rmcrobertson (Dec 8, 2003)

Tell you what. Quit reciting cliches and accusing folks like me of all the evils in the world, and I'll take matters less personal.

"Soft on crime." (And yet people laugh at Freud.) We have a higher percentage of our population in jail than any other country, unlike every other First World country we have capital punishment (something we share with North Korea, Communist China, Iran), but we're soft on crime.

Ooookaay. Sure.


----------



## arnisador (Dec 8, 2003)

> _Originally posted by rmcrobertson _
> *It might be helpful if you'd actually read the posts *



This is not directed against you in particular, but...I get _so_ tired of reading this rejoinder.


----------



## rmcrobertson (Dec 8, 2003)

I think I'd feel a little more confident of that on this string if I hadn't several times addressed issues and referred to events, only to have the following poster tell me I hadn't considered those issues and events. And it's not a matter of interpretation; it sure looks like clear, unmistakable misses, based on ideology.


----------



## Karazenpo (Dec 9, 2003)

Hello, Mike. On your quote:
And yet, Joe, many of the questions I have asked througout this thread are not going answered by you.

Sorry, about that, I mean't to reply but there has been so much information on this thread it's hard to keep up. The O'Reilly Factor did something on that a while ago but just the other day when I posted, he mentioned it again. Now, please hear me out, whether you like him or not he always gives the other side a chance to rebut him. He has also offered Ludicrous (sp.?)air time on the Factor. Some have taken him up on it and he conducted a respectful interview, however, others like the above mentioned  refuse. If they believe in what they do then they should take him on, I would and I think you would too. If I don't address something you say, Mike, it's because I can't, I don't have the knowledge on that particular question at this time but I certainly don't blow it off and say it's made up! 

OULobo, yes, you make good points also on having better intelligence. However, even though some do not agree with the Partiot Act there has not been another incident domestically since 9/11 and many plots have been foiled. As of yet I know of no one personally or through friends and/or aquaintances that have been injured by the P.A. Even though we must have better intelligence and as I just stated above, it does look like we're on the right road there we still have to have some 'bite' when push comes to shove. The 'yin & yang', balance, that's all I'm saying. As far as democratic candidates go, I know have some deep reservations after that stunt Al Gore pulled off! Respectfully, "Joe"


----------



## Karazenpo (Dec 9, 2003)

Robert wrote:

Tell you what. Quit reciting cliches and accusing folks like me of all the evils in the world, and I'll take matters less personal.

"Soft on crime." (And yet people laugh at Freud.) We have a higher percentage of our population in jail than any other country, unlike every other First World country we have capital punishment (something we share with North Korea, Communist China, Iran), but we're soft on crime.

Hey Robert, not fair. If I have to listen to all your literary prose and 'riddles' then you can take a couple of my 'cliches'. Okay, we're even. Let's knock off the 'digs' and get back to the discussion at hand. As far as blaming you for all the evils in the world, again, don't take it personally. Doesn't mean you a bad guy, I just stated something that you said you've heard 80 times, so there must be something to it. Remember, a conservative is a liberal who is mugged. So, you really think we're not soft on crime? Well, Robert, let me say something on that. I believe, but I could be wrong, that you are a school teacher, professor? Great occupation, I, myself, went to Framingham State Teacher's College than later, decided to switch professions. The problem I see is in my current occupation of almost three decades is that I see the victims, up close and personal. Many, many victims over the years. Many good people. I think that would make one more aware and more sensitive to their plight then just reading a name in the paper here and there or seeing a picture on the 6 O'Clock News. People who do not experience this on a personal level sometimes become desensitized to it. It's natural. That's where my passion comes from on this topic. Again, we are too soft on crime, particulary in the area of repeat offenders. As a matter of fact, I posted the other day that Alfonso Rodriguez had two other priors, now, I heard, THREE! The news stated last night:" Three time offender".  Respectfully, Joe


----------



## rmcrobertson (Dec 9, 2003)

You are proceeding from three false assumptions:

1. I don't work in any relation to the victims of crime.

2. Witnessing crime makes one "hard," on crime. 

3. The solution to crime lies in harsher punishment.


----------



## Karazenpo (Dec 9, 2003)

Robert wrote:

You are proceeding from three false assumptions:

1. I don't work in any relation to the victims of crime.

2. Witnessing crime makes one "hard," on crime. 

3. The solution to crime lies in harsher punishment.

Robert, to address #1) Everyone growing up probably has been victimized at one time or another on a scale of 1-10 and I didn't say you've never worked in any relation to the victims of crimes but you would have to admit law enforcement personnel and social workers do it consistantly day in and day out for a living. Law enforcement, especially, sees the good and the bad first hand, after all, it's our job. It get's very fustrating for us , and I agree, we hear this over and over again but here goes, to see these dangerous offenders we put away back out on the streets again and even worse when its mutiple times like this Rodriguez character.

2) yeah, I'll go along on that. I wouldn't say everyone has to witness crime to be hard on crime but more like everyone who does witness crime is usually harder on crime. It's makes quite an impression when you see the results of what some of these people do firsthand, it can be pretty ugly.

3) Well, you will never have a solution for crime. It's unfortunately part of the human condition, bad genes, maybe, lol, but we should be harsher in the penalties for such crimes, harsher in the sense, as I stated before, crimes that are against humanity or that shocks the consciense, especially these sexual predators we've been discussing should be incarcerated with no oportunity for parole. The repeat offenders!  Respectfully, Joe


----------



## Karazenpo (Dec 9, 2003)

3. The solution to crime lies in harsher punishment.


Robert, I almost forgot this one. Many have reported (New Yorkers) that former Mayor Guilianni (sp.?) of New York with his hard line law enforcement reduced crime dramitically over his tenure. Now, I don't have the stats in front of me but I heard that many times from not only New Yorkers but the media. It seems like it works to me.


----------



## OULobo (Dec 9, 2003)

> _Originally posted by Karazenpo _
> *3. The solution to crime lies in harsher punishment.
> 
> 
> Robert, I almost forgot this one. Many have reported (New Yorkers) that former Mayor Guilianni (sp.?) of New York with his hard line law enforcement reduced crime dramitically over his tenure. Now, I don't have the stats in front of me but I heard that many times from not only New Yorkers but the media. It seems like it works to me. *



He also exported his city's problems (homeless) to New Jersey and destroyed the livelyhood of many residents by closing down shops in the city. This is an argument that goes back to ends verses means. This man is not the saint everyone paints him to be. I don't even want to get into his personal issues.


----------



## michaeledward (Dec 9, 2003)

> Many have reported (New Yorkers) that former Mayor Guilianni (sp.?) of New York with his hard line law enforcement reduced crime dramitically over his tenure.



Others (probably Liberals) have suggested it was the removal of graffiti from the subway cars & stations, replacement of broken windows replaced and other small 'clean and repair' activities in the communities that reduced the crime during Mayor Guilianni's tenure.


----------



## rmcrobertson (Dec 9, 2003)

Well, OK. Harsher punishment to deter crime. 

If Col. West broke the UCMJ, I say let's throw the book at him, and none of this shilly-shallying about rights and extenuating circumstances.

It's time we cracked down.


----------



## arnisador (Dec 9, 2003)

Thread moved.

-Arnisador
-MT Admin-


----------



## Karazenpo (Dec 10, 2003)

Well, Robert, you may have a point there. Crack down! We just crack down all the way around. Let's have a copromise. We crack down on the bad guys with stiffer penalties and watchdog the enforcers as to play by the rules. I have no problem with this.
I heard last night the decision on Lt. Col. West was in, no court martial-no judicial punishment. Probably either a letter of reprimand or docked two months pay. The attorney for the Colonel stated once the Army heard all the facts they came to this conclusion. What didn't change was the fact that the terrorist, who was not injured physically, gave up key information about an ambush on the Col.'s company. Sorry, but right or wrong I will not and can not damn him for what he did. Years from now he will never second guess himself thinking maybe if I did this or that those men and women would be alive today. I do understand your point as well as far as the Geneva Convention and so forth and how far do you let something like this go before we become as ruthless as those we are fighting. Robert, I don't know what to tell you other than the fact I still believe the lives and well being of our troops are the top priority. It is, no doubt, a tough call but evidentally the Army after hearing the facts and circumstances made their decision. Thanks for your input. Respectfully, Joe


----------



## OULobo (Dec 10, 2003)

> _Originally posted by Karazenpo _
> * Robert, I don't know what to tell you other than the fact I still believe the lives and well being of our troops are the top priority. *



I may be banging the same drum over and over, but the lives and well-being of our soldiers are not top priority, they are a priority, but not the top priority. If they were the top priority we would have no Army or at least we would never use it. Casulties are inevitable in armed confrontation. The top priority of a war is the reason or beliefs we are choosing to defend or fight for. The whole idea of confrontation in war is that there is something more important than the lives of our soldiers that we feel we need to fight for. I am all for confrontation with the safety of our soldiers in mind, but it cannot be the "top priority". Don't use a sword if you are scared of it getting bloody, knicked or broken, don't wear armor if you don't want it to get damaged if it gets struck, don't send a man to war if your top priority is his safety and livelyhood.


----------



## Karazenpo (Dec 10, 2003)

Yes, Robert, I totally agree that the overall priority is the cause or we wouldn't be the there and agreed, casualities are a part of war, it's like me being a cop and never expecting to get shot at, but once there, once committed and once in the battle I will stand by that the #1 priority are our troops. "Cause" is the reason they are prepared to make the ultimate sacrifice but once there we should support them and protect them however humanly possible. Just my feelings.


----------



## Karazenpo (Dec 10, 2003)

Sorry, Robert, my last post was mean't for OULobo.


----------



## michaeledward (Dec 10, 2003)

> but evidentally the Army after hearing the facts and circumstances made their decision.


What follows in not an official transcript, but if I find one, I will post it here. I just can't wait for all of our civil servants to start acting like this. It is a sad day for our country.



> West's driver, appearing as a witness, said the officer waved his gun in the air and later fired it after Hamudi refused to talk. The driver, Private Michael Johnson, 20, added that the Iraqi was beaten during the interrogation at a detention centre in Taji, outside Baghdad.    "When he was not giving information that was pleasing to the interrogator or translator, we'd use abusing tactics, mainly striking him," Johnson said.    Asked how hard the detainee was hit, he said: "We weren't hitting him as hard as we possibly could."
> 
> The soldiers later pushed the detainee's head into a sandbox used by soldiers to clear their weapons, where West fired shots near Hamudi's head, said Johnson.


----------



## michaeledward (Dec 10, 2003)

> Article 128 of the UCMJ states: "[Military personnel]...who attempts or offers with unlawful force or violence to do...harm to another person, whether or not the attempt or offer is consummated, is guilty of assault and shall be punished as a court-martial may direct."



So, once again, the law does not apply to everyone. So much for 'Liberty and Justice for All'.


----------



## Karazenpo (Dec 10, 2003)

Liberty & Justice for "All"? That's an American slogan, isn't it? What liberty and justice did the Iraqi people get under Sadam Hussein? The mass graves? We all know life is about choices and the choices we make have consquences. Old Hamudi made his choice, nobody was putting a gun to his head then, were they? He's lucky he's alive-Live by the sword, die by the sword!' Sorry, Mike, but I'm all broken up about Hamudi's rights. I wonder, nationally, how many people really care? When these animals declared war on innocent men, women and children they lost their liberty and only face justice in which ever form it comes, I won't lose any sleep over it, as long as it comes. These subhumans slaughter thousands and thousands of innocents and are totally INTOLLERABLE to the American way of life but when the 'sh-t hits the fan' then its okay to hide behind 'Old Glory". Sigung John Bishop said it in another forum: COMMON SENSE!   I don't know if I'll be posting more on this only because I've stated about everything I have to say but if there is a change of events, I'll jump in. Great debate, great discussion. Thanks for all the responses. Sincerely, Joe


----------



## Karazenpo (Dec 10, 2003)

Forgot this, just one more comment:

Mike wrote:
What follows in not an official transcript, but if I find one, I will post it here. I just can't wait for all of our civil servants to start acting like this. It is a sad day for our country.

I say: This has nothing to do with civil servants, this is our military not domestic policing. Two very seprate entities with two very different objectives. Please do not confuse the two. It will only be a sad day for this country if we let international terrorism dictate our way of life! Respectfully, Joe


----------



## michaeledward (Dec 10, 2003)

> Liberty & Justice for "All"? That's an American slogan, isn't it?



I am talking about Lt. West. Lt. West is an American, isn't he? Why is he not subject to 'Justice'? He broke the rules. He gets a walk. That's justice?

According to Merriam Webster online dictionary ... Justice is "The maintenance or administration of what is just especially by the *impartial* adjustment of conflicting claims or the assignment of merited rewards or punishments"

Lt. West is escaping Justice. We are not administering the law impartially. 

I understand, Joe, that you think he should get a walk on this, but it is not fair; it is not just; regardless of the ruling.

Mike


----------



## rmcrobertson (Dec 10, 2003)

So the Colonel got a slap on the wrist after the investigation; the system worked. Ooooh, those unreasonable lawyers.

On the notion that our Constitution doesn't apply to everyone---lovely. Can we bring back slavery now? After all, we mustn't judge other cultures by our own standards...funny how those ideas I keep hearing so much about moral absolutes go right out the window when expediency dictates...and here I thought one HAD moral principles, and laws to articulate them, so that in emergencies one was PROTECTED from bad decisions. 

I might also note that the framers of the Constitution and a BUNCH of our other major figures (something about, "the last best hope of mankind," I seem to recollect) thought that America was supposed to be an example for the world, that the whole point of our Revolution (and that of France) was to articulate principles of justice, equality, democracy, that were inherent in the nature of Man and in the proper order of the the world.

I guess Twain's, "To the People Sitting in Darkness," was right after all. 

It will indeed be a sad day for this country when we wholeheartedly change everything, and completely embrace the methods of murderers, torturers and terrorists to get what we want. 

Oh, and one last point: has it ever occcured that one of the primary reasons for little rules like those of the Geneva Convention lies in the brutalizing effect  that torture has on the torturers?


----------



## OULobo (Dec 10, 2003)

> _Originally posted by rmcrobertson _
> *I might also note that the framers of the Constitution and a BUNCH of our other major figures (something about, "the last best hope of mankind," I seem to recollect) thought that America was supposed to be an example for the world, that the whole point of our Revolution (and that of France) was to articulate principles of justice, equality, democracy, that were inherent in the nature of Man and in the proper order of the the world.
> *



How can you say that justice, equality and democracy are inherent in the nature of Man, but not greed and jealousy as you disagreed with me on a separate thread?


----------



## rmcrobertson (Dec 10, 2003)

Please re-read. I did not say that I thought these qualities and aspirations were inherent in the nature of Man--I don't use terms like, "Man," for one thing--but that the often-mentioned Founding Fathers thought that the desire for liberty, justice, etc. were inherent in the nature of man. After all, if there's going to be a lot of talk-talk about protecting America, then let's look at what we're supposed to be protecting.

And even if these qualities--or any qualities--aren't inbuilt, I must say that I prefer this fantasy to the, "greed and jealousy," fantasy, don't you? 

These notions of inborn qualities never appear alone. They always get used to justify/prop up some other idea--in the case of, "greed and jealousy," the ideas of a) capitalism is necessary, b) we will always have crime.

I guess I prefer to believe in free will and in history, contradictory as that is. Capitalism is a choice we have collectively made; crime is a mix of bad moral  decisions, social resentments, going along with the crowd, the stupidity and repetitiveness born out of poverty&racism&ignorance&the arrogance of the upper/middle classes, and lousy families. With a little of some magic ingredient that, in a few monstrous examples, that makes one wonder if there's something to the whole Satan nonsense.

(Before the knee-jerk responses, dear readers: the list I just gave does not say that society causes crime and that criminals are innocent little bunnies, OK?)

Regrettably, these days, more and more folks seem to be getting impatient with the very ideals that they claim are central to their religious beliefs and their view of this country. I guess it's easier to believe in, say, compassion when nothing bad has happened. I guess it's easier to believe in democracy when  things are going your way.

Anyway, thanks for the response. Interesting questions.


----------



## OULobo (Dec 10, 2003)

> _Originally posted by rmcrobertson _
> *Please re-read. I did not say that I thought these qualities and aspirations were inherent in the nature of Man--I don't use terms like, "Man," for one thing--but that the often-mentioned Founding Fathers thought that the desire for liberty, justice, etc. were inherent in the nature of man. After all, if there's going to be a lot of talk-talk about protecting America, then let's look at what we're supposed to be protecting.
> *



Not to be nitpicky, but a few quotation marks for the quote or paraphrase would've cleared this up.


----------



## rmcrobertson (Dec 10, 2003)

Wasn't a problem with quotation marks, but with locating the subject and verb...as in, "the framers....thought."

I do get a bit parenthetical, but I doubt that's the problem either.

Thanks.


----------



## Karazenpo (Dec 12, 2003)

Hi Guys, I'm back 'cause it's happened again. Our 'liberal' criminal justice system has taken three more 'innocent' lives. Indiana-David Maoust was arrested after three teenage boys were found buried under newly poured cement in his basement. He has already CONFESSED to one of the murders. Problem is he was released after serving time for drowning a 15 year old boy! but, God forbid, this is America, we wouldn't want to interfere with his 'RIGHTS' to parole, would we? Guys, com' on now, give me a break, don't you see where I'm coming from? How many more victims before we all admit these laws and rights have to be revised? The system as it stands right now is not working and it's costing innocent lives, when something is broke, you fix it. Do you honestly think I'm off base on this? You know what?  I guarrantee, shortly and tragically, I'll be coming back with another example! WE ARE TOO SOFT ON CRIME AND THE CRIMINALS HAVE TOO MANY RIGHTS! As always, looking forward to your responses even if you disagree. Respectfully, "Joe"


----------



## rmcrobertson (Dec 12, 2003)

Absolutely right. Why even HAVE trials, if the judges are just going to follow the stupid laws and the bleeding-heart juries are just going to let people that we KNOW are guilty off because there's no evidence?

Hey, we need to execute the wrong people MORE OFTEN. That'll show 'em we're not kiddding! We have more of our citizens in jail, as a percentage of our population, than any other country on the planet (passed Russia and China a few years back, and I for one COULDN"T BE PROUDER), and it isn't NEARLY ENOUGH.

So what if the crime stats, particularly violent crime stats, have been dropping for the last ten years? So what if we've flooded the streets with guns? So what if there's no evidence that execution and harsh punishment deters crime in the least? So what if the overwhelming number of folks in jail are from ethnic minorites, even though research suggests that these groups commit about the same numbers of crimes as other groups? So what if you are 10 times more likely to be executed if you're black and you kill someone white than the other way around, even if the circumstances are virtually identical? So what if the evidence suggests that somewhere between at least 10% of the people we execute shouldn't have been executed (their lawyer slept through the trial, they were completely insane and had an IQ around 60, or THEY WERE COMPLETELY INNOCENT)? So what if we're building jails we can't afford like crazy? Who cares?

When we have half the pop in jail and the other half employed watching them, THEN we will have justice in the country. What ho for Foucault's carceral society.

Oh, and just incidentally---there's good reason to think that white collar criminals steal more,  and indirectly kill more, than  all the blue-collar criminals stuck together. Apparently Ken Lay, head of Enron, is gonna walk with the 200 mil he stole. The guys who gassed Bhopal (hydrogen cyanide, very sad) never went to trial for...what's the petty crime...oh yes, "criminally negligent homicide." Nixon never got arrested. OJ walked because of the utter incompetence of the LAPD and the prosecutors.

But the big outrage is...huh.


----------



## Karazenpo (Dec 12, 2003)

Robert wrote:

Hey, we need to execute the wrong people MORE OFTEN. That'll show 'em we're not kiddding! We have more of our citizens in jail, as a percentage of our population, than any other country on the planet (passed Russia and China a few years back, and I for one COULDN"T BE PROUDER), and it isn't NEARLY ENOUGH.

Mistakes are made, Robert, and mistakes will always be made because of the human condition. We are not perfect, so anything we do will not be perfect. For the most part, the greater most part, the right people are in jail. It's just that they are let out because of their so-called rights, murders and rapists are allowed to get out and do it all over again. You seem to have skated over that issue. What about the latest three murders of teenage boys from a man that was let out of jail after a 1983 conviction of drowning a 15 year old boy?????????????? Why do liberals REFUSE to address this? and continue to dance around the issue. Do you not have any compassion for these innocent victims? Why are you so concerned over the 'rights' of murders, rapists and child molesters? I don't understand. Last night, at the '99' in my town , a nice neighborhood restuarant and bar, a couple of us took a little informal survey of civillians, no police, on these situations just to see if we were off base in our thinking. Robert, I don't know, maybe it's the area, although Massachuseets is a liberal state and the home of Mr. Liberal Himself, Teddy, 'don't drive over bridges with girlfriends in the back seat' Kennedy, but everyone we talked to, guys and girls, did not agree with your perspective. What can I tell you? Address the fact, how many more innocent victims, like the latest 3 teenage boys, have to die before you take a harder stand? How many? Please, give me a head count. Sincerely, Joe


----------



## michaeledward (Dec 12, 2003)

OK ... we have about 2,000,000 fellow americans in prison right now. You have cited as example of our laws not being tough enough, two cases. That means, 999,999 prisoners should never be let out of jail becuase of the possibility that he (or she) may be the 1 that repeats in such a violent manner.

Meanwhile ... 57 % of those in the federal prison system are non-violent drug offenders. 

I am proud to live in a country that lets you have the views you espouse. What terrifies me is that you are working in Law Enforcement. What is there to prevent you from taking the next step in your logic?


----------



## OULobo (Dec 12, 2003)

> _Originally posted by Karazenpo _
> *Robert wrote: Address the fact, how many more innocent victims, like the latest 3 teenage boys, have to die before you take a harder stand? How many? Please, give me a head count. Sincerely, Joe *



Again you make the assumption that a "harder stand" will solve the problem. That is a hard point to prove, even harder is how to deal with the massive amounts of people that would be imprisoned for life and therefore dependants on tax money.


----------



## Karazenpo (Dec 12, 2003)

My friend OULobo wrote:


Again you make the assumption that a "harder stand" will solve the problem. That is a hard point to prove, even harder is how to deal with the massive amounts of people that would be imprisoned for life and therefore dependants on tax money.


I say: OULobo, tell me, where is the assumption? There is absolutely no assumption on my part. If it were a hard harder stand, Alfonso Rodriguez and David Mause would not have gotten a get out of jail card free for their original crimes. One with murder, the other kidnapping & rape, total, so far, 4 victims and climbing (with Mause). What's wrong with that? That is no assumption, that is fact! but please, tax payers' money for life imprisonment? When have we decided to put a price on innocent lives? How much is your life and that of your family's worth? OULobo, I have come to respect you and your opinions and I would have never said to you that your opinion is wrong but please reconsider your response, tax dollars for lives? I say, no contest! Respectfully, Joe


----------



## Karazenpo (Dec 12, 2003)

By the way, it's officially in: Lt. Colonel Alan West was docked two months pay for the incident and will still serve in the military. Okay, go for it, I've put on my 'flack jacket', lol, but you know what, even that was too severe!


----------



## michaeledward (Dec 12, 2003)

> If it were a hard harder stand, Alfonso Rodriguez and David Mause would not have gotten a get out of jail card free for their original crimes. One with murder, the other kidnapping & rape, total, so far, 4 victims and climbing (with Mause). What's wrong with that? That is no assumption, that is fact! but please, tax payers' money for life imprisonment? When have we decided to put a price on innocent lives? How much is your life and that of your family's worth? OULobo, I have come to respect you and your opinions and I would have never said to you that your opinion is wrong but please reconsider your response, tax dollars for lives? I say, no contest!



It has something to do with Tax Dollars, but really, not that much. If it was about tax dollars, those who support the death penalty would reverse their stance. It costs far more to execute a criminal, than to lock him/her up and throw away the key.

It more has to do with living in a free society. We could certianly move toward a more totalitarian society. Where those with power decide who is guilty and the price they need to pay. There would be no appeals, no second chances. 

I am willing to walk out my front door, even though it is a dangerous world out there, because that is the cost of freedom. And Joe ... I think you are part of the problem ... You fans these flames of fear, at every opportunity, we should all be terrified of being out in public ... there are so many nasty evil people out there. Of course, we can't blame you, all the television stations do all they can to instill this level of fear in the society, so that the 'Military, Industrial, Security, Police Complex' can keep the citizens all terrified.

In a free land, you get stuck with some dirtbags .... but, as you have indicated ....  you can be sure nobody was committing these horrible crimes in Iraq over the past 25 years ... Where would you rather live?


----------



## OULobo (Dec 12, 2003)

> _Originally posted by Karazenpo _
> *I say: OULobo, tell me, where is the assumption? There is absolutely no assumption on my part. If it were a hard harder stand, Alfonso Rodriguez and David Mause would not have gotten a get out of jail card free for their original crimes. *



First off, are you talking about parolees or people who beat the case? I would hardly call years in prison a "get out of jail free card". Secondly, are you saying that keeping them locked up would've solved the problem, mabey the problem of the same attacks reoccuring from these same guys, but it won't stop more of them from appearing. If what they went through in prison wasn't enough to dissuade them from re-offending, then it is a problem that stiffer penalties will solve by setting an example. There is a deeper root that requires other methods. 



> _Originally posted by Karazenpo _
> *but please, tax payers' money for life imprisonment? When have we decided to put a price on innocent lives? How much is your life and that of your family's worth? OULobo, I have come to respect you and your opinions and I would have never said to you that your opinion is wrong but please reconsider your response, tax dollars for lives? I say, no contest! Respectfully, Joe *



This isn't about taxes for lives. It is about the fact that the prisons are already filled to capacity, so full that some prisons are releasing prisoners because they need to make room. No one wants to build prisons, no one wants to be near a prison, no one wants to see a prison and no one wants to work in a prison. The budgets for keeping prisoners locked up will swell immensly if you lock everyone of the serious offenders up life and keep maintaining their lives in the prisons. It's not something this country or any other can afford. 



> _Originally posted by michaeledward _
> *It has something to do with Tax Dollars, but really, not that much. If it was about tax dollars, those who support the death penalty would reverse their stance. It costs far more to execute a criminal, than to lock him/her up and throw away the key.
> *



The numbers for the costs of executing a prisoner are artificially inflated by the judicial system. Hell, if you pay me enough, I'll take care of them with a shovel and that's it. I'll use the same one to bury'em as the one I use to execute'em with. Trimming the cost of executions is not a hard thing to do, especially if you change the appeals system. You can't tell me that it costs more to take a shovel to a man and bury him paperwork and all, than it does to indefinitly feed, clothe, provide health care to, monitor, secure and keep locked-up a man. It might sound harsh, but if we are going to lock people up for good, then we are assuming there is no hope for these people; that they can never be a productive or acceptable part of our society. If this is the case then why not execute them to relieve the burdon on the system.


----------



## arnisador (Dec 12, 2003)

> _Originally posted by Karazenpo _
> *By the way, it's officially in: Lt. Colonel Alan West was docked two months pay for the incident and will still serve in the military.  *



Sounds like a perfect ending to me.

I suspect that there are people who will buy him dinner over the next two months if need be.


----------



## Rich Parsons (Dec 12, 2003)

> _Originally posted by Karazenpo _
> *By the way, it's officially in: Lt. Colonel Alan West was docked two months pay for the incident and will still serve in the military. Okay, go for it, I've put on my 'flack jacket', lol, but you know what, even that was too severe! *



Well if this is true, then this gentleman stood and was reviewed for his actions. The system as it is, made its' decision.


So, Be it then. :asian:


----------



## rmcrobertson (Dec 12, 2003)

Gee...should I respond in kind? OK--how many innocent people have to be executed before it's too many? Can I have a head count? What appalls me about these arguments, I have to say, is that they would mean turning your back on the last two hundred years of advances in the law...fer crissake, you're talking about going back before Blackstone, and HE was an eighteenth-century British judge! Now there was a, "soft on crime," society!

Again, read Sinclair Lewis: "The essence of the law is that the sweets of private vengeance shall be denied." And I still wanna know why anyone would want to haave the same sorts of laws that they have in Iran, North Korea and China...

Few years ago, we executed someone in Florida...chair didn't work right, his eyes and mouth and face caught fire, he begged for mercy for twenty minutes while they shocked him again and again and again. I guess human decency doesn't apply in such cases. Couple years ago, we executed a mentally retarded kid who had indeed killed somebody, when he was seventeen...he was estimated to have an IQ of perhaps 60, and desperately spent the last six months of his life trying to learn how to read, because he'd heard in court that he was too profoundly retarded to be taught to read, and he developed the idea that he was being executed because he couldn't read. When they brought him his last meal, he asked if he could keep his pie for, "after." I guess there's a lot to be proud of there.

Every time I have these arguments, I imagine an eight-year-old girl...she's living in the year 2503, and she's upset because in history class she's been reading about us...she's saying to her mom, "Mommy, what was WRONG with these people? Didn't they know any better?" And the response is, "Dear, they did the best they could. But they didn't know how to do anything about the reasons that people get sick and hurt others, and they thought that it was good that there were poor people. I know it's upsetting, but things got better."

Are there people I'd just as soon see shuffled off the planet? Absolutely. But you know....I don't get to make that decision, and a good thing too.


----------



## Karazenpo (Dec 13, 2003)

Good points from everyone. Now, let me address some of my issues. I'm not trying to instill fear but I don't want to see people become naieve anddevelop a false sense of security. I also know and agree that tougher laws won't eradicate crime, it may giv e some that aren't that 'driven' a second thought, but the bad guys will always be the bad guys. Again, we are getting away from my point. It's the rights of repeat offenders who commit crimes against humanity that shocks the consciense! I'm sorry if you disagree but subhumans like Rodriguez and Mause should not have ever seen the light of freedom. We will never erradicate crime but we can stop repeat offenders from victimizing again! What is wrong with revisions in parole requirements for violent offenders, crimes against humanity that shocks the consciense! Why in the world would you want to see offenders who have committed murder, rape, molestation, etc. back on the streets to do it all over again? How many more examples do you need? I asked for a head count, that was the wrong terminology, I should have asked for a 'BODY COUNT'!!!!!!!!! Gentlemen, sometimes I get the feeling (and I could be wrong) that even if i make a good point on something that I will not get the light of day from some because I am a police officer and lean toward the right. If this is not the case, I stand corrected but if so, please put this aside on this issue. Think about it. It is obvious we are all intelligent people on this forum why can't you see that there is a limit to protecting peoples rights when they cross certain lines because when you do, you are infringing on other peoples rights, the rights for them to be secure in their homes. The rights of the three teenage boys lying under concrete in Indiana, the rights of the 22 year old college co-ed from North Dakota. Everything, and I mean everything, in life is a 'trade-off'. Think about it, please. You are trading off the victims' and future victims' rights for those of the criminal! I don't see it and I don't know how you can justify it!  Please reconsider your stands on this issue. Thank you. Respectfully, Joe


----------



## Karazenpo (Dec 13, 2003)

Alfonso Rodriguez update: Four months before his release last May, a prison psychologist stated if released he would be an "EXTREMELY HIGH RISK TO WOMEN", now I ask you, what part of this do some of you don't understand????????? C'ome on guys, you have to come around on this one! Sincerely, Joe


----------



## rmcrobertson (Dec 13, 2003)

Well, for openers, the theory behind the Bill of Rights is of course that by protecting EVERYBODY'S rights, we protect our rights.

Second, let's get down to brass tacks. Show of hands...who's willing to have their taxes raised so that we can pay for a decent juvenile justice system? for a reasonable workload and decent pay for the caseworkers in Child Protective Services? for more, and better trained parole officers? for decent mental health clinics for screwed-up kids? for enough cops, prosecutors and judges if it comes to that? for decent rehab services for inmates, and decent monitoring so fewer loons get let out?

We've known what, "causes," most crime for well over a century. It stems from lousy communities, lousy families, hopeless poverty. It stems from a culture of violence. It stems from pathetic schools and a complete social refusal to deal in any meaningful or useful fashion with f****d-up kids, whose disastrous adulthoods can usually be seen a long way off. We've known this forever, and we do jack about it.

Personally, I think crime also stems from kids' awareness of adult hypocrisy, their absorption of a, "get it and screw the next guy," mentality from a capitalist society, and their inhabiting an urban landscape filled with ugliness.

Of course, crime also stems from the existence of large numbers of 14-26 year old males, which is a chunk of the reasons crime has been declining--their numbers have been declining. And of course, there are simply monsters, there really are--fortunately, not as many as the TV would have us believe, but they're there. 

We just won't pay to do anything about it. And before you start in on, "we're overtaxed as it is," or, "they need to learn to be efficient," well, fiddlesticks. LA has somewhere between 50 and 60 percent of the number of cops they should have, and the good people of the county WILL NOT pay for an adequate police force. Or better training for them. Or decent computer networks. Or community policing. Or storefront stations. Or ANY of the stuff that we've known will work for a good long time. So, cops go out alone in cars. Nobody walks a beat. And everybody pontificates, like Darryl gates did right before he went to a big party right as the latest LA riots started....

We're too cheap. Much better to execute a few, cram the prisons with minorities, let the white-collar crime go, and stick our heads in the sand.


----------



## arnisador (Dec 13, 2003)

> _Originally posted by rmcrobertson _
> *We're too cheap.  *



Or, perhaps not everyone believes that they are their brothers' keepers.

Still, I agree with much of what you've written.


----------



## rmcrobertson (Dec 13, 2003)

Well, first, as I'm sure you meant to point out---the odd thing is, that Christianity teaches that we are in fact our brother's keepers...this is why, when a minister in Orange County opened a soup kitchen and job counseling center in the basement of his church a few years back, the neighbors and some of his congregation went ape on him...and yet people scoff at evolution.

Then too, it has nothing to do, in a sense, with helping others or doing what's right. It has to do with building a society in which one wants to live and raise kids...but in which one can also get good cannoli on Saturday night...leave the gun, take the cannoli, they say...

Thanks for the discussion.


----------



## arnisador (Dec 13, 2003)

Yes, for me it's about living in a society that I am proud to be a member of, meaning in part one that helps those in need--that's the key thing that makes me inclined to vote for wider social welfare programs.

But it can be a matter of self-interest if one believes that strengthening the community strengthens the economy, lessens crime, etc. Still, I must admit that this argument--bing charitable for one's own selfish reasons and to further one's narrow self-interest--has always struck me as too Ayn Rand for me to be comfortable with it. That may not be a good reason to dislike it, but that's how it hits me!


----------



## rmcrobertson (Dec 13, 2003)

I agree. I think you should do what's right because it's right--and (don't tell anybody I said this) one of my problems with some Organized Religions has almost always been that they seem to teach, "Do what's right because otherwise I'll pop you upside the head, and do what's right because if you do you'll get a lollipop."

And I agree--Ayn Rand--the nadir of philosophy. The anti-Simone DeBeauvoir, whose, "The Blood of Others," should be required reading.

My understanding was...hm. Better skip that one.

Good point.


----------



## Karazenpo (Dec 14, 2003)

Robert, you've made some excellent points. Fustrating, though, isn't it?  Sincerely, Joe


----------



## Rich Parsons (Dec 14, 2003)

I wonder if we can accomplish these better societies without coming to something like _"The Covenent", by Robert Heinlein. I know he is fiction writer. Society had a physical place they woudl send all of the criminals. They were no longer allowed into society as it were. Yet they ended up with their own society all their own.

Now I am not saying anything to the point that you guys are not right. Nor I am trying to trivialize it with mentioning a fiction writer. I just am not as well read in some of the politcal areas as some other members 
:asian:_


----------

