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

[Karazenpo]

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]

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]

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]

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".


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

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

NO ! ! !

 

[michaeledward]

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]

Oh yeah...I forgot...

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

--Sinclair Lewis, "Cass Timberlane"

 

[Karazenpo]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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