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

[michaeledward]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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?