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

[Karazenpo]

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]

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]

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]

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?

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!

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]

* 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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

Thread moved.

-Arnisador
-MT Admin-

 

[Karazenpo]

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]

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]

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.