by Wiseguy » Mon Jan 02, 2017 12:53 am
Chris Christie wrote:Pete wrote:UTC wrote:Are we distinguishing here between ratting and violating the code of omerta? One could rat on someone but not betray the secrets of the organization.
Omertà is the code of silence. Definition: (as practiced by the Mafia) a code of silence about criminal activity and a refusal to give evidence to authorities. how exactly could you rat without violating it?
Michael Franzese didn't violate it because he didn't testify or provide info against any made members.
Joe Bonanno didn't violate it because everyone he wrote a book about was dead.
Gravano didn't violate it because Gotti double crossed him first.
Jr Gotti didn't violate it because he only spoke with the FBI and allegedly nothing he said lead to anyone getting indicted.
This alleged code of silence has always been open to interpretation and everyone claims they followed it, even the rats, each and every one of the justify it by claiming they were true to the code it was just all these other assholes that didn't get it, and since no one got it why uphold it yourself? Or you can do what Franese and Rene Boxer Enriquez did and have a 'moral epiphany' (usually at the same time they are squeezed, either by law enforcement or rivals.)
Is this tongue in cheek?
The above criteria I really haven't seen anywhere and it seems to be a stretch to argue them being reasons these guys didn't violate Omerta. With this "open to interpretation" thinking, one (particularly the violater himself) could narrow the definition so much as to justify anything and not consider themselves a rat.
Who ever said you're only breaking Omerta if you testify against made members? Are your fellow mafiosi going to trust you if you are giving information about others, even associates?
Who ever said giving information about the inner workings of a secret criminal society was OK, as far as Omerta goes, as long as you're only talking about dead people? As we know, Joe Bonanno writing that book provided the idea to indict the whole Comission. And later, the Bonannos temporarily referred to themselves as the Massino family (before Massino flipped himself) because they considered Bonanno to have broken Omerta.
Who ever said it was OK to violate Omerta as long as whoever you're testifying against double crossed you first? Naturally some rats will try as much as they can to justify their defection, and maybe even argue they didn't violate Omerta, but these arguments don't really hold water - especially with the mob itself.
The only possible argument for one of them, and it may be a stretch, is Gotti Jr. Not because nobody got indicted (another weak justification that won't fly with the rest of the mob) but because we simply don't know what was or wasn't said. But even meeting with the government in a proffer session is suspicious to say the least.
[quote="Chris Christie"][quote="Pete"][quote="UTC"]Are we distinguishing here between ratting and violating the code of omerta? One could rat on someone but not betray the secrets of the organization.[/quote]
Omertà is the code of silence. Definition: (as practiced by the Mafia) a code of silence about criminal activity and a refusal to give evidence to authorities. how exactly could you rat without violating it?[/quote]
Michael Franzese didn't violate it because he didn't testify or provide info against any made members.
Joe Bonanno didn't violate it because everyone he wrote a book about was dead.
Gravano didn't violate it because Gotti double crossed him first.
Jr Gotti didn't violate it because he only spoke with the FBI and allegedly nothing he said lead to anyone getting indicted.
This alleged code of silence has always been open to interpretation and everyone claims they followed it, even the rats, each and every one of the justify it by claiming they were true to the code it was just all these other assholes that didn't get it, and since no one got it why uphold it yourself? Or you can do what Franese and Rene Boxer Enriquez did and have a 'moral epiphany' (usually at the same time they are squeezed, either by law enforcement or rivals.)[/quote]
Is this tongue in cheek?
The above criteria I really haven't seen anywhere and it seems to be a stretch to argue them being reasons these guys didn't violate Omerta. With this "open to interpretation" thinking, one (particularly the violater himself) could narrow the definition so much as to justify anything and not consider themselves a rat.
Who ever said you're only breaking Omerta if you testify against made members? Are your fellow mafiosi going to trust you if you are giving information about others, even associates?
Who ever said giving information about the inner workings of a secret criminal society was OK, as far as Omerta goes, as long as you're only talking about dead people? As we know, Joe Bonanno writing that book provided the idea to indict the whole Comission. And later, the Bonannos temporarily referred to themselves as the Massino family (before Massino flipped himself) because they considered Bonanno to have broken Omerta.
Who ever said it was OK to violate Omerta as long as whoever you're testifying against double crossed you first? Naturally some rats will try as much as they can to justify their defection, and maybe even argue they didn't violate Omerta, but these arguments don't really hold water - especially with the mob itself.
The only possible argument for one of them, and it may be a stretch, is Gotti Jr. Not because nobody got indicted (another weak justification that won't fly with the rest of the mob) but because we simply don't know what was or wasn't said. But even meeting with the government in a proffer session is suspicious to say the least.