Originally posted by Don Cardi: [QUOTE]...Michael could have chose to take another path to make sure that his brother's inability to see a set up coming from a mile away would never happen again. He could have kept him under close scrutiny. ...
Sure he could have. But why should he? Why should he allow this traitor to live at his compound and be around his family, all knowing what he had done and what his actions had caused to happen. Why should a known traitor be kept under 'scrutiny' when there was no further reason for that person to remain alive? Would Michael have afforded that kind of 'path' to any other traitor? No. The only different path he needed to take in this case was to not allow anything to happen to Fredo while their mother was alive. And his was for mama's sake, not Fredo's. For Fredo was nothing to him now. Not a brother or a friend. Nothing more than a traitor. Past and future risk. Had to be punished, had to go.
In terms of their business, completely justified.
Apple
A wise and frugal government, which shall leave men free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned - this is the sum of good government.
