Patrick Graham
Moderator
Oh.. and yes.. you are offensive..
Detroit News poll on grabbing Elian
- Thread starter Oatka
- Start date
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>
I also thought we had a 4th Amendment which said something about people have the right not to have government agents break in to their homes and take things without at least a court order.... Let's see, ah yes, here it is:
quote:
"Amendment IV:
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized. "[/quote]
So far as I understand it, they did have a warrant, inasmuch as a fed. court judge had ordered the boy turned over to his father in the interim. Legal guardian is in-country, less-than-legal guadian won't give up boy even with court order... a raid results.
This kind of thing happens occasionally when a dad who has not been granted full custody takes off with a child. A court issues a felony kidnapping warrant, and the raid is on. Kids have been dragged screaming and kicking from their handcuffed parents, with whom they were happily eating ice cream the minute before. Life is not black and white.
If a federal judge issued a warrant, or declared in a temporary decision that custody should be remanded to the dad, or if he even just said "Go get him, boys!" that's impetus for a legal seizure. This is why the ability to appoint federal judges is one of the most powerful actions that a sitting president can weild. We have quite a few vacant seats now, and I anguish over the midnight appointments that Clinton will likely make soon.
Folks, the country is split down the middle over that little boy. We here can maintain civility, and agree that just about all among us love our country.
And the only thing un-American about me right now is the fact that I don't currently own either an 870 Remington nor a M-94 Winchester!
But I'm planning on rectifying that soon!
Matt/L.P.
I also thought we had a 4th Amendment which said something about people have the right not to have government agents break in to their homes and take things without at least a court order.... Let's see, ah yes, here it is:
quote:
"Amendment IV:
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized. "[/quote]
So far as I understand it, they did have a warrant, inasmuch as a fed. court judge had ordered the boy turned over to his father in the interim. Legal guardian is in-country, less-than-legal guadian won't give up boy even with court order... a raid results.
This kind of thing happens occasionally when a dad who has not been granted full custody takes off with a child. A court issues a felony kidnapping warrant, and the raid is on. Kids have been dragged screaming and kicking from their handcuffed parents, with whom they were happily eating ice cream the minute before. Life is not black and white.
If a federal judge issued a warrant, or declared in a temporary decision that custody should be remanded to the dad, or if he even just said "Go get him, boys!" that's impetus for a legal seizure. This is why the ability to appoint federal judges is one of the most powerful actions that a sitting president can weild. We have quite a few vacant seats now, and I anguish over the midnight appointments that Clinton will likely make soon.
Folks, the country is split down the middle over that little boy. We here can maintain civility, and agree that just about all among us love our country.
And the only thing un-American about me right now is the fact that I don't currently own either an 870 Remington nor a M-94 Winchester!
Matt/L.P.
Point of Order, gentlemen.
DOES THE ENDS JUSTIFY THE MEANS . . . Those first six words are my bone of contention, not what comes after it.
You could insert "in order to restore Peace and Good Will on Earth" and I still would be against it, AND call anyone un-American who supports that tactic.
To accept that philosophy to forward some goal, no matter how noble you may think it is, is a fool's errand.
Where have we heard that phrase before?
Once we accept that as a working principle, the mental grime and moral dinginess that infests Washington will engulf us all.
------------------
The New World Order has a Third Reich odor.
DOES THE ENDS JUSTIFY THE MEANS . . . Those first six words are my bone of contention, not what comes after it.
You could insert "in order to restore Peace and Good Will on Earth" and I still would be against it, AND call anyone un-American who supports that tactic.
To accept that philosophy to forward some goal, no matter how noble you may think it is, is a fool's errand.
Where have we heard that phrase before?
Once we accept that as a working principle, the mental grime and moral dinginess that infests Washington will engulf us all.
------------------
The New World Order has a Third Reich odor.
riddleofsteel
New member
the only things that supposedly seperate the US from the rest of the world is our constitution and how we conduct a lawful society. we are bound by the constitution as much as we are freed by it. in areas not clearly spelled out by national or state law the constitution states those rights are preserved for the people. at this point i am not sure who is giving us a straight picture of this situation. the government is saying one thing and then paramilitary raiding private homes. they are publishing pics that are clearly not true (see other posts). on the other hand the antiCastro cuban community is using this situation, the stupidity of the justice dept. and the INS and this boy to futher it's own goals. Castro is glorifing in his media circus while the US government dances to his tune. Clinton is terrified that Castro will empty his prisions and mental hospital in a massive boat lift circa several decades ago. meanwhile the Clinton administration dares not oppose the always box of rocks dumb Reno justice department. in this dance of stooges it is hard to tell who is the evil genius and who is the minion, Clinton or Reno. one thing is clear to me. it is the same old dangerous game. the impotent justice dept. waits and talks for months and then when it looks like nothing is ging to happen they charge in and burn down the situation. do i have to list them. WACO, RUBY RIDGE and now ELIAN. they should say a thousand hail Mary's or pray to what ever God protects a bunch of stooges like them that no one fired that first shot in that house in Miami that would have caused the worst farce in US justice dept. history. or was that when a government assain killed Randy Weaver's wife? or was that when the government stormed by force a compound of 80 paranoid armed zelots and then went "OH **** THEY SHOOT BACK AT US!!!" then proceeded to burn them alive, which of course set off the chain of events leading up to the federal building being bombed. come on guys law is law but some common sense in law enforcement might be in order.
------------------
Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what is for lunch.
Liberty is a well armed lamb contesting the outcome of the vote.
Let he that hath no sword sell his garment and buy one. Luke 22-36
They all hold swords, being expert in war: every man hath his sword upon his thigh because of fear in the night. Song of Solomon 3-8
The man that can keep his head and aims carefully when the situation has gone bad and lead is flying usually wins the fight.
------------------
Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what is for lunch.
Liberty is a well armed lamb contesting the outcome of the vote.
Let he that hath no sword sell his garment and buy one. Luke 22-36
They all hold swords, being expert in war: every man hath his sword upon his thigh because of fear in the night. Song of Solomon 3-8
The man that can keep his head and aims carefully when the situation has gone bad and lead is flying usually wins the fight.
DocHolliday
New member
I posted elsehwere that our Easter prayer is that Mr. Gonzales falls in love with Janet Reno and takes HER back to Cuba. Also offered to supply her with Play-Doh if she finds the communist re-education center stressful...
Just wanted to let you all know where I stand before ranting. In fact I don't want to rant at all. I'm just curious about the 60% that approved of the raid, (especially here among forum members!) As far as I can ascertain these are the main reasons for the approval:
1. He was an alien, to hell with them all.--OK no one's actually been honest enough to say that outright, though many have come close--
2. He belongs with his father.
Big one here as many American fathers feel royally screwed by the custody courts and emotionally tend to side with Mr. Gonzales. All other issues,i.e; the fact his mother died trying to get him to freedom (The poor deluded woman thought that meant US)The fact that Castro is a tyrant and a mass murderer is relatively unimportant to this group. If any qualms arise they go back to #1 (freakin' aliens) or--and I've heard this at first hand-- trivialize the high ordeal and death of the mother and the others by saying a Nintendo set is the only difference betweeen kids in Cuba vs kids in the USA...
As far as I can tell Mr Mahmoody was a loving father, by his own rights, when he forbade his wife and child to leave Iran. The mother, still married to him kidnapped her daughter and made it over the border to an American embassy. Since she lived and she wasn't a "freakin' alien" . The daughter was not returned to te father. The mother wrote a book, (later to be made into a film with Sally Field)entitled "Not Without My Daughter".
Question, gentlemen: Had the mother died in the escape attempt and her US relatives asked for a custody and assylum hearing; would you still feel the best place for her would have been with her father? The Ayatollah's Iran was/is about as horrible as Castro's socialist worker's paradise, but after all, Mr. Mahmooody would have been "the sole surviving parent". If he had come to the US to claim her, what would you have proposed?
3. "I'm so sick of hearing about this kid already..."
I suggest that's a variation of #1. as the inimitable Mort Sahl once said Americans look upon their own revolution with pride, at the Russian with horror, and at Latin-Americans with amusement. Pity for Elian he couldn't be blond and blue eyed, I guarantee it'd have been FAR less than 60%
4. The government acted within the law; the Miami relatives had been given a legal order to comply.
Not quite. The order was an internal decision from the INS, Reno & Clinton. Made upon their own judgement.
There is a rumor today that there might have been a court order (How's that for the 4th Amendment and due process).
Will Elian get his day in court as ordered by the 11th circuit court? Not if he signs a piece of paper. If that paper is a 'statement' that he rescinds his request for assylum, he could be on the plane to Cuba in minutes. But don't worry, Janet has given her word that Elian will stay in the US till thecourt date, and when has she ever lied to us?....
What amazes me on this forum are the number of members that heve fallen for "the Miami family just wanted to use him as a pawn" or "the hard-line anti Castro fanatics in Miami today protested...."
Can't you remember at least one instance when you told someone you were a member of the NRA and they reacted as if you had told them you were a Nazi storm trooper?
Gentlemen, to a great deal of that 60% WE are "hard line fanatics" I mean how could we possibly oppose gun control after Columbine? How could we be against mandatory 3+ day checks, "safety devices" (God bless S&W!), gun registration, etc.
What are you a bunch of anti-government nuts?
Just wanted to let you all know where I stand before ranting. In fact I don't want to rant at all. I'm just curious about the 60% that approved of the raid, (especially here among forum members!) As far as I can ascertain these are the main reasons for the approval:
1. He was an alien, to hell with them all.--OK no one's actually been honest enough to say that outright, though many have come close--
2. He belongs with his father.
Big one here as many American fathers feel royally screwed by the custody courts and emotionally tend to side with Mr. Gonzales. All other issues,i.e; the fact his mother died trying to get him to freedom (The poor deluded woman thought that meant US)The fact that Castro is a tyrant and a mass murderer is relatively unimportant to this group. If any qualms arise they go back to #1 (freakin' aliens) or--and I've heard this at first hand-- trivialize the high ordeal and death of the mother and the others by saying a Nintendo set is the only difference betweeen kids in Cuba vs kids in the USA...
As far as I can tell Mr Mahmoody was a loving father, by his own rights, when he forbade his wife and child to leave Iran. The mother, still married to him kidnapped her daughter and made it over the border to an American embassy. Since she lived and she wasn't a "freakin' alien" . The daughter was not returned to te father. The mother wrote a book, (later to be made into a film with Sally Field)entitled "Not Without My Daughter".
Question, gentlemen: Had the mother died in the escape attempt and her US relatives asked for a custody and assylum hearing; would you still feel the best place for her would have been with her father? The Ayatollah's Iran was/is about as horrible as Castro's socialist worker's paradise, but after all, Mr. Mahmooody would have been "the sole surviving parent". If he had come to the US to claim her, what would you have proposed?
3. "I'm so sick of hearing about this kid already..."
I suggest that's a variation of #1. as the inimitable Mort Sahl once said Americans look upon their own revolution with pride, at the Russian with horror, and at Latin-Americans with amusement. Pity for Elian he couldn't be blond and blue eyed, I guarantee it'd have been FAR less than 60%
4. The government acted within the law; the Miami relatives had been given a legal order to comply.
Not quite. The order was an internal decision from the INS, Reno & Clinton. Made upon their own judgement.
There is a rumor today that there might have been a court order (How's that for the 4th Amendment and due process).
Will Elian get his day in court as ordered by the 11th circuit court? Not if he signs a piece of paper. If that paper is a 'statement' that he rescinds his request for assylum, he could be on the plane to Cuba in minutes. But don't worry, Janet has given her word that Elian will stay in the US till thecourt date, and when has she ever lied to us?....
What amazes me on this forum are the number of members that heve fallen for "the Miami family just wanted to use him as a pawn" or "the hard-line anti Castro fanatics in Miami today protested...."
Can't you remember at least one instance when you told someone you were a member of the NRA and they reacted as if you had told them you were a Nazi storm trooper?
Gentlemen, to a great deal of that 60% WE are "hard line fanatics" I mean how could we possibly oppose gun control after Columbine? How could we be against mandatory 3+ day checks, "safety devices" (God bless S&W!), gun registration, etc.
What are you a bunch of anti-government nuts?
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Point of Order, gentlemen.
DOES THE ENDS JUSTIFY THE MEANS . . . Those first six words are my bone of contention, not what comes after it.[/quote]
Good point, Oatka-- that was the original bone of contention.
And the answer is.... (drum roll) depends on the means, not the end.
Were the means over-extreme? The warrant was legal, whether we like it or not. Is a SWAT team a legitimate tool to use to remove a child from the custody of a an unrelenting party? Depends. Are they fortified? (Yes.) Are they expecting the removal? (Yes.) Have they made dire declarations insisting that they will not comply? (Yes.) Is there a mob of potentially unruly bystanders? (Yes.)
So, fact of the matter is, if it was legitimate to remove the child, then it was legit to use a show of force. In the interest of general safety, a show of force can often prevent violence, by making it clear that the subject has no chance of getting out of the situation. For the people serving the warrant/writ/what-have-you, failure is not an option. The means were legal. Argue the judge's decision if you wish, but once that warrant was signed, they had to go in that way.
This kind of talk makes me sick, because it makes me appear to be defending the Clinton/DammitJanet administration. But looking on the situation with cold logic, you can see that, yes, the removal WAS legal. The means WERE justified.
I'd rather it was handled differently, but the fact of the matter is, if the family had handed over the boy when they were ordered to by a federal judge, they'd have avoided that tragic scene with the boy's terror. This should not have come to a Waterloo.
My remarks are NOT based on some kind of superior nationalism.
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>
"4. The government acted within the law; the Miami relatives had been given a legal order to comply."
Not quite. The order was an internal decision from the INS, Reno & Clinton. Made upon their own judgement. [/quote]
Nope. There WERE warrants sworn out prior to the removal. Check again. Good? Probably not. Legal? Yes. Constitutional? Yes.
Matt/L.P.
DOES THE ENDS JUSTIFY THE MEANS . . . Those first six words are my bone of contention, not what comes after it.[/quote]
Good point, Oatka-- that was the original bone of contention.
And the answer is.... (drum roll) depends on the means, not the end.
Were the means over-extreme? The warrant was legal, whether we like it or not. Is a SWAT team a legitimate tool to use to remove a child from the custody of a an unrelenting party? Depends. Are they fortified? (Yes.) Are they expecting the removal? (Yes.) Have they made dire declarations insisting that they will not comply? (Yes.) Is there a mob of potentially unruly bystanders? (Yes.)
So, fact of the matter is, if it was legitimate to remove the child, then it was legit to use a show of force. In the interest of general safety, a show of force can often prevent violence, by making it clear that the subject has no chance of getting out of the situation. For the people serving the warrant/writ/what-have-you, failure is not an option. The means were legal. Argue the judge's decision if you wish, but once that warrant was signed, they had to go in that way.
This kind of talk makes me sick, because it makes me appear to be defending the Clinton/DammitJanet administration. But looking on the situation with cold logic, you can see that, yes, the removal WAS legal. The means WERE justified.
I'd rather it was handled differently, but the fact of the matter is, if the family had handed over the boy when they were ordered to by a federal judge, they'd have avoided that tragic scene with the boy's terror. This should not have come to a Waterloo.
My remarks are NOT based on some kind of superior nationalism.
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>
"4. The government acted within the law; the Miami relatives had been given a legal order to comply."
Not quite. The order was an internal decision from the INS, Reno & Clinton. Made upon their own judgement. [/quote]
Nope. There WERE warrants sworn out prior to the removal. Check again. Good? Probably not. Legal? Yes. Constitutional? Yes.
Matt/L.P.
Dennis Olson
New member
Matt,
I find myself in (reluctant) agreement with you.
I find myself in (reluctant) agreement with you.
Matt..
I beg to differ, to whit, if there indeed was legal order/warrant why then did not Assist AG Eric Holder know about it? On Meet the Press he stated they did not need a warrant...Tom Delay pointed out that if they didn't need one why did they try to get one and it was refused.
Note the Clinton admins defense...they have not stated they had a legal document...they say they had to because negotiations broke down, they say that INS has jurisdiction.
But, they don't say they had legal documentation.
A small, but not insignificant point
------------------
"Quis custodiet ipsos custodes" RKBA!
[This message has been edited by DC (edited April 24, 2000).]
I beg to differ, to whit, if there indeed was legal order/warrant why then did not Assist AG Eric Holder know about it? On Meet the Press he stated they did not need a warrant...Tom Delay pointed out that if they didn't need one why did they try to get one and it was refused.
Note the Clinton admins defense...they have not stated they had a legal document...they say they had to because negotiations broke down, they say that INS has jurisdiction.
But, they don't say they had legal documentation.
A small, but not insignificant point
------------------
"Quis custodiet ipsos custodes" RKBA!
[This message has been edited by DC (edited April 24, 2000).]
The way it was done was something that would happen in Russia,not the US. A mediator had said they were close to a decision to let the kid go. There were definately other means possible.But Reno strikes again. And Miracle,what we did vs the Iragis is different. They took Kuwait by force,with tanks and armored vehicles and ARMED troops. We took it back via the same means,armed vs armed. This is armed vs unarmed family. Methinks it's not at all equal.....but I may be wrong....
Regardless of one’s position on whether or not Elian Gonzalez should be
returned to Cuba with his father, one cannot tolerate the Federal
government’s paramilitary assault on the Gonzalez home in Miami on April
22. While the Clinton Administration claims that this assault was
“legal”, no legal technicality, real or contrived, can legitimatize this
outrageous violation of a basic right of American citizens that is
guaranteed by the Fourth Amendment.
Congress must decry this violation of civil rights and act to reduce the
likelihood of its reoccurrence. Those in the Administration who were
involved in the orchestration of the assault should be, at a minimum,
censured. The existing loophole or weakness in the law that allows a
claim of legality for an armed paramilitary assault on the home of
peaceful American citizens must be closed or eliminated.
The American people must be assured that acts of violence such as that
committed in Miami by the Administration will not be tolerated by the
people’s representatives. We shall see what, if anything, our "representatives" do about this!
returned to Cuba with his father, one cannot tolerate the Federal
government’s paramilitary assault on the Gonzalez home in Miami on April
22. While the Clinton Administration claims that this assault was
“legal”, no legal technicality, real or contrived, can legitimatize this
outrageous violation of a basic right of American citizens that is
guaranteed by the Fourth Amendment.
Congress must decry this violation of civil rights and act to reduce the
likelihood of its reoccurrence. Those in the Administration who were
involved in the orchestration of the assault should be, at a minimum,
censured. The existing loophole or weakness in the law that allows a
claim of legality for an armed paramilitary assault on the home of
peaceful American citizens must be closed or eliminated.
The American people must be assured that acts of violence such as that
committed in Miami by the Administration will not be tolerated by the
people’s representatives. We shall see what, if anything, our "representatives" do about this!
There was a lot of talk about "not needing a warrant'. Then they said, "Oh we have a warrant." I'll bet a large amount of change that Reno got a cooperative judge to give them a warrant, backdated (backtimed?)of course, to fit the proper time frame.
What? Something like that from our honest A/G? Naaaagggggggh! Urp! Barf!
Paul B.
What? Something like that from our honest A/G? Naaaagggggggh! Urp! Barf!
Paul B.
Jeff Thomas
New member
What I keep wondering is how this incident would have been spun if Elian had been hurt or killed in this raid. After all, based upon administration statements, they used this massive force because they feared there were weapons in the home / crowd. If that is true (and, who ever knows what is 'true' with these people), then there certainly was risk, to all involved in the raid.
Ms. Reno has shown in the past that her 'concern' for children is readily trumped by her impatience. I'd wager they already had a story planned if someone, including Elian, had been hurt or killed in this raid. After all, the point may not have been the boy ... the point was whether these people should have been allowed to go toe-to-toe with Janet Reno and Bill Clinton.
IMHO, the fact remains that Clinton / Reno where willing to risk life in order to 'save' this boy from his Miami family.
On TFL we occasionally discuss 'Red Zone' scenario's, regarding when we should / could use deadly force, pull out a gun, etc. This boy was in no danger, unless Reno wants to claim there was a meth lab in this home, or perhaps she can conjure up some kind of child abuse scenario's. I'm amazed if any TFL member really believed this situation justified lethal force.
Regards from AZ
Ms. Reno has shown in the past that her 'concern' for children is readily trumped by her impatience. I'd wager they already had a story planned if someone, including Elian, had been hurt or killed in this raid. After all, the point may not have been the boy ... the point was whether these people should have been allowed to go toe-to-toe with Janet Reno and Bill Clinton.
IMHO, the fact remains that Clinton / Reno where willing to risk life in order to 'save' this boy from his Miami family.
On TFL we occasionally discuss 'Red Zone' scenario's, regarding when we should / could use deadly force, pull out a gun, etc. This boy was in no danger, unless Reno wants to claim there was a meth lab in this home, or perhaps she can conjure up some kind of child abuse scenario's. I'm amazed if any TFL member really believed this situation justified lethal force.
Regards from AZ
Someone show us the Court order telling the Miami family giving up custody. The Government asked the 11 appellate court for one and the Miami family asked for the court to order the boy to stay in Miami. The 11 appellate court didn't rule on custody because IT WASN'T in the original court order and as any one should know an appeals court can only rule on the original ruling they can't add things later.
Second If the Miami family broke the law Why aren't they in the jail? (maybe because the did break any thing but the will of a bureaucrat who doesn't make or interpret the law but who just made a unilateral decree)
I thought it was interesting that there was no warrant mention all weekend but by Monday afternoon one supposedly had magically appeared and it was supposedly signed late Friday afternoon. Sounds like a CYA to me.
Second If the Miami family broke the law Why aren't they in the jail? (maybe because the did break any thing but the will of a bureaucrat who doesn't make or interpret the law but who just made a unilateral decree)
I thought it was interesting that there was no warrant mention all weekend but by Monday afternoon one supposedly had magically appeared and it was supposedly signed late Friday afternoon. Sounds like a CYA to me.
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by DocHolliday:
2. He belongs with his father.
Big one here as many American fathers feel royally screwed by the custody courts and emotionally tend to side with Mr. Gonzales. All other issues,i.e; the fact his mother died trying to get him to freedom (The poor deluded woman thought that meant US)The fact that Castro is a tyrant and a mass murderer is relatively unimportant to this group. If any qualms arise they go back to #1 (freakin' aliens) or--and I've heard this at first hand-- trivialize the high ordeal and death of the mother and the others by saying a Nintendo set is the only difference betweeen kids in Cuba vs kids in the USA...
[snip][/quote]
Doc Holliday brings up a good point, but not a whole point. Gentlemen, please note the following: Elian's father appeared to have a nice home in Cuba as shown on TV interviews broadcast on Spanish language News. Elian's relative in Miami drove Mercedes Benzs and live in a house with a locked Gate. Both sides seem pretty well off in their respective countries. Where's the poverty that Elian is suposed to face? What's wrong with a Castro-promised boarding school? Rich parents in the States send their kids to boarding schools, too.
My point is that there is a distinct lack of extenuating circumstances for Elian no matter which country he resides in. I see the custody battle as the central issue. Elian Should Go With His Father.
I think the pre-dawn raid is illegal and unconstitutional. There's no proof that a federal judge issued a kidnapping warrant. That fathers had been sKrewed over by such warrants is deplorable. That should be illegal too.
Is Elian declared a hostage in a kidnapping? I see no such declaration. Did TV coverage show the fed JBT's serve a written warrant before using the battering ram? If anyone has such footage please correct me for saying 'No.' Was Elian living in a drug-dealer-house? Not proven. Even if the feds declared that house a crack house, I still say such entry is illegal. Elian is not likely to be flushed down a toilet like some drugs. Finally such attack on crack houses are supposed to be illegal. A few pounds of narcotics is not worth the risk to lives. The lives of officers and dealers and users alike.
I acknowledge that the storm trooper tactic reduces violent opposition. But then so does sleepy gas and tear gas. Where's the proof that the storm trooper tactic is appropriate?
yenyin
2. He belongs with his father.
Big one here as many American fathers feel royally screwed by the custody courts and emotionally tend to side with Mr. Gonzales. All other issues,i.e; the fact his mother died trying to get him to freedom (The poor deluded woman thought that meant US)The fact that Castro is a tyrant and a mass murderer is relatively unimportant to this group. If any qualms arise they go back to #1 (freakin' aliens) or--and I've heard this at first hand-- trivialize the high ordeal and death of the mother and the others by saying a Nintendo set is the only difference betweeen kids in Cuba vs kids in the USA...
[snip][/quote]
Doc Holliday brings up a good point, but not a whole point. Gentlemen, please note the following: Elian's father appeared to have a nice home in Cuba as shown on TV interviews broadcast on Spanish language News. Elian's relative in Miami drove Mercedes Benzs and live in a house with a locked Gate. Both sides seem pretty well off in their respective countries. Where's the poverty that Elian is suposed to face? What's wrong with a Castro-promised boarding school? Rich parents in the States send their kids to boarding schools, too.
My point is that there is a distinct lack of extenuating circumstances for Elian no matter which country he resides in. I see the custody battle as the central issue. Elian Should Go With His Father.
I think the pre-dawn raid is illegal and unconstitutional. There's no proof that a federal judge issued a kidnapping warrant. That fathers had been sKrewed over by such warrants is deplorable. That should be illegal too.
Is Elian declared a hostage in a kidnapping? I see no such declaration. Did TV coverage show the fed JBT's serve a written warrant before using the battering ram? If anyone has such footage please correct me for saying 'No.' Was Elian living in a drug-dealer-house? Not proven. Even if the feds declared that house a crack house, I still say such entry is illegal. Elian is not likely to be flushed down a toilet like some drugs. Finally such attack on crack houses are supposed to be illegal. A few pounds of narcotics is not worth the risk to lives. The lives of officers and dealers and users alike.
I acknowledge that the storm trooper tactic reduces violent opposition. But then so does sleepy gas and tear gas. Where's the proof that the storm trooper tactic is appropriate?
yenyin
Florida Sen. Connie Mack said that FBI/police were voluntarily allowed TWICE to seach Lazaro's home for weapons on Friday. Two separate searchs showed no guns in the home.
1) No weapons
2) No threats, abuse, or harm to Elian while in Lazaro's care
Therefore...ABSOLUTELY no justification whatsoever to use storm-trooper assault tactics.
------------------
"Quis custodiet ipsos custodes" RKBA!
1) No weapons
2) No threats, abuse, or harm to Elian while in Lazaro's care
Therefore...ABSOLUTELY no justification whatsoever to use storm-trooper assault tactics.
------------------
"Quis custodiet ipsos custodes" RKBA!
Take whatever the Miami relative say with a grain of salt. Why would they volunteer to allow the FBI to search their home? These are the same people that claimed that an image of the Virgin Mary appeared on their living room mirror. Give me a break.
------------------
So many pistols, so little money.
------------------
So many pistols, so little money.
Link to the warrant and a text of the warrant found here:
http://www.thefiringline.com:8080/forums/showthread.php?threadid=26451
LawDog
http://www.thefiringline.com:8080/forums/showthread.php?threadid=26451
LawDog
To those that say the boy belongs with his father or "... he's an alien and to hell with them all ...", think about this the next time that you are clipping your toenails: The goal of this country is to put an end to COMMUNISM! Hundreds of thousands of men have lost limbs & lives in Asia over the course of three decades in two wars (police actions) fighting for ALIENS so that they would not have to live under communism. And here we are taking a boy (who has already lost his mother in her attempt to bring him to freedom) that has survived sharks & ocean, and we're sending him back to Communism -- the tragic irony of this is sickening.
[This message has been edited by FUD (edited April 25, 2000).]
[This message has been edited by FUD (edited April 25, 2000).]