Elian grab

Status
Not open for further replies.
BMiracle,

First of all, I would like to thank you for your service to OUR country and the sacrifices you made.

You are correct, I have not served in the military, however I have been given the right to speak out by God. This right is recognized by the Constitution that you took an oath to uphold. You have no idea of how much I appreciate and love this nation, so please do not presume to tell me that I am taking it for granted.

I find it ironic that you tell us to go to Cuba so that we will see the horrors there and will be begging to come back to America in a weeks time, yet you wish to sentence a six year old child to these horrors for the rest of his life.

As 11xray so aptly points out, U.S. law allows any Cuban citizen who arrives on our shores to seek asylum. This law applys regardless of age as the 11th District Court of Appeals pointed out.

You state that the child belongs to his father, not his uncle. According to the Cuban constitution, all children belong to the State. If he is sent back to Cuba, he will be the property of Fidel Castro, to do with as he desires.

If you can't see the difference between a six year old child fleeing Cuban tyranny and drug smugglers sneaking in from Mexico, then you have my sympathies, sir!
 
11XRay, be advised that 11CCA's ruling will no doubt be appealed and ought to be. Any court that thinks a 6 year old child can meaningfully apply for political asylum needs reversal--and possibly counselling. The child at most has been 'paroled' in and that's it. I might also point out that US immigration law has grossly favored Cuban refugees for almost 40 years now. They have been most happy to take advantage of those special clauses while other less favored nationalities wait their turns. Interesting to see how their respect for law flip-flopped when it was no longer convenient. Essentially this has been an international custody fight with the kid held hostage. Had the Miami relatives made the slightest effort to do the right thing none of this had to happen. Personally I would have just loaned the boy's father the MP5 and as many magazines as he wanted and let him go in the house. Actions have consequences.



------------------
 
To State My qualifications for BMiracle before I start..6 1/2 years USA Combat Arms MOS

When you use swat tactics, and equipment. To Steal a child away in the middle of the night (like a theif) in what is when you boil everything away, is a custody battle (which a bunch of politics are using for their own agenda) and the child is not in ANY danger of physical or mental harm. You live in a police state. There was never any "court order" to surrender this child. I would expect to only see these types heavy handed tactics being used by the Gestapo, MVD, GRU or other secret police under the control of a tyrant. Not in a free democratic country with a 4th Amendment.

The use of these heavy handed tactics to recover a child, risks the very harm that they claim they are trying to prevent. Maybe the INS should be charged with child endagerment under the Child endangerment laws in FL.

I think we have seen the first in a new trend of tactics for social services to grab children the consider "at risk" In stead of a knock by social services for an interview, now you get a no knock by a swat team.

Something no one is discussing, is the children who’s only surviving parents are in the US that Casto keeps locked up in Cuba. And they are out there. My understanding is one of the survivors from the same boat as Elian is in that fix now. Where is the cry from all you supporters of this action for these Children and parents?

I will be surprised if Elian makes his 11 may day in court. If he hasn’t been returned to Cuba by then I will be very surprised.
 
The weapon used by the Justice department agent to threaten an unarmed fisherman and a six year old child was a Heckler& Koch MP5 submachine gun with a stndard 30 round magazine.
 
While I completely agree that the kdi should be with his father and not some uncle who is willing to exploit the kid for his 15 minutes of fame; I completely disagree with the methods Reno the Butcher and the Pervert in Chief used to get that done. There is absolutely NO reason why JBT's need to be kicking doors in and pointing machine guns in peoples faces. This is a great example of why we have a second amendment and why the Founding Fathers were afraid of central government. It is also rather shameful that the brave Cuban society determined to keep elian here rolled over like a bunch of sheep. The kid should have been "lost" a long time ago. This episode is a great example of what our society has become; Spineless and unable to focus on the goals at hand.

------------------
"Liberty is never unalienable; it must be redeemed regularly with the blood of patriots or it always vanishes."
-R.A. Heinlein
 
For all of you that think this was a wise move, how would you have felt if someone in that home had made a mistake and pulled a gun? If that person had been shot / killed? How about a firefight that resulted in Elian being wounded or killed?

After all, that was the decision that Clinton and Reno made ... they decided to risk lives, including Elian's in this raid. The fact that things worked out alright does not make me feel much better. Was this really worth the risk?

I think this is an important question of judgement, especially considering their history at Waco and Ruby Ridge. They seem quite willing to risk human life, while they instruct all of us on the evils of violence and firearms.

Regards from AZ
 
Man O Man is this a hot topic. Since this is a gun site(?) I'll address it first.

From what I'm reading, it sounds like all you pro gun folks believe that all criminals should have guns in order to protect themselves against public servants enforcing laws of this country. Case in point:

1. Elian is a criminal (not a murder or rapist but still a criminal). He entered this country illegally and to the best of my knowledge is still here illegally. He has not be granted political asylum (not that I believe he was even applied for political asylum).

2. Dalrymple is a criminal. He is hiding a criminal (Elian) in a closet (harboring a criminal is still a crime in this country).

3. The Gonzalez's are criminals. Keeping a child from his lawful parent(s) to me is KIDNAPPING....which is still a crime in this country.

Therefor, in my opion, the raid was lawful... the same as if it was a crack house. No wrong doing by the government. (Well maybe the courts can be charged with kidnapping)

Next, if you think that the picture looks bad...look again. Where is the Agent's trigger finger? No child endangerment. A professional raid.

I believe that the INS took way to long. Elian should have been returned to his father within a couple of days.

BTW, I am pro gun and anti mircomangement Government. This is going to be a long battle...let's do it with logic and facts not emotions.
 
Crosseye

Welcome to the TFL

I find that your first and last statements contradict each other ( Ill let you figure it out) As for your other statements I think there are some pretty good refutations on this thread or on some of the other threads tonight
 
Different points trigger varying takes in this saga for all of us. I suppose my own focal point, developed in the past 24 hours, is the "58 percenters"....those polled and regurgitate this "father's rights" line.

It sounds so wonderful and caring. It's chic...it's vogue....it proves to the pollster on the other end of the phone line you're "with it".

Just as fitting today in this post-raid era, the following piece written April 5th is worth the read: http://www.frontpagemag.com/archives/ponte/2000/ponte04-05-00.htm

Respectfully
 
Jffal, thanks for the links and feedback. BMiracle, using your military service as a way to say those that have not served haven't earned the right is just down right pathetic and insulting. If we have to earn a right then it's not a right, is it? BTW, yes I served in the military: US Marine Corps and have lived in a third world country under a dictatorship(Imelda and Ferninad)(B Co. Marine Barracks, NAS Cubi Point, Philippines 82-83).

------------------
"Gun Control is Only to Protect Those in Power"
 
Jffal and others of similar mind.

I agree. The child is now with his father where he belongs. The using this child as a pawn in this horror is inexcusable.

What is more inexcusable is the Governments handing of the "seizure".

It was what *should* be called excessive force.

Crowd control yes, This was needed in view of all the hype and such. But the seizure could have been accomplished without the storm troopers.

This must end.
 
BMiracle,

I have never served in the armed forces. I am, however, a citizen of the United States and under the Bill of Rights of the Constitution I am entitled to free speech. The Constitution, you've heard of it haven't you?

We have armed troopers abducting a boy at gunpoint with no court order, no mandate from a legislative body, under orders of a bureacrat and a draft-dodging sexual pervert.

This is supposed to be a WONDERFUL country? I don't think so. Castro probably thinks so. So does China. I for one don't like to see armed invasions of homes in the middle of the night. If you stand for that, we'll have to differ. This family had violated no court order, broken no law and yet their home was invaded by government stormtroopers who should have defended our constitution from all enemies, foreign and domestic. The real enemy is the traitorous Clinton administration. If it can happen to them, it can happen to you. Something precious died this Easter in America. The rule of law, the rights of the governed. We are now the ruled.

Rant off.
 
At the risk of provoking a fight . . .

I think that the government was 1) right to require the child's return to the father; and 2) the raid was justifiable and a success.

As to the first point: Under the Constitution immigration is exclusively the province of the federal government. Thus the Miami family's attempts to have the issue decided by a state family court were simply a non-starter (the state court simply did not have jurisdiction) - as both the state court and the federal court found, this is a federal issue. The law allows Cubans who make it to the US to ask for asylum. If they ask, they get it immediately. Elian has never officially asked, and it is an open question as to wether, under the law, a six-year old can ask for asylum - the point of the 11th circuit ruling was that the child can't leave the US until that point has been fully litigated. However, under the law it is clear the Elian's current legal status is that of a paroled minor alien and that it is the INS's duty to determine custody while he is here in the US. They did so and issued a lawful directive to the family to turn the child over. The family repeatadly did not do so, thus the INS had every legal right to go in a get him.

As to the second point, I think that by showing up in overwhelming force at 5am, the Federal Marshalls and INS Agents assured that they would be able to gain complete control of the situation and avoid serious injury - which is what happened. Given the repeated threats by the crowds around the house to resist any effort to get Elian (either by force or passively through "human chains") as well the crowd's demonstarted willingness to violence (witness the beating of the folks who showed up to peacefully demonstrate in favor of the child's return to his father) the Feds were right to go with the option they did - and, in my opinion, it paid off. The child was returned to his father (again in accord with the lawfull direction of the INS) without anyone being seriously harmed. While it was certainly a scary experience for the boy, he is, by all accounts, happy to be with his dad.

As this is allready a long post I have avoided the issue as to whether or not it would be morally right to return the boy to Cuba. If anyone is interested, I'd be happy to talk about that sometime in the future.



------------------
"If a man neglects to enforce his rights, he cannot complain if, after a while, the law follows his example. . ." - Oliver Wendell Holmes
 
Actually the 11th circuit has pointed out that there is a piece of paper in the court file asking for asylum with Elian's signature. Now whether he has legal standing to do that, or whether it is a fake, or whether he knew what he was doing, are all questions for the court to decide. Cubans at one time were presumed to be fleeing political persecution and had special rights to ask for asylum. I don't know if this is still in force or not.

The presumed presence of an illegal alien in a home does not allow a warrantless search and seizure.
 
I have to side, at this point, with Deacon's staement:

"As to the second point, I think that by showing up in overwhelming force at 5am, the Federal Marshals and INS Agents assured that they would be able to gain complete control of the situation and avoid serious injury - which is what happened..."

We can debate the Elian situation all day long (hell, it's been debated for 5 months!). To me, there are some obvious points: this kid was being used as a political football by both sides, but expecially by the Miami Cubans for whom the war against Castro will never end until Castro dies. Also, the family in Miami has been playing games for five months, and I'm not convinced that they would have agreed with any proposal other than Elian staying in Miami with them. They are clever, manipulative people.

Back to Deacon's point: The fact that the "raid" was over in 3 minutes, with no injuries, speaks to its success (whether you agree with it in principle or not, which, if they had no warrant, i don't). You can argue about the agents' methods, apparel, breaking the door, etc, but the fact is they came in aggressively, immediately established control (command presence), and got the kid out of there. Had they come in more tentatively (and I don't know how they could be sure their were no guns/threat of resistance), the situation could have gotten out of hand. I have been on several SWAT raids and have a friend who is a SWAT cop (and hey... we've all watched COPS), and this is the way it's done when done well, not only to accomplish the goal, but to insure that the situation is controlled for the safety of all involved. I just can't go along with the Jackbooted Thug slander.

Were i the ops leader, I would have had them in body armor under polo shirts, with sidearms. This would have had better PR value, but may have been a compromise on officer safety. The photograph, although dramatic, is 1/125th of a second, out of 3 minutes. The rest of the context and story is missing. Sure maybe they sound have had a woman agent grabbing the boy from the fisherman while the rest stood guard... we can argue all day long. As big of dufuses as Clinton and Reno are, I have a hard time believing they were going to do this thing in any way that would risk a repeat of Waco or Ruby Ridge.

PS: Interesting observation by someone that the Border Patrol/INS conducts raids like this all the time, and some people here ranting against this situation might be cheering on those raids against "illegals". Correct me if I'm wrong (as I'm sure you will!)

flame on!


[This message has been edited by Covert Mission (edited April 24, 2000).]
 
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by RHC:
Actually the 11th circuit has pointed out that there is a piece of paper in the court file asking for asylum with Elian's signature.[/quote]

There is currently some question about whether Elian's father, as his legal guardian, can revoke this asylum request. Stickier and stickier...

------------------
RKBA!
"The people have the right to bear arms for their defense and security"
Ohio Constitution, Article I, Section 4 Concealed Carry is illegal in Ohio.
Ohioans for Concealed Carry Website
 
For all of the people here that think this type of raid was justified, I wonder if you feel that the raid at Waco was also justified. When you come right down to it, other than the fact that no one was killed in Miami, whats the difference?

The Miami raid was over a custody dispute. The Waco raid was over unregistered automatic weapons. Both of these are somewhat minor issues, with the Waco matter being the more serious (legally) of the two.

In both the Miami and Waco situations, neither of the parties showed hostile intent nor were innocent people in harms way.

What gives the Federal Government the right to send swat teams to kick down doors and endanger innocent people for minor issues?

Both of these matters could have been handled peacefully. In Waco, the County sheriff said he regularly ate breakfast with Koresh and that Koresh also jogged along the county road by himself. The sheriff could have served the warrent himself without endangering anyone. In Miami, Reno's own negotiators stated that they had agreed to an outline for a settlement and were only hours, if not minutes, away from formalizing it.

If Miami was the right thing to do, then so was Waco! What in the HELL is the matter with simply sending a plain clothed detective to your door with a court order that says to show up in court at such and such a time?

Whats next? If you forget to pay your taxes on time will the IRS send it's JBT's to kick down your door in the middle of the night? After all, rumor has it that you have guns in your house!

The sad thing is that people will be saying the government did the right thing; "they broke the law, it's about time we get tough with those tax dodgers".
 
Cactus, the biggest difference between Waco and Elian Gonzalez was the presence of a couple of hundred protesters outside who were bound, bent and determined to prevent that child from going anywhere.

On the multitude of news coverage of various protesters, I kept hearing some say they would prevent his father from getting the child be peacable means. Others hinted darkly at stronger measures.

I kept hearing people placing religious overtones on the kid--how the dolphins saved him, comparing his plight to that of Jesus, and I understand that people were lighting candles to him, as if he were already canonized by the Church.

Ther were people, trained in warfare by our government, stating that Elian was the rallying cry for freedom in Cuba. People who declared that Elian would be the banner under which they would recover their lost Cuba.

People who were declaring that the child was not the child of his father, but the child of them all.

Now, I've been with CPS when they removed a child from a home. Me, in my friendly plainclothes mode, and some little gal from CPS, not expecting a bit of trouble.

You think the MP5 at the unarmed fisherman was bad? Then you sure the hell don't want to know what I wound up doing to get me, the child, and that woman out of there with only a bloody nose on my part. And the mob consisted of some of the cousins and the neighbors. Not even 15 warm bodies, total.

15. And there were a couple of hundred outside that house? Anyone who thinks that two plainclothed agents could have waltzed up and removed that child from that home and mob haven't ever tried to do it.

LawDog

[This message has been edited by LawDog (edited April 24, 2000).]
 
Lawdog,

You are correct. I have never tried to do that, nor would I wish to. I have nothing but the greatest respect for the difficult and often thankless job you do.

However, when you took that child from that home, did you have a court order to do so? The INS took this child from this home without a court order allowing them to do so. The only thing they had was a search warrent that they never served. Now I am not an attorney, thank God, but it is my understanding that a warrent must be served to be valid and that a search warrent is for the intent of searching for evidence of a crime, not seizing children. Please correct me if I am incorrect. This appears to be in direct violation of the Fourth Amendment of the Constitution.

The point is that in both Waco and Miami, there were ways to accomplish the same ends legally and without endangering people. The family in Miami were doing things the proper way, they were working through the courts, negotiating in good faith. Janet Reno was not.

In many ways, I feel the the Federal Government did it this way simply to show us that they could. This was meant as a warning to all of us, to show us that we better do as they say irregardless of what the law says. They can do it to this family in Miami and they will do it to us if they wish. We should all be concerned and frightened.

I believe it was a Rev. Neibauer in Nazi Germany who said: "When they came for the Jews I said nothing as I am not Jewish; when they came for the gypsies I said nothing as I am not a gypsy; when they came for the homosexuals I said nothing as I am not a homosexual; when they came for me, there was no one left to say anything".

The road to tyranny is not covered in leaps and bounds but by one small step at a time. We may not care whether this child goes back to Cuba or stays here. We may or may not care what his life will be like if he does go back. We may or may not care that he is returned to his father.

But we should all damn well care about how this was done!

[This message has been edited by Cactus (edited April 24, 2000).]
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top