:0 Wiz, relax, it was just a figure of speech. I am a pacifist by nature, however, I know that sometimes when a debate gets this heated you just want to shake someone to see your side of it. I was merely trying to lighten the mood. Maybe I should have inserted one of those smiley thingies to have expressed that http://www.jediknight.net/mboard/smile.gif)

Let's talk about something even more insane than this issue, like how they are going to start recycling toilet water here in LA to drinking water....

wiz,

Oh my god, that site you referenced is nothing more than a right-wing, ultra-conservative cesspool! Ya, I'm sure they're completely objective. LOL!!!

And as to the AP report, do you not think it possible that perhaps - just perhaps that the INS would have wanted to prevent anybody - not just reporters - from entering the home while the raid was taking place? Come on wiz, you're making me wonder about your common sense.

And about my asking if you were whining about the media conspiracy - I wasn't raising the issue to discredit you or to draw off attention from the topic. Rather, just calling it as I see it. However, as a quasi-concession, how about if we both agree that the media are equal-opportunity scavengers? They'll pounce on anything and everything if it will sell, be that story favorable to either the Democratic or Republican parties? It just sounds like whining to me whenever Republicans claim that the media is out to get them. Duh!!! The media's out to get anyone that can make them a buck, Democrats as well.

Lastly, regarding your insistence that there were still good faith negotiations taking place - man, they'd been talking for five months and no deal had been reached. Look at the statements his female cousin made prior to the raid - paraphrase: Under no circumstances will we turn Elian over to his father. Look at the demonstrations that happened after the raid. Look at the way his relatives rushed to DC the next day to be with Elian. Face it, they had no intention of ever turning him over to his father - admit it. Just admit it wiz - you know it, I know it, we all know it. There's a big pink elephant standing in the middle of the room, and you just won't acknowledge it.

There comes a point when the time for talking is over and action has to be taken. It was clear that the family hoped to talk the government into a stalement, thereby resulting in them maintaining their illegal custody of the child. The government had finally reached the end of their patience after nearly half a year.

Tell me wiz, just how long, in your humble opinion, would the government have to drag out these negotiations before performing this type of a raid would be justified for you? One year? Five years? Until the kid was 18 years old? I'm curious to know your answer to this question, wiz.

ysalamiri,

I'm glad you find my reasoning sound. It makes sense to me, and I'm pleased that someone else agrees.



[This message has been edited by Vagabond (edited April 30, 2000).]

ys--

:0 Wiz, relax ... I was merely trying to lighten the mood.

My mood was and is light. I'm not overly concerned about anyone attacking me through my modem. http://www.jediknight.net/mboard/icons/icon12.gif)

V-bond--

Oh my god, that site you referenced is nothing more than a right-wing, ultra-conservative cesspool! Ya, I'm sure they're completely objective. LOL!!!

Slime the messenger if you wish, but the story is accurate, sourced, and it jibes with the much more terse version that the AP carried. You don't seem to be denying the story, just LOLing at a website. Feel free to laugh. I don't think the story is funny.

And as to the AP report, do you not think it possible that perhaps - just perhaps that the INS would have wanted to prevent anybody - not just reporters - from entering the home while the raid was taking place? Come on wiz, you're making me wonder about your common sense.

Oh, yeah, the feds wanted everybody out of the way, especially the reporters. But controlling information was an uppermost priority, duh.

And I question the common sense of anyone who thinks settling custody matters by seizing little kids at gunpoint is a good idea.

Face it, they had no intention of ever turning him over to his father - admit it. Just admit it wiz - you know it, I know it, we all know it. There's the big pink elephant standing in the middle of the room, and you just won't acknowledge it.

Honestly, all I know is that the negotiators said there was a deal on the table when Reno pulled the plug. The Miami relatives say the same thing, that they were close to a deal. It could be that Reno didn't like the deal, I don't know. I don't know what's in peoples minds, but I know behavior, and Reno's behavior is that of a dangerous, dishonest autocrat.

And people should NOT come after little kids with guns and pepper spray. I think that's pretty basic.

(I'm tempted to say something about those pink elephants you're seeing--but nah, I'd better leave that one alone... http://www.jediknight.net/mboard/smile.gif)

--wiz



[This message has been edited by wizzywig (edited April 30, 2000).]

P.S.

Tell me wiz, just how long, in your humble opinion, would the government have to drag out these negotiations

There was a court date in early May that would have settled the whole thing without guns and tear gas. I was hoping the govmt could wait that long without coming in romping and stomping.

--wiz

btw, ysalamiri--

Welcome to the forum. It's a fun and stimulating place to hang out.

But don't stand too close to me--I know that ysalamiri are those things that cancel out the Force, and I need as much of the Force as I can get right now!

--wiz

wiz,


...Slime the messenger if you wish...


One of the most important things is to look at the messenger when determining the credibility of information. You'll notice that your propoganda rag added all sorts of frivilously scary adjectives to describe the report, while the AP just got down to the facts.

I'm not denying that some reporters were dragged away from the scene of the raid. I also wouldn't be surprised that if the milk man tired to jump through the window at that time, they'd no doubt have dragged him off too.

Yes, information control is important, no doubt. Especially when Reno sympathizes with both sides of the family, but is forced as an officer of the government to uphold the law as dictated by her oath of office. I can understand why she wouldn't want any provocative photos to be distorted by either side to further inflame the tensions of the community.


...I question the common sense of anyone who thinks settling custody matters by seizing little kids at gunpoint is a good idea...


You might want to question the common sense of relatives who would kidnap a child from his own father, just because they don't like the goverment of Cuba. Talk about sick.

And no one said settling custody matters with guns was a good idea. But faced with the choice of (1) leaving Elian in the illegal custody of his uncooperative relatives or (2) forcibly reuniting him with his father, option #2 seems the lesser of two evils.

Come on wiz - you're not using your noggin. Elian's relatives were never going to willingly hand over Elian, even if they wanted to. The mob outside their house was uncontrollable by anyone.

And regarding any pending deals - the government shouldn't have been negotiating with them anyway! Our government has a policy of not negotiating with terrorists, and I classify people who illegally keep a child from his father, in a house surrounded by angry, rowdy mob, as terrorists.

True, they may have loved Elian in some infantile, self-serving sort of way, but that point is irrelevant. Elian has a good father, period. End of discussion.


Vagabond:
Tell me wiz, just how long, in your humble opinion, would the government have to drag out these negotiations...

wiz: There was a court date in early May that would have settled the whole thing without guns and tear gas...


Wrong. The court date was going to decide whether Elian had a right to apply for assylum - that's it. It didn't address the issue of custody whatsoever. Elian was enjoined from leaving the country until the court had a chance to rule. Furthermore the government was not prevented from forcibly reuniting Elian with his father in the meantime. Get your facts straight my friend.


------------------
VagabondNomad on the Zone...

All the world's a stage, and all the men and women merely players...

though i don't want to get in an argument or anything, i just thought i could put in my opinion. i think the boy belongs with his father, his only parent and guardian. i do not think however that the feds should have busted in there with guns of that magnitude. Automatic rifles weren't neccesarry. if they're gonna use firearms, use something a little smaller so you don't make the kid go insane with fear. maybe a 45 handgun or something small, maybe even a little bigger but not like what that guy had, not something to make him look like he's going to war. i could say more but i don't want to get too involved, i don't want you to think i'm a diehard supporter or anything.

that's just what i think http://www.jediknight.net/mboard/smile.gif)

-matt

i don't want to make anyone mad here but in case anyone disagrees with me, don't ask if i have kids.

because i am a kid

matt,

Don't worry, no one's going to get mad at you http://www.jediknight.net/mboard/wink.gif) As to why they chose the weapons that they did, I don't know. But try to put yourself in the place of those people who had to go in there and rescue that kid. Who knows what kind of weapons the people in there might have had? I think that they just didn't want their people to go in there and find out that they were outgunned and end up being slaughtered - so they erred on the side of caution - good advice from any would-be commander.

As General Colin Powell taught us: if you're going to go in, go in with overwhelming force so that you can achieve your objective.

That's my thought on whey they went in fully armed like that. I happen to agree with that decision, personally.



------------------
VagabondNomad on the Zone...

All the world's a stage, and all the men and women merely players...

Come on wiz - you're not using your noggin.

Just had my noggin calibrated this morning. I assure you it is functioning within design tolerances.

--wiz

vagabond
isn't it kind of obvious that they wouldn't have weapons that we wouldn't know about,thess peolple have been interviewed ahundred times and almost every section of their house has been shown in a picture of some sort on tv or elsewhere. i really doubt they would have weapons like guns, and even if they did they would need more than that. they would need something to out-do the swat teams tactics. these guys are trained and drilled to no end. i don't think they would be any threat to the feds, i don't want to sound like i wanted these guys to do this, in fact they should have done something else instead of busting in dragging him out.

Well matt, we just disagree. It's not the end of the world though http://www.jediknight.net/mboard/wink.gif)

There were people going in and out of that house all the time. Plus, we have to keep in mind that the people outside the house could have been heavily armed as well. Speaking for myself, if I were going in there, I'd want to be decked out in full body armor, and have the biggest, baddest automatic weapon possible. Maybe with a show of such massive force, any would-be thugs might reconsider opening fire. I wouldn't want to shoot at civillians, of course, but if things turned sour, at least I could defend myself.

Hey matt, if you were on that swat team, maybe you could have volunteered to go in with just a pistol and a smile http://www.jediknight.net/mboard/wink.gif)

Seriously though, I do think those tear gas guns were pretty clever. In stead of just shooting a tear gas cannister, which can be somewhat imprecise, they had these guns that resembled a flame thrower that sprayed tear gas directly at the intended target. Non-lethal and very precise. I thought that was a very ingenius way of keeping trouble-makers at bay without imparting any serious injury.



------------------
VagabondNomad on the Zone...

All the world's a stage, and all the men and women merely players...

Vagabond--

I classify people who illegally keep a child from his father, in a house surrounded by angry, rowdy mob, as terrorists.

I was tempted to respond that the feds, with their guns and tear gas and pepper spray, kicking in doors and destroying furniture and even Catholic statues (a statue of the Virgin Mary was gratuitously smashed by one of the agents), were the real terrorists. That boy sure looked terrorized as he was being snatched out of the house.

But then I thought, nah, that would be as over the line as calling the family "terrorists." The feds (not their bosses, but the agents themselves) were just doing their job. And the family is just doing what they think is right.

I insist that these are good people trying to keep an innocent boy out of the clutches of an evil, murdering dictator. Even if they are misguided, even if the father is a good father (which I do not concede; I just haven't taken any more time to research what I was originally told), they are not bad people, and it is the height of absurdity and hyperbole to call them "terrorists."

Who have they terrorized?

--wiz

wiz,


...they are not bad people, and it is the height of absurdity and hyperbole to call them "terrorists." Who have they terrorized?...


I'm sure the relatives have good intentions, but that is no excuse to take a father's child from him.

Who have they terrorized? Try the kid and his father.

Still not convinced? Try this on for size, wiz: What would you say if I took one of your children from you because I claimed to love your child, kept him/her at my house and then surrounded my house with a mob of hundreds of angry people chanting that they'd never let your child go, and, "down with wiz"? Don't misinterpret this as me saying you're like Castro, because that's not the point. My point is that just because I have good intentions, that doesn't give me an excuse to kidnap your child from you. Understand?


------------------
VagabondNomad on the Zone...

All the world's a stage, and all the men and women merely players...

V--

Huh?

The family definitely didn't terrorize the boy--he liked it there and didn't want to leave. And the father wasn't terrorized--mad, maybe, but hardly terrorized.

And your analogy is so far from the reality of the case it's beyond absurd. Nobody kidnapped anybody. In fact, the feds had to take the boy out of the hands of the fisherman who saved the boy's life (and whom the father, btw, never bothered to thank).

But I do see the point you're making, despite the tortured analogy.

All I'm saying is that the family and the Cuban-American community shouldn't be slandered and demonized, and the boy should not have been taken at gunpoint. That's my entire pov on this matter.

--wiz

wiz,


...the father wasn't terrorized--mad, maybe, but hardly terrorized...


So, you're saying that if someone had illegal custody of your child, and refused to turn your child back over to you, then you wouldn't classify those people as terrorists? Your choice, but in my eyes they are.


...Nobody kidnapped anybody...


Let's see, according to The Oxford Dictionary of Current English, we have the following:

kidnap: v. 1. abduct (a person etc.) esp. to obtain a ransom. 2. steal (a child).

abduct: v. carry off or kidnap illegally.

ransom: n. 1. money demanded or paid for the release of a prisoner. 2. liberation of a prisoner in return for this.

Well, I don't know about you, but to me, according to these definitions it sounds like they kidnapped him. Sure, at first the fishermen rescued the child (one of which believes the boy should be returned to his father). But then they kept the child from his father when they did not have legal custody of the child. Then the relatives started making demands - that the father come to the U.S., so the father called their bluff and actually came here (ooops). Then they came up with new demands - that the kid undergo psychological testing before they release him; they also demanded that at the very least they be given joint custody of the child. All these demands are inappropriate since they are not even the legal guardians of the child - the father is.

Given the official definitions I've provided, and the factual listing of events, I conclude that the relatives had in fact kidnapped the child. This might make you feel yucky to admit it, wiz, but that doesn't make it less true.

It seems, wiz, that you're getting caught up in the same I hate Castro mentality that Elian's relatives had - and you seem to be using this as justification to commit criminal acts against innocents: Elian and his father.


...But I do see the point you're making...


Glad to hear it http://www.jediknight.net/mboard/wink.gif)


...All I'm saying is that the family and the Cuban-American community shouldn't be slandered and demonized...


And I'm saying that family shouldn't have kept the kid from his father.


...and the boy should not have been taken at gunpoint...


I agree with you: Elian shouldn't have had to have been rescued at gun-point. His relatives should have turned him over to the proper authorities immediately so that he could be returned to his father - that is once it was determined that his father was fit.

No matter what you say about this, wiz, there is no excuse you can conjure up to excuse Elian's relatives from keeping him from his father. The man has been established as a good and loving father. It's completely inexcusable to break up that family. To even attempt to justify it just makes me sick.


------------------
VagabondNomad on the Zone...

All the world's a stage, and all the men and women merely players...



[This message has been edited by Vagabond (edited May 01, 2000).]

http://userzweb.lightspeed.net/jdenney/jj.gif)
"Dis is nutso! My give up! My give up!"

--wiz

Vagabond--

Last night, I read your last post with the definitions of kidnap, abduct, etc., and I thought, "This is too bizarre. Those definitions don't remotely apply to this situation." Yet, in your mind, you somehow thought that you had delivered the rhetorical fatal blow, the unanswerable rejoinder. Clearly, I am not able to grasp your perception of reality, nor can you grasp mine. Hence, "My give up!"

But I had another thought this morning, and I decided to post it, my final thought about the matter. If you would like to post a response, I will read it, but I don't want to respond any further. This is it for me.

First, about words. I like to see words used with care and precision. Words like terrorist, kidnap, and abduct are strong words with strong emotional content, but with precise meanings.

Terrorists are bomb-throwers, plane-hijackers, mass-killers who target innocent people for death in order to achieve their aims. Kidnapping and abducting involve taking deliberate action to remove a child from the parent's custody and control. (And where "ransom" fits into this picture is so far off the reality scale, I don't even know how to address it here, so I won't.)

The family clearly did none of these things. They didn't do anything that would make them terrorists or kidnappers. The terrorist label is just silly.

The kidnapper thing, well, I can see the stretch you are trying to make, but they were awarded "parole" or temporary custody of Elian. It was legal. They didn't snatch the kid off his father's doorstep. When the parole was revoked, they defied the revocation on what they considered to be a higher moral grounds. You can disagree with their decision, most Americans do, but they were following conscience in the matter, and I've heard these people talk about it, and I'm convinced they did so on genuine conscientious grounds, not bad motives.

I understand why you used the words terrorist and kidnap and abduct. You think that if you use a stronger word, it seems to make your argument more forceful. In my mind, it undermines the argument by making it seem strident and absurd and irrational. But the temptation to escalate to stronger verbiage is certainly understandable.

The danger is that if we go around using words like terrorist and kidnapping where they do not apply, then they start to lose their meaning and their emotional content. If we start calling evey act we do not agree with "terrorism" and every child-custody battle "kidnapping," then when we are confronted with REAL bomb-throwing terrorists and REAL kidnappers who steal children off their own doorsteps, what do we call it? The words no longer have their original punch because we have trivialized them.

And you know what? I'm guilty of this myself. I think I went too far in naming this thread "police state." We are not there yet. America is still the BEST place in the world in which to live, which is why people risk their lives in little boats to get here from places like Haiti and Cuba, which are among the WORST places in the world to live. Clinton and Reno are bad leaders, but we still have a good Constitution and other safeguards which keep them from being (like Dennis Rodman) as bad as they wanna be.

I used the "police state" label in the heat of the moment, just minutes after seeing the video of Elian being dragged out of the house, and seeing guns and tear-gas being used against good people. It was a horrible thing, but it is still an isolated situation compared with the mainstream of life in America. It's important to keep our perspective, even while expressing moral outrage.

One final thought about the family: I keep hearing how what they did was "illegal." But we have to remember that what is legal is not always the highest law. What is moral is.

To take an extreme case (don't assume that I am making this the equivalence of the Gonzalez case, I'm just using an analogy), it was illegal in Nazi Germany to hide Jews in your house, but many Germans defied the Nazi law in order to obey a higher law, a moral law. So to say the Miami family is disobeying the law is not the end of the discussion, if they are convinced (and they clearly were) that they were obeying a higher law, a moral law that supercedes an INS decree.

I've heard from some sources what a horrible parent Juan is, and from you and others that he is like something out of Father Knows Best or Leave It To Beaver. I haven't had time to research it further, so I'm setting that aside as unanswerable for now.

But I do know that in the minds of the Miami relatives, life in Castro's Cuba was an unthinkable fate for the boy. So, in obedience to a higher law, they defied the U.S. government. I admire their courage, because they did what they thought they had to do to keep the boy out of Castro's clutches, and at great personal risk, cost, and sacrifice.

If the father is the prince among men that you say he is, then the Miami relatives may have been misguided, I don't know. I doubt that, but I admit the possibility. But this is clear: they are clearly good people who cared about Elian Gonzalez, and they don't deserve the treatment they have received.

--wiz

Once the relatives lost legal custody and refused to promptly turn the boy over to authorities, they in effect became kidnappers. Whether the initially snatched him from his father, or did it belatedly is irrelevant. The point is they kept the child against the father's will. To me, that is the definition of a kidnapper.

wiz, nice try, but hiding Jews doesn't even remotely compare to keeping a child from his father, just because you don't like the government of Cuba. If you want to talk about absurd, your analogy is where you should start. The child faces no danger in Cuba, hence the analogy is baseless.

No one said that Juan was a perfect father. I merely said that he is reported to be a loving father. Probably the only perfect father would be God the Father, who is arguably perfect himself since he seems prone to temper tantrums that supposedly result in the entire world being flooded http://www.jediknight.net/mboard/wink.gif) Can you say, "Anger Management Course"?

Lastly, I disagree with you on what the highest law in the land is. You suggest it is moral law. I believe it is the law of the land. Once you start making moral exceptions to the law, then you open the floodgates for everyone to claim minor, petty moral objections to every law. The result: our system of government and our civilization breaks down. Rule of law is required. If you're going to break the law, then just be prepared for the consequences and don't whine about it.


------------------
VagabondNomad on the Zone...

All the world's a stage, and all the men and women merely players...

I believe I only responded in one post and very briefly about this matter. Maybe my opinion (note the word) will serve a purpose.

I believe the boy belongs with his father. I believe this for a number of reasons, but that is not to say his lifestyle would be equal to or even greater if he stayed in America with his relatives. I think what we all have to accept here is that this choice could never have been made because "our government is better than theirs". If you believe in this, and you believe it is wrong for the boy to go back to Cuba, then why do we have boarder patrol, why do we limit immigration to the United States? Perhaps a lingering sense of nativism or fear of overpopulation, but what needs to be recognized is that the government can never make an exception.

The law is the law, no questions asked. Wiz, you said perhaps the family was acting on a greater MORAL law, but this statement needs support. Who decides this law, God? This is hardly a scenario as black and white as the persecution of the Jews (which you admit). I think this scenario is best handled under the terms of the US government.

I don't care whether or not his father was as loving as you say, Vagabond. Personally, I think you are highly exagerating, portraying this man as the ideal father who loves Elian sooo much. This doesn't affect me in my decision, however. A father should always be in control of his children unless he is officially declared incompetent - whether this be physical abuse, mental abuse, etc. Has there been any evidence of this? I don't know, I haven't been following this story, but if not then what is still keeping Elian from his father? Again, the only answer we can give is that "Cuba sucks, Elian should live here." Not a reason. Elian can't be made an exception. I know his mother died for a cause she knew was right, but again I say a government can't work if it allows exceptions. AND PLEASE!, don't say "Well, they have made exceptions before". I don't care. They chose not to this time.

How the scenario was handled is disgusting. Even Vagabond admits this, with a little more positive connotation of the word. And I laughed so hard when I actually saw you people dabating over which guns they should have used! "I can't believe they went in there with assault rifals, they should have used pistols." Guns are guns, and it only takes one bullet to kill a man. They should have driven up in the vans, walked up to the property, and asked if the crowd would please disperse so as to allow for the exchange of custody from the relatives to the father. If this was not granted, then arrest them one by one for voluntary resistence to governmental authority. This is the only fair way to handle the situation. Instead of the government using brute force to plow through the crowd (reportedly many individuals and objects were hurt/broken), a non-violent means of custody transfer could have been achieved.

That is my stance. I've had people tell me how bad they feel for the boy. I feel the same way. But this is merely a selective form of love, which is wrong in circumstances such as these. Why do we not love all of the Cubans who we feel are so harshly oppressed? Unless we allow for full Cuban immigration into the United States (Do we? I don't even know) then it is rather hypocritical to say this boy should remain here.

------------------
And there he is. The reigning champion of the Boonta Classic, and the crowd favorite-TheAhnFahn

TAF,

Just for clarification, I'm not attempting to portray Juan as an ideal father. I'm merely trying to demonstrate that he appears to actually want custody of his child, which I think is a requirement.

And since INS investigators have already certified Juan as a fit father, the question of custody seems to have a clear answer to me: the father.



------------------
VagabondNomad on the Zone...

All the world's a stage, and all the men and women merely players...

wizzywig repents and withdraws the post that previously occupied this space.

--wiz



[This message has been edited by wizzywig (edited May 02, 2000).]

TheAhnFahn--

The law is the law, no questions asked. Wiz, you said perhaps the family was acting on a greater MORAL law, but this statement needs support. Who decides this law, God? This is hardly a scenario as black and white as the persecution of the Jews (which you admit).

You ask a good question. I will amply:

Here's another extreme example to illustrate a principle, not to suggest any equivalency to any other situation. After WWII, Nazi officers and bureaucrats were tried and convicted of war crimes related to the Holocaust because they did as their superiors told them and as the law of their government told them. There was no written law other than the law that they faithfully obeyed, yet they were held to be guilty of breaking a higher moral law that every human being is supposed to have implanted in his/her conscience. Those people told themselves, "The law is the law, no questions asked," and were convicted of crimes because they did so.

Again, that's an extreme situation, which is of no relevance here except to establish the principle that there IS a moral law above manmade law. If manmade law and the higher moral law ever come into conflict, the higher law must take precedence (something that very rarely happens, since manmade law is normally the embodiment of our moral values). However, if you disobey it, the manmade law will exact a price for being disobeyed.

Here's another example: During the Vietnam War, I filed papers for conscientious objector status. Because my church did not take a CO position, I was pretty sure my CO status would be denied. I was prepared to go into war as a noncombatant, or to go to prison if that's what it took to keep from becoming part of what I saw as an unjust federal killing machine. I did not for a moment think of running off to Canada to avoid the draft. I was willing to disobey the law, if it came to that, AND TO ACCEPT THE PENALTY OF THE LAW. That, I believe, is obeying the higher law by disobeying the manmade law.

Someone could argue with my beliefs and say I was wrong to oppose the Vietnam War (and I certainly never thought less of anyone who did go--that was a tough personal decision for every draft-age young man). I don't think I would have chosen the same course if faced with the same decision during WWII. But I was trying to follow my conscience in that specific situation.

As it turned out, the draft lottery gave me a high number, and I never had to take it to the mat. But I remember a very nervous period of my life when I was prepared to take that step.

Maybe that's why I feel a bit for the family in Florida. I can scarcely imagine the fear of knowing that the Mistress of Waco had the "Miami compound" in her sights. That must have been very scary for the family, knowing the feds could come at any time. And I think that, no matter whether you agree or disagree with them, their courage and conviction is admirable.

--wiz




[This message has been edited by wizzywig (edited May 01, 2000).]

I can scarcely imagine the fear of knowing that the Mistress of Waco had the "Miami compound" in her sights. That must have been very scary for the family, knowing the feds could come at any time. And I think that, no matter whether you agree or disagree with them, their courage and conviction is admirable.

Yes, but we should equally admire the father for requesting his son to come back. I hear you speaking more towards Vagabond here. I am not saying these people are bad. They believe Elian would live a better life here in the United States. But you have to admit that when someone who has legal custody of him objects to that the government only has one option. I'm not quite understanding your position at this point. There are two positions that one can take - either the boy lives with his father in Cuba, or the boy lives with his relatives in the United States. Now I see you more or less defending the courage and moral uprightness of the relatives, but I don't think that is enough to say Elian should not live with his father. I also am interested in how you would respond to other arguments I made. If the boy is "legally" in the custody of his father, do you think an exception should be made? Do you think the laws should be changed? Do you think the law was ever followed? I am speaking of "man-made" laws here. And I still fail to see how this universal moral law has anything to do with this. Sure, I COMPLETELY agree it is morally correct that the boy be placed in the custody of his Miami relatives so as to provide a better life for him in the United States. But it is also morally correct that he remain with his earthly father, is it not? And who is the judge on which one of these two holds the higher priority? Again, I say their are ups and downs to either decision we make for the boy, and it is nearly impossible to pin a strict moral guidline that could have been taken to ensure this boy's life could be adequately fulfilled. So when this happens, isn't it something that man-made law should uphold? I think the only satisfactory circumstance would be if the boy and his father lived IN the house with Elian's Miami relatives, but get real, it isn't going to happen. So all we can do is accept that a decision one way or the other has to be made, of course it already has, and the only thing I have left to argue about is the actions performed by the United States government in taking this boy away from his Miami relatives.

------------------
And there he is. The reigning champion of the Boonta Classic, and the crowd favorite-TheAhnFahn

TheAhnFahn--

I am not criticizing the manmade laws. I'm not addressing any legal issues at all. I'm only saying that the Miami family members believe (whether rightly or mistakenly) that they are obeying a higher moral law in making every effort to keep the boy from going back to Castro's Cuba.

I'm only saying they should not be demonized as evil or as terrorists or as kidnappers or any other sinister thing. They are good people trying to do the right thing (however imperfectly, in some opinions). That's the one and only point I was making in that post.

--wiz

Yes, I completely understand that. But this being a relatively new deal for me posting here, I wanted to address everything you have posted. It seems to me as though you felt the boy should have remained in Miami. Am I reading you correctly? You have every right to defend the Miami relatives, and I am sorely disappointed things didn't go their way. The issue of the raid on the house was horribly executed, I think we all admit that to at least a minor degree. So, I guess I'm asking you what your choice would be now. Let us propose a scenario of peaceful exchange of the boy. Should he have been given to his father, or remained with his relatives?

------------------
And there he is. The reigning champion of the Boonta Classic, and the crowd favorite-TheAhnFahn

[This message has been edited by theahnfahn (edited May 01, 2000).]

My Bad I had a bad taste in my mouth from the JPB board and things gone wrong there I am truely sorry. I did not read the cantinas slogan carefully enough.

I know know one knows what the hell I am talking about but I screwed up on page one.
------------------
Remember...Your Focus Determins your Reality....

[This message has been edited by 84Elan (edited May 01, 2000).]

Elan's reality appears to be a little out of focus.

--wiz

Elian is old news, its time to move on to the next tragedy for America to magnify out of proportion, whatever it may be.

You know, I love this country, I just think we make too much out of nothing, I mean, do you really care about Elian Gonzalez. We have it so good in this country we have nothing better to do than gripe and moan about a little kid from Cuba.

But that is the greatest thing about this country, we can focus on things that don't matter. It's not like we live in Iran, where yesterday they held a rally so they could have a free press. Free press is one of the foundations of this country, and Iranians can't even read an objectively written newspaper article or look at non-government controlled television. So please, look at things in perspective.

TheAhnFahn--

I was trying to disengage from this discussion, but I do want to answer your questions:

It seems to me as though you felt the boy should have remained in Miami. Am I reading you correctly?

Before the raid, I was informed by a broadcast media source I trust that Juan is an unfit father who hadn't seen the boy in three years (i.e., since Elian was 3 years old). Obviously, you don't want to remove a child from a fit and decent parent, no matter where that child lives. But we have ample precedent in this country for removing kids from unfit parents for their own good. The best interests of the child come first, above all else.

Vagabond and others inform me that Juan, the father, was not at all unfit. If I was earlier misinformed and if Juan has been involved in the boy's life all along, that clearly changes things, but I haven't been able to confirm the truth either way.

But my initial reaction was based on that information, in which case I thought the mother's dying wishes should be respected, and the boy should be allowed to stay in America and be free (according to terms of a Carter admin law, which does not discriminate on the basis of age--even a 6-yr-old can make the choice to stay according to that law).

A lot of people think there's no difference between life in the USA and life in Cuba. They see nothing wrong with Castro (despite his history of torture, terror, and oppression). If that's so, I wonder why people risk their lives on leaky little boats, often being strafed by the Cuban air force, to get to our shores.

Let us propose a scenario of peaceful exchange of the boy. Should he have been given to his father, or remained with his relatives?

Janet Reno promised there would be no raid. When she said that, I figured there probably would be. I was right.

I think the boy should have stayed with the relatives until the matter was settled in the courts, which would have taken place early this month. In that court appearance, the boy would be allowed to speak for himself. I think it was important, in Reno's mind, to get Elian away from the Miami relatives so that he could be psychologically influenced to say all the right things at his court appearance.

I can tell you this: If I had been Elian's father, I would have told the feds to keep their guns and pepper spray away from my son. I would have pursued every peaceful means, but it would have ripped my heart out to see my boy dragged screaming out of that house at gunpoint. The fact that Juan M. Gonz. thought THIS violent approach was a good idea makes me suspect my earlier information about him may have been accurate. Could a decent, fit father say, "Yeah, go in with guns, kick in the doors, and snatch my boy?" Maybe if the people holding him were real kidnappers or terrorists, but not from these good people. I would have said, "Let's wait and get this matter into court. Let's not do anything hasty or dangerous."

Everything should have been done peacefully, without guns and tear gas. That dangerous raid shows how desperate this government was to preserve a backdoor deal with Castro to open US-Cuba relations and give Clinton a legacy other than Monica Lewinsky. I'm certain that's what this is all about (remember, Juan's attorney, Greg Craig, is the same attorney who defended Clinton in the impeachment trial; where does a Cuban doorman get the kind of money to hire the President's own lawyer? the fix is in).

--wiz




[This message has been edited by wizzywig (edited May 02, 2000).]

America should pass a child customody bill called the Elian Bill of Rights. Stating that a family with access to greater wealth and freedom can take away children form their blood parents. That would be great for rich couples who can't have children.Then they can go into poor inner city neighborhoods and take 6 year olds form their parents under the reasoning that 'Hey, these kids are growing up in a poor hell hole with only a few changes of clothes, drugs are rampant, and they will probably join a gang and I am just saving them.' Yeah, that sounds like a Uptopia to me. (I'm laying on thesarcasim thick here for those of you who are kinda dumb out there.)

I read an article from Time magazine. Here was just some of what I read.

1)The family warned agents that if they wanted Elian they would have to use force.

2)Marisleysis warned a federal official that "There's more than cameras inside the house."

3)4 of the 30 or so who took the liberty of "protecting" the house were members of Alpha 66. This group was greatly anti-Castro, and the article says once before this group had opened fire in a 1995 incident.

4)The raid was legal, with two warrants issued and the claim is they were placed on the table.

5)The deadline for negotiations was 2 A.M., and Reno pushed it back to 3, then 4, then she granted even more time. Finally, Reno said time was up, but still remained on the line. She didn't send the raid "during" the negotiations.

6)The family refused to fly to Washington, saying they prefered to drive. When negotiations failed to even get the family to leave town, I think it was apparent to Reno that the family would only want one outcome - full custody of Elian.

So, what does everyone think? This is a slighty strong case to warrant armed troops to seize Elian back into the custody of his father. When I think what could have happened to one of the INS agents if they were killed due to lack of protection, I wonder if the world would see this raid differently. Anyway, read the article. Most of those points I brought up might be out of context.

------------------
And there he is. The reigning champion of the Boonta Classic, and the crowd favorite-TheAhnFahn

TheAhnFahn--

I don't know what to make of your info, only because I don't trust TIME as an unbiased news source (through Strobe Talbott and other connections, TIME is very tightly connected editorially with the Clinton administration propaganda machine). No doubt, however, there is some basis for some or all of the details they printed.

I actually regret having started this thread, in large part because I opened it in a fit of emotion rather than being well-informed. I have been so immersed in research on the current project I'm writing that I really have not been well-informed on this subject, and I am the first to confess that I went off half-cocked. (As previously noted, I particularly regret naming this thread "Police State America"--that was excessive hyperbole.)

There is no doubt in my mind that Clinton politics, not child welfare, drives this thing (the Greg Craig connection is proof of that). But I'm beginning to think that Elian's father is not the horrible father I was originally led to believe. He himself confesses he was a womanizing jerk, and that his sexual behavior led to the breakup of the marriage, so he's obviously not a great father (good fathers are committed to their marriage and to their kids, and don't screw around). But I'm getting a sense that, for all his faults, he does love the boy.

So it's a complex and murky matter, and US-Cuban politics are definitely a major factor. So is Clinton's own legacy ambition.

Though those factors muddy the waters, it may well be that the boy belongs with his father. One question I still have is if Elian goes back to Cuba, will he actually be with his father, or will he become an institutionalized ward of the state as Castro has indicated? If the boy becomes a ward of the state, he should stay here.

But who really knows? The info in the media is all conflicting and confusing.

My talking about it doesn't change anything, so I've decided from now on to stick to physics and metaphysics, where I feel better informed.

(Btw, AhnFahn, you and I need to talk AI one of these days. Especially some of Roger Penrose's ideas.)

--wiz

I think this next Monday is my last day of school, so send me any/all things you want me to read. I will do likewise. And get some more of those chapters done, STAT!

Hey guys, I know this was a serious discussion, but I couldn't resist.

Of course, considering the situation, it would probably take more than this..

http://www.public.iastate.edu/~kurgan/toon28.jpg)

Kurgan

LOL!!

(I just hope that cartoonist didn't give Reno any ideas...!)

-wiz

I agree with your whole comment Vagabond!!!!!

When reading this page my first thoughts where: Are there any reasonable persons left in the US?????

Fortunately there are.....

Thanks monster http://www.jediknight.net/mboard/smile.gif)


------------------
VagabondNomad on the Zone...

All the world's a stage, and all the men and women merely players...