Steven, It appears there are some things you missed. Juan did not have custody of Elian. The boy was conceived 3 years after the mother and father were divorced during an attempted, but failed, effort to reconcile. The mother had custody of the child in Cuba. Although he visited the home of the father, he did not live there. It has been reported that the father was aware of the attempt to reach the U.S. by the mother, and that she was taking the boy with her. I have no way of knowing the veracity of this report. In the U.S., the uncle of the child had been granted custody, and this grant had not been changed at the time of the raid. Reno said that they had a valid warrant but, there has been some information to the contrary published in the press, and aired on TV newscasts. It was also reported that the INS had someone watching the home for weeks before the raid and that no weapons had been seen taken into the home. Certain protesters in the street made comments that they would be "ready" for any attempt to take Elian but, no such threats were made by those living in the house.
Yes, the asylum thing was a political ploy but, the father did not have legal custody and, until such a big deal was made of the boy's survival, he didn't seem to care. After all, he made no attempt to come to America for 4 weeks after the rescue. The boy was NOT kidnapped by the Miami family.
I feel this situation should have been held pending until the courts decided the issue according to law. Although, I do not believe the boy was put in any physical danger by the raid, I do believe unnecessary mental anguish, and fear was caused.
I don't think anyone here is arguing whether the boy should stay or go but, are disturbed by the probably illegal, and definitely high handed tactics used during the raid. The main point being, that this administration does not give a hoot about the due process of the law. They do as they please, legal or not, and then cover their a**es by destroying evidence and any other means available to them. That obvious attitude of the administration is what I adamantly disagree with.
Please remember, the father never had legal custody of the child. The custody held by the uncle had not been revoked. ~H~ |
