Good Morning Karen:
Stating the action was illegal is not hyperbole. It's an opinion, based on my understanding of the fourth amendment, and our Bill of Rights. You may disagree with my opinion, but it's certainly not hyperbole. If however, I had said. "The blitzkrieging illegal action of Janet Reno's Storm Troopers was illegal" you might have a point regarding hypocrisy. Calling the statement illegal, "hyperbole" is a real stretch.
It looks like the people supporting the governments actions regarding the abduction of Elian, need to stretch quite a few statements in their defense of Janet Reno.
Everyone is entitled to their opinion. I have not criticized anyones opinion. I have asked how they came to those conclusions. And have criticized using language which is clearly full of hyperbole. If I call someone a "murderer", I would expect to be challenged regarding how I came to that conclusion. People on this thread have called the Miami relatives "kidnappers". A statement they still cling to in order to defend the governments actions. Does anyone seriously believe the Justice Department would *not* have arrested the relatives if they felt they had a case regarding *kidnapping*? Of course they don't. And I believe you're intelligent enough to know it. Yet the word gets used over and over and re-spoken without challenge. Why? Do supporters need these images painted in their mind in order to support their position? They were "kidnappers". Yes, that's it. Go get em Janet Reno.
The rest of your statement follow this same path of misalignment. My opinions are simply that. And I have offered a defense of each of those statements in the short time of posting here. Obviously, you disagree with how I came to those conclusions. That is your opinion, and you're entitled to it.
Has anyone seriously defended the claim that the Cuban Americans were "kidnappers"? Of course they have not. The Justice Department is pretty pathetic, but I would at least give them credit for having the ability to recognize and charge a "kidnapper" if it were true.
I could be wrong, but I believe quite a few posters on this thread will have mud on their face when the 11th circuit court issues it's ruling in the coming weeks. Not only regarding the illegal alien status recently ascribed to defend their action, but on quite a few other grounds as well. We shall see...
I do wonder though, if supporters believe this is the proper way to handle illegal children living in homes of law abiding citizens, how many other raids are necessary to grab the hundreds of illegal children going to school in southern California? I recently read a report which claimed up to 10% of children in certain school districts are believed to be illegal aliens.
Some may dream of an America in which INS agents are surrounding homes (without a court order) and snatching children believed to be illegal aliens. I certainly do not. And I further believe the ones who stated "It happens all the time" really don't believe children are snatched by INS agents in this manner "all the time". The act of snatching a child (in order to clear a custody dispute) was practically unprecedented for the INS. It simply doesn't "happen all the time" and that's one of the main reasons there is so much controversy surrounding the case.
I also recently read that a dozen Cuban Americans mothers have children still being held in Cuban. And I wonder why the press isn't getting all exorcized regarding their plight.
Michael |
