Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Pastimes : Let's Talk About Our Feelings!!! -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Rambi who wrote (78877)	4/24/2000 4:40:00 PM
From: one_less	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 108807

Absolutely, <<Don't you think that in taking stands of any sort, it is incumbent on us to do so with the understanding that we may not be in possession of all the facts and that the other side will have some excellent points that we need to listen to with more open intent than that of finding the reason they must be wrong?>> The people of little Havana have taken a stand against Cuban communism. In many cases they may have already put their lives on the line in this respect. I have not formed such a strong conviction against Cuban politics myself but am hesitant to judge the folks from little Havana. IMO, however, they have used the issue of Ilian Gonsolas to rally interest in their political causes. On the other hand the American justice system dropped the ball on this from the beginning by not effectively controlling the custody issue. The only injustice I can see at this point is against the boy. I am disappointed in both sides. I don't think improving communications would have helped because I think both sides clearly understood one another and had their own agendas that they were positioning. The only poor communication was among the various government agencies.

To: Rambi who wrote (78877)	4/25/2000 1:47:00 PM
From: Neocon	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 108807

Writing in the NY Times, Laurence Tribe, a Harvard professor of law and liberal constitutional scholar, said: .... "under the Constitution, it is axiomatic that the executive branch has no unilateral authority to enter people's homes forcibly to remove innocent individuals without taking the time to seek a warrant or other order from a judge or magistrate" -- absent the probable cause a crime is being committed. As for the "search warrant" obtained by the INS, Tribe writes, ". . . no judge or neutral magistrate had issued the type of warrant or other authority needed for the executive branch to break into the home to seize the child." He explains that the search warrant is "not a warrant to seize the child" and that the government needed to have "secured a judicial order." Tribe concludes that Reno's decision was "worse than a political blunder," a decision that "strikes at the heart of constitutional government and shakes the safeguards of liberty." There are perfectly reasonable, non-partisan grounds to object to the actual events that transpired.........