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.

Politics : PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: MulhollandDrive who wrote (17528)	4/25/2000 1:38:00 PM
From: Neocon	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 769667

Excellent post, Betty.......

To: MulhollandDrive who wrote (17528)	4/25/2000 8:30:00 PM
From: greenspirit	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 769667

Hello Betty, good to see you posting again. Isn't it strange how so many people feel better now that the boy is hidden behind a military compound, instead of in a home where the press had daily access to him and could film at their hearts content. You can bet if the boy was as happy as they say in those pictures, the Clinton/Gore spin machine would have trumped him out in front of every film camera possible. Issues: 1. Was the family doing anything illegal by taking care of Elian? No 2. Does the nation have a right to break into law abiding Americans homes, shove rifles in their face, tear gas in the windows and take a child which was given to them by that same agency without so much as knocking? No. 3. Was the boy under any danger of being harmed by the law abiding Americans who were taking care of him. No. 4. Did the boy have a right to asylum? Yes. 5. Does the boy now have a right to counsel? Yes. 6. Is he being allowed to exercise those rights. No. 7. Can he even make a phone call? No. (or we don't know) 8. Is it healthy for the well being of the boy to have guns shoved in his face and not be able to say goodbye to the mother figure who took care of him for 6 months. No. 9. Does the father, or the INS, have the legal right to transport him back to Cuba? No, not unless he cancels his asylum request. 10. Is it healthy for our society to allow a government agency to break down a law abiding citizens door and point automatic weapons in their face, then ransack the place? No. 11. Would the family members have given the child over to law enforcement officers peacefully, if given the opportunity? We don't know. But we have a moral obligation to find out first, before we bash down doors, stick machine guns in faces, and throw tear gas on law abiding Americans. 12. Do the polls indicate most Americans understand simple principles of our Constitution and the 4th amendment? No (thank you public school system) 13. Does this administration lye, can they be trusted to be telling the truth regarding the pictures and Elian's status? Yes, and NO. 14. Do we as Americans have a moral obligation to ensure our constitution and its principles are followed? Yes. This whole issue is such a no brainer it's pathetic. And I am astonished to see so many Americans, and especially lawyers, completely ignorant of the 4th amendment. I would also be willing to bet if a priest was asked to walk up to the door in the middle of the day with agents (dressed in plain clothes) who calmly showed a warrant to the inhabitants. The child would have had a tearful, but lawful departure from the home and our country wouldn't have been torn apart by Clinton/Gore/Reno and their blitzkrieging forces. Michael