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 : About that Cuban boy, Elian -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Rambi who wrote (3669)	4/29/2000 9:26:00 PM
From: Jim S	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 9127

If Elian were to have his "day in court", represented by an impartial guardian ad litem, and the verdict were rendered that he should be returned to his father... That's one interesting hypothetical. Here's another: What will happen if he is actually granted asylum? Will Juan and the whole Cuban Consulate make a point of handing him over, tearfully, to a court-appointed guardian? Or, will he be whisked to a waiting airplane for a direct flight to Havana? jim

To: Rambi who wrote (3669)	4/29/2000 9:44:00 PM
From: The Barracuda™	Respond to of 9127

Does Elian have a right to his life, his liberty and his happiness? I say yes. The opposition says "huh?." I reject that. Does Juan Miguel want Elian returned to Cuba? Who knows, he is not free to talk. Juan Miguel's wishes? He is unable to speak. Why is Juan Miguel here? Does Castro want Elian back? How would that be reflected by Juan Miguel? Is Juan Miguel the hostage? Questions of law are dependant upon what rights you think Elian has. But these particulars are just the details of what is really going on here. An editorial; The Real (and Sinister) Meaning of the Elian Raid To Undermine His Chances for Political Asylum and Thus Betray the Principles America Stands For By Edwin A. Locke The fully justified national uproar over the storm trooper-like kidnapping of Elian Gonzalez has taken attention away from a more fundamental issue. What has not been discussed is the motive for the raid. It was no coincidence that the raid occurred after the Justice Department had been rebuffed by the 11th Circuit Court of appeals in its efforts to bypass an asylum hearing. Clearly Reno and her minions hoped that by forcibly reuniting Elian with his father they could make the asylum issue moot. It is obvious that a six-year-old boy could not be expected either to reject his own father or to understand the nature or importance of individual rights and political freedom. Thus the government hoped it could argue that Elian now really wants to go back to Cuba and that there is no need even to discuss asylum. But this brings up a deeper question. Why does Reno want Elian to go back to Cuba? Superficially, it might seem as if she is simply wedded to ?the law? in some obsessive, soulless fashion ? like Inspector Javert in Les Miserables. In this view, her premise would simply be: a father (or mother) has the right to his own child and that?s that. This explanation, however, will not do. Reno knows very well that parental rights are not absolute. For example, parents do not have the right to beat or abuse their children; if they do, the child is taken away from them and the abusive parents are sent to jail. The flaw in the ?parental rights? argument is that individual rights, and not parental rights, are primary. Parents who abuse the individual rights of their child have their parental rights taken away. Reno?s deeper premise is that a totalitarian dictatorship is not inimical to a child?s rights. If one has followed the Elian story in the press and on TV, two things have been apparent. First, left-leaning commentators try desperately to steer clear of any discussion of the actual nature of the Cuban State. Second, if pushed to the wall on the issue, they claim that Cuba is not really that bad (not as bad, for example, as Nazi Germany) or that it is just a matter of personal preference (a ?difference in life style?). Consider what a totalitarian dictatorship actually involves: (1) no freedom of speech; (2) imprisonment or death for ?political? crimes, e.g., criticizing the state; (3) a one-party political system; and (4) no private property. In effect, under Communism or any form of dictatorship, you have no rights and are the property of the state, to be disposed of in any way the dictator sees fit. (That children are the property of the state is stated explicitly in the Cuban Constitution and recently by Cuban officials in relation to Elian.) It is true that Cuba has not killed millions as did the Nazis and Soviets ? the estimate is about 17,000. But the difference is only a matter of degree not of principle. Many Cubans have died in prison; many still languish in jail for the crime of disagreeing with Castro. Many thousands of the best and brightest have fled, yearning to breathe free. Thousands more have died in the attempt, some of whom were killed in cold blood by Castro?s goons. All who wish to speak out live in fear of being turned in by their neighbors, many of whom work for the secret police. Can Janet Reno look the American people in the eye and claim that sending a child to such a country, one where he will never have any rights and will live at the mercy of a totalitarian dictator, is not a form of child abuse? What if a black child had escaped from the South in 1860 and the child?s father, a plantation slave, for whatever reason, demanded his return? Would Reno have complied on the grounds of parental rights? It would seem that Reno?s answer would have to be Yes to both of these questions. If so, then we have to ask what we stand for as a nation if we allow her to send Elian back. America was founded on the principle that the role of the government is to protect individual rights; that the individual is sovereign; that people have the inalienable right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness; that the individual?s life belongs to him, not to the state. If we betray these principles, then we, as Americans, will have betrayed an innocent six-year-old boy and our own moral greatness. Edwin A. Locke, a professor of management and psychology at the University of Maryland at College Park, is a senior writer for the Ayn Rand Institute in Marina del Rey, Calif. The Institute promotes the philosophy of Ayn Rand, author of Atlas Shrugged and The Fountainhead. www.aynrand.org

To: Rambi who wrote (3669)	4/29/2000 10:03:00 PM
From: The Barracuda™	Respond to of 9127

What is the law in this case? These folks have an opinion Revolt in Reno's Ranks Crime/Corruption News Source: newsmax. Published: 4-29-00 Author: newsmax. Posted on 04/29/2000 18:21:32 PDT by FISHHOG A contingent of federal prosecutors and other staff members in the Miami office of the U.S. Attorney showed up dressed in black as a sign of their shame and disapproval of the actions of their boss, Attorney General Janet Reno in sending armed raiders to snatch Elian Gonzalez from the house of his relatives. ``We dressed in black to tell the Cuban-American community that not everyone is in agreement with the actions taken,'' a protesting federal employee, one of 12 prosecutors and 13 staff members, told the Miami Herald, in what the newspaper called "an act of defiance against their boss." According to the Herald many of the protesting employees said they did not want to be identified, because of fear of losing their jobs or their credibility among colleagues because of what many called their ``crisis of conscience.''

To: Rambi who wrote (3669)	4/29/2000 10:13:00 PM
From: The Barracuda™	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 9127

More law: Dershowitz: Reno-INS 'Took Law into Their Own Hands' Last Thursday night Alan Dershowitz appeared in CNBC's Geraldo program. Some of his comments are excerpted below. Family Was Not Breaking the Law "They[the government] had a very easy remedy here. They could have gone to a court [and] got a court order, held the family in contempt. If the family refused to leave, then they could have gotten a warrant and arrested family members who were in contempt of court. ...They couldn't have because the family was not breaking the law." Only a Court Order Can Direct a Citizen. "Nobody has an obligation in this country to listen to the executive. The executive, whether it's the president or the INS, has no authority over citizens of this country. "You need a court order to tell a citizen of this country to respond to the INS. And it establishes a terrible precedent for Janet Reno or any other member of the administration to set deadlines, to give orders. "Citizens do not have an obligation to obey the executive. They have an obligation to obey court orders." Reno Circumvented Court Order. "And remember another thing: that Janet Reno circumvented the court order. The court order said essentially, 'Let's retain the status quo.' The object of this raid was to moot the appeal because we're now going to see the lawyers for the father... "... am predicting that this is going to happen. We're going to see this appeal mooted as the result of this--of this removal of the child and the change in the status quo. "... Because the father will now say that the child has no right to make an application for asylum, and the 11th Circuit will be stripped of its jurisdiction. "...the 11th Circuit wanted to decide, and that's exactly why the 11th Circuit ordered him to stay in the United States, and that's exactly why they didn't seek a court order, because they knew they wouldn't get one." Reno-INS Took Law into Their Own Hands. "And they took the law into their own hands, and that's what's wrong here. And as a civil libertarian, you have to complain, even when you think the right result may have been reached if the wrong means were used in reaching it."