SI
SI
discoversearch

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 : Libertarian Discussion Forum -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: Jim S who wrote (3609)5/10/2000 7:12:00 PM
From: The Philosopher  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 13062
 
Well, hindsight is always 100%.

Sure, there were lots of possible ways to do it. I might have chosen a different one. They might now wish they had chosen a different one. But that doesn't necessarily make the decision wrong from the outset (the way the Waco action was wrong from the outset, but don't get me off on THAT diversion!)

None of us were privy to the discussions going on, but what I hear is that the family had refused to turn Elian over if requested. They had been asked numerous times, and indeed ordered, to bring him to turn over, but kept refusing. So I think it was fair to assume (maybe wrong, we'll never know, but fair) that knocking on the door would be useless and only alert people.

Also, it wasn't only the people inside the house they were worried about, but the crowds outside. Your way would have involved a much longer, relatively, time period, posting officers (with semi-automatic weapons and riot gear, or without? you don't say), then going to the door, knocking, presumably waiting for some response, giving time for Elian to be spirited into the locked bedroom and maybe hidden better, if they got admitted going in, asking for Elian, probably being told he was around but they weren't going to give him up, asking for permission to search the house, maybe getting it, but then doing what at the locked bedroom door, all this giving more time for the crowds to gather and respond. Would hotheads in the crowd have started throwing bricks, rocks, bottles, etc. if they had this time to prepare? I would bet on it. Riot time, masses of police being needed to quell the riot, maybe deciding it wasn't safe to bring Elian out into the middle of that, hours of civil unrest, etc. And then some people -- I won't accuse you, but others -- would have been criticizing their restraint and asking why they just didn't go in, grab the kid,and get out, and you, of course, would have been defending their restraint and saying that's just the way it should have happened but too bad the crowd got out of control.

Basically, it was a no win situation for anybody, and the best thing to do with no win situations is to get them over with as quickly as possible, like yanking that tooth out instead of pulling slowly. More shocking pain, but over and done with quickly.

As to breaking the law, I actually think they were. The only legal basis they had for having the kid in the first place was that the government (mistakenly, IMO, which started the whole mess) gave them temporary guardianship instead of either returning Elian right away, or putting him in an approved foster care facility. But once their guardianship was formally ended, which it was, and the father had asked for the return of his child, which he had, they were violating the law in retaining him. I don't know the federal or Florida law at issue, but in Washington it would be custodial interference, defined as:

RCW 9A.40.060 Custodial interference in the first degree. A relative of a child under the age of eighteen or of an incompetent person is guilty of custodial interference in the first degree if, with the intent to deny access to the child or incompetent person by a parent, guardian, institution, agency, or other person having a lawful right to physical custody of such person, the relative takes, entices, retains, detains, or conceals the child or incompetent person from a parent, guardian, institution, agency, or other person having a lawful right to physical custody of such person...

Seems pretty clear that they retained or detained Elian away from his parent and to the INS, either or both of which, depending on how you look at, had the lawful right to physical custody of Elian.

As to the photographer, my hand is down. I think Reno is basically incompetent, and not bright enough to have devised such a devious plan. You give her way too much credit. My understanding is that they knew press people were in and out of the house all the time (which is another damn good reason Elian should have been out of there long before) and they decided not to interfere with them.

And now I really have to go get some work done!



To: Jim S who wrote (3609)5/12/2000 7:04:00 PM
From: JG  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 13062
 
I agree with much of the politics expressed on this thread, but your responses re: swat teams and comparing their tactics to Nazi SS goes way too far. Your opinions re: this issue are stupid, far too emotional, and ill conceived. Swat, a necessary component of any police agency, carry out raids across this land on a daily basis. Some are over reaction, but most are necessary to the situation. In either event, vests and riot gear may appear to you to be overkill, but in the event of a surprise the consequences are unacceptable - death or serious injury.



To: Jim S who wrote (3609)5/12/2000 11:12:00 PM
From: chalu2  Read Replies (2) | Respond to of 13062
 
You are certainly free to express whatever opinions you wish, but your reference to "storm troopers" offends the memory of the millions who died in the Holocaust. These are the actions of the storm troopers--you find any great similarity???:

history1900s.about.com

history1900s.about.com

nizkor.org

history1900s.about.com

history1900s.about.com