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 (6164)	5/24/2000 2:34:00 AM
From: greenspirit	Read Replies (6) \| Respond to of 9127

Rambi, I'm interested in how you've come to these conclusions with such certainty. I've read quite a few reports which contradict the notion that Elians father was loving, or involved in the boys upbringing. I've also read reports the boy was born 3 years after the mother and father divorced. And the he didn't even see the boy for three years before he left. My point isn't whether I believe one report or another. My point is we simply do not know. It's an unknown and unknowable given the current situation. It's not like he came from a free country where reporters are given access to dig out information which might contradict the Cuban party line. If memory serves me correctly, don't we only have one news reporting outfit in Cuba? And aren't they under constant scrutiny regarding what they say? I also find it interesting so many people view the Miami relatives in some kind of vicious ugly light. Do we really know what they're like? The "Miami Cuban" phrase has been used so often with negative overtones in the press, it wreaks of racism to me. Additionally, I believe it makes a nice comfortable justification for the Justice Departments illegal action, to view the protesters as some kind of evil mob bent on killing the boys father. To me it's a real stretch. Were they benign loving people? Of course not. They were protesters. Protesting ones beliefs is legal in the United States of America. I don't believe for a minute they were some evil mob standing by to kill the boys father. Talk about whipped into a sound-bite frenzy! A politically chosen government official doesn't have the right to order U.S. citizens to drop off a child at their beck-and-call without a court order. They should have gotten a court order and walked up to the house with a uniformed policemen and presented it to the inhabitants. That's the way things are supposed to be done in America. The relatives weren't doing anything illegal. The meer fact that they were never arrested testifies to that quite clearly. So, all this nonsense I've seen spewed here regarding "kidnapping" is ludicrous hyperbole. If it was kidnapping, why didn't someone get arrested? The answer is quite simple. It wasn't kidnapping, yet we see people here persist in this charade of illogical thinking. It's actually quite remarkable how so many people can come to such definite conclusions about people they have never met, or spoken to one-on-one. Lastly, the belief that this sort of thing happens all the time is simply nonsense. I can't think of one incident where a government agency (without a court order) surrounded a house of a private citizen, tear gassed the place, and busted in the door pointing automatic weapons to grab a child to clear a custody dispute. Especially, where the child was in absolutely no danger to begin with. It simply doesn't happen. Custody disputes are handled in the court of law in America. Or by a court order. Not by a bunch of rifle toting armed agents sent by a political appointee. I've asked Steven to post one article where this sort of thing has happened. And he has been unable to find one. Yet, we say that it happens all the time. Why? Why do we post these false assumptions and beliefs? Is it the only thing we can cling to in order to justify the reckless actions of our government? Appointed and elected officials work for the people of the United States. They are accountable to the court system and the law, the same way we are. What's dangerous is so many people think it's honky-dory to allow a political appointee to circumvent the law and order the breaking in of private home (without a court order) for political purposes. And make no mistake, the only reason that home was broken into was for political purposes. If Janet Reno and Bill Clinton had simply let the Florida family courts handle the case, the boy would probably already be home with his father living a normal life. Wherever that home might be. Preferably, for the boys sake, in America. But no, instead we have a bunch of overactive government officials, dragging the constitution through the mud. This process, combined with Ruby Ridge and Waaco, have set a dangerous precedence toward our freedom and liberty. Michael

To: Rambi who wrote (6164)	5/25/2000 7:44:00 PM
From: Yogizuna	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 9127

Rambi, Yes, I am still ashamed to be an American now. That could change with a new administration, but I will have to wait and see..... At one time I was very proud of my country, but some things have to change, especially the attitude of the American people, so I'm not exactly holding my proverbial "breath" waiting. America and "her" people can do and will do what they want, but I certainly do not have to be proud about the road they are currently driving on, and will not be, until they make a "U-turn". Sorry, but I just can't see sending any good kid back to Cuba under current conditions. Personally, I do not believe that you know enough about Cuba, and are basing your decision almost solely on the "parent thing". I believe that to be a grave mistake, not only for you, but for the American people also. Yogi