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: greenspirit who wrote (6183)	5/24/2000 3:26:00 AM
From: marcos	Respond to of 9127

Michael, there have been reporters on the ground in C rdenas, there was an in-depth NY Times article over a month ago, i don't know the url, jhild posted it originally ... anyway, a fair bit of information exists which contradicts your speculation that Juan Miguel "didn't even see the boy for three years before he left". And to contradict a lot else in your post ... wow, you're real determined to rip the kid out of his family, aren't you ... well, can't wish ya luck on it, sorry If you'd like to get active in opposing the martial powers of the INS, though, here are some others interested - reporternews.com amnestyusa.org hrw.org [edit] - speaking of the Bay of Pigs - dailynews.yahoo.com

To: greenspirit who wrote (6183)	5/24/2000 8:32:00 AM
From: Lane3	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 9127

Michael, You start here: <<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.>> And you end up here: <<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. >> You would have been better served to quit while you were ahead. I agree there's a lot that we don't know. Actually, we don't "know" much of anything. Sometimes we all say "know" when we mean "believe" or "conclude" or "find it most plausible." Such is the sloppy nature of our language usage, particularly in this type of forum. I think we all need to make some allowances for that sort of talk. We also need to make allowances for a bit of hyperbole. "Kidnap" is hyperbole. I'm sure that the gang will correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think that the kidnap proponents really mean that. You realize it's hyperbole. You said so. <<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.>> How do you get from hyperbole to illogical thinking? Hyperbole is exaggeration to emphasize a point. It may be excessive and overly dramatic, but it's not inherently illogical. <<Rambi, I'm interested in how you've come to these conclusions with such certainty.>> What seems illogical to me is that, in a post that has as its apparent main point the notion that we don't know enough to come to come to such strong conclusions, you then proceed to verbalize a whole bunch of strong conclusions as though they were proven. For example: -Justice Departments illegal action; -The relatives weren't doing anything illegal; -to clear a custody dispute; and -that home was broken into was for political purpose. Neither you nor I knows any of those things for sure. While we're on the subject of illogic, here are a couple of beauts. <<Lastly, the belief that this sort of thing happens all the time is simply nonsense....I've asked Steven to post one article where this sort of thing has happened. And he has been unable to find one.>> So, Steven hasn't posted an article here on SI, ergo this sort of thing doesn't happen all the time? Is that like the tree falling in the forest--if Steven doesn't hear it it doesn't make a sound? First of all, if this sort of thing happens all the time, then it wouldn't be reported in the papers any more than my trip to the grocery store would be reported. Secondly, just because Steven didn't post it or couldn't find it, that doesn't mean that it wasn't reported. Egads! << The relatives weren't doing anything illegal. The meer fact that they were never arrested testifies to that quite clearly.>> So, if I drive at 90 MPH on the interstate and I don't get arrested, speeding is not illegal? Or, since Clinton didn't get arrested, perjury must not be illegal. "Interesting" argument. I suggest you re-evaluate your own thought processes before you criticize Rambi for hers. Karen

To: greenspirit who wrote (6183)	5/24/2000 8:52:00 AM
From: Lane3	Respond to of 9127

Michael, I've noticed your emphasis on decisions being made by political appointees, but I'm not sure what you're getting at. In the Federal government, other than the President and Vice President, there are basically two kinds of officials--political appointees and civil servants. Are you saying that you'd prefer the decisions be made by civil servants? Karen

To: greenspirit who wrote (6183)	5/24/2000 9:23:00 AM
From: md1derful	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 9127

Michael: What continues to amaze me is that this battered and bruised so-called justice dept..expended so much political and real capital all for this one rotten kid..Reno had her agenda, clearly...Castro had his, clearly....Clinton, well he's Clinton....the family made the unfortunate decision to assume care of the kid after he was released from the hospital...Ronald Reagan would have said...screw you Castro, the kid stays, end of discussion, now lets get onto more important ways to waste taxpayers money!!! doc

To: greenspirit who wrote (6183)	5/24/2000 9:32:00 AM
From: Rambi	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 9127

Morning, Michael, I never view anything with certainty- you know that! But I do think that you;'re confusing the issue of Elian's custody with the issue of abuse of government power. This isn't a custody case- it was dismissed in Family Court, preemepted by the feds and the INS. The first ruling was in question anyway, because of a conflict of interest on the part of the judge. As far as custody goes, the temporary assignment to the relatives had been terminated. This is why when you say the government can't order citzens to hand over a child I think you are wrong. He wasn't THEIR child to keep. He IS Juan's. Our representative had gone to Cuba in Dec. to verify this. The relatives had no legal rights to Elian. They had been ordered to turn him over and refused.(oh- and wherever you read that Juan wasn't the father, which sounds like National INquirer stuff- goodness! there are PICTURES of him at birthday parties and with both Elian and Elizabet at the birth and beyond. The family had met him on a visit to Cuba. The family never alleged that garbage. They wanted JUan HERE.) Whether the Miami relatives are the greatest people in the world or whether they are slime is irrelevant. Elian has a father. When Lazaro decided to ignore the order to return Elian and began making demands, he placed the government in an adversarial position. What did he think would happen? When the crowd swore to keep the government out- to form a human chain around the house,what did they think would happen? I am baffled by why we don't hold everyone accountable for their roles in further provoking this situation. The government may have been acting politically, but so was everyone else. And I am very confused about the actual legal justification you say was missing for the raid because I understand there were warrants issued. I'm not qualified to comment on the legality of all this and believe that it will be dissected for a long time to come. I am angry at the government, as are you, for the absurd position we are in now. Last night, I started thinking about the ridiculous amount of money we are spending keeping Elian in this country and pacifying Castro with these insane actions like flying children and teachers in when we have children watching relatives get shot right and left in the projects, children who see their mothers overdose and die, children's whose lives are far more severely limited than Juan's when it comes to healthcare, education, and possibility. We SHOULD be asking for answers. I don't disagree with you at all. Some of the answers will satisfy some of us, and some not, but I don't think anyone here is convinced that this was handled WELL.

To: greenspirit who wrote (6183)	5/24/2000 5:56:00 PM
From: Dayuhan	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 9127

I've asked Steven to post one article where this sort of thing has happened. And he has been unable to find one. What I said was that the INS conducts armed raids on a regular basis. You somehow turned around and asked for a precedent for an armed raid to retrieve a foreign child who was being forcibly prevented from returning to his parent by a politically-motivated exile community. I didn't say I could find a precedent for that; I'm not sure anyone could. This is not and never was a custody case. The US does not have jurisdiction in the custody of a nonresident alien minor. The protestors may not have been an evil mob, but there had been threats and threatening statements, and it is by no means unreasonable to think that Juan Miguel would have received a less than friendly reception there. The Miami Cuban clique has a somewhat spotty reputation, I'm sure you could find out why if you looked. If they had their way, we'd be sending American boys over to Cuba to restore their properties and privileges - the properties and privileges they misused drastically enough to force the common people to turn to Communism.