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 (6306)	5/25/2000 10:41:00 AM
From: jhild	Respond to of 9127

Whatever the rescue was it was not an illegal action. The Attorney General of the US had rendered an opinion about Elian's parole status - that his parole was to be transferred to his father. A US magistrate issued a search warrant, and was clearly apprized of the volatile circumstances under which it would be executed. The INS had even asked in their request that they be permitted to conduct the operation in the early hours when the crowds would be thinnest and the situation could best be handled. Regrettably I don't believe there are inalienable 4th Amendment rights for illegal aliens. After all they are illegal aliens are they not? An alien is not a citizen, and while we commonly extend constitutional process to aliens, I don't believe that there are any guarantees accorded illegal aliens. For instance the operation of the INS itself deals with interdicted aliens. There is no day in court for these individuals. They are given juice and donuts and bussed back to the border. Hasta la vista baby. Sometimes several times a day for some aliens. While the Relatives have 4th Amendment rights, it was Elian that did not yet possess standing. The Relatives were thwarting the process of the INS and upon their failure to return Elian to the OpaLaka Airport had changed their status from "paroled in the custody of" to "harboring an illegal alien". You are welcome to your opinion that Reno and the INS violated Constitutional guarantees. I urge you to write your congressman with your outrage. But I also urge you to rethink your characterization of the raid as illegal, because by all appearances, with the concurrence of the judicial branch, and the latitude granted them under the INA, there was nothing identifiably illegal about what they did. As to the use of the term kidnapping, I think while it may be inflammatory, it is also accurate. The Relatives were refusing to give up the boy. He was being refused the requested return to his father. Looks to me like Cinderella's foot fits that slipper. If you really feel strongly that the Relatives should be arrested, I would go along with that. It might be a little harsh, but I could live with their doing time over all this if you insist.

To: greenspirit who wrote (6306)	5/25/2000 11:01:00 AM
From: Rambi	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 9127

Does anyone seriously believe the Justice Department would not* have arrested the relatives if they felt they had a case regarding kidnapping?* Well, I certainly do!! WHether a technical case for kidnapping could be made or not, in this instance, it would have been very injudicious of the govt to prosecute. Particularly in family matters, the full extent of what CAN be done under the law is often not done. Why do you think the Miami relatives still had legal rights once their petition for custody was denied in court? And if they didn't, on what basis did they refuse to turn over Elian when ordered? The Asylum request had been dismissed and they were ordered on Apr 12 to turn over E. They refused and got the court order for E to remain in US until an appeal. However, they still did not have a legal custodial right to E. and at that time should have returned him to his father when ordered and not put him through the ensuing mess. That they were negotiating demands and conditions I find inappropriate and they bear some responsibility for what happened. I think they overplayed their hand.

To: greenspirit who wrote (6306)	5/25/2000 11:35:00 AM
From: Lane3	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 9127

Hi Michael, In case I wasn't clear about it, I agree that "kidnapping" is not an objective way to describe the relationship between Elian and the relatives, although Master makes a good point--that there really isn't a good alternative word. IMO "kidnapping" is inflammatory. Two posters who use the word have acknowledged that it is. So I understand why you're feeling inflamed. Perhaps the "other side's" use of inflammatory words warrants your responding in kind. But it doesn't warrant your not recognizing that your characterizations are inflammatory, too. I've pursued this point with you because I have had the impression that you are trying to be thoughtful about this issue, which I value, and because your rebuttals are civil, which I also value. I don't want to beat this thing to death. Three times in our dialog you made the point that, since the relatives were not arrested, what they were doing must not have been illegal. This time you've changed the meaning. Now you're saying that, since the relatives were not arrested, that Justice must not have had a case, in particular, a kidnapping case. That's quite different. Was the shift intentional? Is some of this feedback getting through? As you suggest, one reason why Justice might not arrest someone engaging in criminal behavior is that they don't have enough evidence to prove it. Another is that it's not worth starting a riot, as X said. Another is that they feel compassion for the relatives, think they've suffered enough and don't want to pile on. Another is that they don't want to lose whatever Hispanic vote they might have. Prosecutors have discretion and there are lots of reasons. Another possibility is that the relatives did nothing illegal. You prefer this last explanation. You're entitled to your opinion. I strongly support everyone's right to his opinion. But if you insist that the fact that the relatives weren't arrested proves that they did nothing illegal, you are badly in need of a good book on logic. That is not a matter of opinion. <<I could be wrong, but I believe quite a few posters on this thread will have mud on their face when the 11th circuit court issues it's ruling in the coming weeks. Not only regarding the illegal alien status recently ascribed to defend their action, but on quite a few other grounds as well. We shall see...>> Yes, we shall see. I'm looking forward to hearing what they have to say. I'm particularly looking forward to seeing everyone's reaction to it. Karen

To: greenspirit who wrote (6306)	5/25/2000 1:02:00 PM
From: Master (Hijacked)	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 9127

Having served your penance, I officially inform you that you have been removed from my Ignore List. My Ignore List is once again empty as I value everyone's opinion no matter how silly it may be. Cheers, Vince