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 (6308)	5/26/2000 1:51:00 AM
From: greenspirit	Read Replies (4) \| Respond to of 9127

Hello Miss Rambi! Stand bye, I am about to cast a post so clear, so pursuasive, in the end you will toss down your mouse and say..."Damn, ok you're right"! :-) Perhaps I've given you the wrong impression in my postings. I don't necessarily believe the Miami Relatives acted completely appropriate given the circumstances. Further, I don't necessarily believe they should have custody rights over the father. I do however, believe the Justice Department has an obligation to act within the spirit and confines of the fourth amendment. And they didn't while abducting Elian. While reading many of the posters on this thread, I can't help but wonder if they think we should even have a court system. And instead replace it with news reports and opinions. The Miami relatives were not even charged with a crime, yet many here believe they not only committed a crime, but they're "guilty" beyond a shadow of a doubt to boot. Pretty presumptuous of them if you ask me. I suppose it makes for an interesting argument to view this episode as a good-guy-bad-guy movie real or something. One where the characters are clearly mapped in ones mind as to their motivations, actions and level of guilt. I prefer not to draw lines in the sand and pretend I have all the answers as to what should or shouldn't be done with regard to the details of custody. I think it would be rather unusual to grant custody to the Miami relatives, given what we think we know about the father. But I'm not willing to draw a line and pretend I know everything about the personal details of their lives in order to come to such a definite conclusion. I do believe a DNA test would be appropriate, given the history of untrustworthiness fascist dictators such as Castro make a part of their daily life. After all, what real proof do we have that the boy is his father? A few pictures of them smiling together? And the word filtered through the Cuban governments news agency? Maybe the mother was leaving the island with the boys father with her? Not likely I'll grant you, but you never know for sure. I do firmly believe the manner in which the Justice Department acted (the raid) was wrong and illegal. In other words, the end does not justify the means in my mind. Allow me to illustrate a scenario to demonstrate my point. Let's say a couple was divorced. And the mother had custody of a child for 5 years after the divorce. The mother then dies and the child is handed over to the mothers grandparents since the father is unavailable, or unwilling to come and get him. Six months pass, then the father tells the grandparenst he wants his child. Now, let's say the grandparents don't think very highly of the lifestyle of the father. Let's say the father wants the child to go live in the middle of the forest with him and receive education from him and him alone. Let's further say the father is a devout marxist communist, and he doesn't want his son to be touched by the evils of capitalism. He states to the grandparents, "my cabin, in the middle of the Alaskan forest is all the boy needs for a good healthy fascist upbringing, so bug out grandma and let me raise the boy right". The police come to the grandparents door to get the child. "Maa'm we have come to take little Johnny to his father". The grandparents say, "I won't have my grandson raised by a fascist fruitcake unless the law forces me too"!And slams the door. At this point the policemen has one of three choices. 1. He can break in the door and grab the child. 2 He can go and get a court order, return and attempt to obtain custody of the child (probably bringing some buddies with him in the process), or 3. He can tear gas the place immediately, call for reinforcements, get his automatic rifle and break in the door, threatening to kill anyone who gets in his way. Which action do you think is appropriate (and lawful) for the policemen? Or perhaps there is a fourth option I may have overlooked? Now, let's get back to the case of the Miami relatives. First, did anyone in uniform walk up to the home and state they wanted to take custody of the child? No, we are told phone calls and demands were made by the Justice Department. Second, was a court order given to the relatives by anyone before they busted in the door and started throwing tear gas all over the place? No. Why? Oh yes, we're lead to believe from a few posters the protestors outside were a bunch of blood thirsty savages standing by to kill the father if he came near the home. Or they were standing by (rifle in hand) to lash out and murder an officer of the law if he approached the home with a court order. Yes, that's why we had to tear gas the children in the home, and at protestors without a warning, then shove automatic rifles in the face of those relatives! Killers and murderers were everywhere! And the fourth amendment be damned. After all, we have policemen in body armor who might get hurt. Further, a few posters have even gone so far as to infer something was "not quite right" in that home. Painting images that the fishermen was lusting after the boy in some evil way or something. No, those "Miami Cubans" can't possibly have normal friendly caring relations with one another. After all, they're Those Miami Cubans and we all know they don't quite think and act the way us real Americans do, do they? Nice movie...might even make someones favorite list on SI one day. Michael

To: Rambi who wrote (6308)	5/26/2000 2:35:00 AM
From: marcos	Respond to of 9127

"That they were negotiating demands and conditions I find inappropriate and they bear some responsibility for what happened. I think they overplayed their hand." Their refusal to release the child to Juan Miguel well after he had entered the country, on top of that propaganda video where they had him actually wagging his finger at his father ... they lost in those two moves a lot of support that they might otherwise have gained. Oh well, they're not so badly off, i see they're getting a new house.