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 (6349)	5/26/2000 2:08:00 AM
From: marcos	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 9127

Well, wouldn't any self-respecting fascist fruitcake just strap on his bigbore sixgun and go get his son himself? ... not a close analogy, i think, Michael, it lacks the fanatic contingent in the street, and the propaganda-making use of the son. You seem to have trouble with people here making judgments based on available evidence, yet you go on to do exactly the same thing ... which is fine with me, btw ... it's a free country, you have a right to be wrong -g- If you don't like the INS having sweeping martial powers, you might consider writing your congressman on the subject, and lobbying to have those powers removed ... on behalf of the future families of brown people whom you will thusly save from being split, i thank you in advance.

To: greenspirit who wrote (6349)	5/26/2000 2:45:00 AM
From: Master (Hijacked)	Respond to of 9127

I think it was your turn at the sauce tonight, wasn't it! You propose collecting semen from the father. First of all, I didn't know you were that type of guy. Secondly, why don't we collect your semen? For all we know you might be Donato's father. Thirdly, instead of using the word "abducted" in your reference to the law enforcement officers, why don't you use the word Liberated??? Finally, the infamous "court order" argument. The father was the legal guardian of the child. To everyone's knowledge, no judge had revoked this custody, not in the U.S. or in Cuba. Therefore, the father had every right in the world to walk into the house and take his son back. Because of the possibility of danger it was left up to the law officials to liberate the child from his Captors and return him to his father. As far as the rest of your story, there are so many "supposes" that they are becoming suppositories. Vince

To: greenspirit who wrote (6349)	5/26/2000 8:11:00 AM
From: Lane3	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 9127

I do however, believe the Justice Department has an obligation to act within the spirit and confines of the fourth amendment. Good morning, Michael. My topic for today is the 4th amendment, of which you are so fond. Do you really think that all Federal officials have a framed copy of the Bill of Rights hanging over their desks? That, when trying to decide how to proceed in any given situation, they glance toward the 4th amendment looking for guidance? Doesn't work that way. Congress has given them specific laws, which govern their actions, and budgets, which further direct. The court system, which I know you value, has given them case law and sometimes orders. Their own agencies have given them regulations and procedures to follow. All of these are supposedly in conformance with the 4th amendment, although the Supreme Court may later decide that they are not void them. In the meantime, officials do not have to sit there staring at the 4th amendment in its pure form wondering how it would apply in any given situation. They have laws and case law and regulations and procedures to direct them. If they still have questions, they have general counsels to interpret for them, and the general counsels have the Justice Department lawyers to guide them. The test of whether Federal officials acted in conformance with the law is to compare their actions against their own regulations and procedures, not against Michael D. Cummings's sense of the spirit of the 4th amendment. If they did not follow their own procedures, then they are at fault. If the procedures turn out to be contrary to the Supreme Court's interpretation of the 4th amendment, then the procedures need to be changed, but the officials who carried them out are not at fault. Karen p.s. This is an explanation, not an opinion. :)

To: greenspirit who wrote (6349)	5/26/2000 11:00:00 AM
From: Rambi	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 9127

Morning,Michael, I am throwing my mouse down but only in frustration with my portfolio. According to articles I read, the relatives had hoped to get Juan to America so that the family would be together. Whether politics or Juan's actual wishes got in the way of what THEY wanted is unimportant. They have no legal rights in this. Something that we need to do is keep the issues of Elian's custody, his status as an alien, and Reno's Raid separate. Reno's Raid may have been carried out within the law or it may not. I think legally that will be closely examined. In addition, the procedures of the raid need to be examined alone. I still don't see this as a custody case, but an INS one. Those who feel there is guilt on the part of the MIami relatives believe this because of their ignoring of Reno's April 12 order. This is not some opinion taken from a newspaper; it has a legitimate basis. You are ignoring the points that have been brought up that might explain why no charges were brought against the relatives. I thought Karen wrote a very clear and cogent post on this. There is no question in my mind that Juan is the father, and the relatives, who might be in a position to make the accusation that he isn't, have not done so. Have you not seen the pictures of Juan with Elian and his mother and accepted the fact that the relatives did not dispute his paternity? Most importantly- Elian thinks of him as father. Plenty of real fathers become so by adoption or artificial insemination, so a DNA test means nothing. Re: Your example of the grandparents and little Johnny. That father has the right to raise his child any way he likes, as long as the child is not being physcially or emotionally abused-- and I don't consider ideological teaching abuse. This is the crux of it for me. When we as Americans begin dictating how other's children must be raised, we violate our own beliefs. We are saying exactly what Castro says, Yeah, you can be his father, but only if you do it our way. Just because we have a better way, does not give us the right to IMPOSE it. The grandparents can always petition the court, accusing the father of being unfit. They probably won't win, though. But they can't hold Johnny from the father with no legal basis, and that was what the Miami relatives were doing. What methods the policeman use to take little Johnny -- again-- is a separate issue. Was the crowd bloodthirsty? WHo knows? They had declared that they would NOT allow Elian to be removed, they threatened to prevent it, they formed a human barricade-- crowds develop a mentality of their own that can go out of control swiftly and dangerously. In the gov't's shoes, I would be prepared for that eventuality. I don't think Donato was sexually abusing the boy. However, I think the family showed very poor judgment in allowing him to sleep with Elian and in the way they allowed people to use Elian. Close, caring relationships are all fine and dandy, but this man seems to have moved in on them in a very self-serving way. It's hard for me to believe that there is anyone left who can look at this guy as a savior in any way beyond the simple passive act of being in the boat that found Elian and taking him to shore. Donato is a shameless promoter of Donato. Yuck. I will NOT trust anything I see in the movie, will you??