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 (6440)	5/27/2000 12:15:00 PM
From: epicure	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 9127

If the mother did not want asylum and was not worried that her daughter would undergo genital mutilation and the daughter was not of age to get asylum for herself- I think we would have to allow the mother has the right to return to Mali. The two cases are not similar in any way- except that they both concern asylum. It isn't an issue of which is "worse" (although considering the casualty rate for genital mutilation I would rather go to Cuba then undergo genital mutilation). How about you- would you rather have your dick cut off or go to Cuba? Of course our opinions on this aren't germane to anything-imo. I just really don't like the idea of my genitals being mutilated.

To: greenspirit who wrote (6440)	5/27/2000 2:00:00 PM
From: chalu2	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 9127

The Miami relatives were not law-abiding. The INS revoked Elian's parole, as it had a right to do. It decided that Elian should be handed over to Juan Miguel, as it had a right to do. The INS did not need a court warrant or even a search warrant under our current law; it got a search warrant anyway. This is the current law--if you don't care for it, lobby to change it. But don't deny it's the law--the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals has refused to criticize or overturn the INS actions, and it has heard all these arguments. Why aren't they rectifying this situation? Are they all corrupt? Stupid? Paid off? No, they are following the law--the INS acted within the law, period. The Justice Department weakened the rule of law in this country by bowing to the demands of the Miami relatives that it "negotiate" with them over when and how they would obey the law. I think the wise words of Theodore Roosevelt need to be remembered here: No man is above the law, and no man below it; nor do we ask any man's permission when we require him to obey it." Speech, 1903

To: greenspirit who wrote (6440)	5/27/2000 2:16:00 PM
From: Lane3	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 9127

People who see this issue as a simple "fatherly rights case" are living in a black and white world unwilling, or unable to grasp the complexities involved. And what about those who see this as a simple case of protecting one boy from the evils of that commie, Castro? Or maybe those who generalize from the well-known Presidential character flaws to conclude that everyone associated with the Executive branch of the government is a malicious liar and trampler of rights? Perhaps your application of the black/white principle is a bit uneven, eh? Karen