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: marcos who wrote (8150)	7/6/2000 8:59:02 AM
From: epicure	Respond to of 9127

Seems to me the folks on one side of this debate (the keep Elian in the US side) completely fail to understand the administrative law of their own country AND completely lack imagination.<p><br> If you understand the powers and regs of the INS the outcome of this case was clear from the beginning. From the beginning, after I read the regs of the INS, I said how this case would turn out. I am not a Clinton puppet- and in fact I really disliked him and didn't vote for him in either election. Although every time I read Michael Cummings I like CLinton more. Michael may turn me into a Democrat <shudder>.<p><br> Further anyone with any imagination- capable of turning AROUND the situation- and imagining an American child in this predicament in ANOTHER country knows how the this international dispute should be handled.<p><br> This was no normal "custody" battle- this was an international law conflict involving an illegal alien. I am sure there will be more interesting cases- where, for example a mother and father fight each other for custody in different countries, and where the custodial combatants are more fairly matched in terms of their appropriateness as guardians. In this case the ONLY thing those poor Miami "relatives" had going for them was that they were not communist. WOW- what a great criteria for adoption, eh? On that theory Mr Dahmer would have made an excellent parent.

To: marcos who wrote (8150)	7/6/2000 8:15:48 PM
From: greenspirit	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 9127

Marcus, if the "crock" description wasn't directed at me, the way in which you chose to phrase it was quite confusing. res- Oh what a crock, Mr Boortz - the unsubstantiated allegations abound in this twisted polemic, i don't have time to reply to each individually, let me just say - what a crock. What's wrong with people like you who can't get over this thing of attacking the right of Juan Miguel to raise his family as he sees fit, and using every little thing that comes by to attack Bill Clinton, as if anybody gives a sht, i mean the guy is out in a few months anyway ... geez .... why can't you* leave petty politics alone long enough to shake your head and come out anew for family rights, that we may get on to what i see as the real meat of this story - roasting Fidel Castro. The other issues you bring up in the post I am responding to underscore the importance of words, and defending those words. Many countries have wonderfully written documents similar to the United States Constitution. However, we in the United States (better than most) defend those words by speaking out strongly when they are infringed upon and holding those in power accountable to the spirit and intent of those words. We are not always successful. But the continuous striving to be true to our words, remains a strong desire for many Americans nevertheless. The fourth amendment was clearly violated in this case. Even extremely liberal lawyers such as Alan Dirshawats (a close and personal friend and defender of Clinton) have said so. In regards to rolling on the floor and laughing with regard to there being no warning of an upcoming raid. Once again you appear misinformed and or mis-misguided. Clinton assured a leading Democratic (and once again Clinton friend) who was in direct contact with the family that no raid would take place. He lied, it's as simple as that. He lye's quite a bit from what I can gather, but few here appear to be able to grasp that concept. If anyone hinted that there were guns in the house all they had to do was look. Reporters, film camera's, politicians and lawyers came and went from that house on a routine basis. If Reno's intelligence apparatus is that pathetic, she should be fired for that alone. Everyone who was a witness (besides Reno) said that negotiations were progressing well before the raid and that an agreement was close at hand. Some kind of third party custody arrangement until the court ruling was the most likely scenario I've heard described. You can choose to believe those witnesses (many of which were non-partison and objective) or you can choose to believe the Clinton/Reno team. But I don't need a crystal ball to predict which one was more likely lying. The "Nicaraguan kids" comment is a "red herring" and has absolutely nothing to do with this issue. But you know that. Reagan has been out of office for over a decade. When will you stop blaming him for all the worlds atrocities, 100 years after he is dead?? Michael