Castro threatened to flood South Florida with boat people and Clinton blinked.

No warrant.

-- Your Full Name (Your@Email.Address), April 22, 2000

Answers

Rule of law???

You can't just storm troop your way into my house without a warrant.

-- Your Full Name (Your@Email.Address), April 22, 2000.

Your Full Name,

Where have you been the last 8 years? Klinton's storm troopers have been doing this sort of thing for a long time. They also set up people and then bust them. Ask Randy Weaver. Too bad we can't ask his wife!

Even the FDA has gun carrying agents that terrorize alternative health care practitioners and seize their assets. I'm not kidding. If you don't believe me, research why we don't have widespread knowledge of Stevia as a safe and effective sugar substitute, as an example. They even forced someone to burn their inventory of stevia cookbooks.

-- One Who Knows (one@who.knows), April 22, 2000.

Your Full Name:

I'm assuming that you were part of the planning for this event and that you're an experienced law enforecement officer. Oh, you're not? Then how do you know anything about whether a warrant was or wasn't obtained?

OK, then you must be a lawyer who knows both federal and Florida law and knows the ins and outs of warrantless searches? Oh, you're not? Then stop blowing smoke!

-- Jim Cooke (JJCooke@yahoo.com), April 22, 2000.

I believe you I'm just startled no one else is noticing.

-- Your Full Name (YOur@Email.Address), April 22, 2000.

Jim They said on TV the justice dept. didn't even have a warrant.

Why don't you prove they got one.

-- Your Full Name (Your@Email.Address), April 22, 2000.

Jim it is sickening that part of our Government,the INS, can do this kind of Quasi snatch and run at the end of a gun and not even need a court order from a judge to do it.

-- (....@...), April 22, 2000.

Wait until Jan 1, 2001 when y2k will destroy all their plans!!!!! No power = no gubmint power!

-- The New Improved Andy The Gold Moron (new@and.improved), April 22, 2000.

They didn't need a warrant, Uncle Juan agreed to leave the door open for them.

-- (i heard uncle juan say it was okay@he even asked them if they wanted to stay for breakfast. and cartoons), April 22, 2000.

I bet if it were your child, that relatives had been holding for the last five months, you'd have a different attitude.

-- gilda (jess@listbot.com), April 22, 2000.

Who gives a fuck? It was just a spic bastard born out od wedlock. We have to support him on welfare. Let the little spic return to his homeland.

-- Manny (No@dip.com), April 22, 2000.

Your Full Name:

I see. Now you believe everything you hear on TV.

I didn't make the statement that they didn't have a warrant. You did. It's up to you to prove your assertion.

-- Jim Cooke (JJCooke@yahoo.com), April 22, 2000.

Jim

Tom Delay majority whip republican from Texas was outraged by this. I overheard the debate on TV.

It really doesn't bother you that those tactics don't need a court order?

-- Your Full Name (Your@Email.Address), April 22, 2000.

Oh and Jim had I believed what I heard on TV about y2k then I would have known everything was going to turn out the way it did, right?

You can't have it both ways.

-- Your Full Name (Your@Email.Address), April 22, 2000.

Your Full Name:

There are many people outraged by this. That issue has nothing to do with whether or not they had or needed a warrant.

I would have preferred that the Miami relatives would have turned over the boy to his father without this having to have happened. They chose not to. At some, point, the law has to be enforced. If your child was being held by relatives and you wanted him back, would you expect the police to act in your behalf?

-- Jim Cooke (JJCooke@yahoo.com), April 22, 2000.

Jim they broke the door down sprayed pepper spray and tear gass pointed automatic weapons at American citizens who had not even broken a law and they didn't even have prior approval from a judge or even a court order.

-- Your Full Name (Your@Email.Address), April 22, 2000.

Do you have evidence of that?

-- (or are you just spouting more @ right-wing conspiracy. crap?), April 22, 2000.

Amendment IV - Search and seizure. Ratified 12/15/1791.

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

-- Your Full Name (Your@Email.Address), April 22, 2000.

Do you have evidence of that?

-- (or are you just spouting more @ right-wing conspiracy. crap?), April 22, 2000. ***************

I think you got it right on with your address tag! To hell with a father's rights!! We have a political agenda to achieve, why give up our perfect puppet?

-- penelope pooh (ppooh@yahoo.com), April 22, 2000.

This Your Full Name is a dipshit dumb fucker,

Who will bend over quickly and willingly pucker.

For those Cuban assholes,

Who he loves to cajole,

They are playing us all for a sucker!

American Citizens my ass,

Their hatred makes me aghast.

Those Cubans have claimed,

America should be ashamed,

Kick those fuckheads out en masse.

-- Ra (tion@l.1), April 22, 2000.

None of you are bothered that they just busted up in there and violated these Americans like this?

The ends justify the means?

-- Your Full Name (YOur@Email.Address), April 22, 2000.

******None of you are bothered that they just busted up in there and violated these Americans like this?

The ends justify the means?

-- Your Full Name (YOur@Email.Address), April 22, 2000. ********

Yes, the ends justified the means.... I honestly do not understand why the father has no right's to his child in your eyes? Fact: Elian's mother died trying to bring him here, had she lived, this wouldn't be an issue. The father then has the right to decide the fate of HIS CHILD. Fact: The Miami relatives have been using Elian as a puppet to support their vendetta against Castro. while I am no fan of Castro, I fail to see why this has been an issue to begin with, again, I must go back to parental rights. IF Juan Miguel was livng in Puerto Rico, say, this probably wouldn't be an issue either. I don't like the governor of Ohio, does that mean if my brother moves his family there, I can keep his kids from him?? To be fair, ALL sides have used this case to some political end, we have lost sight that there is a 6 year old child involved. Fact: The Miami relatives CHOOSE to have it end this way. There have been plenty of chances over the last 4 months to end this the right way, what gave them the right to make demands of Juan Miguel? they have no rights, period! Thank you for taking care of him until he was well enough to be re united with his father, but your duty is over4 months ago!

-- Robert (celtic64@inficad.com), April 22, 2000.

Your Full Name is an idiot. Uncle Larazo was breaking the law a long time ago when he decided to keep the boy a hostage and refused to turn him over by the deadline. I think he should have been immediately arrested for kidnapping and spent life in the slammer. The governmnet has already been WAY too compassionate with these low-life radical insurrectionists.

-- Hawk (flyin@high.again), April 22, 2000.

Robert I bet you take a different view when they bust into your house and violate you like this.

Notice how easy it was they just did it. It will be even easier next time and when they come to your city no one will even notice. It will be normal by then.

-- Your Full Name (Your@Email.Address), April 22, 2000.

your full name- I don't plan on ever being in that type of situation to begin with! It is not my habit to keep my relatives children from them... After all, a full weekend with them is usually enough! IF I was in a situation where I thought the children would be better off away from the parent's, I'd be sure to follow the law! Remember, they were returning this child to his father NOT taking him away!

-- Robert (celtic64@inficad.com), April 22, 2000.

Based on what I know, Jim and Hawk are right {thanks Hawk, I have spent several days on Alaska Air MD-80's; I appreciate the fact that you helped them get fixed}. Could you work on British Air; I have to go to Europe in the near future :o).......

Best wishes,,,,,,

-- Z1X4Y7 (Z1X4Y7@aol.com), April 22, 2000.

They broke the door in and pointed guns at people who were'nt even accused of a crime. It will be easy for it to be you next they didn't even have to show sufficent evidence to a judge that a crime was committed or even about to be.

This isn't about Parental rights for the purposes of making my point I'll even give you that one. I'm talking about the massive force used by the executive branch without the required constitutional approval of the judical branch.

Checks and balances.

-- Your Full Name (Your@email.Address), April 22, 2000.

Your full name; as I have pointed-out in another thread, I have been in the inter-mountain west where the general thought is that they should shoot a few Cubans. But I think that you are incorrect in stating that these were people not accused of a crime. Will they be prosecuted. Probably not.

Best wishes,,,,,,

-- Z1X4Y7 (Z1X4Y7@aol.com), April 22, 2000.

your full name- okay, now I have an understanding of what you are talking about too. Sometimes we tend to focus down to the fine details without seeing the big picture.... I grant your point on Checks and balances. I wasn't real thrilled seeing armed men in the house to pick up Elian... When Child Protective Service comes for a child they believe is in danger, they always have a policeman with them who is always armed, but the weapon is not in plain sight (to my knowledge). I still put this in the lap of the Miami relatives though... they had ample opportunity to end this months ago... If you want to blame Reno and Clinton, then the Miami relatives must take half the heat for the action too.

-- Rob (celtic64@inficad.com), April 22, 2000.

Parental rights, are not the question here. I don't care if the kid is with his dad or with his uncle, personally. I heard an ad on the radio today, Y2K means Yes to Kids, it was an ad about child abuse. Well, was this kid abused? I think everyone was abused in the whole family, by the media monsters and the corparate monsters, and the government monsters.

It is no ones business except the families and the family courts.

It is a sad day indeed when the people of this country allow the government to poloarate them on an issue that is none of the governments business.

It is even sadder, when the government justifies their actions and no one objects. Whether they broke the law or not, all Americans should be able to protect their possessions. Is not possession nine tens of the law? Well it is not any more, you can be searched your children can be seized and your home invaded by the government, all in name of the law.

This is all atrick to get more control of the people of America, don't be suprised if you are not accosted in some way in the future. The day is at hand, very soon.

-- salene (salene814@hotmail.com), April 22, 2000.

Salene:

"all Americans should be able to protect their possessions. Is not possession nine tens of the law?"

You really think folks should be able to play "finders keepers...losers weepers" with OTHER people's children?

-- Anita (Anita_S3@hotmail.com), April 22, 2000.

Anita you really think govt. soldiers should be able to bust up in your house without an okey dokey from a judge?

-- (...@...), April 22, 2000.

Anita,

Possession is 9/10ths of the law, always worked that way for me, but I was not under a government controled media blitz.

There are many kids in this country that are abducted by another parent and the only way to get them back is through the court, which many cannot afford lawyers,there's no government SWAT teams for those folks

-- salene (salene814@hotmail.com), April 22, 2000.

your full name -

I am in TOTAL and ABSOLUTE agreement with you. Tear gas and assault weapons to remove a 6 year old is wrong. Clinton, Reno and the rest of them should be thanking their lucky stars no one got hurt NOT patting each other on the back.

The family broke no laws. They had no guns. They were using the courts as they should have been. The father should have gone to his son.

It is indeed a sad day for America.

-- Debra (I'mwith@you.com), April 22, 2000.

For ONCE I AGREE with hawk..

They broke no laws? What about the uncle? Stated he would comply with order, then refused.

I have in my possession an article from the Navy Newspaper from 1994 when folks were let loose to come here on boats. My husband was on the Arthur Radford, a ship stationed out of Norfolk Va.

He helped PULL these folks out of the water, looked 8 hours for a father who lost 2 children floating on garbage can lids. The ship had to gain permission to enter the waters (if I knew how to copy and paste it i would)THE ENTIRE crew on that ship RISKED their lives to get those folks to safety. Many died.

Do you know where they ended up? In a holding area and RETURNED right back to where they came from.....Another ship came and my husbands ship was 'relieved' from the duty....guess who got awards? the other ship. Go figure.

Where was the coverage for that? Media did some, but this is out of hand.

Sad day, YES because the miami bunch MADE it a sad day...they had CHOICES. They chose to allow this little boy to be terrified.

-- consumer (shh@aol.com), April 22, 2000.

http://newsmax.com/showinsidecover.shtml?a=2000/4/22/164359 With Carl Limbacher and NewsMax.com Staff For the story behind the story...

Saturday April 22, 2000

Legal Analysts Comment on Raid

Andrew Napolitano, legal analyst for Fox News and a constitutional scholar had this exchange today on Fox with Eric Holder, Reno's second in command at Justice:

Napolitano: Tell me, Mr. Holder, why did you not get a court order authorizing you to go in and get the boy?

Holder: Because we didn't need a court order. INS can do this on its own.

Napolitano: You know that a court order would have given you the cloak of respectability to have seized the boy.

Holder: We didn't need an order.

Napolitano: Then why did you ask the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals for such an order if you didn't need one?

Holder: [Silence]

Napolitano: The fact is, for the first time in history, you have taken a child from his residence at gunpoint to enforce your custody position, even though you did not have an order authorizing it.

-- Your Full Name (Your@Email.Address), April 22, 2000.

"Sad day, YES because the miami bunch MADE it a sad day...they had CHOICES. They chose to allow this little boy to be terrified."

Right on consumer!

All they had to do was drive him to the airport last week when the Justice Dept. asked them to. No, they chose to hold him hostage and plant cameras all over the house, just to use him in their rebellious plot to make the government look bad. What a bunch of ungrateful insurrectionists, we should send them all back.

Hiding in the closet was a stupid idea too. The Fed agent had his gun raised because he couldn't see whether the guy in the closet had a gun. That was why Elian was startled, and it is the fault of those low-life welfare-sucking immigrants. If they hate Cuba so much, how come they are always holding up the Cuban flag?

P.S. Consumer, I bet we agree on a lot of things, but it is easier to find out when you're not telling me I have gerbils up my ass! LOL!! Sorry Deb, hope it's okay to disagree. This is a tough one, but there are good arguments on both sides. :-)

-- Hawk (flyin@high.again), April 22, 2000.

Hawk is the newest citizen of the NWO

Along with Stobe Talbot

and Greg Craig (my grandfather told me never trust a man with 2 first names)

I nominate Hawks house to be the next door to be kicked in and all hawks palladium to be confiscated by the govt.

all those who second.....nah we don't need no second we don't even need a court order or judges ruling...we're the government

-- Your Full Name (Your@Email.Address), April 22, 2000.

Napolitano: The fact is, for the first time in history, you have taken a child from his residence at gunpoint to enforce your custody position, even though you did not have an order authorizing it.

Bull! This is not the first time and will not be the last time. A reporter making that statement does not make it fact.

The courts had turned custody over to the Father from the Miami relatives last week. The Miami relatives were breaking the law by holding Elian.As a foster mother I had children in my home, I had physical custody of them although the State had legal custody. I could not hold a child after the courts decided to return custody to the parents.I would not be allowed to wait until I felt like it to return the child, as a matter of fact I was required to have a way for them to contact me at any time, even when I was out shopping, so the child could be returned as soon as possible after it had been decided that the child was to be returned. Could I have held the child and forced the authorities to negotiate the return? No. They would have been here with the police to take the child back as soon as I refused.

Elian would not have seen the guns if he had not been awake anyway half the night and bothered by the crowds outside. How many nights had he spent with the adults up all night making noise as well as the crowds outside the little two bedroom house.

The Miami relatives had plenty of time to return Elian in a positive way that would not have a lasting effect on him, as it was it only took 3 minutes to remove him from the house. He has had months of the crowds outside to remember, seeing his Father has probably erased the the three minutes it took to get him out of the house.

The price for having others around us follow the law for our protection is to follow the law ourselves.

The guilt for any negitive impacts on Elian lies with the Miami Family, not the Government that upheld the decisions of the courts of this country.

The family knew it was over, that something was going to be done, Janet Reno had already told them it was too late for any more talk. The Miami family is attempting to bleed it for all it is worth. They had broken the law by refusing to hand Elian over when told they no longer had custody. They had been having their asses kissed for so long that they thought they could do anything they wanted to do without taking the consiquences. Legally the great uncle could be charged with failure to turn over the boy boy when the courts made their decision. The law is not in place for a selective few to break as they choose. The Miami relatives will be lucky if they don't get charged with holding him like they did, they only obayed the law when it worked in favor of what they wanted to do. Just how long was the law supposed to be broken before the the law was forced to be obayed.

Elian looks better in the picture of him with his Father then he has in all of the pictures of him being forced to wave at the crowd and "play" in the yard at his Miami relatives.

-- Cherri (sams@brigadoon.com), April 22, 2000.

Good points Cherri, I agree.

Your Full Name,

If I was being held hostage I would hope that the government would break the door down, and if I was holding someone else's child hostage I would expect it to be broken down.

The government is wrong about a lot of things, but not this time. Do you think we should just keep spending our tax money to bring these immigrants into our country, feed them, and educate them, and then just ignore them when they attempt to overthrow our country? I don't.

-- Hawk (flyin@high.again), April 22, 2000.

All for father's rights, all for citizens rights too, including Miami- Cumans. Lots of opinions here and as usual, not many informed ones. When's the last time you saw 6 vanloads of agents pull up for one illegal alien, a child at that? Could there be....politics involved?

Read the appealate court injunction in totality, and then let's hear your opinions.

http://www.law.e mory.edu/11circuit/elian1.html

-- FactFinder (FactFinder@bzn.com), April 22, 2000.

Dont be shocked Hawk but I am in line,

With all that youve said at this time.

These Cubans were wrong,

The Feds needed to be strong,

Now the kids with his Dad and thats fine!

-- Ra (tion@l.1), April 22, 2000.

What the government did today is what the Nazi's did many years ago. Have you people forgot?

It is now Heit America instead of Hitler. The government busting down doors for ANY REASON is WRONG. The locals should have handled it.

-- libertylover (longlive the king@howlong.com), April 23, 2000.

What I don't understand is why we allow the Federal Government to "Federalize" so many law enforcement functions. This country was founded on the basis of union of soverigh states. Look at us now! Why can't the local authorities serve warrants in such matters? If the sheriff of the county where WACO is located had been the one charged to go get David Koresh, instead of Federal Storm Troopers, a lot of innocent people would be alive today. Remember when the FBI was a respected organization? Remember that Congress almost abolished the ATF after the Waco debacle? Today Klinton is beefing them up with hundreds of new troops. Where will it all end? Not soon. I notice that ATF agents are involved in a recent shooting at a retirement community in Phoenix. Why? Can't local authorities handle it? Is this incident somehow linked to interstate commerce, from whence the Federal Government supposedly gets its authority? Let's get the FEDS out of our everyday life before it's too late.

-- Flash (flash@flash.hq), April 23, 2000.

Hawk -

It's fine to disagree and I must tell you I totally disagree with you on this subject. :)

I have to ask you...IF you were ever in a position where you felt you needed the SWAT team to help you do you honestly believe they would? I doubt it. So the question becomes: why did they in this case?

IF they would agree to help you...would you really want your children (or any child for that matter)exposed to assault weapons and tear gas? Remember, not all those who carry guns know how to handle them responsibly...even if the government says they do.

Overthrow our government? I doubt that's what the Cuban-Americans had in mind. More like "calling out" our government.

Hawk, with the exception of Native Americans, none of us would be here if it wasn't for the immigration of our parents, their parents, etc. Within a certain concept of time one can understand that yesterday's, today's and tomorrow's immigrants are all the same. I'd like to remind you that we are truly all one.

And with that, in this country, if we allow Federal agents with tear gas and assault weapons to knock down our neighbor's door we are allowing them to knock down our own.

Cherri -

As a foster parent if you refused to hand over a child the Sheriff would be at your door. Would Federal agents with assault weapons and tear gas come at the crack of dawn and knock your door in?

The Miami family had much support and many people guiding them through this whole thing. Lawyers, Senators, Mayors, the Miami Police Dept, the Apellate Court, the Cuban-American population - just to name a few. Remember, you have to look at both sides of the issue. It is very unfair to rant that they "broke the law" and should be punished. Where is the compassion here? You don't think they are suffering?

IMHO both your judgements are entirely too one sided.

-- Debra (watchthe@judgements.com), April 23, 2000.

Yeah, but wait until Jan 1, 2001 when y2k strikes. They will be freezing and starving, wondering what went wrong. I'll tell you what went wrong, two little digits. It's the story of some lazy programmers who decided to tempt the fate of the world. They laugh at us now, but we will have the last laugh. Move out of the cities before they declare Martial Law.

-- Y2K Tommy (y@2.k), April 23, 2000.

I guess Hawk and Ra don't mind living in a country where the law is ignored by those sworn to uphold it. Sad.

-- Uncle Deedah (unkeed@yahoo.com), April 23, 2000.

Ill speak for myself Uncle D,

On Elian in Miami.

The Unc and the whore,

Wouldnt open the door,

So the Feds had to break in you see.

-- Ra (tion@l.1), April 23, 2000.

"I guess Hawk and Ra don't mind living in a country where the law is ignored by those sworn to uphold it. Sad.

-- Uncle Deedah (unkeed@yahoo.com), April 23, 2000."

Wrong! I do mind, and that is exactly my point. As soon as those Cuban refugees become American citizens, they are obligated to uphold the law of this great country. Instead, they thumb their noses at it, using an innocent child for political purposes. They intentionally defied the Justice Dept., giving the government no alternative but to enter into the hostile environment surrounding the house. Of course, the governmnet had to be prepared to defend themselves amongst these violent radical extremists. Then, exactly as I predicted, they took photographs and used them throughout the media to accomplish their political objectives.

-- Hawk (flyin@high.again), April 23, 2000.

To Hawky and Limerick-boy,

The matter of custody of the child was being pursued in the COURTS, as is REQUIRED BY LAW, and was not yet settled. The INS went in and took the child WITHOUT a warrant. Also, the Gonzales family are not law enforcment officers, and while they are required to observe the law (which they WERE doing though the courts) they are not sworn to uphold it, as is a policeman, or an Attorney General, for that matter.

But I could see were such subtle differences would be lost on a self admitted bigot, and a self-appointed aviation expert.

-- Uncle Deedah (unkeed@yahoo.com), April 23, 2000.

Are you drinking again you old hippy,

You should get all the facts, not get lippy.

In the letter of law,

The kid goes to the Paw,

So relax and have another nippy!

-- Ra (tion@l.1), April 23, 2000.

Unk:

The decision to transfer custody from Elian's distant relatives to his father was made by both the INS and Ms. Reno, and upheld on March 21st by Judge Michael Moore in his decision on this case. Their actions are consistent with the Hague Convention and immigration/naturalization laws already in place. I don't know whether a warrant was required or NOT. It seems odd, however, that the only folks stating that a warrant was required are the folks who see World Net Daily and Newsmax as reputable sources of information.

The April court ruling simply stated that Elian could not be removed from the country until the asylum matter had been settled. He has NOT been removed from the country. In addition, the asylum matter simply states that a 6 year old COULD be capable of making his own decision in this case versus the wishes of his parent. The distant miami relatives aren't even in the PICTURE on that one.

-- Anita (Anita_S3@hotmail.com), April 23, 2000.

LOL Ra! I must admit, you're getting pretty good at that!

Unc,

Here is a clip from a CNN report dated April 13, ten days ago.

"'We will not turn this child over'

Lazaro Gonzalez has defiantly insisted that he would not relinquish custody of the boy he has cared for since Elian's mother drowned off the Florida coast more than four months ago.

"We will not turn this child over, not in Opa-locka, not in any 'locka,'" he said in Spanish after Wednesday night's 2 1/2-hour meeting with Reno and U.S. Immigration and Naturalization Service Director Doris Meissner. "They will have to take this child from me by force."

He said it, ten days ago. Reno gave him an extra 9 days to change his mind and abide byt the decision of the INS and the Justice Department. The idiot Uncle chose to traumatize the child, rather than simply driving him to the airport by the deadline 9 days ago, so that he could see his father.

The guy is an asshole, an I'm beginning to think he just didn't want to give him up because he's been enjoying this whole circus show. He's probably collecting his wages from the governmnet because he doesn't have to go to work, and now I'll bet you any money they're going to sue the government for emotional distress. Scumbags.

-- Hawk (flyin@high.again), April 23, 2000.

Hey Unc, lay off the whippets...you on the wrong side with this one.

-- (@ .), April 23, 2000.