Ellian relatives and Senator Bob Smith to be on C Span today at 4:40 P M. The Government handling of this is a disgrace. Where is ALGORE on this? Why do the Democrats

greenspun.com : LUSENET : TB2K spinoff uncensored : One Thread

think Clinton is so great? Why is Janet Reno such a yesman? Bill says jump and she says how high. Perhaps it is because she is willing to accept blame as in WACO. Why cowtow to CASTRO? Do the Democrats think is is O K for men armed with assult rifles to terrorize unarmed civilians? Wait until it happens to them personally. Is this the big event where people get fed up and decide to bail out of the stockmarket before it crashes further. Where is our Senator Bob Graham on this? I hear nothing from him. I was not in favor of gun control but now I am in favor of controlling the guns of INS officials, FBI officials, DEA officials and all other government types who abuse their authority. This is a sad day in America. Watch the C span program at 4:40 PM to see what is happening to our country. It is not a day to be proud. Wouldn't it be poetic justice if ALGORE lost Florida in a close election and there by lost the Presidential election because of over reaction by a government agency? P S He also wants to do away with cars to save the environment. Why haven't we heard more about that? People like to walk to work? Amazing Amazing.

-- Tom (Tom@amazed.gom), April 23, 2000


Is Senator Bob Smith wearing a yak hair wig?

-- gilda (jess@listbot.com), April 23, 2000.

Oh Gilda please stop it Im dying,

Im laughing so hard that Im crying.

Bob Smiths next tv gig,

With that outlandish wig,

Will have Mari and him do more lying!

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

Tom, I admire Senator Smith for standing up against the Reno invasion rally crowd, as I do the other Senators who have stoop up and spoken out against this (including the Democratic Senator from Florida).

I would prefer to leave Rep/Demo politics out of it, thats the problem in the first place, Reno and Clinton made a political decision, and it put the kids life in danger.

gilda, Taking a trick from Carvelle, slander, slander, slander? In any case, I saw nothing resembling you on Smith's head, lol ;)

-- FactFinder (FactFinder@bzn.com), April 23, 2000.

Heard the interviews. Very interesting. Of course, the major totally biased media would not run the information.

Bob Smith asked that we write to our reps and ask them to hold a hearing so the facts can be heard. If you are appalled by this situation--please do. Go to Worldnetdaily.com, they make it easier under their "don't tax the net section" by giving you access to your reps on line.

-- tt (cuddluppy@aol.com), April 23, 2000.

World Net Daily is the same sleazy ilk as the Drudge Report. They practice yellow journalism of the worst sort.

Hold a hearing on this issue, so the fats can be heard!! Is this what the government is for, is to waste time and taxpayers money holding hearings on this sort of thing. There are thousands of children that have gotten a raw deal by family, non-family, foster families, the courts, divorced moms and dads, and other immigrant children who have never been considered. Is it logical to hold hearings on this one child? It's over. He's with his father. The Cuban-Americans have lost their Ace card. They are pissed. They can get over it. It wasn't their child. Hearings my foot.

-- gilda (jess@listbot.com), April 23, 2000.

Sorry, typing is bad, should have been FACTS, not FATS.

-- gilda (jess@listbot.com), April 23, 2000.

To those who claim that the family in Florida had refused to negotiate:

In fact, they had already AGREED to an arrangement under which they would ALL, including Elian Gonzalez's father, live together in a "safe" house in Florida while the case was being settled. THEY HAD ALSO AGREED to granting Juan Gonzalez temporary custody.

The DOJ and INS indicated no objections to this at first, then called a very short time before the raid to indicate that the "safe house" would have to be in Washington, DC. Then the raid occurred.

This comes from the man whom Reno had asked to act as negotiator: read what he said here.

-- Me (me@thisplace.net), April 23, 2000.


As has already been shown in this case, taking the word of one person as published in the newspaper as the truth is risky.

Even assuming this report is true, the conditions the Miami relatives wanted were outrageous. How would you feel if this was your child and you were told that the only way you could see him was to live in the same house as those who had been refusing to return him?

I do assume that the DOJ and INS were using some of the final negotiations as a subtrefuge to cover the impending raid. They are not obligated to "play fair" when serving a warrant - the objective is to accomplish the goal with as few problems as possible.

-- Jim Cooke (JJCooke@yahoo.com), April 24, 2000.

J. Cooke (can I call you "J" for short?[g]),

Just for the record, when I bothered to think about this before now, I said the kid belonged with his dad. I only took an interest after the kid was siezed because I *DO* object to the way in which it was done. Frankly, if the American people can't see the dangers in permitting this type of thing to occur, then I fear for this country.

In this particular instance, I'm simply trying to show that this case isn't as cut-and-dried as EITHER side makes it out to be. I was specifically addressing the claim (often made here) that the family had refused to negotiate.

The one I posted was just the report I chose to track down; I've certainly seen others. The family also claims that their offer was just one of many, that they've been trying to negotiate for some time.

According to them, the position of the INS and DOJ has been, simply and bluntly, "turn over the kid, period."

This is why these things SHOULD be decided in an impartial court. Both sides no doubt think they're 100% right, and have (as usual) managed to collect followers who also agree 100% with one side or the other.

Another observation: given that the photo of Elian with his father is disputed, the government could quiet the rumors by allowing reporters to film Elian with his father. That should be obvious; so why haven't they?

It needn't be invasive; let it be from a distance, without the kid's knowledge, if need be. But it needs to be done.

They're simply feeding ammunition to the family's side; they can claim that the kid is being brainwashed (or some other such nonsense) and is being kept from public view until he's ready to REALLY smile for a camera.

Let me ask you this: if the Clinton administration defies the injunction and permits the kid to go back to Cuba next week, will you object?

(I wouldn't for one moment put it past this Administration to do that, either. Their contempt for the court system should be legendary by now.)

(And remember, as I said above, I believe the kid SHOULD go back to his father, unless compelling evidence can be presented that he's unfit. I'm simply standing on principle here.)

-- Me (me@thisplace.net), April 24, 2000.


I've been called many things so "J" is OK with me :^)

You're making an assumption about the position of the federal government based on the word of people with an axe to grind. The statements from the Feds differ considerably. I have no way of knowing which is right. If, however, the Fed's position is as you state, I fail to see why the position of the DOJ being "turn over the kid, period" is such a problem. The Miami relatives were holding this child in the face of a decision made by the both the court and the INS to place the child in the father's custody. This has been happening for over a month. What other group of lawbreakers would expect this type of protracted negotiations?

Both Elian and his father are aliens. They have no standing in any state court. The federal appeals court will decide if Elian can apply for asylum. The INS has the right to decide who can have custody of a minor alien until a hearing. That's what they did but the Miami relatives didn't like it. You must comply with apparently lawful orders and then take your case to court if you believed you were wronged. You don't have the right to refuse to comply. Doing so subjects you to police action.

I fail to see what the reasons for any pictures are at this moment. Is this to assure those of a suspicious bent that the child hasn't been harmed or what? The boy has been back with his father for only about a day and I've seen several pictures already. I've also seen the accusations that the pictures are faked. Are you saying that a video can't be faked? If not, what makes you think that will convince people one way or another?

The order of the 11th Circuit Court that the child not be removed from the US is specific until and if a higher court overturns the order. Anyone removing the child in violation of the order can and would be arrested. A federal officer doing so would be subject to even more severe penalities than a private citizen. Clinton may be foolish but he's not that foolish.

-- Jim Cooke (JJCooke@yahoo.com), April 24, 2000.


This family held a child against an order to release. It is they who did not go to the airport last week. They were in violation of the order and holding the child ILLEGALLY in a matter which is well within the purview of the INS. Argue at will about what the INS did, BUT when I see the word negotiate in this case I think HOSTAGE.

They were holding this boy hostage and got what they deserved.

-- FutureShock (gray@matter.think), April 24, 2000.

Me -- A question for you? Do you have any children? If so, what would you want the police to do if some stranger took your kid:

(1) Return the kid to you (by force if necessary) and require that anyone thinking you should not have the right to keep him or her and wanting to take the child away from you should get a court order first, or,

(2) Figure that children fall into the "finders keepers, losers weepers" catagory, and that you didn't get your child back until you successfully sue for custody in court and win.

-- E.H. Porter (Just Wondering@About.It), April 24, 2000.

Vote for 4 or 8 more years of this crap. Vote for (Internet) Al-Bore (NOT!).

-- Defeat (AlGore-In@November.com), April 24, 2000.

so, the natural parent always has rights over what happens to a child? regardless of what kind of parent they are?


let's just say, elian was a jewish child and his mother died escaping nazi occupied germany or poland during the war. would you feel the same about forcing a child to go back to nazi occupied land that his mother sought freedom from because of the father? why is it communist cuba seems so harmless? maybe because the media makes it seem so in this day and age when even the chinese look like good bedfellows?

-- tt (cuddluppy@aol.com), April 24, 2000.

His own mother-in-law said on TV this morning that he had not abused her dead daughter. She said the Miami family was lying. Are you saying you don't believe the mother knows what she's talking about? She even lived with them for awhile.

Elian is not a jewish child. His mother did not die escaping nazi occupied Germany. This is the here and now; that analogy is a very bad, and not even close to the present situation

.How many concentration camps, with ovens, have you seen in Cuba?

-- gilda (jess@listbot.com), April 24, 2000.

Thanks to all who have enabled me save the time I would surely have taken to TRY to enlighten all these folks who think a distant cousin has more rights than a father.Good grief.


-- jumpoff joe (jumpoff@echoweb.neet), April 24, 2000.

Fact Finder said, in regard to the "yak hair wig" comment:

>> Taking a trick from Carvelle, slander, slander, slander? <<

Not slander, FF, ridicule. Big difference. For one thing, laughing at politicians is in the Grand American Tradition. Taking umbrage at such laughter only exposes you as a humorless ninny.

Also, when someone wears a yak hair wig, they invite ridicule. It's like wearing a Kick Me sign on their chest instead of on their back.

-- Brian McLaughlin (brianm@ims.com), April 24, 2000.

tt -- that's not the point. The point is that the kid stays with the family UNLESS AND UNTIL there's either an emergency need for govenment intervention or a court determines that the parent is unfit.

Elain's father came to the U.S. (as demanded by the Miami relatives). As long as he's willing to wait out the judicial process, he's entitled to the kid while this thing is moving through the court system.

As I said on a previous message on this thread -- what would you want the government to do if some of your relatives snatched you kid and wouldn't let you even see him/her?

-- E.H. Porter (Just Wondering@About.it), April 24, 2000.

Moderation questions? read the FAQ