Release: Elian Gonzalez
Mark2101
=======================================
NEWS FROM THE LIBERTARIAN PARTY
2600 Virginia Avenue, NW, Suite 100
Washington DC 20037
World Wide Web: http://www.LP.org
=======================================
For release: April 25, 2000
=======================================
For additional information:
George Getz, Press Secretary
Phone: (202) 333-0008 Ext. 222
E-Mail: 76214...@Compuserve.com
=======================================
Elian Gonzalez: Thank goodness
Janet Reno didn't kill another child
WASHINGTON, DC -- Congratulations to Janet Reno: She finally
managed to "rescue" a child without burning him to death.
That was the Libertarian Party's reaction to this weekend's
dawn raid by heavily armed INS agents on the home of Elian Gonzalez's
relatives.
"Elian Gonzalez is lucky to be alive -- since, for Attorney
General Janet Reno, compassion is all too often a death sentence, and
justice is just another word for no one left to kill," said Ron
Crickenberger, the party's political director.
"Elian Gonzalez's mother died trying to escape from Fidel
Castro. We should be grateful that Elian Gonzalez didn't die trying to
escape from Janet Reno -- since Reno's last rescue attempt left 24
children dead in the inferno in Waco, Texas."
On the Saturday before Easter, a SWAT team of Immigration and
Naturalization Service agents -- dressed in paramilitary uniforms and
armed with MP-5 submachine guns -- kicked down the door of the home in
Miami where Elian Gonzalez, the 6-year-old defector from Cuba, was
staying with relatives.
The boy was taken from relatives at gunpoint, and then whisked
by government jet to an Air Force base near Washington, DC, where he
was reunited with his father. Reno said the armed incursion was
necessary after negotiations with relatives stalled.
But, said Crickenberger, Libertarians have to ask: Was this
really the only way to resolve what is ultimately nothing more than a
complicated child custody dispute?
"Is this the kind of America we want: Where armed, paramilitary
federal agents kick down doors in pre-dawn raids? Where excessive force
seems to be the first option? Where the Justice Department can
authorize such a raid without a judicial order? And where Janet Reno
can place a child's life at risk -- just a trigger's pull away from
sudden death -- to 'save' him from relatives who, right or wrong, seem
to want the best for him?"
And another important question, said Crickenberger: Should
Janet Reno be in the business of returning children to a country that
our own government considers a "terrorist" nation?
"According to the State Department, Cuba is a terrorist state,"
he said. "Why would our government use terrorist-style tactics to
return a child to a terrorist state?"
And according to Human Rights Watch, Fidel Castro's government:
* Has executed at least 15,000 political opponents since coming
to power.
* Makes it a crime to distribute Bibles, spread "unauthorized
news," or "insult dead heroes."
* Restricts fundamental human rights such as the right of
expression, association, assembly, movement, and the press.
* Imprisons or kills people for the crime of "illegal exit" --
trying to leave the country.
* Requires parents to raise children with "Communist
personalities." If parents stray from the official ideology,
they can be charged with the crime of "hindering the normal
development of the child."
In fact, said Crickenberger, "The situation is so bad that
Elian's mother lost her life in a desperate attempt to escape from Cuba
with her son. Should our government play any role in sending a child
back to a country where he will be considered a 'possession' of the
government -- and will live his life as a virtual slave to a communist
tyranny?"
The Libertarian Party tends not to take sides in child custody
cases, said Crickenberger, and Libertarians can disagree about the
proper outcome of the Elian Gonzalez case.
"But every Libertarian would probably agree that the boy would
be better off if the federal government stayed out of the case -- and
allowed it to be settled by family members who love the boy, or by a
family court, or by an impartial arbitrator," he said.
"And every Libertarian would probably agree that, given her
track record, Janet Reno shouldn't be allowed to intervene in any case
where a child is at risk -- since too many children have died already
because of Janet Reno's so-called compassion."
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.2
iQCVAwUBOQgnMdCSe1KnQG7RAQGqTwP+NgzRT/hJokTYZVMyR4DAVMgasz79s6jT
drUtX3ljqmX7QKgBw/ddePo3+LUJZYxj1lxxSDkcy4gBPKpihD/5NjABjXunrxbM
C8gtAB4uVAQP4bg/Zxw1XDNEuncq9Trp0TwCVVEdkqOgboqcr6fyR1tWDNKRD2xJ
UkH85iscaWo=
=CLZC
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
The Libertarian Party http://www.lp.org/
2600 Virginia Ave. NW, Suite 100 voice: 202-333-0008
Washington DC 20037 fax: 202-333-0072
For subscription changes, send a message to <announce...@lp.org> with
just the word "subscribe" or "unsubscribe" in the subject line.
Or use the WWW form at: http://www.lp.org/lp-announce-form.html
*****************************************************
Mark "COSMOS" Renfro
u tsi s da lu gi s gi = (Brilliant)
u tsi s da lu gi s gv = (Shining)
a ga li ha = (Illuminating from within)
di tli hi = (Warrior)
My Cherokee name.
E-MAIL Mark...@email.msn.com
"As civil rulers, not having their duty to the people duly
before them, may attempt to tyrannize, and as the military forces
which must be occasionally raised to defend our country, might
pervert their power to the injury of their fellow-citizens, the
people are confirmed by the next article in their right to keep
and bear their private arms."
--Tench Coxe (1755-1824), writing as "A Pennsylvanian," in "Remarks
On The First Part Of The Amendments To The Federal Constitution,"
in the _Philadelphia Federal Gazette,_ June 18, 1789, p.2 col.1
live4f...@my-deja.com
member of the Libertarian party. If the LP stands for denying the
basic human funadmental right of a father to raise his own child, then
I have been deceived by a party that claims to advocate freedom for the
individual. Yes, I know...Cuba is a communist country and Castro is a
dictator. But the way to change the political system that rules Cuba
is NOT by denying the freedom of a father to raise his own son. Last I
checked, it was neither against U.S. law or international law to be
born a Cuban. That Cuban exiles in Miami would attempt to destroy a
father-son bond for the sole purpose of trying to make Castro look bad
sickens me. These are not Americans. True Americans believe in the
sanctity of family and the relationship of a birth parent and child.
True Americans would FIGHT for the right of a parent to regain custody
of a son kidnapped by distant relatives. True Americans would never
permit a family of exiled emigres on foreign soil to keep custody of an
American child, against the father's wishes, without a fight. The
United States government would bring ALL available resources to bear if
a rogue country tried anything of the sort. True Americans, I beseech
you...write your congressman and express your complete and utter dismay
that the rule of law and the sanctity of family appears to have become
nothing more than words in this case. Juan Miguel is Elian's rightful
and lawful guardian. Juan Miguel is the ONLY person who should legally
speak for his son. Juan Miguel decides if and when Elian should stay in
the United States. I for one wish Juan Miguel and his wife would apply
for political asylum for his entire family, but absent that request,
leave the Gonzales family in PEACE.
L4F
In article <eng74CNs$GA.306@cpmsnbbsa04>,
"Mark2101" <Mark...@email.msn.com> wrote:
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
hoffman
> emigres on foreign soil to keep custody of an American
> child, against the father's wishes, without a fight.
> The United States government would bring ALL
> available resources to bear if a rogue country tried
> anything of the sort.
A most excellent point; one which most people likely
did not think of. It would be interesting to see what
kind of tune all these phoney balogney hypocrites
in this newsgroup would be singing if an American
kid got trapped and detained in Cuba by chance
situation.
If the ultimate situation resolves itself to allow
Elian to stay in the U.S., and Juan (the father)
wants to allow this... then so be it if that is the
fathers wishes.
If the father wants to retain custody of the boy
in Cuba, then back he goes without question.
Regardless of whatever kind of real or imaginary
political pressure the people of this newsgroup
claim the father is under from the government
is irrelevant. If the father say's "I want the kid
back"... then back he goes.. It doesn't really
matter "why" the father wants the kid back!!!
This man does not have to give his reasons;
this father does not have to justify his reasoning
for anyone. It is his kid and he ows an explanation
to nobody.... and if the governmnt really
is exerting any "pressure" on Juan, then
it is still irrelevant because it is the fathers
ultimate decision and nobody can claim the
father is being "forced" to say something.
Mark2101
<live4f...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:8ebkv4$a0c$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> For the fist time in 10 years, I am ashamed to be a card-carrying
> member of the Libertarian party. If the LP stands for denying the
> basic human funadmental right of a father to raise his own child, then
> I have been deceived by a party that claims to advocate freedom for the
> individual.
HUH!? What the hell are you talking about? Where did the Libertarian party
say the father should be denied "to raise his own child"? I think you need
to reread this post. But let me give you the bottom line first. This is from
the post.
>
"The Libertarian Party tends not to take sides in child custody cases", said
Crickenberger, "and Libertarians can disagree about the proper outcome of
the Elian Gonzalez case. But every Libertarian would probably agree that the
boy would be better off if the federal government stayed out of the case --
and allowed it to be settled by family members who love the boy, or by a
family court, or by an impartial arbitrator," he said.
<
Did you really read the post?
Mark "COSMOS" Renfro
u tsi s da lu gi s gi = (Brilliant)
u tsi s da lu gi s gv = (Shining)
a ga li ha = (Illuminating from within)
di tli hi = (Warrior)
My Cherokee name.
E-MAIL Mark...@email.msn.com
Bitch-Slap the Ruling Party!
VOTE LIBERTARIAN
It's ok to get angry.
SMS Mike
>
> "Elian Gonzalez is lucky to be alive -- since, for Attorney
> General Janet Reno, compassion is all too often a death sentence, and
> justice is just another word for no one left to kill," said Ron
> Crickenberger, the party's political director.
>
SMS: The statement above is TOTAL Horse Shit!
--
- Mike Eglestone -
"In recent years it has been suggested that the Second Amendment
protects the "collective" right of states to maintain militias, while
it does not protect the right of "the people" to keep and bear arms.
If anyone entertained this notion in the period during which the
Constitution and Bill of Rights were debated and ratified, it remains
one of the most closely guarded secrets of the eighteenth century, for
no known writing surviving from the period between 1787 and 1791 states
such a thesis. The phrase "the people" meant the same thing in the
Second Amendment as it did in the First, Fourth, Ninth and Tenth
Amendments -- that is, each and every free person."
----------
McFarlin
> For the fist time in 10 years, I am ashamed to be a card-carrying
> member of the Libertarian party. If the LP stands for denying the
> basic human funadmental right of a father to raise his own child, then
> I have been deceived by a party that claims to advocate freedom for the
> individual.
I hate to say I told you so - but Libertarians only pay lip-service to the
idea of "freedom."
> Yes, I know...Cuba is a communist country and Castro is a
> dictator. But the way to change the political system that rules Cuba
> is NOT by denying the freedom of a father to raise his own son. Last I
> checked, it was neither against U.S. law or international law to be
> born a Cuban. That Cuban exiles in Miami would attempt to destroy a
> father-son bond for the sole purpose of trying to make Castro look bad
> sickens me.
And also to an increasing number of Americans. That criminal gang in Miami
was engaged in nothing more than a political kidnapping.
> These are not Americans. True Americans believe in the
> sanctity of family
> L4F
Libertarians have actually told me that the brutal child-labor of the age
of laissez faire (19th century) "freed" children from the "oppression of
the family."
I am not exaggerating!
The family is nothing more than a unit of labor to Libertarians.
Rob McFarlin
J.M. Ivler
> "The Libertarian Party tends not to take sides in child custody cases", said
> Crickenberger, "and Libertarians can disagree about the proper outcome of
> the Elian Gonzalez case. But every Libertarian would probably agree that the
> boy would be better off if the federal government stayed out of the case --
> and allowed it to be settled by family members who love the boy, or by a
> family court, or by an impartial arbitrator," he said.
> <
Right. The father is Cuban, the mother was Cuban, the child is
Cuban. Custody heraing should take place in a court all right. A CUBAN
Court!
What we had Mark was a case where the child was being held against the
will of the costodial parent by others who didn't have legal custody of
the child. These people tried to negotiate the reurn of the child to the
custodial parent. In most places the term for this is kidnapping. In
kidnapping cases I expect the government to help the parent, not through
negotiation, but through any means possible to restore the hostage to
freedom from the kidnappers. If that means taking the hostage by force,
then do it! As Isreal has said, you do not negotiate with terrorists and
kidnappers.
Reno did the right thing.
Stuart Dunn
>
> For the fist time in 10 years, I am ashamed to be a card-carrying
> member of the Libertarian party. If the LP stands for denying the
> basic human funadmental right of a father to raise his own child, then
> I have been deceived by a party that claims to advocate freedom for the
> individual.
dispute about whether Elian will live in partial freedom here in the US,
or whether he will be sent back to Cuba to live as a slave for the rest
of his life. Elian's dad has been accompanied by heavily armed Cuban
foreign relations officials throughout his visit to the US, and he's
been living under statism long enough to know that if he tries to defect
to the US he won't live to tell about it.
Yes, I know...Cuba is a communist country and Castro is a
> dictator. But the way to change the political system that rules Cuba
> is NOT by denying the freedom of a father to raise his own son. Last I
> checked, it was neither against U.S. law or international law to be
> born a Cuban. That Cuban exiles in Miami would attempt to destroy a
> father-son bond for the sole purpose of trying to make Castro look bad
> sickens me. These are not Americans. True Americans believe in the
> sanctity of family and the relationship of a birth parent and child.
want Elian to live in Cuba, he still doesn't have a right to have his
son or any other human being sent back to a third world dictatorship.
> True Americans would FIGHT for the right of a parent to regain custody
> of a son kidnapped by distant relatives.
bureaucrats armed with the same weapons that the rest of us are denied
the right to own. He's currently being reprogrammed, just as Castro has
said Elian will be.
True Americans would never
> permit a family of exiled emigres on foreign soil to keep custody of an
> American child, against the father's wishes, without a fight. The
> United States government would bring ALL available resources to bear if
> a rogue country tried anything of the sort. True Americans, I beseech
> you...write your congressman and express your complete and utter dismay
> that the rule of law and the sanctity of family appears to have become
> nothing more than words in this case. Juan Miguel is Elian's rightful
> and lawful guardian.
aware of the fact that some Cuban Americans claim that Juan Miguel and
Elian's mom broke up two years before Elian was born? Are you aware of
the fact that the claim that Juan Miguel even wants Elian sent back is
questionable?
> speak for his son.
freedom for all human beings, not just those who have reached the age of
majority?
mahab...@my-deja.com
Bravo! Thanks! Exactly right.
mahab...@my-deja.com
Stuart Dunn <dun...@erols.com> wrote:
> live4f...@my-deja.com wrote:
> >
> > For the fist time in 10 years, I am ashamed to be a card-carrying
> > member of the Libertarian party. If the LP stands for denying the
> > basic human funadmental right of a father to raise his own child, then
> > I have been deceived by a party that claims to advocate freedom for the
> > individual.
> That's not what we're dealing with here. What we're dealing with is a
> dispute about whether Elian will live in partial freedom here in the US,
> or whether he will be sent back to Cuba to live as a slave for the rest
> of his life.
No, you are wrong. What we are dealing with here is the question of
whether we in the United States should violate our own principles, take a
son away from a father who loves him, and make Elian a virtual ward of
the U.S. government in order to save him from being a ward of Cuba.
In other words, in order to save Elian from being denied his rights by
Castro, we have to deny his rights FIRST. For the child's own good, of
course.
> Elian's dad has been accompanied by heavily armed Cuban
> foreign relations officials throughout his visit to the US, and he's
> been living under statism long enough to know that if he tries to defect
> to the US he won't live to tell about it.
That may be, but he's indicated in many ways (the "finger" incident comes
to mind) that he really, really wants his son back and he really wants to
go back to Cuba. And he's been alone with Janet Reno and others without
his guard (where did you hear he had armed guards?). So he has had
opportunity to speak his mind. If at some point in the future he does
declare a wish to stay in the U.S. I would be very pleased, but what if
he doesn't? When do we decide that we know better than he does what he
really wants, and take away his right to go home?
>> That Cuban exiles in Miami would attempt to destroy a
> > father-son bond for the sole purpose of trying to make Castro look bad
> > sickens me. These are not Americans. True Americans believe in the
> > sanctity of family and the relationship of a birth parent and child.
> Elian doesn't want to go back to Cuba. Even if Elian's dad really did
> want Elian to live in Cuba, he still doesn't have a right to have his
> son or any other human being sent back to a third world dictatorship.
> > True Americans would FIGHT for the right of a parent to regain custody
> > of a son kidnapped by distant relatives.
> Elian wasn't kidnapped by distant relatives. He was kidnapped by INS
> bureaucrats armed with the same weapons that the rest of us are denied
> the right to own.
You are wrong. Lazaro Gonzalez et al. had NO LEGAL RIGHT to keep that
child, but Lazaro was holding him without the permission of the child's
father. ANYONE who does that is afoul of the law in this country. It has
been obvious to me for several days that Lazaro would continue to keep
the child until the child was taken by force, and I applaud the INS in
the very professional way in which they were able to rescue the child and
restore him to his father.
> He's currently being reprogrammed, just as Castro has
> said Elian will be.
However, it is OK with you that the Miami relatives were "programming"
the child. They clearly were trying to alienate his natural affections
for his father, as the famous "hostage video" clearly revealed.
So, it's not "programming" if you agree with the program, but if you
don't agree with the program, it's "programming." It's OK if we allow a
child to be separated from his father in the name of freedom, but not OK
to allow a child to be separated from his father by Castro. OK.
> True Americans would never
> > permit a family of exiled emigres on foreign soil to keep custody of an
> > American child, against the father's wishes, without a fight. The
> > United States government would bring ALL available resources to bear if
> > a rogue country tried anything of the sort. True Americans, I beseech
> > you...write your congressman and express your complete and utter dismay
> > that the rule of law and the sanctity of family appears to have become
> > nothing more than words in this case. Juan Miguel is Elian's rightful
> > and lawful guardian.
> Do you mean that you believe that children have no rights? Are you
> aware of the fact that some Cuban Americans claim that Juan Miguel and
> Elian's mom broke up two years before Elian was born?
That's not a claim. Juan Miguel and Elisabeth divorced before Elian was
conceived, but then they got back together again, begat Elian, and lived
together until the boy was about three years old, when they broke up for
good.
There is an excellent article from the New York Times Sunday magazine
section of 4/23 that gives a detailed history of the Gonzalez extended
family and Juan Miguel's and Elisabeth's relationship, and I urge you to
read it before you continue to spread "dis-information." You can find it
at:
http://www.nytimes.com/library/magazine/home/20000423mag-elian.html
> Are you aware of
> the fact that the claim that Juan Miguel even wants Elian sent back is
> questionable?
The only people who "question" this are propagandists such as yourself.
> Juan Miguel is the ONLY person who should legally
> > speak for his son.
> So Elian can't speak for himself?
Six year olds cannot, no. Not legally, and not in the real world. I have
raised children. Six year olds don't have the cognitive ability to
separate fantasy from reality or plan for the future. They don't
understand politics or abstract concepts like "political freedom." They
need adults to make big decisions for them. The question at hand is,
which adult(s)?
> Shouldn't a true libertarian support
> freedom for all human beings, not just those who have reached the age of
> majority?
The problem is, in the case of a small child you would have to decide for
the child what "freedom" means in the context of his life. The child
doesn't understand and can't tell you.
To decide that in the name of "freedom" you will separate the child from
his father and keep in in the United States makes YOU Big Brother.
B.
Robert Frenchu
>> True Americans would never permit a family of exiled
>> emigres on foreign soil to keep custody of an American
>> child, against the father's wishes, without a fight.
>> The United States government would bring ALL
>> available resources to bear if a rogue country tried
>> anything of the sort.
>-----------------------
>
>A most excellent point; one which most people likely
>did not think of. It would be interesting to see what
>kind of tune all these phoney balogney hypocrites
>in this newsgroup would be singing if an American
>kid got trapped and detained in Cuba by chance
>situation.
I wonder also if the *father* had drowned and it was the *mother*
trying to get her son back, if attitudes wouldn't be any different.
--
It feels GOOD to give up a little freedom for a LOT of safety! (TM)
Somewhere, a child is being injured because of unlicensed tools!
Support M.I.L.T. - Mothers Insisting on Licensed Tools!
Visit our brand new licensed on-line store or I'll use more exclamation points!!
http://www.frenchu.com/tpg/drill.html
CDH
>If the father wants to retain custody of the boy
>in Cuba, then back he goes without question.
>
>Regardless of whatever kind of real or imaginary
>political pressure the people of this newsgroup
>claim the father is under from the government
>is irrelevant. If the father say's "I want the kid
>back"... then back he goes.. It doesn't really
>matter "why" the father wants the kid back!!!
>This man does not have to give his reasons;
>this father does not have to justify his reasoning
>for anyone. It is his kid and he ows an explanation
>to nobody.... and if the governmnt really
>is exerting any "pressure" on Juan, then
>it is still irrelevant because it is the fathers
>ultimate decision and nobody can claim the
>father is being "forced" to say something.
OK then, let's hop into a time machine and take a short trip back to World
War II. Would you then send a Jewish child, who had escaped from occupied
Europe, back to his father in Auschwitz? Would you send a Japanese child, who
had gotten out of an American concentration camp, back into that camp? Since
this happened during Passover, let's go a few thousand years further back:
Would you send an escaped Hebrew child back to Pharaoh's mud pits? Come back
to the Cold War: Would you send a child who had barely escaped death crossing
the Berlin Wall back to his father in the East Zone? Back to modern times:
Would you send an African girl back to a father who would have her genitals
mutilated IAW tribal customs? Would you send an escaped North Korean child
back to his father in Pyongyang? Would you send a Chinese infant back to
China, knowing it would be put to death since he/she was 2nd-born?
Fast-forward to the 24th century: Would you send a child who had escaped from
the Borg back to his already-assimilated father? In all these cases, add the
conditions that arrangements had been made in advance with kinsmen in the
destination country (or planet, in the last example) to provide sanctuary,
and the child's mother died in the escape.
I too was on the father's side, until that Cuban govt. spokesman declared
Elian to be "the property of the state." That brought me back to reality. In
Cuba or any other totalitarian country, *no one* has *any* rights of *any*
kind, including parental rights. As Joe Sobran pointed out in his latest
column, if Castro wants any Cuban dead, that Cuban dies within hours. Like it
or not, any totalitarian country is nothing more or less than a vast
concentration camp, where the family (as Orwell noted in "1984") is an
extension of the secret police.
As for the notion that pressure is irrelevant: On this side of the Florida
Straits, any contract signed, confession made or other statement given under
any kind of duress is null and void. And as the appeals court ruled, under
the law a person does not have to be >=18 yrs. old to make a formal request
for asylum. The Reno Gestapo acted to make sure he Elian would *never* follow
through on that request.
What's truly frightening is how close we're coming to the Cuban model.
Dave in central Fla., occupied CSA
---------------
"The Union soldiers in the battle [of Gettysburg] actually fought
against self-determination; it was the Confederates who fought
for the right of their people to govern themselves."
-- H. L. Mencken
---------------
"When governments fear the people, there is liberty.
When the people fear the government, there is tyranny."
-- Thomas Jefferson
---------------
"The two enemies of the people are criminals and government, so let us
tie the second down with the chains of the constitution so the second
will not become the legalized version of the first."
-- Thomas Jefferson
--
ROT13 the "reply-to" for real e-mail address.
Panhead
>
> hoffman wrote in message <01bfb106$8d9a8f20$d3abe6cd@enduser>...
>
> >If the father wants to retain custody of the boy
> >in Cuba, then back he goes without question.
> >
> >Regardless of whatever kind of real or imaginary
> >political pressure the people of this newsgroup
> >claim the father is under from the government
> >is irrelevant. If the father say's "I want the kid
> >back"... then back he goes.. It doesn't really
> >matter "why" the father wants the kid back!!!
> >This man does not have to give his reasons;
> >this father does not have to justify his reasoning
> >for anyone. It is his kid and he ows an explanation
> >to nobody.... and if the governmnt really
> >is exerting any "pressure" on Juan, then
> >it is still irrelevant because it is the fathers
> >ultimate decision and nobody can claim the
> >father is being "forced" to say something.
>
> OK then, let's hop into a time machine and take a short trip back to World
> War II. Would you then send a Jewish child, who had escaped from occupied
> Europe, back to his father in Auschwitz?
I wasn't aware that Elian or his father were in a prison,
destined to be murdered or detained against their will.
> Would you send a Japanese child, who
> had gotten out of an American concentration camp, back into that camp?
See above.
Ya see, as much as YOU might despise the country or politics of
Cuba, MANY people like it there.
> Since
> this happened during Passover, let's go a few thousand years further back:
> Would you send an escaped Hebrew child back to Pharaoh's mud pits?
You can stop being a nut-bar anytime now, OK?
(snip the rest)
Robert Frenchu
> I too was on the father's side, until that Cuban govt. spokesman declared
>Elian to be "the property of the state."
Your government forbids you to visit Cuba. Does that make you
"property of the state?"
--
If my "assault rifle" makes me a criminal
And my encryption program makes me a terrorist
Does Dianne Feinstein's vagina make her a prostitute?
hoffman
> from occupied Europe, back to his father in Auschwitz?
> out of an American concentration camp, back into
> that camp?
To merely repeat what I said in one of my
original messages on the subject, intervention
is only warranted in the most clear cut cases
of human rights abuse scenarios.
Both examples you give above about concentration
and internment camps DO fit the criteria for true
human rights abuses.. Living in Cuba DOES NOT
outright fit the criteria for human rights abuses
unless you can specifically prove that a specific
individual is in unquestionably proven danger from
people who want to kill, torture or otherwise
imprison a person for no good reason.
Considering the U.S. has more people
in our jails than Cuba both number-wise
and percentage wise, I think that tends
to shatter the myth that everyone in Cuba
is destined for prison or death.
The fact that Elian, his father, and Miami
relatives have gained worldwide notoriety
will in most likelihood only lead to all these
individuals leading a safer life without danger
because the world is watching and will be
for some time. It would be unwise for
Elian or his father to be mistreated in any
way in Cuba, because that would only serve
to make Cuba look bad in the eyes of the world.
-----------------------------
> Would you send an African girl back to a father who
> would have her genitals mutilated IAW tribal customs?
Well golly gee, did you get your penis cut?
Are you permanently mentally scarred for life?
Regardless, see my comment above about intervening
in "provable" human rights abuses... which is not
the same as getting our panties in a wad just
because we dont like some foreign dictator
or the way his country is run.
----------------
> I too was on the father's side, until that Cuban govt.
> spokesman declared Elian to be "the property of the
> state."
If you are basing a large portion of your opinion on this
situation based on the quote of some government
official your pretty foolish. Government officials
from all countries have been known to run their
mouths off, or make grossly inaccurate statements
or outright lies, or have said things which do not
represent the official position of the government.
What does that mean anyway:
"property of the state."
It's a total bullshit phrase which has absolutely
no practical meaning unless you can put it
in a specific context.
In American millions of kids have been drafted
off to war... Well golly gee... How could OUR
mom-and-apple-pie government actually force
people to go off to war to face potential death?
Some foreign propagandist who disagrees
with mandatory military service could just
as well make the claim that Americans can
become property of the state.
If somebody could show me the text of
Cuban law which specifically declares
all Cubans as "property of the state"
that would be pretty interesting and I'd
give credit it's due.... but in absence of
this proof, it's just a meaningless phrase
by yet another government talking head.
---------------------
> As Joe Sobran pointed out in his latest
> column, if Castro wants any Cuban dead,
> that Cuban dies within hours.
So.... uhhh... tell me... Can you quote me
some kind of Cuban law which legalizes
government executions without trial.
Ummm... Maybe your not aware of this...
but we have the same thing in America,
in fact our statistics might just be as
impressive..
Only im America, we call it.. CRIME!!
If the "Cuban government" is killing people,
they are obviously doing it illegally since
I doubt the law condones that action.
This fact makes a very big difference.
If a country makes it legal to actually murder
and kidnap citizens who are deemed
"disidents" then we should look at the
country more harshly; but if the law
does not allow that conduct, then perhaps
we should seek to remedy the situation through
other means by picking out the bad apples
in that government (as opposed to simply
collecting all their refugees for decades and
granting them political asylum which solves
nothing in the long term).
Perhaps rather than outright dismissing
Cuba as the "scourge of the planet", we
should actually see to it that the current
system actually follows the laws which
are in place which I am sure are more
civilized than many people realize.
gizm...@innocent.com
wrote:
>
>I wasn't aware that Elian or his father were in a prison,
>destined to be murdered or detained against their will.
The entire island of Cuba is a prison - else why are the inmates
killed if they are caught trying to leave?
Panhead
>
> On Fri, 28 Apr 2000 12:22:43 -0400, Panhead <Panmy...@intac.com>
> wrote:
>
> >
> >I wasn't aware that Elian or his father were in a prison,
> >destined to be murdered or detained against their will.
>
> The entire island of Cuba is a prison
Cite please.
>- else why are the inmates
> killed if they are caught trying to leave?
Funny, the US tries to kill its prisoners that escape as well.
--
Panhead.AH™#49, HSB™#1219, KoB/CoT™205# ,O•14®,
AR/Y2K Compliant™, TPG/GN™#'76
--EKIII Paints with me--
--Pull my finger to reply--
J.M. Ivler
> OK then, let's hop into a time machine and take a short trip back to World
> Europe, back to his father in Auschwitz?
Was the Jewish father employed by the Nazi Party? Was he a happy member of
the Nazi Party? Did he have a nice home? Was his child in the Nazi school
with all the other Nazi children?
Do you start to see where your argument may have some rather large logic
flaws?
What we have here is an active member of the Party who has a job, home and
life that may even include many Party functions. He apparently seems
rather satisfied (according to him) with the Party and how it treats him,
what it provides him with, etc. This isn't a guy in a concentration camp,
unless you might consider him to be one of the jailers.
When you fix your logic flaws, please feel free to come back and play.
> and the child's mother died in the escape.
You mean the woman who took a child that she shared custody with another
parent from the country without the permission of the other parent?
> I too was on the father's side, until that Cuban govt. spokesman declared
> Elian to be "the property of the state." That brought me back to reality. In
> Cuba or any other totalitarian country, *no one* has *any* rights of *any*
> kind, including parental rights.
So you support making sure that the half-brother doesn't go back to Cuba
either? And the cousin who just arrived? And what of the four children
from his school class that just showed up, should we save them from the
horrors that await them as property of the Cuban government?
Stuart Dunn
> > member of the Libertarian party. If the LP stands for denying the
> > basic human funadmental right of a father to raise his own child, then
> > I have been deceived by a party that claims to advocate freedom for the
> > individual.
>
> idea of "freedom."
lip service to liberty we'd join one of the two major parties and stand
a better chance of getting elected.
>
> > Yes, I know...Cuba is a communist country and Castro is a
> > dictator. But the way to change the political system that rules Cuba
> > is NOT by denying the freedom of a father to raise his own son. Last I
> > checked, it was neither against U.S. law or international law to be
> > born a Cuban. That Cuban exiles in Miami would attempt to destroy a
> > father-son bond for the sole purpose of trying to make Castro look bad
> > sickens me.
>
> was engaged in nothing more than a political kidnapping.
>
> > sanctity of family
>
> Libertarians have actually told me that the brutal child-labor of the age
> of laissez faire (19th century) "freed" children from the "oppression of
> the family."
mixed economy just like we do today. The only reason parents were able
to force their children to perform slave labor was because there were no
anti-child abuse laws, and fugitive children were returned to their
parents. Until 4 years ago, there was a plank in the LP's platform that
said we support allowing children to excercise all the rights of adults,
except for voting, driving, etc. Under such a system, children would be
allowed to move away from home at any time, and taxpayers would save
enormous amounts of money because of socialist schools being replaced
with private schools.
> I am not exaggerating!
>
> The family is nothing more than a unit of labor to Libertarians.
NM
---snipped---
> member of the Libertarian party.
Why are you a "card carrying" member yet supporting ANYONE's return to
slavery?
> If the LP stands for denying the
> basic human funadmental right of a father to raise his own child,
They don't. That isn't the issue. You should be disabused of the false
notion that in Cuba Juan would "raise his child". His child is to be
interned in a "guest house" for "debriefing". In a communist country
that means imprisoned (yes away from his father) for reprogramming.
> then
> I have been deceived by a party that claims to advocate freedom for the
> individual.
Hence their opposition to allowing the boy to be returned to Cuba. Any
libertarian (which lets out a lot of LP members) would have opposed the
government storming operation.
> Yes, I know...Cuba is a communist country and Castro is a
> dictator. But the way to change the political system that rules Cuba
> is NOT by denying the freedom of a father to raise his own son.
As if he would enjoy such "freedom" in Cuba. There are no "parent's
rights" in Cuba. You're inadvertantly or purposefully deluding yourself
if you think otherwise.
> Last I
> checked, it was neither against U.S. law or international law to be
> born a Cuban.
Last I checked Cuba was a totalitarian communist dictatorship
slave-state that the U.S. *ROUTINELY* offers asylum to the inhabitants.
> That Cuban exiles in Miami would attempt to destroy a
> father-son bond for the sole purpose of trying to make Castro look bad
> sickens me.
What sickens you is their devotion to the freedom of a relative. They
want Juan to stay and be free to WITH his son.
> These are not Americans. True Americans believe in the
> sanctity of family and the relationship of a birth parent and child.
"True Americans" eh? Since when have you started defining what a "true
American" is? Americans who value freedom want to welcome those who
escape oppression and oppose returning people to such slavery.
> True Americans would FIGHT for the right of a parent to regain custody
> of a son kidnapped by distant relatives.
Is your Great Uncle or Aunt a "distant relative". Interesting how your
grandparent's siblings can be considered "distant".
> True Americans would never
> permit a family of exiled emigres on foreign soil to keep custody of an
> American child, against the father's wishes, without a fight. The
> United States government would bring ALL available resources to bear if
> a rogue country tried anything of the sort. True Americans, I beseech
> you...write your congressman and express your complete and utter dismay
> that the rule of law and the sanctity of family appears to have become
> nothing more than words in this case.
Write to Congress to protest the grotesque abuse of power by the Clinton
administration.
> Juan Miguel is Elian's rightful
> and lawful guardian.
Really? Then why has the 11th circuit ruled differently?
> Juan Miguel is the ONLY person who should legally
> speak for his son. Juan Miguel decides if and when Elian should stay in
> the United States. I for one wish Juan Miguel and his wife would apply
> for political asylum for his entire family, but absent that request,
> leave the Gonzales family in PEACE.
Fight to prevent their return to abject slavery.
NM
Sound more like you live for Statism.
NM
---snipped---
> destined to be murdered or detained against their will.
That's how it is in Cuba Pan.
> > Would you send a Japanese child, who
> > had gotten out of an American concentration camp, back into that camp?
>
> See above.
How about, would you send a jewish kid back to Germany in WWII? Just to
the country. Would you?
> Ya see, as much as YOU might despise the country or politics of
> Cuba, MANY people like it there.
Hahahahaa. Yeah that's why thousands flee yearly. Its wonderful there.
NM
Wow Pan the pro-castro-ite (it appears)
Robert Frenchu
People leave this country every year too. Why are you against letting
this man live where he wants to live with his own son? Why can't you
accept the fact there are people who LIKE communism?
Robert Frenchu
>As if he would enjoy such "freedom" in Cuba. There are no "parent's
>rights" in Cuba. You're inadvertantly or purposefully deluding yourself
>if you think otherwise.
Doesn't look like there are any here either, if anyone could seriously
entertain the idea of taking this boy away from his father.
Panhead
>
> NM <af...@spamusa.net> wrote:
>
> >Panhead wrote:
> >---snipped---
> >> I wasn't aware that Elian or his father were in a prison,
> >> destined to be murdered or detained against their will.
> >
> >That's how it is in Cuba Pan.
> >
> >> > Would you send a Japanese child, who
> >> > had gotten out of an American concentration camp, back into that camp?
> >>
> >> See above.
> >
> >How about, would you send a jewish kid back to Germany in WWII? Just to
> >the country. Would you?
> >
> >> Ya see, as much as YOU might despise the country or politics of
> >> Cuba, MANY people like it there.
> >
> >Hahahahaa. Yeah that's why thousands flee yearly. Its wonderful there.
>
> People leave this country every year too. Why are you against letting
> this man live where he wants to live with his own son? Why can't you
> accept the fact there are people who LIKE communism?
That's going to confuse NM <af...@spamusa.net> for quite some
time.
Thousands also "flee"" Asstralia, the UK, Japan, France (yuk!)
California.. and VIRGINIA! as wel as every other country ne can
think of!
No way am I going to mention why he approves moving to or from
one socialist country/county to another he hopes it becomes.
Nope...not me.
Nuh uh.
Shush!
Mute it the word.
I ain't say nuttin' honey.
Zzzzziiiiip!
Threw out the key!
Silent.
tm...@bellsouth.net
>
> "hoffman" <hof...@northeast.net> wrote:
>
> >> True Americans would never permit a family of exiled
> >> emigres on foreign soil to keep custody of an American
> >> child, against the father's wishes, without a fight.
> >> The United States government would bring ALL
> >> available resources to bear if a rogue country tried
> >> anything of the sort.
> >
> >A most excellent point; one which most people likely
> >did not think of. It would be interesting to see what
> >kind of tune all these phoney balogney hypocrites
> >in this newsgroup would be singing if an American
> >kid got trapped and detained in Cuba by chance
> >situation.
>
> I wonder also if the *father* had drowned and it was the *mother*
> trying to get her son back, if attitudes wouldn't be any different.
Mine would be the same either way, the Boy belongs with his father.
> --
> It feels GOOD to give up a little freedom for a LOT of safety!
I will not give up my freedom, you may.
> Somewhere, a child is being injured because of unlicensed tools!
Somewhere a life is being saved by a unlicensed tool, It may end up
being yours.
--
Visit <http://www.NRA.org> to join.
<http://www.vote-smart.org> Find your elected officials and more
C h a n g e whateveritsays@whereveritis to;
t m g s at b e l l s o u t h d o t n e t to get my attention
CDH
>> I too was on the father's side, until that Cuban govt.
>> spokesman declared Elian to be "the property of the
>> state."
>
>situation based on the quote of some government
>official your pretty foolish. Government officials
>from all countries have been known to run their
>mouths off, or make grossly inaccurate statements
>or outright lies, or have said things which do not
>represent the official position of the government.
Govt. officials in totalitarian countries who run their mouths off and make
innaccurate statements which do not represent the official position of the
govt. tend to disappear, or publicly receive a terminal case of lead
poisoning.
>What does that mean anyway:
>
> "property of the state."
>
>It's a total bullshit phrase which has absolutely
>no practical meaning unless you can put it
>in a specific context.
>
>In American millions of kids have been drafted
>off to war... Well golly gee... How could OUR
>mom-and-apple-pie government actually force
>people to go off to war to face potential death?
>Some foreign propagandist who disagrees
>with mandatory military service could just
>as well make the claim that Americans can
>become property of the state.
Which is precisely why the draft is wrong, and why there were draft riots in
NYC and elsewhere during the War for Sourthern Independence. Back then,
Americans took their freedom far more seriously. Also why I wouldn't let any
child of mine into a public school.
>If somebody could show me the text of
>Cuban law which specifically declares
>all Cubans as "property of the state"
>that would be pretty interesting and I'd
>give credit it's due.... but in absence of
>this proof, it's just a meaningless phrase
>by yet another government talking head.
OK, here's a direct quote from the "parenting" section of Cuba's
constitution: Parents have rights "only so long as their influence does not
go against the political objectives of the state." Going back to the example
of the draft, all Cuban children are conscripted into combination labor and
political indoctrination camps at age 11. Such groups also existed in the
USSR (Young Pioneers) and in Nazi Germany (Hitler Youth).
>> As Joe Sobran pointed out in his latest
>> column, if Castro wants any Cuban dead,
>> that Cuban dies within hours.
>
>So.... uhhh... tell me... Can you quote me
>some kind of Cuban law which legalizes
>government executions without trial.
You still don't get it. Under a dictatorship, the dictator *is* the law,
regardless of what any constitution or writte law might say. As one of
Clinton's flacks put it, "Stroke of the pen, law of the land." Maybe that's
where all the confusion lies -- America is admittedly becoming more like Cuba
every day.
>Ummm... Maybe your not aware of this...
>but we have the same thing in America,
>in fact our statistics might just be as
>impressive..
>
>Only im America, we call it.. CRIME!!
Here, it's crime, and is (usually) punished. In Cuba, it's legal when
ordained by Castro, whose word is law. And law, to paraphrase George
Washington, is force. That's we we have the 2nd Amendment -- so we can defend
ourselves against both private criminals and tyrannical govt. Since you seem
to prefer Cuba's orderly society to ours, let's start a cultural exchange
program -- you go to Cuba for a year, a randomly selected Cuban comes here.
Wagers hereby accepted on who's more eager to go back home when the year is
up. Actually, while surfing the Net for research on this subject, I came
across a similar proposal. You can read it at:
http://www.enterstageright.com/0400kid2cuba.htm
>If the "Cuban government" is killing people,
>they are obviously doing it illegally since
>I doubt the law condones that action.
>This fact makes a very big difference.
The Nazis *legally* killed ~6 million Jews in the death camps, since Hitler's
word was law. Ditto Stalin (~30 million), Mao (~20 million), Pol Pot (~2
million), etc. All of these people, like Castro, enjoyed absolute power. If
they spoke French, they could easily identify with Louis XIV's declaration
"L'etat, c'est moi" (I am the state). Most Americans simply can't fathom a
such a system -- they've been raised to believe no one is above the law,
which is what the phrase "rule of law" is ultimately about. So they naturally
assume that this is a universal constant. I probably know better since I grew
up on the Mexican border, and was able to see firsthand a nation that does
not adhere to such ideas. (In Mexico, the "rule of law" is determined by
whoever pays the biggest bribe.)
Dave in Fla.
---------------
"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time
with the blood of patriots and tyrants."
-- Thomas Jefferson
----------------
"In any compromise between food and poison, it is only death that
can win. In any compromise between good and evil, it is only evil
that can profit."
-- John Galt
tm...@bellsouth.net
I believe he still has other children and parents in Cuba, He will not
stay here and risk what may happen to them, this I am pretty sure of.
I truley believe the boy belongs with his father and the U.S. did the
right thing by removing the child from his relatives, Now the way they
did it, maybe could have been done differently, but I do not believe
the relatives would have surrendered Elian in a peacfull manner, They
ran out of time, What the U.S. Did was right.
The Only way we could possible hold that child in my opinion is if we
had proved his father unfit, Now we don't know him so we cannot prove
that.
The INS went in fast and strong, with the crowd that was outfront I am
surprised there wern't any serious injuries, For this I appluad the
INS, they could have been alot rougher I'm sure
<snip>>
> To decide that in the name of "freedom" you will separate the child from
> his father and keep in in the United States makes YOU Big Brother.
>
> B.
>
> Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
> Before you buy.
VibrantFem
wrote:
>gizm...@innocent.com wrote:
>>- else why are the inmates
>> killed if they are caught trying to leave?
>
>Funny, the US tries to kill its prisoners that escape as well.
Hell we kill African immigrants that are trying to stay, for being
black and out after midnight no less.
---------------------------------------------
"Ther are two kinds of laws, good laws & bad laws...
A good law is one that attempts to protect me from you....
A bad law is one that attempts to protect me from myself."
Remove "1234" from addy to respond via email
VibrantFem
<Robert_Frenchu*REMOVE*@yahoo.com> wrote:
>NM <af...@spamusa.net> wrote:
>
>>Panhead wrote:
>>---snipped---
>>> Ya see, as much as YOU might despise the country or politics of
>>> Cuba, MANY people like it there.
>>
>>Hahahahaa. Yeah that's why thousands flee yearly. Its wonderful there.
>
>People leave this country every year too. Why are you against letting
>this man live where he wants to live with his own son? Why can't you
>accept the fact there are people who LIKE communism?
Might not even be a matter of "liking Communism" but rather a matter
of "hating capitalism" or of hating America in general...don't you
read the papers? America is the MOST unsafe country to live in or
raise children in, we have privately owned guns.... Ooooooooo.
VibrantFem
wrote:
>Thousands also "flee"" Australia, the UK, Japan, France (yuk!)
>California.. and VIRGINIA! as well as every other country we can
>think of!
Ummm, California is not a country...but I did flee it along with
several other states I lived in while looking for the America i heard
about in school. I also left the sun and high cost of living behind
me and moved my family north to try cloudy skies, and small town
life... only to find crooked politicians and property taxes that make
you weak in the knees... it all comes down to.... " no matter where
you go, there you are". ...and no matter where you are , parents and
their children help each other deal with anything.
> No way am I going to mention why he approves moving to or from
>one socialist country/county to another he hopes it becomes.
> Nope...not me.
>Nuh uh.
> Shush!
> Mute it the word.
> I ain't say nuttin' honey.
> Zzzzziiiiip!
> Threw out the key!
> Silent.
>
heh
qwerty
"CDH" <p...@yfot.arg> wrote in message
news:sgjdsa...@corp.supernews.com...
> hoffman wrote in message <01bfb106$8d9a8f20$d3abe6cd@enduser>...
>
World
> War II. Would you then send a Jewish child, who had escaped from occupied
<----- poor analogy & crap clipped ----->
An Insult to History
Thursday, April 13, 2000
URL:
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2000/04/13
/ED29702.DTL
THERE ARE many good reasons to deplore Fidel Castro's one-man rule over Cuba
for the past four decades.
But the tortured negotiations over custody of Elian Gonzalez have been
complicated by some of the rhetoric being spewed by anti-Castro politicians
and pundits who have proposed desperate means to keep the 6-year-old in the
United States. Some even have been suggesting that sending Elian back to
Cuba would be tantamount to returning a child to slavery or a Nazi
concentration camp.
Such overheated comparisons are an insult to history.
Slavery and the Holocaust were crimes against humanity on such a vast scale
that to compare the fate that awaits Elian to the countless Africans who
perished on their voyage to the New World, or endured a life of slavery once
they got here, or to the millions who perished in the Holocaust, diminishes
the awfulness of those episodes.
The intellectually indefensible rhetoric is not limited just to the
anti-Castro zealots demonstrating outside the Gonzalez relatives house in
Miami. ``I believe that this young man should be absolutely assured that he
will be able to live in freedom and not in slavery,'' Arizona Sen. John
McCain intoned on the campaign trail. And last Sunday on ABC's ``This
Week,'' conservative columnist George Will drew a similar analogy. ``It's
1850, and a child escapes from slavery in the South. The Fugitive Slave Law
says send him back. Would that child belong with his father in the Deep
South on a plantation?''
Some of the keep-him-here advocates, including Will, have tried to elevate
the Elian flap into a test of morality and civil rights, suggesting that
just as abolitionists gave haven to slaves escaping on the Underground
Railroad, it is our human obligation to give the same protection to Elian,
using civil disobedience if necessary to do so.
Yet a look at conditions in Cuba, while bleak, do not justify such rhetoric.
Life on the Caribbean island certainly is no picnic. Some 350 political
prisoners languish in Cuban jails. The penal code makes an ``illegal exit''
from the country a crime punishable by up to three years imprisonment.
Ordinary citizens are barred from moving from rural areas to Havana, unless
they have formally registered with the govern ment. As many as 400,000
Cubans -- called ``palestinos'' because they are homeless -- have defied
these regulations, and live on the fringes of the law in their own capital.
Even in the countryside, internal migration is strictly regulated through
the confiscation of ``carnets,'' or personal identity cards. Four decades of
isolation has translated into harsh economic deprivation for much of the
populace.
Each year, nearly a half-million Cubans apply for 6,000 U.S. visas offered
through a special visa lottery run by the State Department. That amounts to
about 4 percent of Cuba's population, a high number to be sure. But the
overwhelming majority of Cubans choose not to apply. Like people around the
world, their main concern is supporting themselves and their families, and
making the most of life in a country an accident of birth has stuck them
with.
But let's get serious: there are no slaves in Cuba, nor any of slavery's
attendant institutions. People are not sold like property, there are no
lynchings, and people are paid (albeit very modestly) for the work they do.
Similarly, there have been no massacres of villages, no gas ovens, no
attempt to obliterate an entire people. Castro's reign has actually improved
some aspects of life in Cuba, notably in the areas of education and health c
are.
When and if Elian gets back to Cuba, he will lead perhaps not the best
imaginable life, but at least it will be one spent with his only living
parent. As its latest hero in the fight against Yankee imperialism, he will
likely lead a pampered life in Castro's Cuba.
The determination of Elian's Miami relatives to raise him in a land of
freedom and economic opportunity is understandable.
But the others who are trying to elevate this human tragedy into a great
moral crusade should get out of the way.
Their comparisons to the Holocaust and slavery are a disservice to the
memories of the victims of those wrenching chapters of history -- while
complicating the reunion of a father with a son who survived a harrowing
shipwreck.
gizm...@innocent.com
wrote:
>
>Funny, the US tries to kill its prisoners that escape as well.
>
>
>
>--
Thank you for validating that the Cuban populace are prisoners.
J.M. Ivler
> They don't. That isn't the issue. You should be disabused of the false
> notion that in Cuba Juan would "raise his child". His child is to be
> interned in a "guest house" for "debriefing". In a communist country
> that means imprisoned (yes away from his father) for reprogramming.
Then you also should want his half-brother to stay here as well, against
the wishes of the father, right? You want the government to rip both of
Juan's children from him so he can go home childless, but they will both
be protected? How about his cousin who just came to visit, should we
refuse to allow him to leave and go back to the horros that await him in
Cuba? And then there are the four new kids that just arrived, can you let
them return to the horrors you described?
If you can return any one of them, then you can return both of the boys
with the father!
> As if he would enjoy such "freedom" in Cuba. There are no "parent's
> rights" in Cuba. You're inadvertantly or purposefully deluding yourself
> if you think otherwise.
So, let him go or keep all the kids that are here. Your choice.
> Last I checked Cuba was a totalitarian communist dictatorship
> slave-state that the U.S. *ROUTINELY* offers asylum to the inhabitants.
And that too should change. Many of these people leave for economic, not
political reasons. It isn't right or fair to let these people in and turn
other economic refugees away.
> > That Cuban exiles in Miami would attempt to destroy a
> > father-son bond for the sole purpose of trying to make Castro look bad
> > sickens me.
> What sickens you is their devotion to the freedom of a relative. They
> want Juan to stay and be free to WITH his son.
Juan may actually have some say over what he wants for himself and his
family. He is a member of the Party and he may actually LIKE being in
Cuba. I know you seem to have a problem with that, but it appears that
many do like being in Cuba.
> > True Americans would FIGHT for the right of a parent to regain custody
> > of a son kidnapped by distant relatives.
> Is your Great Uncle or Aunt a "distant relative". Interesting how your
> grandparent's siblings can be considered "distant".
Notice you didn't say anything about kidnapping. That's unusual. Most of
the anti-castro posters say "they didn't kidnap..." You seem to feel that
they did (or at least are not defending their act of kidnap).
> > Juan Miguel is Elian's rightful
> > and lawful guardian.
> Really? Then why has the 11th circuit ruled differently?
Wrong again. The court said nothing about custody and didn't overturn the
findings of the lower court that did say that the proper legal custodian
for the boy was his father. What they did say was the boy can't leave the
country. Please take the time to actually read the decisions by the court
for the last few days. Father does seem to know best.
> Fight to prevent their return to abject slavery.
Sort of like Castro fights to prevent people from leaving? And the
difference between one petty dictator (Castro) and another (you) is even
slimmer now.
J.M. Ivler
> ---snipped---
> > I wasn't aware that Elian or his father were in a prison,
> > destined to be murdered or detained against their will.
> That's how it is in Cuba Pan.
Destined to be murdered? Wow! Everyone in Cuba is murdered? Including
those that are Party members? Wow! I'm impressed. You have a unbelievable
grasp of the fantastic. Thanks for sharing.
> Hahahahaa. Yeah that's why thousands flee yearly. Its wonderful there.
Can you say economic opportunity? Sure you can. In this country, when
people from other places enter illegally for reasons of economic
opportunity we ship them back to where they come from. Haiti, China, it
doesn't matter. It's time to treat Cuba the same way (unless you want to
open the doors to anyone who comes from a communist country and says "I'm
being persecuted").
Jamie
wants to go back and live in Cuba, and thus Juan's say is final. Ivler is
not the least bit skeptical that Juan Miguel may have Castro's hooks into
him, such as death threats to his extended family back at home if he
doesn't comply, that his own life will be assassinated if he doesn't
comply, that Cuban infiltrators in America(yes, they do exist, some even
have been found in Brothers to the Rescue) will also kill his son Elian.
No Ivler accepts the words coming from his hack lawyer as gospel. OTOH,
many Americans, Reno, and the media say a video tape of Elian saying he
doesn't want to return to Cuba is "obviously" false and "coached." Both
instances should come under a skeptical eye, which can only be resolved by
a court of law, not jack botted thugs such as the RIF( Reno Invasion
Force). Yet, let's say Juan Miguel is indeed a communist supporter, and
worse yet a Castro supporter. Then he advocates vile desecration against
basic human rights, the murder of people who don't agree with the communist
mainfesto, the imprionment of all Cubans(if they have no choice in whether
they live in Cuba or not, they are imprisoned). If such is the case then
his fitness to raise a child must come into question. What if Juan Miguel
is a hard-liner? Would he have his own son murdered if his son wished to
escape later in life to America, or if his son became utterly defiant to
Castro? Indeed, his fitness to raise his child in Cuba then can be called
into question. Again, that can only be decided now in a court of law, which
Reno and Castro is trying to circumvent.
holygoat
news:o0nO4.3258$I7.3...@news-east.usenetserver.com...
> In ca.politics CDH <p...@yfot.arg> wrote:
World
> > War II. Would you then send a Jewish child, who had escaped from
occupied
>
> Was the Jewish father employed by the Nazi Party? Was he a happy member of
> the Nazi Party? Did he have a nice home? Was his child in the Nazi school
> with all the other Nazi children?
>
> Do you start to see where your argument may have some rather large logic
> flaws?
>
> What we have here is an active member of the Party who has a job, home and
> life that may even include many Party functions. He apparently seems
> rather satisfied (according to him) with the Party and how it treats him,
> what it provides him with, etc. This isn't a guy in a concentration camp,
> unless you might consider him to be one of the jailers.
>
> When you fix your logic flaws, please feel free to come back and play.
>
The problem here is that there is no gaurantee that Elian will be as loyal
to the Party as Dad apparently is. If so, no harm done. If not, we have
delivered him to either his jail cell or his grave.
> > and the child's mother died in the escape.
>
> You mean the woman who took a child that she shared custody with another
> parent from the country without the permission of the other parent?
>
> > I too was on the father's side, until that Cuban govt. spokesman
declared
> > Elian to be "the property of the state." That brought me back to
reality. In
> > Cuba or any other totalitarian country, *no one* has *any* rights of
*any*
> > kind, including parental rights.
>
> So you support making sure that the half-brother doesn't go back to Cuba
> either? And the cousin who just arrived? And what of the four children
> from his school class that just showed up, should we save them from the
> horrors that await them as property of the Cuban government?
>
If they sign petitions for asylum, yes.
McFarlin
> On Fri, 28 Apr 2000 12:22:43 -0400, Panhead <Panmy...@intac.com>
> wrote:
>
> >
> >I wasn't aware that Elian or his father were in a prison,
> >destined to be murdered or detained against their will.
>
> The entire island of Cuba is a prison - else why are the inmates
> killed if they are caught trying to leave?
They're not. In fact several people in Elian's party changed their minds
when the boat ended up back in Cuba and stayed. None of them were shot! No
wonder you guys are so full of shit! You either don't know anything about
Cuba, or just repeat stupid misinformation as fact.
Rob McFarlin
McFarlin
>
> OK then, let's hop into a time machine and take a short trip back to World
> War II. Would you then send a Jewish child, who had escaped from occupied
> Europe, back to his father in Auschwitz?
You guys really make yourselves sound stupid when you concoct these
ridiculous - literally ludicrous, analogies. Cuba ain't no paradise, but
it certainly isn't Auschwitz either!
Besides, the slave labor camps at Auschwitz were run by capitalists like Krupp.
Rob McFarlin
McFarlin
> McFarlin wrote:
> > Libertarians have actually told me that the brutal child-labor of the age
> > of laissez faire (19th century) "freed" children from the "oppression of
> > the family."
> The 19th Century was not full of laissez faire capitalism! They had a
> mixed economy just like we do today.
Which country had a "mixed economy?" Certainly not in England in the 19th
century!
> The only reason parents were able
> to force their children to perform slave labor
"Parents" weren't forcing their children into slave labor. The parents
could barely afford to feed themselves - the poverty of the children was
exploited by mill and mine owners.
> was because there were no
> anti-child abuse laws, and fugitive children were returned to their
> parents.
How does someone get this misinformed? We're talking about abusive child
labor practices that were common under laissez faire. It is an
incontrovertable fact! Laws protecting the health and safety of children
in the work-place were strenuously blocked for decades by people espousing
the same doctrines you do!
> Until 4 years ago, there was a plank in the LP's platform that
> said we support allowing children to excercise all the rights of adults,
> except for voting, driving, etc. Under such a system, children would be
> allowed to move away from home at any time, and taxpayers would save
> enormous amounts of money because of socialist schools being replaced
> with private schools.
You guys either don't get it at all or live in some universe immune to
reality. The only reason anyone would support such a stupid idea is so
they can be free to exploit children. Do you actually believe that
returning to the abusive economics of the mid-Victorian period will
improve the lives of children? You must work for Nike!
> > I am not exaggerating!
> >
> > The family is nothing more than a unit of labor to Libertarians.
> Get your facts straight before you post them on the Internet.
I've gotten them straight and if you had any wit at all you'd realize you
just made my point for me.
Rob McFarlin
McFarlin
> live4f...@my-deja.com wrote:
> ---snipped---
> > For the fist time in 10 years, I am ashamed to be a card-carrying
> > member of the Libertarian party.
>
> Why are you a "card carrying" member yet supporting ANYONE's return to
> slavery?
Elian was not living in a slave society. He went to school in Cuba. Which
is more than you can say about many capitalist societies in the third
world where children work 14 hours a day for a tortilla and a dollar and
never get a chance to learn to read and write. Cuba has the highest
literacy rate in Latin America.
Rob McFarlin
McFarlin
> Panhead wrote:
> ---snipped---
> > I wasn't aware that Elian or his father were in a prison,
> > destined to be murdered or detained against their will.
>
> That's how it is in Cuba Pan.
That's a lie.
Rob McFarlin
McFarlin
(John G. Otto) wrote:
> What they rightfully objected to was the interference of
> Castro, Clinton & Reno in a private family matter.
> --
> John G. Otto Nisus Software, Engineering
It became necessary for the government to get involved when it was clear
to any neutral observer that an abusive hostage situation had developed.
Rob McFarlin
NM
Does the fact that the father's "rights" as you seemed to be concerned,
aren't existant in Cuba and that he won't have custody there, impact
your thinking on this issue?
NM
By the way no one "took this boy from his father". Should they be, once
again, consigned to Cuban oppression?
Robert Frenchu wrote:
>
> NM <af...@spamusa.net> wrote:
>
> >As if he would enjoy such "freedom" in Cuba. There are no "parent's
> >rights" in Cuba. You're inadvertantly or purposefully deluding yourself
> >if you think otherwise.
>
David Lentz
McFarlin wrote:
<snip>
> Elian was not living in a slave society. He went to school in Cuba. Which
> is more than you can say about many capitalist societies in the third
> world where children work 14 hours a day for a tortilla and a dollar and
> never get a chance to learn to read and write. Cuba has the highest
> literacy rate in Latin America.
>
> Rob McFarlin
<cynical mode -- on>
Sure Fidel Castro sent his son Elian to school. Because Elian
was too young to chop sugar cane. When Elian turns eleven,
Castro will send Elian to the cane fields.
<cynical mode -- off>
Funny thing about Cuba. all the liberal sitting in the United
States tell what a wonderful place Cuba is and a lot of Cuban are
willing to risk their lives to leave. I don't see small boats
trying smuggle liberals into Cuba.
David
Robert Frenchu
>Robert,
>
>Does the fact that the father's "rights" as you seemed to be concerned,
>aren't existant in Cuba and that he won't have custody there, impact
>your thinking on this issue?
He has as many parental "rights" here as he does in Cuba.
>NM
>By the way no one "took this boy from his father".
By the way, they tried to keep the boy from his father. That's
kidnapping.
>Should they be, once again, consigned to Cuban oppression?
Why are you afraid to admit that some people like to live in Cuba?
Timothy Murphy
"Stuart Dunn" <dun...@erols.com> wrote in message
news:390959...@erols.com...
> That's not what we're dealing with here. What we're dealing with is a
> dispute about whether Elian will live in partial freedom here in the US,
> or whether he will be sent back to Cuba to live as a slave for the rest
> of his life. Elian's dad has been accompanied by heavily armed Cuban
> foreign relations officials throughout his visit to the US, and he's
> been living under statism long enough to know that if he tries to defect
> to the US he won't live to tell about it.
"Heavily armed Cuban foreign relations officials"? He spent several days
at Andrews Air Force Base, with his children and wife, after Elian was
rescued. If he wished to defect he could have said so then, no "heavily
armed cuban foreign relation official" was anywhere near him, and I
certainly don't think they would have gone bargin in there.
--
Timothy I. Murphy
When we're free to love anyone we choose
When this world's big enough for all different views
When we all can worship from our own kind of pew
Then we shall be free---
Stephanie Davis & Garth Brooks "We Shall Be Free" from "The Chase"
gizm...@innocent.com
>
>They're not.
Have you ever heard of the tug boat "13 de Marzo" which was sunk by
the Cuban patrol boats, drowning 23 children and a number of adults
because they had the unmitigated gall to want to leave Cuba?
>In fact several people in Elian's party changed their minds
>when the boat ended up back in Cuba and stayed. None of them were shot!
>
What are their names? Where do they live? Have you seen them
recently? Since they did return voluntarily is is possible that they
are merely being "re-educated" somewhere.
J.M. Ivler
> Then there was never any problem. Elian was not taken away from
> his father. He left a dictatorship with his mother. His father,
> a member of the police state of Cuba, had not seen him for
> 3 years.
This is a total misrepresntation of the truth. In fact he spent M-F living
at a room (his room) in his father house even though his mother had joint
custody of him.
> His father knew he was leaving ahead of time, and
> where he was going; he called the members of their family in
> Miami to let them know.
This had been claimed by the Miami family, but has not been supported by
Juan or anyone from Cuba.
> Elian was welcomed and taken in by
> those relatives who also extended an invitation to his father.
He (Juan) apparently is a member of the Party and has a fine job that he
enjoys back in Cuba. From all he has said to date he is very satisfied
with his life there. He has no desire to live here, based on his
cobversations to date, and wants to raise HIS family in Cuba.
> He was their ward before the government thugs burglarized
> their home and kidnapped him.
Actually, a court had ruled that he was to be transferred to the custody
of his father. The government revoked the temporary custody granted to the
Miami relatives. The Miami relatives then refused to give the child over
and even stated that the government would have to come get the child (this
was after they had said that if Juan came to America they would turn over
the child). They had stated that they would stand aside when the
government came for the child, which of course was just another of their
many lies as they tried to stop the action by bolting/locking doors and
putting the couch in front of the door.
It was a kidnapping and hostage situation. For nine days the child was
being held by people that didn't have custody of the child. These people
negotiated to return a child back to the costodial parent. These people
indicated that they had no plans to volentarly turn the child over. They
insinuated that there might be weapons in the place the child was being
held. That turned a simple custodial dispute into a hostage situation with
potentially armed kidnappers.
The government, after nine days, did the right thing. Now, I wish they
would follow it up by filing charges against the kidnappers. In aaddition,
it appears as if the kidnappers will be benefiting from their crime. The
"family" members have sold the rights to the childs story to CBS for a
undisclosed sum. They exploited the child for personal gain.
As the owner/operator of http://www.edu4kids.com/ I hope you will take the
time to look at the entire story and evaluate it as follows: Does the
child belong with his parent? Does the parent have the right to decide
where he wants to live? If you answer both of those questions "yesy" you
have to support the action that was taken to reunite them, and no matter
how you feel personally about Cuba and dictatorships, you have to accept
that the father has the right to choose to live there with his family. You
may not like the outcome, but you have to respect it.
J.M. Ivler
> The problem here is that there is no gaurantee that Elian will be as loyal
> to the Party as Dad apparently is. If so, no harm done. If not, we have
> delivered him to either his jail cell or his grave.
As I can not view the child future, or even what will happen to Cuba in
the next 12 months much less the next 12 years, how can I say what he will
face. I know that his father is responsible for him right now, and like I
make the decisions for my family (not my children), he must make the
decisions for his. My decisions are respected, and his must be as well.
> > So you support making sure that the half-brother doesn't go back to Cuba
> > either? And the cousin who just arrived? And what of the four children
> > from his school class that just showed up, should we save them from the
> > horrors that await them as property of the Cuban government?
> If they sign petitions for asylum, yes.
But they don't seem to want that. What the father wants to do is go home,
back to the life he left. He wants to GO HOME and he should be able to,
with all his family.
Just because my child can "sign her name" doesn't mean that she has any
understanding as to what she has signed. For all we know the child was
told to "sign your name and you can go to disneyworld and have ine cream
and new toys." and sign he did, just as my daughter would have. I'm sure
he wasn't told "If you sign this document it means that you never want to
return to your dads home, live with your dad, play with your friends at
school, or see your grandparents again. It's as if they are all dead,
like your mother, and you will never see any of them again."
We don't have all the facts, but I look forward to hearing
everything. Much like we weren't told that the Miami family had already
sold the childs story to CBS for a fall mini-series (exploiting the child
for personal gain) I'm sure that there are even more facts that we aren't
aware of (like what the told the child to create that wonderful videotape,
or to sign the papers).
J.M. Ivler
> Lets look at J.M. Ivler's argument. He assumes that Juan Miguel really
> wants to go back and live in Cuba, and thus Juan's say is final.
I assume nothing. I take what I hear and integrate it with the facts to
date and base my judgement on that. So far Juan has asked for his son
back, and stated he wants to live in Cuba. He has agreed to the demands of
our court system and only been asked to be left alone with his family
while the legal process slowly grinds forward.
> Ivler is
> not the least bit skeptical that Juan Miguel may have Castro's hooks into
> him, such as death threats to his extended family back at home if he
> doesn't comply, that his own life will be assassinated if he doesn't
> comply, that Cuban infiltrators in America(yes, they do exist, some even
> have been found in Brothers to the Rescue) will also kill his son Elian.
Give me some proof that any of these things exist. One schred of
evidence. You can maake any wild supposition you want, but we know that it
was reported that the Anti-Castro forces offered him a home, car and job
as well as cash if hee were to defect, and he said no. Please offer up any
evidence that you have that he is saying what he is saying because he is
under duress
> No Ivler accepts the words coming from his hack lawyer as gospel.
Unlike the Miami family who lied, allowed the boy to be exploited daily by
the anti-castro forces that ran the circus at the home, and exploited the
boy themselves for personal gain (taking money from CBS for a fall
mini-series), the father has just been asked to be left alone and allowed
to raise his family in Cuba.
> OTOH,
> many Americans, Reno, and the media say a video tape of Elian saying he
> doesn't want to return to Cuba is "obviously" false and "coached."
The only thing missing from the hostage videotape was the child holding up
a copy of the newspaper to prove he ws still alive. Beyond that many of us
who saw that tape had flashbacks to Anderson and the videotapes he made
under duress when he was a hostage.
> Both
> instances should come under a skeptical eye, which can only be resolved by
> a court of law, not jack botted thugs such as the RIF( Reno Invasion
> Force).
The custody battle was decided by a Fla court. The court said the father
should have custody. The only remaining battle before a court is whether
the child should have an asylum hearing. That will be decided on May
11th. If the court decides that the INS will have to hold a hearing. The
hearing will be for political asylum. That is a bitch of a hearing to pass
and over 90% of those that apply do not pass the test to get into this
country that way. Odds are the child won't qualify.
> Yet, let's say Juan Miguel is indeed a communist supporter, and
> worse yet a Castro supporter. Then he advocates vile desecration against
> basic human rights, the murder of people who don't agree with the communist
> mainfesto, the imprionment of all Cubans(if they have no choice in whether
> they live in Cuba or not, they are imprisoned). If such is the case then
> his fitness to raise a child must come into question. What if Juan Miguel
> is a hard-liner?
Good question. What if he is? Should that be cause to rip his eldest son
from him? If so, shouldn't that also be cause to rip his younger son as
well? If not, why not? If so, then should we allow the cousin and the
four children that just arrived to go back?
> Would he have his own son murdered if his son wished to
> escape later in life to America, or if his son became utterly defiant to
> Castro?
Interesting question, but not all all related to the facts of the case
today. For all we know the child we are sending back with the father may
become the person who understands what freeedom really is and leads to the
overthrow of the dictatorship. We may be sending back the future of a free
Cuba. See, we all can play "what ifs", but they mean nothing becuase none
of us know what the future really holds.
> Indeed, his fitness to raise his child in Cuba then can be called
> into question. Again, that can only be decided now in a court of law, which
> Reno and Castro is trying to circumvent.
Actually, the court will only decide if the child should get a hearing,
The INS will decide if the child qualifies. If not we are right back to
where we stand today, a father who wants to raise his family in a place
that most of us would rather not, but if we don't let him we are no better
than Castro by forcing what we feel is right on a man and his family.
J.M. Ivler
> trying to take my child to a collectivist hell-hole
> even worse than the USA. Let's say my spouse, who
> lived just across town, had not seen my child for
> 3 years. Let's say that my child survived and was
> taken in by my uncles and aunts. Let's say my
> spouse, suddenly, after 3 years, decided s/he just
> could not go on without taking my child into hir
> new family with hir new spouse and step-baby-brother.
Stop right there. your facts in this case are wrong. When you get them
right try reposting your supposition.
J.M. Ivler
> > Cuban. Custody heraing should take place in a court all right.
> Elian is human. He has human rights. Cuba, and its court
> system has a record of violating those rights. So does the
> court system in the USA.
It was a set of Cuban parents and their Cuban child. Why should a court in
the US be hearing any of the custody issues? If you and your wife split up
and you were both in the US, would you want the custody case to be heard
in Iraq?
> Elian was in Florida before he was forcibly kidnapped by Reno's goons.
His custodial parent (and even a Florida court stated that Juan was the
custodian for the child) demanded his child from a group of people that
had been granted *temporary* custody of him. They refused. For nine days
they held the child that they didn't have custody to as hostage, refusing
to turn him over to the government on demand and stating that they would
never give the child up volentaraly. In fact they made it clear that the
child would have to be taken from them although they prommised not to
impede that event (a promise that they broke when the government came to
take the child as they insisted).
> Most of his family is in Florida.
People he had never seen prior to being fished out of the ocean. Peopel
that had a bloofd tie, but were strangers. People who exploited him for
personal gain (they have sold his story to CBS for a fall mini-series
event).
> They invited his father to
> come visit so they could provide for him.
No. They told the grandmothers that if the father came to America they
would give him his child. When the father came to America they "moved the
goalposts" and stated that now he had to come to Florida. Considering he
is a party member and that the house was surrounded bu anti-communists it
was determined that it was not wise to put him and his family into that
potentially life threatening situation. I think that was a very good call.
> The governments interfered.
The government (the US Government) should have put the child on a plane
home as soon as he got out of the hospital.
> It's a private family matter.
Right. The child family is his father, step-mother and little
half-brother. They should decide where they are to live (and the father
has apparently decided that he wants to live in Cuba) and go there.
J.M. Ivler
> Robert,
> Does the fact that the father's "rights" as you seemed to be concerned,
> aren't existant in Cuba and that he won't have custody there, impact
> your thinking on this issue?
Really, who raised Juan? Who raises the children in Cuba? Not the
parents? Do you support ripping Juans youngest son away from him and
turning that child over to people here in the United States as well to
protect that child from being raised in Cuba? What of the cousin that just
arriver? What of his four classmates? Do you support not letting these
children return to Cuba?
J.M. Ivler
> <cynical mode -- on>
> Sure Fidel Castro sent his son Elian to school. Because Elian
> was too young to chop sugar cane. When Elian turns eleven,
> Castro will send Elian to the cane fields.
> <cynical mode -- off>
The child could live in Brazil, where at 11 he would have been selling his
ass in the streets for five years.
I'm not saying Cuba is a paradise, far from it, but it is a hell of a lot
better than other places we all can name (if yopu don't like Brazil, he
could have been doing the same thing in Thailand).
> Funny thing about Cuba. all the liberal sitting in the United
> States tell what a wonderful place Cuba is and a lot of Cuban are
> willing to risk their lives to leave. I don't see small boats
> trying smuggle liberals into Cuba.
Funny thing about Haiti, all those pople getting on boats and trying to
escape. Funny thing about Central and South American countries, all those
people trying to leave and come to the US. Funny thing about Vietnam, all
those people trying to leave (circa 1986-1995). Funny thing about China,
all those people trying to leave (found less than four months ago living
in cargo containers trying to slip into the port of Long Beach). Funny
thing about Austrailia, they actually deny thousands of applications from
people in the United States that want to go live there. Same for Belgim.
Funny thing...
hoffman
> that Elian will be as loyal to the Party as Dad
> apparently is. If so, no harm done. If not, we have
> delivered him to either his jail cell or his grave.
The same argument which applies to
these NAZI scenarios applies to America
just as much; and any attempt to say
otherwise is called hypocrisy.
In America, the anti-drug statists tell
everyone that they should simply not
take drugs, or sell drugs... and as long
as they follow the party line, they don't
have to fear going to jail for several years.
So if we're to believe the American statist
bullshit then we can apply the same mentality
here... Just tell Elian to be a good little
communist and follow his countries laws
and then he won't be in any danger.
All countries citizens are supposed to
follow the laws, so how is this Elian
situation any different than here in America.
Here in America if a kid chooses to sell
drugs because he realizes it is a fantastic
economic opportunity... the kid goes to
jail.
America... Cuba... China... where is the
fucking difference in fundamental ideology.
There is none. In any country, if you
dont do whats expected of you; if you ignore
the laws... you either go to jail or worse,
get executed.
qwerty
"NM" <af...@spamusa.net> wrote in message
news:390B87D0...@spamusa.net...
> Returning Elian to Cuba is remarkably analagous to returning a child to
> Nazi Germany. Both, totalitarian dictatorships that routinely kill or
> grossly oppress thier people.
It is not remarkably analogous to Nazi Germany!
NM
Nazi Germany. Both, totalitarian dictatorships that routinely kill or
grossly oppress thier people.
NM
NM
NM
NM
---snipped---
> at Andrews Air Force Base, with his children and wife, after Elian was
> rescued. If he wished to defect he could have said so then, no "heavily
> armed cuban foreign relation official" was anywhere near him, and I
> certainly don't think they would have gone bargin in there.
You are incorrect. He has been accompanied EVERYWHERE by a large
contigent of cuban Gov't officials and "security" agents since he left
Cuba. That's right, EVERYWHERE.
NM
J.M. Ivler
Burma, Cambodia, North Korea, Tibet, China. All modern societies where the
regiems routinely kill their people. Not one is comparable to Nazi
Germany. And Cuba can be added to the list of countries above (although
much lower on that list as most of those countries are *far* worse than
Cuba) but that still makes equating it to Nazi Germany a reference that
show just how little the awareness the author of the remark has.
ray hartman
Germany ... and a dozen like them but much worse ... butchering any
non-kinsman that comes to hand is as normal as any Afgan/Amerind/.../Irish/
.../Scots/ ... /zulu ... tribe ... ain't nothin' special about butchery ...
except that some do less worse ( Greek virtue ) than they might.
You gotta scratch hard for a few, measly counter-examples.
Deal with it ... by keeping a Mauser98 handy ...
ray hartman
********************8
Scott E. Regener
>But what if the father actually likes it in Cuba (apparently enough people
>do that they don't all start leaving). What if he really does feel that
>Cuba is the country he wants to live in and raise his family there?
>
>If we refuse to let him, and his family, live in Cuba, are we any better
>than Fidel who refuses to let his people live where they want?
Things are complicated when free movement between countries is prohibited. We
know for a fact that Mr. Gonzales changed his mind about his son being within
kept in the United States. We know that Mr. Gonzales' parents are
being held in a Cuban compound, supposedly for their own good. We know that
Cuba is not a free country, and that tremendous pressure can and has been
brought to bear against citizens to enact the will of its leader. We cannot
presume that Mr. Gonzales is able to express his own mind in this matter.
Secondly, we have written immigration law in such a way that Elian has the
right to apply for asylum, over the wishes of his father. If the laws are
flawed, then we have a mechanism in place for correcting them. But we do not
choose not to enforce the laws currently on the books just because we disagree
with how they will be applied in this case. The courts must be left to decide.
Scott E. Regener
J.M. Ivler
> On Sat, 29 Apr 2000, J.M. Ivler wrote:
> >But what if the father actually likes it in Cuba (apparently enough people
> >do that they don't all start leaving). What if he really does feel that
> >Cuba is the country he wants to live in and raise his family there?
> >
> >If we refuse to let him, and his family, live in Cuba, are we any better
> >than Fidel who refuses to let his people live where they want?
> Things are complicated when free movement between countries is prohibited.
Agreed, not the issue in this case though.
> We know for a fact that Mr. Gonzales changed his mind about his son
> being within kept in the United States.
Unclear as to what you are suggesting. Do you have cites available that
indicate that the father has stated that he wishes to be separated from
his son? If so, please provide references.
> We know that Mr. Gonzales' parents are being held in a Cuban compound,
> supposedly for their own good.
Again, I would appreciate cites. Supposition aside.
> We know that Cuba is not a free country, and that tremendous pressure
> can and has been brought to bear against citizens to enact the will of
> its leader.
Again, agreed. But each case is different. In this instance the leadership
in Cuba seems to have almost taken on an elder statesman atmosphere. Now,
we all know that every party in this play has been playing to the media,
but, without anything to support that statement in this instance, we have
to take a look at what we can see and judge accordingly.
> We cannot
> presume that Mr. Gonzales is able to express his own mind in this matter.
Why not? I can presume many things. What I have seen is an almost
consistant behavior on his part. He has been acting as a concerned parent,
and his comments seem to come from a "Party platform", which, considering
he is a Party member, I would expect.
> Secondly, we have written immigration law in such a way that Elian has the
> right to apply for asylum, over the wishes of his father.
This is a very interesting piece of legislation. It is also a very high
bar that must be passed before the sone can be torn from the father. The
tack that was taken was that of political asylum. There is a very hard
call to be made here as *most* of these requests get turned down.
> If the laws are flawed, then we have a mechanism in place for correcting
> them.
That is going to be looked at. The Anti-Castro forces in Miami have lost a
great deal of support for their cause in this fiasco. There is a great
desire on the part of many Americans to eliminate the law granting
citizenship, and even revisit the blocade and see that dismantled.
On the positive side for those of us who feel that the best way to
influence the direction of Cuba is to infect them with capitalism, we have
a lame duck president who could actually get away with it after the
General Election. :-)
> But we do not choose not to enforce the laws currently on the books just
> because we disagree with how they will be applied in this case.
Actually, we have many "laws on the books" that get disregarded all the
time. There are so many unenforced and stupid laws that there is a site
dedicated to them (http://www.dumblaws.com/). In california there is a
state law that says that "Sunshine is guaranteed to the masses." and
another that says "No vehicle without a driver may exceed 60 miles per
hour." I can see them trying to enforce either... Not.
As for applying the "laws" to this case, the "laws" here are confusing at
best. The mother, when she took the child without authorization from
another custodial parent, was kidnapping. The temporary custody was
questionable (the child should have stayed a ward of the State). The
refusal to turn over custody of the child for nine days while making
demands (kidnapping). There are many aspects to this case that still have
to be explored.
> The courts must be left to decide.
Who's court to decide what? We have at least three separate actions to be
decided. Custody (still being fought, but really a dead issue), Asylum
(and whether or not the custodial parent can talk for the child), and
kidnapping (the charges haven't been filed yet, but I hope they will be).
NM
finds on the web.
Remarkably analagous is quite correct. Perhaps you'll address the
points. Note I didn't say "back to a concentration camp" or other
invalid comparison.
Cuba and Nazi Germany
Both are totalitarian dictatorships yes?
Both kill political dissidents yes?
Both had massive emigration/escapes yes?
Both imprisom dissidents yes?
Both prohibit/control free travel within their country and and prohibit
external travel for their average people, yes?
Gee, that's remarkably analagous.
NM
Oh yes they kill people trying to leave the island to. Hitler was quite
fond of killing those who wished to depart his benevolence.
NM
assertion....
NM
qwerty wrote:
>
> "NM" <af...@spamusa.net> wrote in message
> news:390B87D0...@spamusa.net...
> > Returning Elian to Cuba is remarkably analagous to returning a child to
> > Nazi Germany. Both, totalitarian dictatorships that routinely kill or
> > grossly oppress thier people.
>
> It is not remarkably analogous to Nazi Germany!
>
> An Insult to History
>
> Thursday, April 13, 2000
>
> URL:
> http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2000/04/13
> /ED29702.DTL
----snipped---
What a load of ridiculous speculation and completely apologist lies as
well. Oh well, the media has obviously been on the Castro/Klinton
bandwagon all along. Heck they didn't even object when their own people
got beat up in the raid until the uproar made them do it.
qwerty
> How nice you sent an empty article link to support your empty
> assertion....
What empty link? It works! Did you get the complete URL in your browser?
The part that was on the second line (/ED29702.DTL)?
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2000/04/13
/ED29702.DTL
VibrantFem
>How nice you sent an empty article link to support your empty
>assertion....
>
>NM
It worked fine for me and included the following quote:
An Insult to History
THERE ARE many good reasons to deplore Fidel Castro's one-man rule
over Cuba for the past four decades.
But the tortured negotiations over custody of Elian Gonzalez have been
complicated by some of the rhetoric being spewed by anti-Castro
politicians and pundits who have proposed desperate means to keep the
6-year-old in the United States. Some even have been suggesting that
sending Elian back to Cuba would be tantamount to returning a child to
slavery or a Nazi concentration camp.
Such overheated comparisons are an insult to history.
"Each year, nearly a half-million Cubans apply for 6,000 U.S. visas
---------------------------------------------
"Ther are two kinds of laws, good laws & bad laws...
A good law is one that attempts to protect me from you....
A bad law is one that attempts to protect me from myself."
Remove "1234" from addy to respond via email
Robert Allen Leeper
It is questionable whether JM Gonzalez, as an accessory after the fact
in Castro's mass murders, has any rights that should be recognized in a
free society.
hoffman wrote:
>
> [...]
If the father say's "I want the kid
> back"... then back he goes.. It doesn't really
> matter "why" the father wants the kid back!!!
> This man does not have to give his reasons;
> this father does not have to justify his reasoning
> for anyone. It is his kid and he ows an explanation
> to nobody.... and if the governmnt really
> is exerting any "pressure" on Juan, then
> it is still irrelevant because it is the fathers
> ultimate decision and nobody can claim the
> father is being "forced" to say something.
--
Best wishes,
Robert Allen Leeper
h0mi
Robert Frenchu wrote:
>
> NM <af...@spamusa.net> wrote:
>
> >Robert,
> >
> >Does the fact that the father's "rights" as you seemed to be concerned,
> >aren't existant in Cuba and that he won't have custody there, impact
> >your thinking on this issue?
>
> He has as many parental "rights" here as he does in Cuba.
It's clearly demonstrable that he has more parental rights in the US
than in Cuba. He has his son right now, in the US.
When he reaches Cuba, that will immediately change.
That said, I don't believe that children are the property of their
parents any more than they're the property of the state- there ARE
circumstances where it's ok to deny parental rights to a mother or
father.
Is Juan Miguel such a case? I lean towards "yes" but I'm not comfortable
with the situation regardless of the manner it gets resolved.
> >By the way no one "took this boy from his father".
>
> By the way, they tried to keep the boy from his father. That's kidnapping.
They didn't hold him for ransom. "Abduction" might be more accurate, but
it's really nothing more than an overblown custodial case. We've got
thousands of those every day, and it's a shame that this situation has
dominated everyone's attention while other situations don't even draw a
shrug from the populace.
Robert Frenchu
>Robert Frenchu wrote:
>> NM <af...@spamusa.net> wrote:
>> >Does the fact that the father's "rights" as you seemed to be concerned,
>> >aren't existant in Cuba and that he won't have custody there, impact
>> >your thinking on this issue?
>>
>> He has as many parental "rights" here as he does in Cuba.
>
>It's clearly demonstrable that he has more parental rights in the US
>than in Cuba. He has his son right now, in the US.
>
>When he reaches Cuba, that will immediately change.
Cite, please.
>That said, I don't believe that children are the property of their
>parents any more than they're the property of the state- there ARE
>circumstances where it's ok to deny parental rights to a mother or
>father.
>
>Is Juan Miguel such a case? I lean towards "yes" but I'm not comfortable
>with the situation regardless of the manner it gets resolved.
Wrong. He's the boy's father.
>> >By the way no one "took this boy from his father".
>> By the way, they tried to keep the boy from his father. That's kidnapping.
>
>They didn't hold him for ransom.
Ransom has nothing to do with it, as you know.
--
If my "assault rifle" makes me a criminal
And my encryption program makes me a terrorist
Does Dianne Feinstein's vagina make her a prostitute?
J.M. Ivler
> Robert Frenchu wrote:
>> He has as many parental "rights" here as he does in Cuba.
> It's clearly demonstrable that he has more parental rights in the US
> than in Cuba. He has his son right now, in the US.
Really? What rights did Juans parents not have in raising Juan? What
rights does Juan not have in raising Elian? Now, consider that even in
Isreal (a nice friendly country that we in the US generally like) the
concept of "rights" differs from what we believe. For instance in Isreal
everyone gives up certain rights and *must* serve their country, while
here our armed forces are strictly volentary. "rights" are somewhat
slippery the "rights" of parents in all countries differ, and comparisions
may not be the best way to work out where a parent should be raising his
child, as the US may lose to many of these countries in the compare and
contrast.
> When he reaches Cuba, that will immediately change.
And you know this from what? You seem very good at predicting the future,
but what is the reference you are using to do so? Is there a series of
historical references that show that this child will be taken from his
father?
> That said, I don't believe that children are the property of their
> parents any more than they're the property of the state- there ARE
> circumstances where it's ok to deny parental rights to a mother or
> father.
> Is Juan Miguel such a case? I lean towards "yes" but I'm not comfortable
> with the situation regardless of the manner it gets resolved.
Why? What has he done? In the US you have to have actually done something
to lose custody of your child. You lean towards taking this child away
from his father for what reason? And do you also lean toward taking the
younger half-brother away from this father as well? If not, why not? If he
isn't a "good parent" and able to have the elder child, then how can you
allow him to raise the younger? This really becomes an "all or
nothing" case when you start saying that you are doing this to protect the
child. Can you support ripping this fathers children away from him? On
what grounds?
>> By the way, they tried to keep the boy from his father. That's kidnapping.
> They didn't hold him for ransom.
Kidnapping doesn't always mean a "ransom" in cash terms. The child was b
eing used as a negotiation component by people that didn't have legal
custody over the child. When terrorists kidnap a plane full of people,
they don't do so for "cash", but to increase the visibility of their
cause, and maybe get some concessions (ex: people out of prison).
If a parent takes a child without the other custodial parents
authorization, we call that action kidnapping (I know people that have
served time for taking their own kids).
> "Abduction" might be more accurate, but
> it's really nothing more than an overblown custodial case. We've got
> thousands of those every day, and it's a shame that this situation has
> dominated everyone's attention while other situations don't even draw a
> shrug from the populace.
The sad part is that the kidnappers have already been able to benefit
through the sale of the story to CBS. They have been rewarded for their
crimes. My desire is that the Senate press forward with the investigation
of Reno because that is the only way that we will see exacttly what was
going on in the negotiations to free that child. My guess is that the
kidnappers "moved the goalposts" time and time again. If that is the case
I will be very upset that the DoJ didn't file criminal charges of
kidnapping against the "family" so as to ensure that there is no way they
can benefit from the criminal activity (the money paid by CBS would be
forfeit to the victim, in this case the child).
J.M. Ivler
> It is questionable whether JM Gonzalez, as an accessory after the fact
> in Castro's mass murders, has any rights that should be recognized in a
> free society.
Is that true of any member of the Communist Party of Cuba? By joining the
Party do they immediatly become "accessory after the fact" and lose
anything we might consider "rights"?
amcastro
h0mi <h0...@yahooo.com> wrote in message news:391A2E6E...@yahooo.com...
> >
> > >> >Does the fact that the father's "rights" as you seemed to be
concerned,
> > >> >aren't existant in Cuba and that he won't have custody there, impact
> > >> >your thinking on this issue?
> > >>
> > >
> > >It's clearly demonstrable that he has more parental rights in the US
> > >than in Cuba. He has his son right now, in the US.
> > >
> >
>
> "Castro has already described the special compound where he (Elian) will
> live, and his grandmothers have already been moved. Also, the special
> school he will attend with his previious classmates, presumably wrenched
> away from their homes.... He will be with his father for a time, but
> Cuban doctrine systematically tries to break family bonds. For High
> school, most Cuban youths are sent to las escuelas en el campo, or
> schools in the countryside, combining education, indoctrination and
> field labor". -Wall Street Journal, A26, 5/10/2000.
>
> > >That said, I don't believe that children are the property of their
> > >parents any more than they're the property of the state- there ARE
> > >circumstances where it's ok to deny parental rights to a mother or
> > >father.
> > >
> > >Is Juan Miguel such a case? I lean towards "yes" but I'm not
comfortable
> > >with the situation regardless of the manner it gets resolved.
> >
>
> Juan Miguel's parental rights do not clearly justify sending Elian back
> to Cuba.
>
Yes they do. Elian is a minor. Like any sensible country, including ours,
minors do not have the rights to decide such things. Elian can not decide
he doesn't want to go home (Cuba). His father is the only one who can make
that decision for him. If his father were dead, the custodial rights would
go to the next of kin - who would probably be the grandparents and not some
distant relatives. It is arrogent of Americans to think that anyone outside
of that has any say in what happens to this child. Unless there is
something that would strip the parent or custodian of their rights (like
abuse for example) then there is NOTHING anyone can do that makes any sense
but to let be what is.
FOR EXAMPLE: In our country children can not vote. Why? Cause they can
not make responsible decisions that would effect the outcome of an important
election. Hell... we don't believe that the majority of adult voters can
make responsible decisions at the ballot box. This is why we have the
electorial college in place. Why anyone would think that a 6 year old child
should have a say in where he lives is beyond me.
> > >> >By the way no one "took this boy from his father".
> > >> By the way, they tried to keep the boy from his father. That's
kidnapping.
> > >
> > >They didn't hold him for ransom.
> >
> > Ransom has nothing to do with it, as you know.
>
> It's not a kidnapping if there's no ransom demands. "Abduction" would be
> the more accurate term.
according to www.m-w.com which is the URL for the Merriam-Webster Online
Dictionary:
Main Entry: kid·nap
Pronunciation: 'kid-"nap
Function: transitive verb
Inflected Form(s): -napped or kid·naped /-"napt/; -nap·ping or -nap·ing
Etymology: probably back-formation from kidnapper, from kid + obsolete
napper thief
Date: 1682
: to seize and detain or carry away by unlawful force or fraud and often
with a demand for ransom
Main Entry: 1ran·som
Pronunciation: 'ran(t)-s&m
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English ransoun, from Old French rançon, from Latin
redemption-, redemptio -- more at REDEMPTION
Date: 13th century
1 : a consideration paid or demanded for the release of someone or something
from captivity
2 : the act of ransoming
As this states, kidnapping is "often with a demand or a ransom," and a
ransom is, "a consideration paid or demanded," which does not necessarily
mean money. I think that the distant Miami relatives made quite a few
"demands" while they were holding onto a child that they had lost their
temporary custody to.
h0mi
David Lentz
amcastro wrote:
<anip>
> Yes they do. Elian is a minor. Like any sensible country, including ours,
> minors do not have the rights to decide such things. Elian can not decide
> he doesn't want to go home (Cuba). His father is the only one who can make
> that decision for him. If his father were dead, the custodial rights would
> go to the next of kin - who would probably be the grandparents and not some
> distant relatives. It is arrogent of Americans to think that anyone outside
> of that has any say in what happens to this child. Unless there is
> something that would strip the parent or custodian of their rights (like
> abuse for example) then there is NOTHING anyone can do that makes any sense
> but to let be what is.
Enough of this fable that Juan Miguel ought to decide where his
son will live. The fact is that Juan MIguel will not decide and
does not have the power to decide where Elian will live. If
Elian is sent back to Cuba, the only person who has the power to
decide where and with whom Elian will live is Fidel Castro, and
Castro has already decided. Castro has decided that Elian will
be live in prison, albeit Castro does not call it a prison.
Here is an analogy for you. Juan Miguel is Charlie McCarthy, and
Greg Craig is Edgar Bergen. Who decides, the puppet or the
master?
David
--
qyra...@ebpurfgre.ee.pbz
NM
(as all cuban kids are)is the "property of the state". The government
has repeatedly stated its intent to assume custody immediately upon the
boys return in order to put him in the "guest house" and "debrief" him.
In communist countries its fair to intepret that as imprison and
reprogram him.
NM
Or are you going to wax rhapsodic upon the glories of life in the
worker's paradise?
There are NO "parent's rights" in Cuba, children are the "property of
the state".
Robert Frenchu
>Pay attention to the statements of the Cuban Government Robert. Elian
>(as all cuban kids are)is the "property of the state". The government
>has repeatedly stated its intent to assume custody immediately upon the
>boys return in order to put him in the "guest house" and "debrief" him.
>In communist countries its fair to intepret that as imprison and
>reprogram him.
ROFL Oh yeah, like he wouldn't get "counseling" here. :>
VibrantFem
>Pay attention to the statements of the Cuban Government Robert. Elian
>(as all cuban kids are)is the "property of the state". The government
>has repeatedly stated its intent to assume custody immediately upon the
>boys return in order to put him in the "guest house" and "debrief" him.
>In communist countries its fair to intepret that as imprison and
>reprogram him.
>
I bet the folks at Waco would have preferred such a fate for their
children... as would have Randy Weaver for his son and wife....
Castro has a lot to learn from Clinton and the BATF at least in
regards to ..."effective reprogramming techniques".
>NM
>Or are you going to wax rhapsodic upon the glories of life in the
>worker's paradise?
>There are NO "parent's rights" in Cuba, children are the "property of
>the state".
"the state is the parent of the child, and the parents are part of the
problem" in meeting the state goals, and the state is either going to
take those children or force parents into contracts, so that federal
funds can be used to provide services that the parents cannot afford
"in the best interest of the child"... at least according to Gov. John
Kithauber/Oregon when outlining his visions for the Oregon Shines,
and Benchmarks Goals 2000 programs. And the difference between
Castro's thinking and this kind of American born thinking would be
what exactly.... other than the fact that some of us don't shudder
when these words come out of the mouth of a US politician.
Michael Shirley
"Robert Frenchu" <Robert_Frenchu*REMOVE*@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:66hlhssaatplcjco0...@4ax.com...
> NM <af...@spamusa.net> wrote:
>
> >Pay attention to the statements of the Cuban Government Robert. Elian
> >(as all cuban kids are)is the "property of the state". The government
> >has repeatedly stated its intent to assume custody immediately upon the
> >boys return in order to put him in the "guest house" and "debrief" him.
> >In communist countries its fair to intepret that as imprison and
> >reprogram him.
>
Castro's psychopolitical technicians will use operant conditioning and
drugs to alter that kid's perceptions. Do you really think that we'd do that
here?
--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
---------
"An oppressed class which did not aspire to possess arms and learn
how to handle them would deserve only to be treated as slaves."
Vladimir Illich Lenin.
Nothing like learning about the value of arms from a guy who enslaved
an entire country, eh?
Michael Shirley
"VibrantFem" <javaju...@eudoramail.com> wrote in message
news:391dd453....@news.uswest.net...
> >Or are you going to wax rhapsodic upon the glories of life in the
> >worker's paradise?
> >the state".
>
> "the state is the parent of the child, and the parents are part of the
> problem" in meeting the state goals, and the state is either going to
> take those children or force parents into contracts, so that federal
> funds can be used to provide services that the parents cannot afford
> "in the best interest of the child"... at least according to Gov. John
> Kithauber/Oregon when outlining his visions for the Oregon Shines,
> and Benchmarks Goals 2000 programs. And the difference between
> Castro's thinking and this kind of American born thinking would be
> what exactly.... other than the fact that some of us don't shudder
> when these words come out of the mouth of a US politician.
Proof positive that Gothe was right when he noted that, "If you
fight a dragon for too long, you're doomed eventually to become
one,........"
NM
tried to draw (invalid) comparisons between the U.S. and Cuba.
This morning the court, during the hearing, acknowledged a critical
"conflict of interest" between Juan's "parental rights" and the justice
of returning a minor to a "police state". According to CNN, CBS and ABC
radio news reports.
NM
Michael Shirley wrote:
>
> "Robert Frenchu" <Robert_Frenchu*REMOVE*@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:66hlhssaatplcjco0...@4ax.com...
> > NM <af...@spamusa.net> wrote:
> >
> > >Pay attention to the statements of the Cuban Government Robert. Elian
> > >(as all cuban kids are)is the "property of the state". The government
> > >has repeatedly stated its intent to assume custody immediately upon the
> > >boys return in order to put him in the "guest house" and "debrief" him.
> > >In communist countries its fair to intepret that as imprison and
> > >reprogram him.
> >
> > ROFL Oh yeah, like he wouldn't get "counseling" here. :>
>
> Castro's psychopolitical technicians will use operant conditioning and
> drugs to alter that kid's perceptions. Do you really think that we'd do that
> here?
>
J.M. Ivler
> Castro's psychopolitical technicians will use operant conditioning and
> drugs to alter that kid's perceptions. Do you really think that we'd do that
> here?
When the bull gets this deep I must get a cite or two. You do have cites
that I can reference to support this statement, don't you?
VibrantFem
wrote:
>
>"Robert Frenchu" <Robert_Frenchu*REMOVE*@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>news:66hlhssaatplcjco0...@4ax.com...
>> NM <af...@spamusa.net> wrote:
>>
>> >Pay attention to the statements of the Cuban Government Robert. Elian
>> >(as all cuban kids are)is the "property of the state". The government
>> >has repeatedly stated its intent to assume custody immediately upon the
>> >boys return in order to put him in the "guest house" and "debrief" him.
>> >In communist countries its fair to intepret that as imprison and
>> >reprogram him.
>>
>> ROFL Oh yeah, like he wouldn't get "counseling" here. :>
>
> Castro's psychopolitical technicians will use operant conditioning and
>drugs to alter that kid's perceptions. Do you really think that we'd do that
>here?
I do.. we label young children as "suffering from" bizarre concepts
like ADHD, place them under the care of state friendly shrinks and
get their own parents to fill them up with Ritalin, Luvox and Prozac.
( These lovely FDA approved drugs make them too mentally unstable
to serve in the military if treatment extends beyond age 12) But it
does work wonders in making them into compliant little zombies....
not to mention it creates politically correct, tax paying citizens
eventually... especially if they are sufficiently dumbed down in
public schools while the drug treatment is being given. Same song,
different tune is all.
Robert Frenchu
>"Robert Frenchu" <Robert_Frenchu*REMOVE*@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>news:66hlhssaatplcjco0...@4ax.com...
>> NM <af...@spamusa.net> wrote:
>>
>> >Pay attention to the statements of the Cuban Government Robert. Elian
>> >(as all cuban kids are)is the "property of the state". The government
>> >has repeatedly stated its intent to assume custody immediately upon the
>> >boys return in order to put him in the "guest house" and "debrief" him.
>> >In communist countries its fair to intepret that as imprison and
>> >reprogram him.
>>
>> ROFL Oh yeah, like he wouldn't get "counseling" here. :>
>
> Castro's psychopolitical technicians will use operant conditioning and
>drugs to alter that kid's perceptions. Do you really think that we'd do that
>here?
Oh my stars NO!
*We* only want what's BEST for the lad.
BWAH ha ha ha ha ha ha ha !!!
Michael Voytinsky
> Castro's psychopolitical technicians will use operant conditioning and
>drugs to alter that kid's perceptions.
Could you explain what you are talking about? Do you have any evidence on
this being routinely used in Cuba on children? Why would they have to do
so in this particular case?
I am not a big fan of Castro, but assertions like this really need a bit
more evidence.
> Do you really think that we'd do that here?
Can you say "CIA LSD experiments"?
I thought you could.
Cheers
Michael
Eric Freeman
news:ORPS5awu$GA.351@cpmsnbbsa04...
> > strongly, that Juan Miguel's parental rights do not
> > clearly justify sending Elian back to Cuba.
> >
>
> country, including ours, minors do not have the rights
> to decide such things.
Not true. The Clinton adiministration and the courts have granted asylum to
minors, even against the protests of ***both*** parents. There is one
popular account floating around the net concerning a 12 year old from Africa
who would have been forced to undergo a clitorectomy if returned. She was
granted asylum and lives in the US.
Eric
--------------------
http://www.datasync.com/~ericfree
--------------------
"I don't like it, and I'm sorry I ever had anything to do with it."
- Erwin Schrodinger talking about Quantum Mechanics.
qwerty
"Michael Shirley" <mi...@gbis.com> wrote in message
news:391ae...@news.greatbasin.net...
>
> "Robert Frenchu" <Robert_Frenchu*REMOVE*@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:66hlhssaatplcjco0...@4ax.com...
> > NM <af...@spamusa.net> wrote:
> >
> > >Pay attention to the statements of the Cuban Government Robert. Elian
> > >(as all cuban kids are)is the "property of the state". The government
> > >has repeatedly stated its intent to assume custody immediately upon the
> > >boys return in order to put him in the "guest house" and "debrief" him.
> > >In communist countries its fair to intepret that as imprison and
> > >reprogram him.
> >
> > ROFL Oh yeah, like he wouldn't get "counseling" here. :>
>
that
> here?
LOL, every day this happens. Ritalin is perhaps the most prescribed drug
given to kids in school. Do you even know what Operant Conditioning is?
J.M. Ivler
>> Rot, 13, signature, file wrote:
>>> amcastro wrote:
>>> minors do not have the rights to decide such things.
> right to decide -- to think for oneself -- is one of those
> indefeasible rights.
My daughter wants to live in Disneyland, I don't think that this is "taken
into account" when I determine where I want to raise my family.
>>> Elian can not decide he doesn't want to go home (Cuba).
> Of course he can. It's not likely with the brain-washers
> on his case now.
Differing from the brainwashers that were on his case before? You know,
the ones that chanted his name outside the door all day long, as if they
were worshiping him, the ones that held daily roseries in front of his
house, as if he were to be worshiped, the ones that were in the house all
day long talking about the evil that is Cuba, and plying him with gifts
while saying how great America is. Those "brainwashers"?
>>> His father is the only one who can make that decision for him.
> Well, no. No one can make a decision for anyone else.
> Each person, of whatever age, makes hir own decisions.
Yep, and I don't live in disneyland no matter how much my daughter wants
to. She makes decisions, but does as I say.
> They may go along with others' wishes, but that is a
> personal private decision. They may be silent and
> "fume" for years, or they may vocally, and physically
> resist.
And you think that a six year old is the best person to determine what
country he should be living in? Based on what logical process? Show the
child a picture of disneyland and I'm sure he will vote to live there in
an instant. Children, at six, don't have the ability to reason out what
political system they want to live under, that may be why parents do that
for them.
Not long ago a child brought a gun to school and shot and killed one of
his classmates. That child was about the same age as this one. One of the
first things we heard was the child didn't understand what he had actually
done. He didn't understand that dead was forever. And you expect to give a
child of about that same age the ability to determine where he should live
based on economic and political criteria?
NM
varying degrees in different countries. A parent's "right" to his
(illegitimate) child is debatable even in the U.S. A parent's right
doesn't extend to actions not in the best interest of the child. A
father doesn't have a "right" to raise his child in a crack house or a
brothel in the U.S. A parent's "right" doesn't extend to the right to
take a child to an obviously dangerous, totalitarian slave society,
which by its OWN constitution stipulates that children are the
"property" of the State.
NM
Rights are inherent and unalienable, its their application that is
variable.
"J.M. Ivler" wrote:
>
> In ca.politics h0mi <h0...@yahooo.com> wrote:
> > Robert Frenchu wrote:
> >> He has as many parental "rights" here as he does in Cuba.
> > It's clearly demonstrable that he has more parental rights in the US
> > than in Cuba. He has his son right now, in the US.
>
> Really? What rights did Juans parents not have in raising Juan? What
> rights does Juan not have in raising Elian? Now, consider that even in
> Isreal (a nice friendly country that we in the US generally like) the
> concept of "rights" differs from what we believe. For instance in Isreal
> everyone gives up certain rights and *must* serve their country, while
> here our armed forces are strictly volentary. "rights" are somewhat
> slippery the "rights" of parents in all countries differ, and comparisions
> may not be the best way to work out where a parent should be raising his
> child, as the US may lose to many of these countries in the compare and
> contrast.
>
> > When he reaches Cuba, that will immediately change.
>
> And you know this from what? You seem very good at predicting the future,
> but what is the reference you are using to do so? Is there a series of
> historical references that show that this child will be taken from his
> father?
>
> > That said, I don't believe that children are the property of their
> > parents any more than they're the property of the state- there ARE
> > circumstances where it's ok to deny parental rights to a mother or
> > father.
>
> > Is Juan Miguel such a case? I lean towards "yes" but I'm not comfortable
> > with the situation regardless of the manner it gets resolved.
>
> Why? What has he done? In the US you have to have actually done something
> to lose custody of your child. You lean towards taking this child away
> from his father for what reason? And do you also lean toward taking the
> younger half-brother away from this father as well? If not, why not? If he
> isn't a "good parent" and able to have the elder child, then how can you
> allow him to raise the younger? This really becomes an "all or
> nothing" case when you start saying that you are doing this to protect the
> child. Can you support ripping this fathers children away from him? On
> what grounds?
>
> >> By the way, they tried to keep the boy from his father. That's kidnapping.
> > They didn't hold him for ransom.
>
mahab...@my-deja.com
af...@spamusa.net wrote:
> Rights don't "differ" in various countries. They are infringed to
> varying degrees in different countries. A parent's "right" to his
> (illegitimate) child is debatable even in the U.S.
I agree about the rights thing, although the (illegitimate) angle is not
relevant. First, given the circumstances, one can argue that Elian's
parents had what amounted to a common-law marriage. Second, in most
states the father of a child has certain responsibilities to that child
by law whether he is married to the mother or not. And it does happen
that fathers even get custody of (illegitimate) children sometimes.
> A parent's right
> doesn't extend to actions not in the best interest of the child. A
> father doesn't have a "right" to raise his child in a crack house or a
> brothel in the U.S. A parent's "right" doesn't extend to the right to
> take a child to an obviously dangerous, totalitarian slave society,
FYI, we send kids and adults back to Haiti and China and other such
places all the time.
> which by its OWN constitution stipulates that children are the
> "property" of the State.
So we'll take him away from a loving father, keep him here, and make him
"property" of OUR state, right? It's OK if we do it, but bad if somebody
else does it?
I realize that Cuba under Castro is an abomination. But six-year-olds
don't understand political oppression. What Castro might do with Elian to
"reprogram" him can't possibly be any more harmful than what we'd be
doing to him if we take him away from his father, who loves him.
>
> NM
> Rights are inherent and unalienable, its their application that is
> variable.
Yes, true enough.
B.
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
J.M. Ivler
> A parent's right
> doesn't extend to actions not in the best interest of the child.
Today I picked up my 4 11/12's year old from her day care. We went out and
I handed her her helment (decorated with rugrats, mulan and barbie
stickers) and we climbed on the motorcycle. Now I can point to many an
adult that would say that what I was doing was child endangerment and that
my child should be taken from me, but they don't realize that my daugher
rode everywhere on a cycle when we were in Vietnam and that is how we tend
to travel, for her it's not dangerous, it's normal. As a father do I have
a right to travel with my daughter in this manner, may people - including
my mother - feel that I don't have that right and should be stopped
because in their limited view it "is not in the best interest of the
child."
> A parent's "right" doesn't extend to the right to
> take a child to an obviously dangerous, totalitarian slave society,
> which by its OWN constitution stipulates that children are the
> "property" of the State.
So, you support the removal of the half-brother from the parents if the
parents decide to return to Cuba? What other countries shall we forbid
residents and citizens of those countries to return to with their
children? [ugly can of worms that you just opened here]
Hu McCulloch
"John G. Otto" wrote:
> > "Eric Freeman" wrote:
> >> "amcastro" wrote:
> >> .... Elian is a minor. Like any sensible
> >> country, including ours, minors do not have the rights
> >> to decide such things.
>
> > Not true. The Clinton adiministration and the courts have granted
> > asylum to minors, even against the protests of ***both*** parents.
> > There is one popular account floating around the net concerning a
> > 12 year old from Africa who would have been forced to undergo a
> > clitorectomy if returned. She was granted asylum and lives in
> > the US.
>
> Yah, I heard radio news reports of the court case.
> Dean Edell referred to it several times and wondering why boys
> are not given refuge from circumcision.
Clitorectomy is more analogous to removal of the penis altogether
than to circumcision, even though it is sometimes euphemistically
called "female circumcision". A man with no penis could still
have children by artificial insemination, but somehow it wouldn't
be the same experience. Similarly, a woman with no clitoris can
still have babies, but without the sexual enjoyment.
Male circumcision is more analogous to facial or bodily scarification
than to clitorectomy. Are there any cases where the courts or the
INS granted asylum to prevent ritual scarification?
> --
> John G. Otto Nisus Software, Engineering
> http://www.nisus.com
Hu McCulloch
Columbus, OH