Subject:
|
Re: Elian Gonzales
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Wed, 26 Apr 2000 17:32:00 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
511 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Larry Pieniazek writes:
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Bruce Schlickbernd writes:
>
> > The "family" was forcibly detaining Elian against court orders from being
> > reunited with his father. Why they aren't in jail is beyond me.
>
> There appear to be conflicting court orders in effect, as there is also a
> ruling in effect that Elian can apply for asylum in his own right and that the
> guardianship is valid. Or that's my understanding.
The legal rulings do get confusing, don't they? My understanding is that the
ruling to hand over the child was valid and no temporary restraining order was
in effect (or perhaps in effect by a sufficiently high enough court).
>
> > > I feel that these actions were excessive, unnecessary, and cruel. The
> > > President and Janet Reno (neither one famous for their honesty)
> >
> > Find me a (living) politician who is! :-)
>
> Andre Marrou. John Bergland. Ron Paul. Just to name 3...
Now Larry, you know it was rhetorical and not to be taken literally! The point
was simply that Clinton is hardly unique in being a dishonest politician.
Okay, so Slick Willy raises it to an art form. :-)
So did Tricky Dick. ;-)
But to take that theme and run with it, it's easier to think people are honest
(whether or not they actually are) if you agree with their politics, and its
easier for them to be honest if they don't actually hold an office. Find one
you disagree with that holds an office (losers didn't lie enough?) is tougher.
Not to say that it can't be done, but lots of politicians I would have thought
reasonably honest turned out otherwise. It's a wiser course to take them with
a large lump of salt.
>
> I find the sight of Janet Reno, the Butcher of Waco, on TV with a quivering • lip
> emoting about how concerned she is about Elian and the "rule of law" to be the
> most ludicrous thing I've seen so far this century. Her and her boss have no
> respect for the rule of law except when convenient for their own ends.
>
> > This poor kid has been a political (and semi-religious) football. He is with
> > his father, where he should be,
>
> Is a father who either sincerely wishes, or is under duress strong enough to
> cause him to appear that he sincerely wishes, to return his child to a
> communist police state necessarily fit to have custody? I would go with no.
So a foreign state can keep my son from me because they feel they have moral
superiority? I disagree. Communist police state, theocracy, monarchy,
whatever. I don't like 'em all. But if that is *home* to someone and they
want to live there, that's the individual's call (and in line with Libertarian
thought). Why is it such a surprise to Americans that someone may prefer home,
warts and all, to America?
Why
> do the wishes of the mother no longer carry any weight?
I would suppose being dead from stupidity has something to do with it (okay,
just the dead part truly applies). And correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't all
this precipitated because the Cuban authorities awarded custody of Elian to his
father?
In any case, for emminently practical reasons, the surviving parent gets to
make decisions about his or her child without negotiating with a dead parent's
lawyers, and certainly not with distant relatives' lawyers.
>
> > though we are left with the self-serving
> > political grandstanding from all sides.
>
> Now THAT is true. Hilarious how both demopublicans are trying to claim that
> they never supported the current administration's actions.
>
> ++Lar
I was refering more to the grandstanding Republicans who see this as a
referendum on Castro and communism or a chance to score points against Clinton
(and conveniently forget "family values" and parent rights) and Castro who
wants the kid as a slap at the Cuban exiles. I'm sure there will be equally
opportunistic Democrats warping this to their own ends, I just haven't seen it
yet (and I think this is all a tempest in a teapot in any case). Me? I'm
answering as a parent and to hell with all the politicians on all sides.
Don't like Clinton/Reno? What has that to do with a parent's rights? Better
life here than there? So what? Cuba/Castro sucks? Yes, but that's the
parent's choice (hey, I'm sure everybody but Castro will be happy if they
decide to stay here). And if we do get to enforce our moral superiority on
everyone, can't we then (must?) snatch every child that is passing through
America back to some country that we think is lacking?
Bruce
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: Elian Gonzales
|
| In a different subthread Bruce said I was ignoring a post of his. I think THIS is the one he refers to... sorry about that. OK. (...) I think this is the key point in the post that needs responding to. Let's posit a theoretical example. Suppose (...) (24 years ago, 27-Apr-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Elian Gonzales
|
| (...) There appear to be conflicting court orders in effect, as there is also a ruling in effect that Elian can apply for asylum in his own right and that the guardianship is valid. Or that's my understanding. (...) Andre Marrou. John Bergland. Ron (...) (24 years ago, 26-Apr-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
44 Messages in This Thread:
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
