Subject:
|
Re: Elian Gonzales
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Thu, 27 Apr 2000 11:51:26 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
703 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Larry Pieniazek writes:
> There is hard documented evidence in profuse quantities that, for example,
> psychiatry is viewed as an arm of the ministry of the interior (that is, the
> secret police) and dissenters are given wholly inappropriate (since they
> happen to be quite sane) "treatment" as a means to quell dissent.
**snip of a few undeniable truths about Cuba**
My question remains, though: are we to assume that anyone who chooses to
remain in such a country must necessarily be either deceitful (spelled properly
this time, unlike my last post!), under duress, or an unfit parent? That seems
an unfairly generic definition and characterizes each individual as a direct
tool of the establisment.
Certainly Cuba is well-known as a violater of almost universally accepted
civil rights, but does that really give the US the right to step in and tell a
father where his son must be raised? Unless there is specific, documentable
evidence that Elian himself the subject of abuses, then the US has no authority
to usurp the father's custody rights.
> > of the
> > communist state, rather than on any evidence relevant to the case at hand.
>
> I don't see that any evidence *particular* to this case is required.
>
> Castro's track record is perfectly adequate to establish beyond a reasonable
> doubt that if Castro so chose, he could get Elian's dad to say anything he
> wanted him to say. And we know that Castro and his thuggish cronies have
> invested a lot of political capital in getting an outcome that embarrasses the
> US. A LOT. Hence it isn't much of a leap in logic to conclude that Elian's dad
> is having strings pulled.
Sr. Gonzales has been under considerable attention by psychologists here in
the States, and I simply don't believe that Castro's machinations could have
lurked undetected for so long in such a charged atmosphere. Surely someone
exposed to Sr. Gonzales would have observed indications of such manipulations,
unless this is one of those McCarthy-ish "if you can't see it, you know it's
there" syllogisms.
>
> And that is "relevant to the case at hand" regardless of precise information
> about which relatives are being held hostage and which relatives were tortured
> when.
>
> When a regime enforces systematic brutality against its own people it has lost
> the right to govern and the right to have any say in the international
> community. Elian has correctly applied for asylum.
Elian was at the time as a political prisoner in a condition of extreme
psychological stress. As I have read it, there is no case on record in US law
wherein a child of that age was given the authority to determine where he or
she lived; the decision was made by the parent or parents with custody.
Now that Elian's cousin is travelling in from Cuba, do we seize that child,
too, holding it here against the wishes of its parent because it's for the
child's good as we see it?
> That petition should be heard.
Perhaps, but it is in any case subordinate to his father's wishes. If at the
age of six one of your children had applied for asylum in a country not ruled
by Reno and the Clinton regime (I know I'm crossing chronological lines, but
it's hypothetical) despite (again hypothetically, since I know how you feel
about the regime!) your wishes, should you have been ignored? If you think so,
then we've obviously based our views on disparate and irreconcilable premises.
> To say anything else than that these facts about Cuba are indeed facts is to
> be an apologist for one of the last few hard line Evil Empire outposts.
This is political and propaganda-based grandstanding, as well as utterly
circular reasoning.
> And if that's your line, why then, I have to discount pretty much everything
> else you've ever said because your grip on reality is tenuous at best.
A compelling thought, but it's likewise based on the above circular
reasoning, so I think the tenuousness of my grip on reality must be evaluated
according to other criteria.
Goodness, you do feel strongly about this, don't you!
> Either you or Bruce characterised it as a stupid decision for Elian's mother
> to try to escape. Would you call the Warsaw Ghetto uprising stupid?
I don't think it was me, just for the record, and I certainly don't think her
attempt was stupid.
Dave!
|
|
Message has 2 Replies:
 | | Re: Elian Gonzales
|
| (...) her (...) That was me, and yes, I feel the attempt was particularly ill-prepared (i.e. the actual attempt was so doomed to ultimate failure it was literally terminally stupid). Perhaps this is a reflection of my deep respect for the open (...) (24 years ago, 27-Apr-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | Re: Elian Gonzales
|
| (...) properly (...) Add "deluded" to the list and I will go with yes. It's that simple. (...) It's grand standing but it's not circular, based on your statement about preconceived notions. The gist of that was that you seemed to be in denial about (...) (24 years ago, 27-Apr-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Elian Gonzales
|
| (...) Sorry, can you clear up for me what preconceptions you're referring to? There is hard documented evidence in profuse quantities that, for example, psychiatry is viewed as an arm of the ministry of the interior (that is, the secret police) and (...) (24 years ago, 27-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
|
|
|
|
