[observation]
my impression on reading this thread is of witnessing a group of otherwise rational people continuously slamming themselves into a brick wall.
danielinthewolvesden and his cohorts have obviously chosen a position on this topic guided by some force other than reason, and it appears pointless to attempt to deter them from their set course of virulent rhetoric.
i suggest that this thread be left open to let them rant and rave about their latest conspiracy theories, but that anyone desiring to rationally debate the issue start a new thread.
[/observation]
1; negotiations had not “broken down”. I quote the SJ Mercury News (today): “a group of mediators who had tried to forge a last minute compromise for a peaceful transfer, including Univ. of Miami President Edwar Foote II said they felt betrayed by Reno. They said they believed they were close to an agreement, with prominent Miami Lawyer Aaron Podhurst on the phone with Reno when negotiators were told the plug was being pulled…the raid began within minutes” What kind of “good-faith” negotiating is this? The miami negot had also proposed Elian be put in a “group home” with access to both sides. Reno’s idea of “negotiating” was to ask for unconditional surrender. “…family who seemed to remain unwilling to surrender the child unconditionally to his father”.
2: Lazaro Gonzalez (greatuncle) had some legal custodial rights, again I quote the SJMN(todays) "the Federal Courts had given the boy’s great-uncle, Lazaro Gonzalez, legal standing to speak for him. The opinions refer to the uncle as Elians “next freind” and “temporary legal custodian”. Reno wanted to remove the boy from his uncle, as THEN the greatuncle would no longer be considered the legal custodian. Thus, another nail in the "kidapping’ idea, as long as Lazaro had his hands on the boy, he was recognized by the 2nd highest Court in the land as a “tempoary LEGAL custodian”. By this, & YOUR definition of “Kidnapping” (forcibly), Reno is the “kidnapper”!
Let’s take this out of the political realm for a moment. Instead of Elian Gonzales it’s Alan Smith. Instead of being from Cuba he’s from Cleveland. Instead of drowning his mother died in a car crash. Alan is placed temporarily with relatives. Alan’s father John in Indianapolis asks for Alan back. The relatives refuse. The relatives are ordered to turn Alan over and they refuse. What is that if not holding the child against the will of his father?
Key words in this are “standing” and “temporary.” “Standing” does not mean “custody.” “Temporary” means it will end. In fact it did legally end, when the INS ordered the Elianistas to turn the child over to his father. They refused a lawful order to relinquish the child to his father. The federal appeals court did not rule that the Elianistas could have custody. The appeals court upheld an injunction preventing the child from being taken out of the country. Nothing in the court’s order of which I am aware placed the child permanently or even temporarily in the Elianistas’ custody.
What truly nauseates me about this situation is the commentators who refer to the Elianistas as “the family.” As if his blood father, his step-mother and his baby brother are not his family.
I may be reaching here, but considering the fact that Elian’s father wanted him back, unconditional surrender is the right thing to ask for. As if it needed to be asked for, by the freaking Attorney General.
I have a stepson who lives with his mother. If she dies, the boy comes to live with me and his father. Period. There is no arguing about it. If any of her relatives try to keep that boy from his father and me, I would insist on the same measures that were taken in Miami yesterday.
Cristi, Slayer of Peeps
I made my husband join a bridge club. He jumps next Tuesday.
This is what kind of good faith negotiating it was:
Plan A: The relatives in Miami obey the federal law and relinquish the child to his natural parent who has yet to lose his paternal rights via a court of competent jurisdiction.
Plan B: Absent the relatives in Miami complying with Plan A, launching the rescue operation without delay and without giving those relatives more time to barricade the rescue.
MILROYJ – Seeing that you agree that the picture of Elian and his father was faked, a statement so patently ridiculous as to not be worth rebuttal, I think I’m done responding to you. But I will point out that several photos of Elian and family have been released by this morning. You, I assume, believe they are all fakes.
DANIEL – Statutes are read in the alternative, unless it is clear they are to be read conjunctively. That means that a list of A,B,C,D is presumed to mean A or B or C * or * D. Looking back at the statute Otto posted, we find a definition of kidnapping (and there are several) as “forcibly, secretly, or by threat confining, abducting, or imprisoning another person against her or his will and without lawful authority, with intent to . . . Interfere with the performance of any governmental or political function.” We also find that a child under thirteen who is so confined without the permission of his or her parent or guardian is deemed to have been kidnapped.
Applying those definitions to the facts here we must ask: Was the child forcibly confined? Yes, in the sense that he was not free to just leave, which he obviously was too little to do anyway. Keeping a child you have no right to is enough to satisfy the confinement element of kidnapping, even if the child is safe, happy, and does not know he or she has been kidnapped. Was the intent to interfere with a lawful government function? Yes. The government had the ability and the right, under immigration law, to return custody of the child to his father. This the government did, and the Gonzales family defied the government’s order to turn the child over to his parent. Did the people holding the child have permission of his parent or guardian to do so? No. Elian’s father has legal custody of Elian. The Gonzaleses never had anything more than permission from the INS to care for Elian until his situation is straightened out. That is not custody.
If they were convicted, yes, but these are precisely the sort of cases prosecutors often choose not to prosecute because, like here, they may involve two deeply intrenched parties, both thinking they are acting in the best interests of their children.
Just so we’re clear on this, TAKING a kid and refusing to return him or her, if one is not the custodial parent, is ALMOST ALWAYS (not “rarely”) considered kidnapping. And it need not be a “taking;” refusing to return a child when he or she is due back to the custodial parent is kidnapping, too. You need to recognize the difference between a crime occurring and a crime being prosecuted. They are not the same, and not all crimes are (or should be or must be) prosecuted.
Actually, since Otto cited the Florida statute, it’s obviously a STATE crime. (As it is in every state, so far as I know.) It is only a Federal crime if the person is trasported across state lines (well, there are other ways it can become a federal crime, but that is the most common). Therefore, Reno arguably would not have the discretion to prosecute the Gonzaleses for kidnapping since she only has authority to prosecute under the Federal law. That does not mean this was not kidnapping under STATE law or under most people’s common definition of kidnapping, which would be something like “taking or holding a person when you have no legal right to do so.”
She got a Federal court order to conduct the raid the night before it occurred. The Eleventh Circuit has jurisdiction over the appeal of Elian’s asylum case only; it does not have jurisdiction over every aspect of the case. The Eleventh Circuit, like other circuit courts of appeals, does not normally (or in my experience, ever) issue warrants of the type authorizing the raid. Make no mistake, however: They had a warrant. Reno is not such a fool as to break in and take the child without one.
There are two ways to read this. If you mean, “did not wait patiently” for the child to be returned, she’s been waiting for that for weeks now. If you mean “did not wait patiently” to execute the warrant (and the raid), she was not obliged to wait any set time before doing so; she could authorize the raid at any time. Her “jurisdiction” over an illegal alien in this nation, just so we’re clear, is original (meaning, it originates in the INS, a branch of the Justice Department) and is continuing. The Eleventh Circuit could not, and did not, either vest or divest her of autority.
Reno apparently disagreed. How long do you have to continue to negotiate with people who, in Reno’s words, “continue to move the goal posts”? Why do you have to negotiate at all with people who have no legal right to this child? That is the point you have lost sight of: These people had NO LEGAL RIGHT to keep him. Why shouldn’t the father demand “unconditional surrender”? HE has the right to care and custody of his son; his relatives do not. Why should he agree to allow them to place contingencies on their return of the child to him?
“Next friend” is not the same as “legal custodian,” as Otto pointed out. Lazaro Gonzales was “temporary legal custodian” because the INS MADE him “TLC” when Elian arrived in the U.S. The INS revoked this status two weeks ago and ordered the child returned to its custody. Lazaro defied this order. If the article you’re quoting says or implied Lazaro was Elian’s temporary legal custodian after that time, it is flat out wrong.
Incorrect. Possession is irrelevant for determination of legal custody. The great-uncle lost temporary legal custody of the boy by INS order some ten days ago. You will recognize, surely, that the INS, having the power to grant temporary legal custody in the first place, also had the power to revoke it.
I knew I was going to get grief by posting the Drudge link, however, both pictures were on the front page of yesterday’s Chicago Tribune. Also, the questionablitly of the second photo was discussed on Sam & Cokie, so it’s not just Drudge or Rush.
Should this thread be moved to the Pit?
I personally don’t believe the above comment is appropriate for GD. What do the esteemed Moderators think?
Yeah, referring to someone as a “waste of air” is a personal insult. So cool it, weirddave. However, I see no need to move this thread to the Pit; if anyone can’t bear not being able to directly insult another poster, you’re free to start your own Pit thread.
If I went over the line for civilized discourse, milroyj, then I apologise. This is GD and not the pit, after all. I view the above statement as mostly facetious and fairly lightweight, but again, I did not intend to push the boundaries of GD.
Cecil said it. I believe it. That settles it.
Relax, I’m not as Dave as I look!- A Wallified sig!
How about having one agent ringing the doorbell and asking for Elian nicely and letting the family have time to pack? (If the family refused, then have the raid, and I wouldn’t object.) Wouldn’t the crowds outside be less agitated since it would be voluntary? Wouldn’t having the reunion with the father at a military base near Miami also provide the necessary security, and less traumatic disruption?
If Elian was going to live with his dad, and everyone be happy ever after, I’d be for the actions taken. But, Elian is going to be “reprogrammed” when he gets back to Cuba. That’s not in the child’s best interest. The dad is still a pawn of Castro. His family is in a Cuban safe house.
In my opinion, this is a terribly sad incident, showing the worst of our government.
They’ve been ringing the doorbell and asking nicely for 150 days. I think their collective finger was probably numb, what with all the ringing.
The Miami family has had the power to make it voluntary for five months.
I should hope so. Here, he’s been programmed to believe that American children get to be on television all the time and get free trips to Disney World and visits from government officials and all their toys and clothes for free from well-wishers. I shudder to think what would happen if he stayed here, once he wasn’t this year’s model.
You aren’t his father and are in no position to decide his best interest. Nor, for that matter, am I.
I wasn’t aware of any attempts to go pick up the child. I knew negotiations were ongoing, right up to the raid, but not of any attempts to just go get the child. Would you please enlighten me?
Is dad really in control, looking out for Elian’s best interest, or is it Uncle Fidel? If my child were “kidnapped” and all I had to do to get him back was go to him, I’d be on the next plane.
Hey, I doubt the raid would have been nearly as threatening if the family had opened the door on the first knock. They knocked three times before being forced to batter the door down.
I’m actually suprised at the reactions of the Teeming Millions to this situation. I would have thought that the Constition would be held in higher regard.
What part of “The right of the people to be secure in their houses shall not be violated”
doesn’t Janet Reno understand?
This is pretty scary to me. It reminds me of the old saying:
I didn’t do anything when they came for the Jews, because I wasn’t Jewish.
I didn’t do anything when they came for the Catholics, because I wasn’t Catholic.
I didn’t do anything when they came for the gays, because I wasn’t gay.
When they came for me, there was nobody left.
Proud to be an “Elianista” rather than a Clintonista.
The raid took less than 3 minutes, including getting the team in and out. From what the folks in the house have said in the press, there wasn’t warning. If there was knocking, it may have been a (very rapid) knock-knock-knock-BAM. From all accounts, it certainly wasn’t a “Hi, we’re here for Elian, would you please let us in?”
The Constitution is held in VERY high regard around here – such high regard, in fact, that we read EVERY word of it and don’t omit those words we do not like. The key word here is unreasonable. This search and seizure was not unreasonable. Why? Because the government had a valid warrant to execute it, which warrant was issued because an independent Federal just determined there was reason to conduct the raid. You have become nothing more than a parort: “It wasn’t reasonable; it wasn’t reasonable; it wasn’t reasonable” and explanations or discussions regarding reasonableness have no effect on you.
What part of “kidnappers have no right to be secure in their homes with the victims of their crimes” do you not understand?
MIKEHARDWARE – You are correct; “knock and announce” is usually KNOCK KNOCK KNOCK “POLICE!” (BLAM!) and that’s all. But does anyone seriously imagine that the Gonzaleses would have just handed that boy over if they rang the doorbell and said “Excuse me, would you send Elian out, please?” Because I think that’s extremely naive, especially given the volatility of the neighborhood and the defiant rhetoric empolyed by the family in the past.
