Jackbooted thugs in battlegear smash down the door of a private home, inhabited by peaceful people who shelter a little boy from a tyrant. Someone check on society, please. Is society okay? The sun hasn’t yet risen, and society still is asleep. Will someone please check on society?
The boy hears hears a soldier screaming orders at the man who protects him in a language he can barely comprehend. He looks down the barrel of a gun, and cries out in the soldier’s language, “Help me! Help me!” Will someone please check on society? Society is asleep, and the sun hasn’t yet risen.
The house is torn apart. The headboard is broken off the boy’s bed. Doors are lying in splintered pieces in the wake of the army’s invasion. Will someone check on society please? The sun hasn’t yet risen. Is society okay?
Society’s putting along just fine, thanks, Lib. Society does not allow relatives to kidnap a child from his parent to keep the child free from a “tyrant” when the parent does not consider the ruler a “tyrant” and only wants to take the child home. Do your libertarian principles allow for the kidnapping of children by members of one philosophical or political group to “save” them from their own parents on the grounds that the parents belong to a different philosophical or political group?
If the Gonzaleses wanted to avoid the tragic and, for the boy, emotionally scarring scene that occurred this morning, they should have returned the boy to his father months ago.
On another, friendlier note: no, the ‘sun’ has not yet risen; it’s only Saturday.
No, no, no, Lib, you totally misunderstood the situation. Those weren’t “jackbooted thugs in battlegear” they were “peaceful, honest defenders of liberty”. They were there to free that poor boy from the tyranny of his grandparents who were forcing him to live under the unjust dictatorial rule of the United States of Amerika. After all, his father did not support this decision, so clearly there was no unanimous consent for him staying in the US. Oh, oh, but wait a minute, his grandparents aren’t unanimously consenting to him living in Cuba, so that’s wrong too. Maybe none of these people are really peaceful and honest. That’s it, they’re all a bunch of tyranical majoritarians. Godammit, let’s kill all of them.
Against the photograph of a ‘jackbooted thug’ holding a gun on Donato Dalrymple, look at MSNBC, at the picture of a smiling, happy Elian in the arms of his smiling, happy father. Tell me again why society should be upset by this.
Since you won’t admit that the use of force is ever justified by the government, Lib, how would you propose to re-unite Elian with Juan, given that negotiations were going nowhere, and the Gonzalez family in Miami had made clear that they wouldn’t turn Elian over in any case?
Never attribute to an -ism anything more easily explained by common, human stupidity.
I really don’t understand what people are protesting here. Morally and legally, the kid belongs with his father, who is the only surviving parent the poor kid has. What on earth gives anyone the right to forcibly separate a kid from his father? There’s no alleged abuse or indications that this guy is an unfit parent. This is about as unambiguous as it gets.
You can’t take a man’s child away from him just because you don’t like his nation’s leader or political system. Anyone would do that is, in my mind, the very worst kind of monster.
I REALLY hate to say this Lib, but in response to your words:
When it violates the rights of the father to be a father. There is reportedly no determination that his father is a bad father and regardless of our political beliefs, a parent has more rights to his son than we do to “protect” a child from a communist society. My understanding is, the child’s parent has more rights than a political system, unless it is proven the child is being deprived, abused or otherwise harmed. Politically speaking, Castro is a tyrant, but we can not compromise the rights of the father under these circumstances, his rights stop where ours begin. But in the truth of freedom Elien is six years old, is the blood and flesh of his father and this father should be the sole determiner of who is to raise his son reagardless of policital issues in Cuba.
I realize that under Casto’s rule, the Cubans have little choice, but I can’t for the life of me accept a political system that keeps a child from his parents. The act of taking a child from the US to another country is looked down upon here, so why should that be any different in this case? His mother wanted better, I understand, but she apparently took him without consent of the father. Again, if the countries where reversed, the US citizens would cry out and ask why the government doesn’t do more to get the child back.
In my eyes, if a father is a fit father then political beliefs should never come into play.
Elien’s relatives had plenty of notice that it was time to return him to his father. They understood the consequences if they held on to him. They used the government’s generousity to keep him away from his father, in my eyes.
I agree, the govt. used excessive force but under the climate of Little Havana, I am not sure they had a lot of choice. People who are entrenched in one way of thinking tend to react violently rather than rationally in these sorts of issues and in this case I think the government was erring on the side of caution to ensure the safety of all in the area.
And to think, it was only Jaunary when Lib was defending the right of Elian’s peaceful, honest father to have his child back, when he said:
And now the big flip-flop, simply because he hates the government so much. Suddenly, the father has no say because he happens to be Cuban. Wow, nice to see that everyone eventually succumbs to expediency.
The relatives were keeping a child from his father who had traveled to this country to be with him. They were clearly in the wrong and yet were shown incredible leniency by both the government and the father. I was personally astonished that the negotiations were pursued at such great length even after it was clear that the relatives were stalling and going back on their stated word.
A few days ago, Juan Miguel even promised not to take the boy back to Cuba until appeals were exhausted, and yet still there was no cooperation. Numerous attempts were made to schedule a peaceful transition, and the relatives were invited to accompany Elian to D.C. In the end, they are to be blamed for necessitating this unfortunate raid.
I believe people have the right to be free of unreasonable search and seizure. However, when it comes to other people’s children, possession is not 9/10ths of the law. By libertarian standards, those who infringe upon the rights of others sacrifice some of their own. In truth, the Miami relatives got off very easily for what would normally be prosecuted as kidnapping.
(And yes, regardless of ideological differences, it is kidnapping. I would not want my child held hostage by fundamentalist Christian relatives just because they believe he will have a better (after)life with them.)
But amid this sweet peaceful scene, the photographer from the Associated Press is ever-alert, camera in hand, lurking in the boy’s bedroom…
Gimme a break. I can’t buy this. I make no claims to understand this situation, but the ‘peaceful’ relatives knew something like this was gonna happen. The camera did not ride into the boy’s room on the back of a government agent.
One thing I am certain of, none of this is as black/white as it appears. And it looks like neither side cares much about the welfare of the boy. (If they did care, then why on earth are we even discussing the matter in the first place??? We don’t even know these people!)
Children should not be used as pawns for political statements.
Libertarian: You have committed a fallacy, albeit eloquently: the fallacy of Misleading Vividness.
The assertion that we should not permit Elian to return to Cuba can be debated rationally. But the inflammatory propaganda you present in your OP is not an argument in support of that assertion.
Neither is it accurate. The use of force was to return Elian to his father’s custody, not to enforce a return to Cuba. This action was taken in accordance with the law and proper procedure.
The question of whether Elian should be allowed to return to Cuba is still at issue.
I’m on your side with this one, Lib, though it took me a little while to understand. From someone else’s post, I gathered that you agreed that the boy should be with his father.
Why was the extrication done this way? The use of guns was justified by a rumor that some people in the crowd would have guns. So, why were they brandished inside the house?
That, apparently, is the way they were trained to do things. That’s not just Reno–she inherited that mindset.
Guns were used because of the significant danger of violence from the protesters surrounding the house.
In general, when using force to uphold the law, it behooves the authorities to use overwhelming force to discourage resistance. If people feel they have the opportunity to resist and do so, loss of life or injury might result.
Given the inflammatory and sometimes violent rhetoric that’s been bandied about, I don’t see that the marshalls had any choice but to use a SWAT team.
If the parents had really wanted to avoid such a confrontation, they would have brought the boy to the authorities themselves, and the protestors would not have impeded the marshalls enforcing a lawful directive of the court.
If you wish to defy the law, that’s your perogative as a free being. But you must expect whatever consequences ensue. You may not argue that the law does not apply to you in a particular cirucumstance.