Fed up with having his picture taken during events in the Justice Department's Great Hall in front of semi-nude statues, Attorney General John Ashcroft has reportedly ordered massive draperies to conceal the offending figures -- (which have been displayed since the 1930s)

-- Modified on 1/29/2002 1:36:27 PM

I am a staunch Republican and even I think that this is messed up.  Ashcroft is out of control.  I can't believe the Attorney General is not familiar with the decisions about freedom of speech and freedom of expression in this country.  I just think he needs to get laid.

At first I thought this was just a joke.

Thank God (irony intended) that Michelangelo's David isn't lodged at the Smithsonian. Ashcroft would probably take a hammer to it.

I seem to recall some tittering (you should pardon the expression) when Ed Meese unleashed some anti-porn screed from that podium.

Ashcroft's religious denomination prohibits dancing. He is not too far removed from the Taliban who also banned dancing and music.  Maybe it's Ashcroft, not John Walker Lindh who should be called the "American Taliban".

It never ceases to amaze me that those who decry their freedom of choice is being limited by others (and which of us don't with that prostitution wasn't legal?) and yet, we wish to limit the freedom of choice of those who are not as "liberate" as ourselves.

If Mr. Ashcroft is uncomfortable with an aluminum breast in his pictures, then why should it not be covered?  And when it is, why should anybody care?

And as such, he is chartered with driving the Law Enforcement Agenda of this nation.  So, his wacky personal views are no longer JUST his personal views, when they inform as to how he will dictate the legal framework under which you and I get to live our lives.

If he were John Ashcroft - Law Professor at the Bob Jones University, I would not care a whit what his lunatic fringe viewpoint was.  But he is THE MOST INFLUENTIAL individual in the entire nation in determining the tenor of how things are prioritized at the federal level for Law Enforcement in our country.  In other words, HE gets to determine which parts of the U.S. Constitution get their interpretation squeezed to the utmost degree in support of his agenda, and which parts get virtually ignored because they conflict with his agenda.

THAT is why this is scary stuff, and why EVERYBODY should care about it.  Especially in THIS community.

The man is trying to give a dignified appearance to his job and photographers are going out of their way to make him look silly. You guys are reading way too much into such a simple act.

If you take him at his word (and I think he's entitled to the benefit of that), he knew nothing about the plan to put curtains there.  And he has said he is not offended by the statues. Someone decided having curtains there would make for better pictures.  There is a story about it at NYpost.com:

http://www.nypost.com/news/nationalnews/40079.htm

I can not express that there are people in this world who not only are as highly educated and so sophistication that your opening rebuttal begins calling someone crazy (actually, you refered to me as a "loon", and you need a comma after CITIZEN) for having a different opinion than yourself.

Unless you forgot, this is NOT Afghanistan, this is a free voting type democracy.  If you can find enough people that agree with your need to see naked aluminum statues, wait a couple of years and vote Hugh Heffner or Larry Flint in as president.  Also, the Attorney General, as the head of the Department of Justice, is the boss of The Solicitor General.  The Solicitor General's job is to be a direct interface with the DOJ and the Supreme Court.  In other words,ir seems as though you have forgotten your High School Class on the Constitution (did you finish high school?).  As a reminder, the executive branch still answers to the judicial branch (i.e. the President and his cabinet are subject to the Supreme Court, hence the need for The Solicitor General).  

So if seeing naked the Attorney General with a naked statue is THAT important to you, may I suggest you:
1.) sponsor a revolution
2.) get YOU naked statue loving candidate elected president.
3.) find a good lawyer (an oxymoron) and if you have a good enough case, see you naked aluminum statues by way of law suit.

None the less, you have missed the entire point.  Just because Mr. Ashcroft feels that he loses some of his dignity by having a breast in his photographs, this in and of itself does not make him scary (or even the anti-christ).  I suspect that you are a belligerent liberal trying to find something about which to be angry with the current REPUBLICAN administration.

rather then calling Ashcroft one.  Also, the grammar in YOUR post is RAMPANT with errors, So I suggest that you might wish to stick to teaching math, rather than grammar.

Secondly, by virtue of the POPULAR vote in this country, we DID elect a President who would have met my needs.  Unfortunately, he did not have any brothers who were Governors in key swing states, so that MY CANDIDATE's brother's political hack appointee was not able manipulate that state's electoral process and subvert the will of the majority of American voters in the Presidential election.  

Third, the WONDERFUL thing about this nation is that I DON'T need a revolution to voice my disgust about Mr. Ashcroft and his imbecillic views.  

Fourth, I am even more aware than you know that Mr. Ashcroft is highly educated - as HIS post-graduate degree is from the SAME institution of higher learning as mine is (which, I'll admit, is rather humbling for me, as it is for most other graduates of that institution, as he is probably our LEAST intellectually distinguished, yet among our most famous Alumni).

And Fifth, The fact that Mr. Ashcroft is the Boss of the Solicitor general IS my argument.  The Solicitor General is in charge of IMPLEMENTATION, but Mr. Ashcroft and HIS boss CREATE THE POLICY that the Solicitor General is supposed to implement.  So, you ought again stick to teaching Math, rather than branching into Civics, as you are not competent there either.

And FINALLY, I never said that THIS was what made Ashcroft scary.  Rather, this is merely a rather benign manifestation of Ashcroft's inherent phobia about personal freedoms, and it is this phobia, coupled with Ashcroft's high position, that makes him scary.  Unfortunately for us, the citizenry of Ashcroft's own home state knew him well enough to vote for a dead guy over him in the Senatorial election, and in so doing, they inadvertently stuck the rest of us with him in a FAR more dangerous role.

BTW, in order to shorten this post, I chose NOT to highlight all of your poor grammar, but rather, confine my rebuttal to the misguided SUBSTANCE  of your post.  Your own post might have been more convincing had YOU had the judgement to do the same.

The NYPost is owned by Rupert Murdoch, who played no small role in the "election" of George W. You'll need to find a more credible source than that.

So what is the "credible source" of the original post?  I don't know, but I hardly believe that the NY Post would lie ABOUT what Ashcroft's office said on this subject.  If you want to disbelieve him, that's another thing.  If you are inclined to believe the worst, or to exercise your right to be politically biased, then you will, no matter what anyone says.  Personally, if I wanted an audience's attention, I wouldn't want to be speaking or photographed in front of metal boobs either.  It would be like having Madonna standing behind you with her "cones." So, I would have moved the podium or the statutes elsewhere.  They chose a curtain.

I always remind myself that NONE of the news agencies have much credibility with me by remembering the following:

ABC = anything but credible
NBC = nothing but crap
CBS = constant bull sh**

Ah yes, now I see the error of my ways. "Fair & Balanced", just like NYPost.com = Fox News = your last post.

So basically, you ARE one of those over intellectual liberal types who is more impressed with the University from which he/she graduated than her/his ability to think for him/herself.

It seems that you are reasonably adept at making the argument that anyone in power that is not a democrat sucks.  However, like most liberals, you are unwilling to improve society with any other action than pointing out the obvious character imperfections the haunt all humans, even Republicans (but those that belong to democrats are caused by "some right wing conspiracty" to quote Hillary.

In light of the recent events this last September in NYC, how many Americans are ecstatic that NEITHER Misters Clinton or Gore (and their executive branch) are not "at the helm?"  



p.s.  your reference to the election differential between popular and electoral votes, again, shows your Democratic Party sour grapes. If you REALLY want to criticize one political party or another I would challange your to research the last 150 years, and discover (for yourself, and not what some "impressive university teacher" has told you) exactly how each party has responded "to the public good" when the public perception of the soundness of the system was being challanged.  I don't have any idea how old you are, but if you are old enough to remember the Nixon (don't you just hate that name) Kennedy election would be a wonderful place for you to start.  

pss, and thank GOD we don't have to have a revolution to change things, but sometimes we have to be awakened by someone else (perhaps one that runs an airplane into a building) to clearly demonstrate to us JUST HOW MUCH we need to be concerned with the infrastructure of our military and economy.  

psss (and now I say sarcasticly) Isn't the real difference between Democrats and Republican a philosophic differance between how votes are bought?  Republican's like to buy votes by stimulating the economy, and Democrats perfer just to buy votes with public money with no expectation for a return on their investment? Spoken another way, rarely does one find a sucessful business person who does not have a very strong conservative veiwpoint.  After all, who funds the Democratic Party?  Liberal Arts majors and the uneducated (maybe they have something in common?)

Anyone that thinks that the traditional print/audio/video  news media "news selection process" is not in large run by die hard, self-aggrandizing liberals has either not ever thought about what she/he is injesting, or is him/herself a liberal, and since such reporting meets their own agendas, why complain?

only those who need something to complain about, like those who have been voted out of office.

I am very successful business person.  I am an Applied Mathematics and Economics major, not a liberal arts major.  I happen to be a fiscal conservative, and a moderate social libertarian, and I vote independently.  Incidentally, I would contend that the MAJORITY of businesspeople that I know are fiscal conservatives and social Libertarians.  A few days ago, I made a post on TER critcizing Clinton and pointing out that he had squandered the opportunities of his Presidency due to his nonstop lying over Monica-gate, and I stated that because of this, he was not as effective a President as, among others, Ronald Reagan.  I did not vote for Bush (purely because I percieved a lack of intellectual depth), but, with the exception of Ashcroft, and his wacky views, I've been quite favorably impressed by Bush's team, and supportive of his conducting of the affairs of state.  Ashcroft is the GLARING exception to the rational and moderate views that have generally prevailed in the Bush Whitehouse.  I apologize if I don't fit into your simplistic view of the world, but, as I've noticed with other folks who can ONLY think mathematically, niether the world, nor people that inhabit it, is as black and white as Mathematics is.  But folks such as yourself cannot mentally process the nuances and subtle shadings.

BTW, Why are you on this board, since, as a supporter of Ashcroft, I would imagine that this community was anathema to everything he, and by extension you as a strong supporter of his, stand for?  If Ashcroft had his way, you would be unable to participate in this activity, as it is a forum that, in HIS mind, advocates immoral behaviour that he would like to erradicate.  Oh, and he would eradicate free speech as well.

Actually, if you had half a brain, you would realize that John Ashcroft represents a threat to your ability to participate in the activity which this forum is about.  The original post was made as a means of highlighting the nature of that threat.  It is HIGHLY relevant to the subject matter of this forum.  

People like Ashcroft start small, and then work their way up to bigger and more important activities.  If you don't stop them early, you end up with a totalitarian regime on your hands.  Make no mistake - I don't in any way mean to imply that the George Bush agenda wishes that to happen.  But the agenda of a small percentage of Bush supporters DOES.  And John Ashcroft is the embodiment of that fringe element of Bush's support group.  Ashcroft was appointed to his position as a bone thrown to that group, without who's STRONG support, Bush would not have been elected.  But make no mistake.  Ashcroft is as smart as he is fanatical, and he is DANGEROUS.  His respect for the Constitution of the United States does NOT extend to the Bill of Rights, nor any subsequent amendment advocating personal freedom.

I have not seen any evidence that Ashcroft represents a threat to anyone's rights.  While I do not agree with some of the "security" measures now approved and undertaken by Republicans and Democrats alike, at least I know that Ashcroft does support the right to bear arms, which is the most important right (because, without it, citizens have no defense againt government becoming absolute tyranny).  In sum, I am much more afraid of corrupt men than I am of honest ones.  If Ashcroft opposes something, just like Bush, he will tell us.  I think he lays his cards on the table and is not underhanded or conniving.  So far, he hasn't done or said anything to lead me to fear him.  I disagree with his stand on assisted suicide, and I am sure many other things.  However, he is not a monster and, unlike Reno or Clinton, he has a conscience.

I am a libertarian, but most libertarians end up voting Republican.

And, BTW, the right to bear arms is of LITTLE use against a tyrannical government, because that right is not unlimited.  I suspect that the assault rifles of a self-styled freedom-protecting militia of the people will be of little use against a motivated tyrannical government having F-16s and Apache assault helicopters.

What preserves your freedom in TODAY's reality is the constitutional protection of free speech.  (Which, BTW, Ashcroft pretty clearly wishes to limit) Because it is those democratic IDEAS that are protected which would prevent the soldiers who FLY the F-16s and Apaches from turning those weapons on the people even if they were ordered to do so by tyranical leadership.  I agree that it IS just my opinion.  But IN MY OPINION, Ashcroft is the WORST monster to serve in a high position in the U.S. Govt. since Joseph McCarthy.  And FAR more of a problem than Clinton, who was merely too little a man in a job too important for his limited character, or Janet Reno, whom I believe to have been a mixed bag of strengths and weaknesses.

It is my fervent hope that my opinion on this is proven wrong.  But it is my fear that it will not be over time.

You are correct that, if a tyrannical government wishes to bomb its citizens, then firearms would be of little use.  However, an assault weapon is not really  a "type" of firearm.  They all shoot bullets.  As long as we aren't limited to single shot weapons, and as long as the government is not willing to bomb large areas, guerilla warfare is a very effective deterrent to tyranny.  Hitler, and all dictators past and present, depended on the populace being unarmed.  The Northern Alliance in Afghanistan would not have existed at all, if they did not have arms.

Free speech and the right to bear arms go hand in hand as the two most important rights recognized in the Bill of Rights.  And, indeed, there was a debate at the time as to which should be put first.  It also must be realized that a significant portion of the military would refuse orders to attack or disarm our own citizens. (Did you know the military actually has taken polls on whether soldiers would obey orders to disarm American civilians?)  

I hope you are wrong about Ashcroft too.  And I can't imagine what was good about Reno, who sold her soul to keep her position.

And was willing to take a politically unpopular position to put him in the rightful hands of his loving surviving parent.

BTW, you should be glad for this too, because without Reno's storming of the house to rescue Elian Gonzales, then Al Gore carries Florida and is President of the United States today.  (Most polling data that I've seen indicates that Reno's handling of the Elian Gonzales incident cost Gore between 150K - 200K votes in Florida.)

Mainly,I remember her as the butcher of Waco who authorized use of a gas that is illegal in war time; and as someone whose willingness to appoint special prosecutors (even when strongly urged by the director of the FBI) mysteriously evaporated after Clinton's folks sent out signals that he might not keep her on.  Also, Clinton wanted to please Castro, regardlss of its effects on Gore, which is why Gore feined concern over that decision.  

Also, the decision to "send in troups" to snatch ELian, in our system, should be made only after a hearing, and only after a party has refused to obey a court order to reliquish custody; it should not be done on the ex parte midnight Order from a friendly magistrate.  It could have gone disastrously (just as Waco did), but she got lucky.  Her lack of concern for citizen's physical safety and due process of law, and her use of paramilitary troups against civilians, is what made me fearful of her -- a far more compelling threat than someone who might or might not strive to lessen paid-for "cootchie."

Remember, Gore lost Florida by something between 400 and 1300 votes out of around 6 million votes, depending upon which count you choose to believe.  And Bush carried something like 93% of the Cuban expatriate vote in Florida, which represented over 1.2 million of the Florida votes.  Most estimates I have seen indicate that the Elian Gonzalez incident moved around 7 - 8 % of the Cuban expatriate vote into the Bush Camp, so, he won 93-7  rather than ~ 86-14 among that community.

That's approximately 160,000 votes.  Even if the impact were 1/100 as great, THAT was sufficient to make the difference in the state of Florida, as close as it was.

I believe that as VERY compelling case could be made that the child was being endangered by being paraded in front of cameras for the press on a daily basis.  And he was being held away from his loving parent of legal standing.  And the cousins were CLEARLY not negotiating in good faith. Law enforcement acted just as they have the legal authority to act in ANY hostage situation.  Paramilitary troops, a.k.a. SWAT Teams, are specifically maintained for the purpose of being used in the act of preventing active commission of a crime against other people.
They didn't even NEED the magistrate's ex-parte order, that was just a backup.  When a citizen is IN the ACT of committing a crime, which the cousins WERE, and the child was being endangered, in defiance of any number of custody decisions the authorities have the right to exercise imminent domain and act to protect the child.  The LEGAL AUTHORITY already existed.  Whether judgement called for it is an entirely another matter, but NOT one that propels this act above any number of Law Enforcement decisions that occur on a daily basis all over the country.  Would you disarm the police all over our country?  After all, they are liable to use their weapons against citizenry if the citizen chooses to commit a crime that endangers other people?  

As for Waco, we STILL don't know to what extent the victims were killed by Koresh's booby-trapping of the building or by trigger-happy BATF and we probably never will.  I will grant you that the end result was tragic and mishandled.  But, it is pretty clear that to the extent that BATF killed innocent folks, it certainly was due to poor execution at the local commander level, rather than a reflection of Reno's INTENT.  I don't think she can take anything other than the rap for having made a bad judgement, as opposed to being called a butcher.  Butchery implies intent.

There were no final, unappealable custody decisions in effect.  The proper legal process would have called for enforcement by the federal marshall or by the local LE.

Now, you are not really calling him a hostage, are you?  He was not being held at gunpoint.  This was a normal household.  There were no guns poking out the window, and no need for an army to attack a house in the middle of the night.  There was no reason to think that, if an officer knocked on the door, and explained he was there to execute a warrant, he would have been shot or harmed.  Yet, this was in fact handled like a hostage situation.

As for Waco:  if someone in a black hood showed up at my window in the middle of the night, I would shoot him too!  The way the situation started is even more unbelievable than the end.

I have no idea whether that cost Gore the election or not.  Probably hundreds of factors are involved there.

-- Modified on 1/30/2002 3:36:09 PM

-- Modified on 1/30/2002 3:37:29 PM

If his rightful legal guardian, his father, could have knocked on the door and taken him back, he would NOT have been a hostage.   That was clearly not offerred.  He was being negotiated for, he was withheld from his family, and videos were made of the child under duress.  That is what people do to hostages.  He was a hostage.

And it's pretty unambiguous that this event DID swing enough votes to cost Gore Florida, and therefore the election.  Sure, other things could have happened.  But this DID happen.  And it moved thousands of votes Bush's way in Florida.   I would think that you'd be happy about it, rather than having Gore in the White House.  Frankly, after 9-11, I'M happy that it kept Gore out of the White House (and more to the point, put the highly capable Bush team of Chaney, Powell and Rumsfeld into power).   My only significant issue with Bush has been Ashcroft.  Otherwise, I'm quite happy to acknowledge that I erred in voting for Gore.

Ive heard this argument among my associates at work.  My response was if Mr Gore won his home state, he would be in the White House today.

What bothers me the most about the political process today is the big money influence.

Ashcroft's constituency realized that a corpse, and thus a political appointee, was a better choice for their senate seat than he would be.  So they voted for ANYBODY - even a corpse, rather than have him as Senator.

Similarly, Gore's constituency in Tennessee was familiar with his act and its consequences, and gave him the thumbs down for the Presidency.  Any number of things could have changed the election.   For example,  Had Palm Beach county have had a different type of automated ballot, that COULD have changed the election - we'll never know.  Had Bill Clinton told the truth earlier in his term re: Monica, that could have changed the election.  Again, we'll never know.   Had Al Gore not invited Chinese donors to give him big secret donations, that could have changed the election, we won't ever know.   But Janet Reno's handling of the Elian Gonzales situation in and of itself DID change the election.  It's well beyond the level of statistical doubt.  Enough people mentioned it as the specific reason that they voted for Bush in the exit polling that it was a statistically overwhelming event in Florida.

(laughing) I feel like I'm in 4th grade, and the playground bully is calling me names again! ohhhh help me Mrs. Long, make him stoooop.

re-read the posts, I NEVER have said I support Ashcroft, I only support his choice to have his picture taken without naked aluminum statue.

but then, at least I am willing to admit to my political preferences, and that I have agendas, and imperfections, etc.

liberals, on the other hand, are adept at name calling, but NOT at taking responsibility for their behavior.  for instance, were you upset that Clinton was unwilling to confess upfront about his blowjobs?  NOW THAT'S A COVERUP, your HERO who supports your point of view needs to lie when he is caught.

Liberals - ya all the same.

then what does it mean when we REMEMBER that Slick Willie never carried his home state?

But I guess that you couldn't tell that because you can't read.

If you can get a brief refresher course in reading, I'd refer you to a post I made one page down on this board on 1/28, before THIS thread started,  where I basically was critical of someone ELSE who claimed Clinton was a great President.

Just one question - with your limited communications skills, how did they ever let you become a teacher?

-- Modified on 1/30/2002 5:12:09 PM

Are you jealous that he never let YOU give him a blowjob?

a law enforcement officer calls not for a law enforcement officer making reasonable efforts to set things right, but rather a massive assault by paramilitary troups with assault weapons.  Okay.

Not a single shot was fired in the attempt, and not a single physical injury occurred.   There is a BIG difference between displaying a weapon to diffuse resistance, and firing the weapon to eliminate resistance.  The former is an act of restraint in pursuit of legal compliance, and that is all that happened here.

Massive assault would have implied firing the weapons and taking the child by force.  You don't know what their rules of engagement were.  They might have merely been attempting to display a potential consequence that was all bluff.  The THREAT was all that was applied, and the hostage takers caved and gave up the boy.  That's not any different from a bank security guard carrying a weapon.  It's an implied threat of force as a deterrent, rather than an actual use of force.

you will never change your mind.

But, if the kid was a hostage, why was no one arrested?  When was the last time you saw heavily armed troops snatch someone when there was no violation of criminal law?  Why aren't those folks in jail for kidnapping, false arrest, fleeing or eluding law enforcement officers, resisting with or without force, or other things that would apply if such a show of force was justified?

Sounds to me like something that could only happen in a fascist country.

I don't disagree with sending Elian back.  I just want due process of law and recognition of limits on government power -- something that didn't happen because Reno believes in gestapo tactics.

And Reno was aok with providers.
You might not like Ashcroft but he is not fanatical and not dangerous. This is all partisan political bull. Take it to yahoo!politics and have your discussion there.

Ashcroft is enforcing the laws of the US, he is not creating them. I would take you more seriously if I remembered you speaking out against the politicization of the justice department under Janet Reno whose sole role appeared to be covering up the various clinton scandals. Give it a rest.

Whoseever idea it was to cover the statues, it was a dumb one. But in the end who cares. It has no effect on any of our lives.
Lets just move on.

backed into your own logical corner.  Or are you wishing you had blow job from some male authority figure?  You are a nasty, nasty, uncivilized individual, would your mommy be proud of you?

i kinda figured that you were educated, but since you can not draw conculsions yourself...

YOU are obsessed about Ashcroft's home state voting record ( how brougt it up?)  Question: What was the LAST President that was a Democrat who carried his own home state?  Since YOU think this  is a valid basis to judge the value of a politician.... I would venture a guess that you were not alive when this occured last.

God, Liberals are so afraid to admit they have their own agenda's.  I know you will NEVER admit the possibility that you are just a bitter man (i assume man?) who wants to take his ball and go home because his political party didn't win, and propably won't be in power for some time to come.  

Instead of finding fault with the world, why don't you try to find reasons to join peoplle with differing points of view into meaningful NON-NAME CALLING discussions.  I really feel sorry for bleeding heart liberals, since they typically NEVER grow up, they choose to act like immature adolecents, always trying to make life "fair."

Watch out for bitter liberals, the do seem to get NASTY.

In the last 2 Presidential elections, I actively supported Bob Dole and John McCain.  My IDEAL Ticket would be a McCain/Powell ticket. If that makes me a Liberal, your perspective is pretty skewed.  I am, by just about any definition you could come up with, a Libertarian.  I have an Graduate degree in Economics from what is regarded as the most conservative university in the nation (same one where Ashcroft and Scalia got their Law degrees from).  In the last general election, I voted for Gore as a specific protest vote against Bush, but it is one I would not repeat.  I'm neither bitter, nor a bleeding heart.  Although, I certainly am not happy about paying six-figures to the government in Federal Income Taxes in each of the past 3 years, I recognize that there is a reason for it.  I DO find imbeciles such as yourself, who are extraordinarily quick to pigeonhole anyone who might disagree with them as a knee-jerk Liberal to be rather distasteful - but I'm not bitter about it, I merely recognize that it is a small price to pay for my own freedom of speech under the Constitution.

If MY child was held hostage by deranged relatives, seeking to exploit him for a political cause, I would want the SWAT team to get him out if need be as well.

-- Modified on 1/31/2002 11:56:46 AM

Get real!  You would only want your child subjected to that kind of risk if there were kidnappers threatening to harm him!

x

I believe (OK, it is ONLY my opinion, but it is my Honest one):

1) the boy was being held as a hostage, and paraded, exploited, and manipulated for the TV cameras on a daily basis.  What was done is, quite simply, Felony child endangerment.  It was only due to political expediency that there was no prosecution of this crime.

2) As the father, if YOU are told, we are keeping your child, you can NEVER have him again unless you renounce your homeland (irrespective of the politics, assume he likes his homeland) - YOU TOO would want to see the powers of the law applied to rescuing your child and having him brought back home.

3) I only regret that the power of the law was not brought to bear MORE SWIFTLY on the relatives holding the child, as a deterrent for the type of lawlessness that was displayed.

4) When one chooses to manipulate the future and the psycological well-being of a 6 year old child to make a political statement, one sacrifices ANY protections of their rights, for as long as they continue to abuse the child.  The PRIMARY and URGENT duty of the governmental authority in such a circumstance is to remove the child from that situation and place him with his loving legitimate family.  Anyone who would subject the child to a continuation of that experience ought ONLY to do it at severe peril to their liberty, property, and personal safety, at the hands of the legal authority.

This, I personally believe, passionately.  My only concern about the actions of the Justice Department in this particular episode is that they did not act SWIFTLY enough, and with SEVERE ENOUGH LEGAL SANCTION, against the offending relatives in this case.  I believe that TOO MUCH consideration was given to the rights of these miscreant relatives while the child was being exploited by them.  The child's personal right to be safely with his father ought to have been the ONLY consideration of the government authority in this case, FAR outweighing the consideration of the relatives during the active commission of the crime of child abuse. (He was being brainwashed against his father and his home as he was being held hostage - this is a truly horrific bit of child abuse - every bit as bad, IMHO, as mere physical abuse).

-- Modified on 1/31/2002 1:58:13 PM

-- Modified on 1/31/2002 1:59:51 PM

I guess if Adolph Eichmanns wife escaped from 1938 Germany with their kid but drowned crossing the North Sea to England, he would have wanted the kid shipped back to Nazi Germany to be with his loving father.

The cuban father initially told the relatives to keep Elian and take care of him and only wanted the kid back once it became a propaganda issue and Castro made him an offer he couldnt refuse. The father is now set for life as a friend of the communist party. Luckily he had the help of Janet Reno to kidnap the child for him. They then took the kid to an base in Maryland where cuban "doctors" drugged the kid up and refused to allow anyone except for Cuban government officials and their sympathizers to see him, and then whisked him back to Cuba. Elian was never examined by neutral doctors after his abduction at gunpoint from the relatives in Miami.

It was a sad day for freedom.

The point is, the burden of PROOF is on showing the father was unfit.  NOBODY involved ever claimed that.  The only claim is that, inherently a life in Cuba is an unfit environment.  But that claim is, quite simply, counter to the Law, whatever conceptual merits it might have.  

The MORE fitting analogy would be, if two loving and FIT parents were divorced, and the mother flees Nazi Germany with the child, but dies in the effort.  And the father, a mere factory worker, sought custody back in Berlin.  Should the child be sent BACK to his father in Nazi Germany, rather than with the mother's cousins in Maryland.

The UNAMBIGUOUS, proper, within the rule of law answer is:

YES.  The child goes back to his father in Nazi Germany.  THAT'S THE LAW.  PERIOD.

Rule of law had already been established.

A minor from the Soviet Union defected against his parents wishes during a trip to the USA in the 1970's.

A US court determined that he had the right to asylum in the United States and his parents did not have the right to force him to return to the Soviet Union against his will.

What we had with Elian is the US Department of Justice enforcing the will of a totalitarian Cuban regime which demanded the child's return to Cuba. Cuba usde the facade of parental rights, but in reality their own government states that children are the property of the state, and not of their parents. In their view, Elian was the property of the Cuban state and was illegally stolen.

The Department of Justice enforced the Cuban government's claim to the boy by sending in men with machine guns to snatch the boy in the dead of night from unarmed relatives who were caring for the boy and with whom the boy stated he wanted to remain. They then prevented neutral parties from having contact with the boy and allowed cuban agents to take charge of the boy and remove him from the country his mother died to bring him to. Elian was entitled to asylum based on previous precedent.

Your assertion that he should have been sent back to Cuba or Nazi Germany is just obscene. Some libertarian you are.

The FACTS of the Elian case are entirely different.  In YOUR case, the minor explicitly asserted a desire for asylum thus shifting the presumption in the direction of the child's asserted free will.   In Elian's case, that never happened, except that the relatives were TRYING to coach/brainwash the kid into actually asking for asylum.  All the more reason for his IMMEDIATE removal.  But absent that free-will assertion, the assumption under law is that the LEGAL Parent speaks for the child.  

And, YES, if the sole surviving fit parent wants the child to go back to Nazi Germany, or Cuba - and the MINOR child does not freely and competently assert otherwise, the LAW, and LIBERTARIAN philosophy are in agreement:  The parent speaks for the child unless the child asserts otherwise, and is competent to do so.

You don't have to like it.  But you need to OBEY it, as it is the law of the land.

-- Modified on 1/31/2002 2:59:49 PM

The FACT is, the Elian Gonzalez incident is over:

Elian is back in Cuba with his father.

His camera-hogging Miami relatives are back in obscurity

Bill Clinton is loafing in New York, chasing trim on the side, and mourning his pet dog.

Hillary is trying to hog camera time at Ground Zero, and on the Senate floor, while hoping for Ashcroft to do something Liberals feel is egregious enough to make into enough hay to fuel HER Presidential run  

Chelsea is showing off her new makeover in Paris with Madonna and any number of models during Winter Break, and preparing for the next term at Stanford.

Al Gore is lecturing at a college, growing his beard, and wearing earth tones to reinforce his image as the Alpha male.  

George Bush is in the White House, prosecuting a war in response to a major terrorist attack, with his team in place.

Janet Reno is busy fainting on the lecture circuit

I believe that the Elian Gonzalez incident was handled PROPERLY, but cost Gore the election.   Other people on this board strongly disagree with one or both of these assertions.  And this argument isn't going to change any of this.

Let's return to the focus of this board, and go contract us some First class professional Poontang.!

I love bare tit just as much as the next guy, but it would get pretty awkward to have bare tit hanging over your shoulder in every picture.

I don't think we need statues with bare tit appearing behind everyone who makes a speach at the Justice Department.

I think, in this case, it's a good idea to cover up the bare tit.

Just my two cents.

Would you rather have Janet Reno back in office?

While terrorists were entering our country and planning the attacks, she was busy kicking Elian Gonzales out of the country, making our shores safe from 7-year old Cuban refugee children.

Get a reality check, DMAN

I won't go into Waco, McVeigh, and all the other bizarre events that she and Clinton put us through.