>Date: Thu, 08 Jun 2000 09:25:45 -0400
>From: "Michael S. Lorrey" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
>Its now come out, by Clinton Administration documents, that the administration
>was in full cooperation (i.e. conspiracy with a foreign power) with Cuba
>unfortunate Elian circus.
Makes perfect sense to me that if the child of a foreign national
had been kidnapped from his father, and was being held under duress for
reasons by a group with direct links to both criminals and terrorists,
that the US should be co-ordinating with the home country's
embassy. If Elian had been, say, Israeli, and was being kept from
his father in Tel Aviv by relatives and convicted criminals of a radical
anti-Zionist faction of Judaism, would it be so odd for the US to be
cooperating with the Israeli government? Wouldn't you want the
US embassy involved if *your* son were being held in a foreign
country? Maybe not, but I would.
People should have an absolute right, IMO, to live where they
will, regardless of borders, if they can make a living at it. But
we generally make exceptions for children below a threshold of
consent. If Elian had been, say, 16, he could have petitioned to
be considered an emancipated minor under US law and applied
for asylum (which would likely have been turned down, as he was
not in danger of persecution in his home country; rather the
contrary). As it is, the father had clear legal rights over the child.
The relatives with records for armed robbery and drug dealing
did not. A good outcome to the case, I believe, marred only by the
disgusting cold-war grandstanding of Al Gore, and the inexplicable
hesitation of Janet Reno.
Patrick Crumhorn email@example.com
"I am damn unsatisfied to be killed in this way."
--unknown Hong Kong movie
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Jul 27 2000 - 14:13:04 MDT