Yes, I would have shot him if need be. The cubans actions were lawless.
If memory serves, the father came here to get his son. if im correct, he could easily have defected.
You people sound as bad as the DU crowd. It’s takes a village to raise a child, and if you disagree with the father, then the father must be wrong. All of you deserve to have your children seized by people who disagree with your method of raising them, since that is what you advocate. You only seems to believe in the freedom to agree with yourselves.
Mother is dead, father is alive. That is the american way, unless the gods on FR disagree.
Your memory is not serving you well. He was securely flown to Andrews AFB and sequestered under the control Cuban and private security on the property of a leftist sympathizer. The family in Florida invited the father to join Elian in Florida. He was not permitted to leave the compound.
The family wasn't lawless, they weren't even charged with a crime. The feds stormed the property with an ARREST warrant for Elian. However they never arraigned or jailed Elian as they would in the case of a normal arrest. The Feds eventually surrendered Elian to Cuban officials along with the Father at the compound where they remained for a month or so, in order that the Father and Elian could be prepared to reenter Cuban society.
The Feds seized the boy under false pretenses - And you would have shot an innocent man over that. I am against abuse of government power, you were willing to shoot an innocent man because the government told you to seize a child at night from his family - You can sell your view to the dupes on OWS or DU - it don't float with me.
Do you support giving unwed fathers custody of their children without a court hearing if the mother dies?
Elian's Best Interests?
The other agenda of Clinton, Reno, Craig, the INS and Juan Miguel.
By Mark R. Levin, president of Landmark Legal Foundation.
4/24/00 10:50 a.m.
On December 1, 1999, the Immigration and Naturalization Service issued its first public statement on Elian Gonzalez. It said, in part:
"Although INS has no role in the family custody decision process, we have discussed this case with State of Florida officials who have confirmed that the issue of legal custody must be decided by its state court.
However, Elian will remain in the U.S. until the issues surrounding his custody are resolved. If Elian's family is unable to resolve the question of his custody, it is our understanding that the involved parties will have to file in Florida family court. Either Elian's father in Cuba or his U.S.-based family members may initiate proceedings. Once proceedings have been initiated, it is likely that the court will appoint a guardian ad litem, i.e., someone who will specifically represent Elian's interests in the custody determination process."
Less than one week later, the State Department, which has no role in custody or immigration issues, suddenly announced that Elian belonged with his father. From that point forward, the Clinton administration has done everything possible to reunite Elian not with his father, but with Fidel Castro. And when you cut through all the Clinton administration's propaganda, that's what this is all about. Mr. Clinton wants improved relations with Cuba, and Elian's return is the price demanded by Castro - and the price Mr. Clinton is more than willing to pay.
The Gonzalez family in Miami did, in fact, initiate custody proceedings in Florida family court, as the INS proposed. But Attorney General Janet Reno, to whom the INS reports, quickly killed that process by asserting her authority under federal law to determine Elian's immigration status.
A federal district court upheld her authority, and the state court proceedings were over before they started. Consequently, the standard custody hearing process, where evidence and testimony about the best interests of the child are presented to a tribunal, was thwarted by Ms. Reno.
-snip-
Elian has never lived with his father, and he was born two years after Juan Miguel had divorced Elian's mother.
http://old.nationalreview.com/comment/commentprint042400a.html