Yes, it was wrong for the reason I stated, the aim was to deprive Elian of liberty. You could not refute that no one ever made a credible charge of treason or any other violation of law. Sucks to be proved wrong in public doesn't it?
What you are advocating is wrong.
Like Reagan ending the air traffic controller's strike? Like Eisenhower sending in the 101st Airborne to Arkansas? Like Kennedy sending in the FBI to Alabama and Mississippi?
Terry's rights are NOT being violated. She has had her day in court and then some.
If a judge who breaks the law by refusing to recuse himself four times when a motion to dismiss him is entered and lobbies for laws that effect the outcome of cases before his court constitute "her day in court" for you you can be happy. If a judge ruling that nutrition and hydration by mouth may not occur when the basis of removing the feeding tube rests entirely on the basis that she can't eat orally is "her day in court" then be happy. If rejection of appeal without review by higher courts amounts to "her day in court" for you then be happy. If a state SC ruling that a duly ratified state law is unConstitutional on the grounds that it overrules the authority of the court amounts to "her day in court" for you be happy.
The due process clause of A. XIV is followed and conditioned by the equal justice under the law clause. Is there equal justice under the law under these conditions?
What you are advocating Bush do is treason.
The Constitution precisely defines treason and it says nothing about non-enforcement of judicial decisions. If you can't address these points with substantive replies then you are the one whose emotions are overriding your reason.