Pause to remember: Two Easter Eves ago, Elian was seized as picture of Jesus was trampled.

You need a moral compass...if you don't come back to earth--reality---a gyroscope---gps!

Thanks for reminding me again of this outrage. I will never forget, but this writing REALLY brought it home again!
To think than Janet Reno could run for Governor!

God help us all!

Ward Connerly on RadioFR NOW!

Listen while you FREEP! Click HERE!

do a Google search on the name "Walter Polovchak".

Did the search and this is what I found:

Like baby Moses rising from the bull rushes rises Elián González from the seas that swallowed his mother, surrounded by his own growing body of mythic legends. It is time we examined the most popular Elián myths with a more critical eye.

"His mother died for his freedom."Let's call this what it was: Elián's mother was guilty of reckless child endangerment, risking the life of her child so she could run off with her boyfriend and take that child away from a loving, attentive father who was actively involved in daily parenting duties. This risky stunt cost her life and almost killed her adorable little boy.

"Government agents seized him from his 'home'." Agents were called because distant relatives, who had never seen Elián for most of his life and were assigned for temporary foster care, decided they wanted to keep the child even after the rightful father was in the country and made it clear they would never willingly allow Elián to be reunited with his father except by force. The temporary placement that was authorized by an INS order was reassigned by that same agency to the surviving parent when that parent arrived in this country and was available. Let's get something clear: Elián was not taken from his home, he was taken to his home.

"Agents used excessive force (with comparisons to Ruby Ridge or Waco)." In Ruby Ridge (on George Bush's watch) and Waco (early in the fledgling Clinton administration), lengthy confrontations ended with gunshots, injury and deaths. Total time of the Elián rescue was less than three minutes, with less than a minute inside the house. No shots were fired; there were no deaths or injuries. This was not excessive use of force, this was an appropriate display of force ready for use if needed. It was necessary and appropriate. Uncle Lazaro had said he would not give Elián up without force, and cousin Marisleysis had threatened the use of guns. An unruly mob swirled outside, committed to resisting any rescue action to return Elián to his father. What would be the reaction of the Clinton/Reno detractors if they had sent in agents unarmed and one had been killed or injured by someone in the house or by the mob outside? The same people complaining about "excessive force" would be complaining that Janet Reno sends public servants into harm's way without protecting them. Certainly the need to rescue a child at gunpoint is unpleasant. It was this very scene that Janet Reno had tried so hard to avoid, as she received numerous complaints that she was being too patient as she repeatedly delayed action to allow more time for negotiation while Lazaro González was holding another man's child in defiance of all law and decency. Yes, the rescue was traumatic even without injury or harm, and blame must be placed squarely on the distant relatives using a child as a political pawn who made this action necessary.

"Castro is using Elián." Okay, well this one is true. By a stroke of tragic luck, a political opportunity fell into the lap of this evil dictator. Surprise -- he's going to take advantage of it. The fact that Castro may use this to his advantage does not mitigate the rights of a loving father, especially juxtaposed with the hypocritical antics of distant relatives also guilty of using this innocent child for their political agenda. This child might be returned to Castro's Cuba, but Elián and his father have both breathed the sweet air of American freedom and will be free to take their message back to Cuba and say whatever they want. These could become two dissidents whose celebrity and hero status render them immune from Castro's persecution.

"Elián is better off in America than Cuba." This is only true if one accepts the premise that a life with more materialistic benefits and creature comforts and lots and lots of TOYS is more important than for a child who has already lost one parent to live with the surviving parent he has already bonded with. The same people who are using this line now are not inclined to say the same thing for refugee children who arrive on boats from Haiti or who come from Mexico, which suggests that their real motive is based on political beliefs rather than any serious concern about what is in Elián's best interests. We must be careful to endorse a precedent that could be used to justify taking the children of poor families and giving them to childless couples who are wealthy. And we must examine one of the key reasons for the poverty in Cuba: while we have trade and diplomatic relations with China, the former Soviet Union, and even our old war adversaries who beat us in Vietnam, as well as countless other ruthless dictatorships around the world, we are prevented from opening up trade or dialogue with Cuba because of the political clout of, you guessed it, the Miami Cubans. If they are really concerned about the poverty Elián will return to, then let them exert some pressure to ease their embargo which causes it.

"Elián's father would defect if he really had a choice; he is being shadowed by Cuban officials and his own family is being held as 'hostages' back in Cuba." Elian's father met with U.S. officials, including Janet Reno (Attorney General) and Doris Meissner (INS Director), the highest immigration officials in the land, with no Cubans present. This would have been a perfect opportunity for him to defect, and both Reno and Meissner would have been bound by American law regarding political refugees to honor his request for asylum. He was definitely able to express his free will. As for the myth about his other relatives being held "hostage," perhaps other less famous refugees might get away with this argument (though it does not seem to have deterred the thousands of Cubans who have defected so far), but it does not hold water in this case. If Juan Miguel were to defect (which he easily could do), and then something were to happen to any of his relatives, Castro would suffer a huge public relations disaster, erasing all the gains he has achieved thanks to the Miami extremists. Dictatorships don't do their dirty work when the light of exposure is shining so glaringly on them. Regarding emigration by Cubans from Cuba to the U.S., it should also be noted that most of those in Little Havana left with the permission of the Cuban government, which issued them travel documents. In fact, while I have no desire to defend Castro, whose regime I do believe to be dictatorial and corrupt, unlike other Communist countries, he has been willing to allow almost anyone to leave who wants to; the key limitations right now are those imposed by the United States, which limits the numbers of new immigrants it will accept. "Uncle Lazaro" himself even traveled here with an exit Visa from Cuba; in fact, when Castro accused him of having a criminal record, Lazaro used his EXIT VISA, issued by Castro's own government, which said he had no criminal record, which is now a requirement to avoid another Mariel boat lift as occurred in 1980 when Castro sent all the criminals here. Additionally, many Cubans in Little Havana regularly travel back to Cuba to visit relatives, one of the few travel exceptions allowed under the current embargo -- funny how the Miami Cubans want to limit everyone but themselves.

"What if Elián were from...?", Some people suspect that if Elián were a Jewish child from Nazi Germany or a girl from Somalia with parents back in that country who wanted her back to perform genital mutilation, that those who respect paternal rights in the Elián case would be less sympathetic. Well, of course! And there is a big difference. A Somali girl being returned to genital mutilation would face a credible threat of physical danger; a Jewish child being returned to Nazi Germany would face the certainty of the ultimate child abuse, DEATH. This goes way beyond merely having a lower economic standard or even a different political philosophy. Whatever valid complaints one might have with Castro's political regime, or whatever economic problems persist (largely the result of the Miami-Cuban sponsored embargo), children are not routinely killed or mutilated. The difference is strictly a dispute about what political system is best. I clearly don't think Castro's has much to offer, but that determination is clearly within the rights of a father to decide that Cuba, with all its problems and limitations, is better than the USA with its rampant crass materialism and children being shot in schools. Again, I would make a different choice than Elián's father, but do we really want to establish the precedent that children can be taken away from parents based on differences of political ideology? What's next? Religion? Will we take a child because someone is too religious? Not religious enough? Wrong denomination? The government denying parental rights based on belief is the ultimate in authoritarian dictatorship. Juan Miguel believes that safety from guns, drugs, school violence and crass materialism (lots and lots of toys) outweigh a democratic government. I don't agree that security outweighs democracy, but I'm not Elián's father and respect Juan Miguel's right to different political opinions. What other grounds based on differing opinions shall we use to decide that children can be taken from their parents completely absent any actual risk to the child. If evidence of such risks of political persecution or physical risk could be demonstrated, then there is no way that Elián would be returned to such an environment. On the contrary, Elián will return to Cuba as a hero, and Castro would never dare to let any harm come to Elián or his father.

"If Walter Polovchak could stay, why not Elián?" Some have cited the precedent of the Walter Polovchak case, in which a cold-war era youth was allowed to stay in the United States instead of being returned to his parents in Moscow. Aside from the fact that cold-war issues are not relevant in today's environment, the Polovchak case is not a valid comparison. The only similarities between Elián González and Walter Polovchak are that they were both young boys being considered for return to parents in Communist countries (Walter's parents returned to the Soviet Union in the early 1980s after living many years in the USA). All of the other relevant factors were different. I supported the decision to let Walter stay here, and still believe it was right because it was so different from Elián's situation. Walter was twelve years old; Elián is six -- a twelve year old is far more able to make his own decisions about his life than a six year old and in matters of custody his opinions will be considered, unlike those of a six year old. Walter had lived his entire conscious life in the United States and had no memories of the Soviet Union, and even his relationship with parents was based on his life with them in America and in Russian culture they would seem quite different and foreign; Elián had lived all of his conscious life in Cuba including daily interaction with his father there, and the only relationship he knows with his father is a Cuban relationship; Walter wanted to stay with his adult sister, part of his immediate nuclear family who he had known well all his life; Elián was forced to stay with distant relatives he had never known before. Walter wanted to stay in America in the only life he had known, not go to a country that was strange and foreign and was old enough to decide that; Elián will be returned to the only life he has known, not stay in a country that is strange and foreign and, if he were old enough to decide that, would probably want to return there with his father and half brother and stepmother.

"If his father loves him so much, how come he didn't go to Miami?" When Elián was rescued, the then-five-year-old immediately gave his father's name and phone number to the authorities, which itself demonstrates his closeness to his father. It was the father, Juan Miguel, who referred authorities to his Miami relatives and recommended them as the temporary guardians until arrangements could be completed for being reunited with his son. He had no reason to come to Miami or anywhere in America at that time, believing at each step that routine processing would result in his son's return, which was the rightful expectation based on both U.S. and international law (as later upheld by the courts). Even after his Miami relatives betrayed his trust by trying to turn Elián into a political cause (and the center of a media circus), he believed that prompt legal action to enforce routine laws would result in his son's prompt return; there was no reason for him to come to the U.S. When the Miami relatives plied their political cause into additional delays and it became clear that Juan Miguel's presence might facilitate an appropriate conclusion, he did come to the U.S. But he did NOT go to Miami, where unpredictable mobs swirled around the house where he son was being (now illegally) held, vowing not to let him leave. It was prudent not to venture into such conditions and risk stirring up unpredictable responses that could cause harm to Elián, himself and others. In any case, he is the father; why should he be the one to have to go into hostile territory, present himself to those illegally holding his son, and beg these usurpers to honor his rightful relationship? ...especially in the face of overwhelming evidence that they would never do so anyway? Juan Miguel wisely left such actions to the authorities, who rescued the boy in an operation of less than three minutes, and without injury or harm to anyone there. After Elián returned with his father to Washington, D.C., the Miami relatives were certainly willing to go there to seek a visit. Of course, because they were the outsiders who should do the asking, and because there was no condition threatening them there. To those who want to compare distant relatives petitioning a father in a safe location to kidnappers holding a child in a hazardous situation, I would ask: now that Elián is in Cuba, do you think these Miami relatives who "love him so much" will go there to see him?

"Congressional Republicans stand for 'family values'." Immediately after the rescue, several political initiatives by Republicans in both the Senate and House of Representatives were introduced seeking investigations or other oppositional efforts, though these have largely gone nowhere in the face of overwhelming support of the action by the general public. This willingness to divide a loving family clearly puts the lie to any claims that congressional Republicans support families or anything that could be called "family values." Any parent whose child was being held by distant relatives who refused a lawful order to give him back would demand federal action, and would be impatient with the many delays while "negotiating" with those who have no standing to make any demands. The real message here is that if Congressional Republicans disagree with your politics, and distant relatives happen to stumble into temporary care of your children, then as far as they're concerned, you shouldn't expect any help from the government to enforce your parental rights or to protect the sanctity of your family.

What next? The Miami Cuban extremists have done more than anyone else to create hardship in Cuba, by demanding an embargo to punish Castro which in reality only punishes their fellow countrymen who haven't had either the desire or the opportunity to leave yet. These same Miami Cubans, who will not tolerate any exemptions for anyone else, make sure that they get whatever travel exemptions they want, so they can visit relatives left behind, further demonstrating by their own travel back and forth a greater level of tolerance by the Cuban government than what they are otherwise willing to admit to. It is clear that the Castro government is cruel, dictatorial, oppressive and corrupt. That is not a point of controversy. The question is, what is our best strategy for dealing with dictators? In all other areas of the world, including Communist China, Korea, Vietnam, the former Soviet Union and other dictatorships both small and large, both left-wing and right-wing, we have found that constructive engagement affords the greatest opportunity for promoting positive change. The only thing different about Cuba is that Havana is 90 miles from the Florida coast, and a small band of rabble-rousing extremists in a swing state with enough electoral votes to get both political parties' attentions wants this embargo to stay. It is time that Americans took back control of American foreign policy and made decisions based on what is right, not what is politically expedient. It is time to end the embargo against Cuba and develop serious policies for working with Castro and planning for a future after he is gone.

Some very interesting information.

Yep! You hit the mother lode of all Reno apologists propaganda.

Congratulations.

I knew that would be you response. How predictable.

Care to break it down and debunk it?

"...take that child away from a loving, attentive father who was actively involved in daily parenting duties."

Unwed father, and abusive.

I would love to kinow how whoever wrote this had any insight into Elian's life prior to his ill-fated voyage.

"Agents were called because distant relatives, who had never seen Elián for most of his life and were assigned for temporary foster care, decided they wanted to keep the child even after the rightful father was in the country..."

"Agents were called?

LOL! The INS placed Elian in that home.

Since when is your great-uncle a distant relative? My grandparent's siblings are about as close a member of my family as one can get. They are my parents uncles and aunts.

The "rightful father"? Elian was illegitimate, born out of wedlock.

"Agents used excessive force (with comparisons to Ruby Ridge or Waco)."

BTW, that "rightful father" supposedly authorized the raid, and the use of force.

What IF there had really been guns there? Juan Miguel gambled with Elian's life just to get him a few weeks earlier? He said it was OK to engage in what according to the INS agents that you wish to support, may have turned out to be a gun battle?

I guess when facing Salomon, Juan Miguel would have provided the saw.

"This is only true if one accepts the premise that a life with more materialistic benefits and creature comforts and lots and lots of TOYS is more important than for a child who has already lost one parent to live with the surviving parent he has already bonded with."

An argument that would make a socialist proud! Never even bothers to mention the lack of freedom, or the human rights abuses...it equates living under a dictatorship to not having material possesions. Notice the "blame the US" argument that follows. Evil Americans not trading with Fidel are responsible for the failure of the Cuban economy.

"Elian's father met with U.S. officials, including Janet Reno (Attorney General) and Doris Meissner (INS Director)..."

That's a scary thought.

"This would have been a perfect opportunity for him to defect..."

No doubt! ROTFLMAO!!!!!!

"...and both Reno and Meissner would have been bound by American law..."

STOP IT!!!!! YOU"RE KILLING ME!!!!

ROTFLMFAO!!!!!

"The Miami Cuban extremists have done more than anyone else to create hardship in Cuba, by demanding an embargo to punish Castro..."

Dude! It's embarrasing that you even posted this on this site.

The "embargo" was demanded by US citizens, owners of the billions of dollars in property stolen by Castro after his take over.

You are quoting this socialist dribble to back up your argument?

And that's just part of it.

Here's a question for you.

In light of the fact that just a few miles up the road, radical Islamic terrorists planned the succesful attack of 9/11, how do you justify the actions of the INS?

Don't you think that they should have been paying a little more attention at the hundreds of terrorists entering the country, and a little less to a six year-old boy trying to have his day in Court?

Perhaps the INS should have left custody questions to the State Courts where they belonged.

Maybe if they had been doing their jobs then, or even now, 9/11 woiuld not have happened. Or at the very least, they would have not issued visas to the perpetrators of the attacks just a couple of weeks ago.

A LOOK INTO THE ABYSS

What Elian Tells Us About Ourselves

By Edward Zehr

"They have become, in the fullest sense of the term, Weimar Republicans."

"Oh no, the reader thinks upon seeing the subtitle of this piece, not another article about Elian. But this series of articles is only incidentally about Elian -- it's really about us and what is happening to us. The Elian affair is like a mirror that reflects our hidden face, the one we never identify with ourselves because we always imagine that it belongs to somebody else."

"For example, I get e-mail from people who have chanced to read one or more of these articles and drop me a cordial line or two just to let me know what a numbskull I am. After all, the way I tell the story is not the way they have heard it. If my version were correct it would mean that they have been grossly misinformed, and the implications of that are too terrible to contemplate."

"It would mean that in order to be properly informed they would have to stop skating over the surface of issues such as these, letting the anchor people do all the heavy lifting, and start doing their own thinking. But thinking can be kind of like work. Besides, a lot of people just don't quite have the hang of it. The raw material required to do one's own thinking consists of facts gathered from a wide variety of sources, not just the one that happens to materialize when the TV set is switched on."

"The "facts" presented by the mass media are typically folded into a smarmy batter of tendentious fiction calculated to elicit a response from the viewer that will be useful in advancing the hidden agenda which the presstitutes are paid to promote. The viewer, who does not comprehend that he or she is being manipulated responds emotionally, as though watching a soap opera or a TV series. After all, most people have a lot more experience responding emotionally to TV plots than they have at thinking critically and analytically. The script writer manipulates the emotions of the audience who respond in a predictable fashion. The viewers are being conditioned to react in a certain way. The leap from the semi-conscious emotional response evoked by TV "entertainment" to the conditioned response elicited by the politically motivated propaganda inserted into "news" presentations is a short one."

THE FACE IN THE MIRROR

"The black-shirted, brown-shirted and red-banner-waving totalitarians of the twentieth century missed the point on a grand scale. All that rough stuff is really unnecessary in building a totalitarian state. In fact, if overdone, it tends to give the game away. Goebbels was the one who had it right, not Himmler. Concentration camps are a drain on the economy. That doesn't mean that you cannot turn the occasional group of retrograde religious fundies into crispy critters if they offer sufficient provocation. (It adds to the entertainment value of the spectacle if you torment the kiddies with noxious gas for, oh say five or six hours prior to lighting the bonfire -- the imperial Romans knew about these things). After the flames subside it will all be seen as the fault of the fundies, of course. That sinister, shadowy countenance we sometimes catch sight of, however fleetingly, in the mirror is never our own."

"Not that the knock on the door in the middle of the night is completely passe. In fact, it can prove quite useful if the courts insist upon being tedious about due process and all that nausea, and balk at issuing the legal paperwork necessary to drag away the designated victim in strict conformance with the law. No matter, hardly anyone understands the law, and who is going to tell them -- the press? They are far too preoccupied writing puff-pieces about Janet Reno to shed any tears over the late, great Fourth Amendment. Mind you, the original Gestapo were such sticklers for observing regulations they actually used to knock before entering. (Germans tend to be polite almost to a fault -- they would never dream of using the familiar form of the personal pronoun with a stranger, even if they were bashing his head in). Our own ski-masked, ninja-clad mili-cops do their nocturnal knocking with a battering ram. Small wonder Europeans consider us to be somewhat gauche."

"One of the most disconcerting aspects of the Elian affair is the public's response to Reno's Raid on the Miami family of Elian Gonzalez, in which the boy was illegally seized and whisked away to a secluded stronghold where, according to some accounts, he is being drugged and indoctrinated by his Cuban communist keepers. Ah! smirk the Clinton/Castro apologists, you don't know that the kid is being drugged and indoctrinated. But the evidence for this is already considerable and is accumulating rapidly. The troubling thing is that the apologists do not know that the kid is NOT being drugged and indoctrinated, and what's worse, they don't even seem to care. What this amounts to is a desecration of everything this country is supposed to stand for. The indifference of the public to such an obscene spectacle bodes ill for the survival of liberty."

You want a police state...ruse of law--rhetoric

full blown anarchy---helter-reno-skelter---charles-clinton-manson...

all his little whores--sluts with X's on you foreheads---hands...666!

Devilcrats---you---your kind!

Do you really think that Castro would allow any contact? The Cubans are NOT FREE.

Unwed father, and abusive.

I would love to kinow how whoever wrote this had any insight into Elian's life prior to his ill-fated voyage.

If Elian’s father was abusive, then I would agree that he should not have been returned to him. Also what knowledge do you have of Elian’s life prior to his arrival from Cuba. Are you friends of his relatives? I heard that Elian’s mother had not spoken to the relatives in many years. Is that true?

LOL! The INS placed Elian in that home.

Yes, as Elian’s only relatives in this country, Elian was placed in their care until his case was resolved. Here is a fact that you don’t know and won’t like. The INS paid the family to care for Elian. That’s a fact.

Since when is your great-uncle a distant relative? My grandparent's siblings are about as close a member of my family as one can get. They are my parents uncles and aunts.

I’m almost 40, and have only seen my great uncle 2 or 3 times. I would consider him a distant relative. It all depends on your family structure. As I understand it, most Latino families are very large and very close, so that may not be the case for Elian. But, Elian was only 5 at the time he arrived here and to my knowledge, had never seen any of these family members before. So to him they was all strangers at first.

The "rightful father"? Elian was illegitimate, born out of wedlock.

That I did not know, but even if Elian was born out of wedlock, Juan Miguel was his father.

BTW, that "rightful father" supposedly authorized the raid, and the use of force.

Pure propaganda on your part. Juan Miguel had no input into the raid, and I would bet hen did not know when or if a raid was going to happen.

What IF there had really been guns there?

Do you know if there were not guns there? Just because a gun battle did not happen, does not mean the family did not have guns available to them. This is a fact neither you nor I can confirm, unless you have intimate knowledge with the family.

An argument that would make a socialist proud! Never even bothers to mention the lack of freedom, or the human rights abuses...it equates living under a dictatorship to not having material possessions. Notice the "blame the US" argument that follows. Evil Americans not trading with Fidel are responsible for the failure of the Cuban economy.

Have no fear, I didn’t buy into this crap either. While Cuba is not the worst place to grow up, it is not the best and this materialistic crap is a bunch of BS.

As for Juan Miguel having the opportunity to defect, I’m sure the opportunity was there, but that does not mean he would take it. Everyone is different. Castro could have been holding someone in Cuba as an ”incentive” not to defect. I don’t know. But, some people would defect anyway and maybe some would not. Juan had the opportunity and chose his path.

"...and both Reno and Meissner would have been bound by American law..."

I thought that was funny too. The author left out Clinton though.

Dude! It's embarrassing that you even posted this on this site. The "embargo" was demanded by US citizens, owners of the billions of dollars in property stolen by Castro after his take over.

I posted this because you pointed me too it and I wished to hear your comments. I never said I believed it all or agreed with it all.

You are quoting this socialist dribble to back up your argument?

No, I posted it for your comments.

In light of the fact that just a few miles up the road, radical Islamic terrorists planned the successful attack of 9/11, how do you justify the actions of the INS?

The facts are:
1. Clinton dismantled our intelligence agencies and capabilities.
2. The terrorist that entered with INS knowledge had valid visa’s issued by the State Department, and if you were the INS officer at the time, you would have admitted them. At the time of there entry there was in indication that these folks were terrorist.
3. What little intelligence the CIA and FBI had on these guys was never shared with INS or State Department.

Don't you think that they should have been paying a little more attention at the hundreds of terrorists entering the country, and a little less to a six year-old boy trying to have his day in Court?

Maybe if the INS knew they were there they Elian would have slipped through the cracks. You lived with the terrorists, why didn’t you report them. Were you too worried about a six year old Cuban to worry about the terrorists in your backyard?

Perhaps the INS should have left custody questions to the State Courts where they belonged.

IMO they should have.

Maybe if they had been doing their jobs then, or even now, 9/11 would not have happened.

Maybe if Clinton had let the CIA and FBI do their jobs, 9/11 would not have happened. Once again, if you were the INS officer on duty, you would have let them in also, because you had no intelligence to let you know otherwise.

Or at the very least, they would have not issued visas to the perpetrators of the attacks just a couple of weeks ago.

Please. Don’t you read the news. What visa’s were issued a couple of weeks ago? None. No visa’s were issued. Stop spreading propaganda.

The visa’s in question were approved and issued prior to 9/11. The schools copy of Form I-20 was sent to processing center prior to 9/11. The processing center entered the data from the I-20 into the data base prior to 9/11. The policy at the time was to hold the I-20 for 180 days and then forward them to the school, which the contractor did. These I-20’s are what everyone is calling a visa. Everyone is wrong. This has been explained hundreds of times, but the ignorance of the American people knows no bounds.

What this amounts to is a... desecration---of everything this country is supposed to stand for."

"The indifference of the public to such an obscene spectacle bodes ill for the survival of liberty."

INS officers do not need a warrant to enter a house and apprehend an illegal alien.

That is in cases when risk of flight is clear. And I don't if that whole concept has been well-tested or well-developed in court. I think you guys are operating in seat-of-the-pants territory there.

Placing yourself at the luck of the court.

You want a police state...ruse of law--rhetoric---

full blown anarchy---helter-reno-skelter---charles-clinton-manson...

all his/her little whores--sluts with X's on you foreheads---hands...666!

Devilcrats---you---your kind!

"Also what knowledge do you have of Elian’s life prior to his arrival from Cuba."

At least as much as the person writing this crap you posted. Quite possibly a lot more.

"Are you friends of his relatives?"

I am not "friends" with the family of Lazaro Gonzalez.

"I heard that Elian’s mother had not spoken to the relatives in many years. Is that true?"

No, that's not true. Lazaro had traveled to Cuba to visit the family not long before Elisabet's ill-fated attempt at fleeing Cuba, there is video tape that shows Lazaro playing with Elian.

"Here is a fact that you don’t know and won’t like. The INS paid the family to care for Elian. That’s a fact."

I'm sure that this is some sort of INS regulation, I'm also sure that you can substantiate this.

"I’m almost 40, and have only seen my great uncle 2 or 3 times. I would consider him a distant relative."

Your grandfather's brothers and sisters are your parent's uncles and aunts. The fact that you consider them to be distant relatives says more about the inter-personal relations among your own family, than anything else.

"...to my knowledge, had never seen any of these family members before..."

I addessed that in my previous response.

"...but even if Elian was born out of wedlock, Juan Miguel was his father."

In the US, are out of wedlock fathers automatically awarded custody of children after the death of their mother? Don't bother looking that up, they're not. They have to go to court and sue for custody.

Elisabet conceived Elian years after her divorce from Juan Miguel.

"Pure propaganda on your part. Juan Miguel had no input into the raid..."

Widely reported by all major media outlets, mentioned by Reno in at least one interview that I can recall...don't fall into the trap of accusing others of spreading propaganda simply based on your lack of knowledge of the case. Most anyone familiar with the case knew that Elian was an illegitimate child, most knew about Lazaro's visit to Cuba...there are quite a few thing you didn't know about this case.

"Juan Miguel had no input into the raid, and I would bet hen did not know when or if a raid was going to happen."

Go ahead then, bet me.

"Castro could have been holding someone in Cuba as an ”incentive” not to defect..."

Widely reported fact that Juan Miguel's family was moved to a "security compound" in Cuba while JM was in the US. The older children of his new wife were part of those placed there "for their protection".


Publications	Issue List</FONT< a>	Vote Analysis	Main Page
May 10, 2000

Dick Morris: 'Clinton Would Do Anything to Placate Castro'
Was Reno's Predawn Raid
About Elian -- or Fidel?

"Fidel Castro can make Bill Clinton jump any time he wants to. . . . [W]hen the Cuban Air Force shot down a Cessna aircraft used by Cuban exiles to drop leaflets over Havana, Clinton spoke to me again of his fear of Castro. 'If I make him mad, he'll dump the Cubans on me again,' he worried aloud. 'I've got to be careful on this one.' Earlier this year, Castro again warned that, if provoked, he would dump more Cubans as the 2000 election approached. Once again, the warning seems to have sent Clinton into a tizzy. When Clinton has a fear (justified or not), [it] becomes an obsession which structures all the rest of his thinking. Haunted by scenes of boatloads of Cubans, fresh from jail or mental institutions, washing up on Florida shores, Clinton would do anything to placate Castro."
["Because Bill Fears Fidel," by former Clinton confidant Dick Morris, New York Post, 4/24/00]

The Santeros [i.e., practitioners of the Afro-Caribbean Santeria religion popular with many Cubans and Cuban-Americans] are now predicting the future of the Castro regime . . . is tied to the fate of Elian Gonzalez, who to them is the reincarnation of . . . a kind of Christ child. . . . They declared he was . . . divine . . . and that if he remained in Miami -- in other words, in exile -- Mr. Castro 'would fall.' [Elian] had to be brought back to Cuba for the protection of an atheist dictator who believes all of the Santeros' prophecies.
["Fears Fueling Castro's Fulminations," by exiled Cuban author Guillermo Cabrera Infante, Washington Times, 4/15/00]

Notwithstanding official assurances that the federal agent's finger was not on the trigger and that his automatic weapon wasn't even pointed at the six-year-old object of the predawn raid, tens of millions of Americans -- including many who favor the return of Elian Gonzalez to his father -- were outraged by images of an obviously terrified child being yanked from the arms of his fisherman-rescuer by a Border Patrol officer decked out in full battle gear. While public attention since then has focused largely on the mechanics of that seizure, there is a larger question at stake: what were the policy motivations that led to the seizure?
This paper explores the possibility that the brazen and unnecessary use of force to seize Elian is a result of Bill Clinton's fear (if former-Clinton-confidant-turned-harsh-critic Dick Morris is to be believed) of a flood of Cuban refugees threatened by Castro if the boy is not returned. In turn, there are those who assert that Castro's threat is based largely on the child's symbolic importance to the many Cuban followers of the Afro-Caribbean religion known as Santeria -- a symbolism significant enough to compel Castro to put his prestige on the line.
Elian's Seizure: An Abuse of Power
Criticism of the seizure to date has almost completely ignored issues of Clinton Administration policy toward Cuba; instead, critics of the raid -- including such demigods in the liberal legal firmament as Harvard law professors Laurence Tribe and Alan Dershowitz -- have focused on the secondary (though nonetheless important) questions of legal irregularities and abuse of power, such as --

In the absence of any danger to Elian's safety, why did Attorney General Janet Reno create such a danger by ordering an invasion of the home of American citizens by armed federal agents?

In trying to justify the action, why did she claim that talks regarding Elian's custody had broken down, when -- even at the very moment a federal SWAT team smashed its way into the Lazaro Gonzalez household -- telephone negotiations were continuing and agreement on custody was still possible, as confirmed even by attorney and Reno friend Aaron Podhurst, who was helping in mediation efforts?

Why did Reno base her raid's claimed legality on false assertions (that Elian was being "concealed" and "unlawfully restrained" in the Gonzalez home) used to secure warrants after business hours on Easter weekend from "a notoriously pro-government" federal duty magistrate who was "not familiar with the case" rather than from the federal district judge who had been handling the matter? [See "Reno's Raid Was Based on A Tissue of Lies," by law professor and former judge Andrew P. Napolitano, Wall Street Journal, 4/26/00.]

Why is the Reno Justice Department and the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) so adamant that the question of Elian's future be determined solely as an immigration question under the administrative purview of INS, rather than as a child custody matter before a Florida family court looking at the totality of the circumstances relevant to the boy's best interests -- even though federal officials (see below) initially indicated that was the proper venue for deciding his fate?

Beyond Abuse of Power, What are the Policy Motivations?

Adequate answers to the above questions would shed light on the lawlessness and anti-constitutionality of yet another example of the abuse of force that has become a hallmark of the Clinton/Gore Administration and of Reno's tenure as attorney general in particular. What is less likely to be explained, however, are the policy motivations that have led to an obvious and urgent insistence by the Administration that Elian be sent back to Cuba at all costs. (Literally, at all costs; expenses to INS and the U.S. Marshals as of May 3, 2000, totaled $762,000, including travel and overtime [abcNEWS.com, 5/3/00].) Thus, it is all the more imperative to understand what those policy motivations might be in light of the patently absurd justifications advanced to date by Administration officials (and nonofficial hirelings like Clinton impeachment defender Gregory Craig), such as a supposed concern for upholding the sacredness of parental rights by an Administration that has never before met a parental right it liked (see "Justice, State Departments Ignore Plight of American Children: Elian Case Prompts Clinton/Gore Officials to Shed Crocodile Tears for Parental Rights," 1/31/00), or the endlessly repeated vow to uphold "the rule of law" -- a protestation that in less tragic circumstances might be laughable coming from this most scandal-ridden Administration in American history.
Applying Occam's razor, an examination of the Clinton/Gore Administration's policy toward Castro's Cuba leads to a much simpler conclusion -- that Bill Clinton wants to give Elian Gonzalez back to Fidel Castro not because he cares about the boy -- or his father -- or the law -- but because Castro demands that he do so and Clinton is seemingly unwilling to face the wrath of the aging communist dictator. This explanation leads in turn to two other questions:

Why is Bill Clinton so afraid of Fidel Castro?

Why is Fidel Castro so afraid of Elian Gonzalez?

This paper will take a look at the possible answers following a brief review of Clinton/Gore policy toward Castro and his unreconstructed communist regime leading up to the Elian crisis.
The Ups and Downs of the Clinton/Castro Relations
In March 1996, as his presidential reelection campaign was getting underway, Bill Clinton signed the Helms-Burton Cuban Liberty and Democratic Solidarity (LIBERTAD) Act (P.L. 104-144), which denied visas to Cubans trafficking in confiscated American property and, more importantly, enacted into statute all existing Cuba embargo Executive Orders and regulations imposed beginning with the Kennedy Administration. No presidential waiver authority was included. Under the provisions of the LIBERTAD Act, Clinton would not be able (as he earlier did with Vietnam) to lift the economic embargo against Cuba as a prelude to normalization, unless Congress were to agree. Thus, by his signature -- in the politically charged aftermath of the downing by Castro of two private aircraft and the killing of United States citizens, forcing the Administration to reverse its previous opposition to the Act -- Clinton clearly made a calculation to sacrifice prospects for normalizing relations with Castro to the political needs of the moment. The effort paid off: in 1996 with substantial support from Cuban-Americans concentrated in the Miami/Dade County area, Clinton carried Florida, a state he had lost in 1992.
The 1996 Clinton political reversal on the LIBERTAD Act should be seen in light of the 1995 Cuban refugee crisis and his Administration's earlier efforts to improve relations with the communist Castro regime. Following anti-Castro demonstrations in August 1994, Castro -- in a move widely seen as a repeat of his use of the "migration bomb" against President Carter during the Mariel Boat Lift of 1980 -- announced his government would not interfere with persons who wished to leave Cuba by sea. In the ensuing months an estimated 35,000 Cubans set sail for Florida, resulting in a severe overloading of U.S. abilities to cope with the refugee tide, as well as the deaths at sea of an unknown number of Cubans. The Clinton Administration housed some 20,000 of the Cubans at the U.S. base at Guantanamo Bay, and opened a separate facility in Panama -- but the refugee flood continued.
Clinton Capitulates to Castro in 1995 . . .
By May 1995, Clinton capitulated. Reversing a 35-year-old policy of giving refuge to Cubans fleeing Castro, the Clinton/Gore Administration reached an agreement with Cuban officials to admit some 20,000 Cubans per year into the United States -- but to forcibly return to Castro any Cubans picked up at sea. (Indeed, according to the terms of that agreement, Elian and the two survivors rescued with him should have been returned to Cuba, since they had not actually made it to shore in the United States.) Senator Helms, Chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee, commented at the time: "For over 35 years, the United States has been a safe haven for Cubans fleeing Castro's repressive Communist dictatorship. Cuban-Americans feel that the Administration has joined with the Castro regime in an effort having the continuing effect of enslaving the people of Cuba." In effect, Castro had leveraged the migration threat into Clinton's giving him what he had never been able to get from any previous American president -- U.S. cooperation in preventing the escape of his human property. Attorney General Reno, defending the new policy, emphasized the U.S./Cuba cooperative aspects of the agreement: "These new procedures represent another step toward regularizing migration procedures with Cuba, finding a humanitarian solution to the situation at Guantanamo, and preventing another uncontrolled and dangerous outflow from Cuba" [New York Times, 5/3/95].
. . . But Castro's 1996 Cessna Shoot-down Stalls Rapprochement
By October 1995, having "regularized" the refugee problem, President Clinton announced new policy initiatives with regard to Cuba, including authorization for U.S. news organizations to open bureaus in Cuba and allowing non-governmental organizations to expand their activities in that country. But whether this step was intended to be followed up with an easing of trade sanctions and (based on the Vietnam precedent) eventual normalization may never be known. Instead, on February 24, 1996, Cuban MiGs shot down two unarmed Cessna aircraft belonging to a Miami-based exile group over international waters, forcing Clinton to reverse course and seemingly dooming any hope of improved Washington-Havana ties in the foreseeable future.
Elian Crashes Clinton/Castro Party, Round 2
By last year (notably with the May 1999 "baseball diplomacy" featuring exhibition games in Havana and Baltimore between the Cuban national team and the Baltimore Orioles), indications were that the Administration was ready to return to the rapprochement that had been rudely interrupted more than three years earlier. But once again, circumstances intervened, with the unexpected -- and to many in the Cuban exile community, miraculous -- rescue of Elian Gonzalez and two others on Thanksgiving Day, November 25, 1999. The Miami office of the U.S. Border Patrol (which is part of INS, and ultimately answerable to the attorney general) announced the following day the three survivors would be allowed to stay in the United States. As to Elian's safekeeping, federal officials unambiguously accepted the jurisdiction of the state courts for what was then portrayed as a simple child custody matter:

"Although INS has no role in the family custody decision process, we have discussed this case with the 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. . . . . 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."
[Response to Query, INS Office of Public Affairs, 12/1/99, emphasis added.]

State Department spokesman Jamie Rubin confirmed substantially the same position several days later [New York Times, 12/6/99]. For more than a week, it appeared that Elian simply would become one of the occasional exceptions to the rules, and that the incident would have little or no impact on U.S./Cuban relations. If Newsweek/Washington Post columnist George Will has his facts straight, this would hardly been seen as surprising -- Will claims the father was complicit in his son's flight to the United States:

"The Miami relatives say that three days before Elian was plucked from the sea, his father phoned to say that Elian and his mother were coming. Sprint telephone records confirm a collect call from Cuba to the relatives. When Elian's relatives visited him at the hospital on the day he was rescued, they called his father, who, they say, asked them to take care of Elian. It was not until after Castro's regime demanded the return of Elian . . . that his father was quoted as saying he now thought Elian had been kidnapped."
[Newsweek, 5/1/00]

Clinton and Reno Reverse Course
Then, on December 5, 1999, Fidel Castro launched the first of many public eruptions on state-owned media and, before massed (and regime-managed) rallies, demanded the return of the "kidnapped" Cuban child. A week later (December 13), the Clinton/Reno INS dispatched officials to Cuba to meet with Elian's father, Juan Miguel Gonzalez, for the purpose (as stated in press reports) of verifying that he was in fact the child's father and of finding out his wishes for his son. But according to Juan Miguel, the INS officials came to Cuba not just to verify -- but with a predetermined agenda:

"These people [the INS] have been on our side all along. They agree that he should be back here, that the child should be returned as soon as possible," a beaming Gonzalez said . . . ."
[Washington Post, 12/14/99; bracketed text in original; emphasis added]

The Post cites a unnamed U.S. official in Washington as calling the father's description of his meeting with the INS officials "absolutely erroneous." But was it? Following a second INS interview with Gonzalez in late December, INS Director Doris Meissner announced (January 5, 2000) that Elian must be returned to his father, a decision that Reno confirmed on January 12. Thus, the same Executive Branch agencies (INS, Justice, State) that had earlier been content to let the Florida courts determine the boy's status were visibly mobilized to assist in Elian's repatriation to his father in Cuba. They did so not as a matter of state child custody law (per INS's statement of December 1) but of federal immigration policy that would not even reach the larger issue of Elian's welfare. Having reversed their position on the venue and the legal criteria for determining the boy's custody, Clinton and Reno have never wavered in their determination to accomplish their new goal: ship the kid back to Cuba.
Fidel to Bill: 'Send Elian Back' -- or Else!
Clearly within a few weeks from late November to (at the latest) mid-December, something had caused the Clinton Administration to reverse course 180 degrees. The question is -- what? One plausible answer is given by a man who was formerly one of Bill Clinton's closest confidants, described by many as having been his alter ego: political consultant and commentator Dick Morris. While it is understood that Morris is no longer a Clinton confidant, and in fact has become one of his leading public critics, the views of a man who knows Clinton as well as does Morris should be given some weight:

"As Americans awoke and watched the sobbing boy at the other end of a Border Patrol machine gun, there was a universal question in their vicarious agony: Why? . . . What was the urgency? What was the immediate danger to this pitiful child that warranted this primitive violation of our trust in our government? Why was it so vitally important that a little boy . . . be returned to his father at this particular hour? Why did they have to act suddenly in the dark of the night? Why did Clinton and Reno have to make a 6-year-old have nightmares for the rest of his life? . . . Because Fidel Castro can make Bill Clinton jump any time he wants to."
["Because Bill Fears Fidel," New York Post, 4/24/00; emphasis added]

Clinton, Castro, and Cuban Refugees: Once Burned, Twice Shy
Morris goes on to describe what he calls Castro's "unique power" over Clinton stemming from his 1980 defeat for reelection as Arkansas governor due to his allowing then-President Jimmy Carter to store Cuban detainees (many of them criminals and mental patients) at Ft. Chaffee, Arkansas. Despite Carter's assurance they would be taken back to Florida before election day in Arkansas, they stayed; the detainees' presence and subsequent rioting and escapes became a campaign issue that -- Clinton firmly believes, writes Morris -- cost him the state house. Morris states this is not speculation but that Clinton related it to him in 1981.
Morris then asserts Clinton's renewed fears of Castro's migration bomb in 1995 (Clinton: "If I make him mad, he'll dump the Cubans on me again. I've got to be careful on this one.") -- again, he says, based on Clinton's personal statement to him. Finally, Morris takes us to the Elian crisis:

"Earlier this year [i.e., 2000] Castro again warned that, if provoked, he would dump more Cubans as the 2000 election approached. Once again, the warning seems to have sent Clinton into a tizzy. . . . Haunted by scenes of boatloads of Cubans, fresh from jail or mental institutions, washing up on Florida shores, Clinton would do anything to placate Castro."

In this printed account, Morris does not indicate either the mode of delivery or the degree of specificity of the warning. But his explanation -- that Fidel Castro knew just the right button to push -- fits with the Administration's apparent rush to do Castro's bidding, employing all the coercive force available to the Executive Branch of the American government.
Santeros See Elian as Divine Harbinger of Freedom
If the Clinton determination to return Elian to Cuba may be explicable as a simple Pavlovian response to a threat from Fidel Castro, the reasons behind Castro's seeming fixation on the boy's return are less obvious to most Americans. After all, with approximately a fifth of Cuba's total population now residing in exile, it seems one small boy hardly should matter to him. And this is after all the same tyrant who didn't bat an eye when his gunboats sank the tugboat Trece de Marzo in July 1994, drowning 10 children along with 22 adults.
So why has Castro seemingly staked his credibility and that of his regime on his ability to force the United States to return Elian? According to some observers, the answer may lie in the extraordinary -- even miraculous -- interpretation Elian's deliverance from the sea has assumed in the Cuban-American community and reportedly in Cuba itself. Unlike virtually all other Cuban fugitives pulled from Straits of Florida, Elian reportedly did not suffer from sores and sunburn. Further, by accounts current in the Cuban-American community, he was found escorted by dolphins protecting him in the shark-infested waters. "God wanted him here for freedom," his cousin told a Miami television station, echoing a common view in the Cuban-American community [Associated Press, 11/26/99].
But within days of his rescue, Elian's significance grew from the miraculous to the mystical, especially among the large element in the Cuban community familiar with the syncretic belief system known as Santeria, in which sacred persons in Roman Catholicism (with which the large majority of Cuban-Americans identify) have parallel identities as gods of African origin. (For example, the official patron saint of Cuba, la Virgen del Cobre, in Santeria is identified with the sea goddess Ochun.) [For further background on the presence of Santeria in the south Florida community, see the 1993 U.S. Supreme Court decision in Church of the Lukumi Babalu Aye v. City of Hialeah (508 U.S. 520). It should be emphasized that while many Cubans and Cuban-Americans adhere to Christian/Santeria parallelism, many others do not.] For those influenced by Santeria, Elian's identification with one of the most potent of the deities, Elegua, has profound political implications which Castro may well not be able to ignore:

"Every year Santeria, the African-rooted religion popularly practiced in Cuba, publishes its horoscope. . . . The Santeros are now predicting the future of the Castro regime as it is tied to the fate of Elian Gonzalez, who to them is the reincarnation of Elegua, a kind of Christ child in Cuba's mix of Catholic- and Santeria-influenced culture. . . . Many Catholic believers have no doubt that Elian is the reincarnation of the Christ Child [who], according to Santeria, is one of the 21 forms that the Elegua takes. As soon as the Santeros learned of Elian's fate . . . , they declared he was a divine Elegua and that if he remained in Miami -- in other words, in exile -- Mr. Castro 'would fall.' The Elegua had to be brought back to Cuba for the protection of an atheist dictator who believes all of the Santeros' prophecies. Soon after these predictions became known, Mr. Castro began his speeches, roaring threateningly, as he always does."
["Fears Fueling Castro's Fulminations," by Guillermo Cabrera Infante, Washington Times, 4/15/00, emphasis added.]
"A mural near the house of Lazaro Gonzalez, Elian's great-uncle, depicts Elian inside an inner tube in rough seas, surrounded by dolphins. A woman resembling the Virgin Mary stands over him, and a pair of giant outstretched hands reach down from the sky. Many . . . also say Elian's account of being protected by dolphins . . . has theological implications. . . . A pamphlet circulating among the crowd, said to have been published in Cuba, accuses Castro of being obsessed with Santeria, an Afro-Cuban religion. It compares Elian with 'Elegua,' a chosen child in the religion. 'Elegua, the chosen one -- the boy who opens and leads the way -- moved away from Fidel and with him went his luck,' the pamphlet says."
["In Elian's Neighborhood, Images of God Multiply," Associated Press, 4/7/00, emphasis added.]
"Juan Carlos Formell, a Grammy-nominated Cuban musician who left a life of material luxury to defect in 1993, compared Castro's obsession with Elian to the Bible's King Herod, who wanted to kill the baby Jesus. Noting that Cuba's patron saints are always pictured holding a child over water, and Cuban Santeria folklore venerates anyone rescued at sea, Mr. Formell said that Mr. Castro is well aware of the powerful symbol Elian represents for Cubans. 'Fidel Castro's hysterical insistence on the return of the child is based on his knowledge of this icon,' he said. 'In his mind, the future of the regime rests on regaining this child.'"
[Washington Times, 3/2/00, emphasis added.]

Although Castro is an atheist and a communist, some Cuban exiles flatly state that he believes in the Elian/Elegua identification (which may also be influenced by the superficial similarities of the god's name and the child's, a combination of his mother "Elisabet" and his father "Juan"). Others believe it more likely that he places no credence in the Elegua idea but is aware that large numbers of Cuban-Americans do believe. (And even more disquieting for him, believers in Elian/Elegua may include Cubans in Cuba, if the one pamphlet noted above was in fact published underground in Cuba.) The possibility that Elian could become a rallying point with an unpredictable spiritual dimension ultimately impacting the stability of Castro's autocratic reign might explain why -- after about a week when the depth of the Elian reverberations were becoming clear -- Castro broke his silence and whipped up the return-Elian campaign and delivered his ultimatum to a pliant Clinton Administration. Conversely, a successful return of Elian to Cuba would not only be seen as yet another triumph over America but as a humiliating defeat for the anti-Castro Cuban exile community, which historically has been a major obstacle to normalized relations. Moreover, it would demonstrate that Castro's power is greater than that of any mysticism ideas connected with Elian.
For Castro, Elian to Be a Revolutionary Icon?
And what if Elian is returned to Cuba? Only the most naive of observers would expect that he would be allowed a normal life with his father and his stepmother (or as normal a life as any child can have in Cuba today; see "A Firsthand Account of Child Abuse, Castro Style," by exiled Cuban dissident Armando Valladares, Wall Street Journal, 5/5/00). In fact, for all of the sanctimonious and saccharine solicitousness of Administration officials for reuniting father and son, White House press spokesman Joe Lockhart would not even confirm, despite repeated questioning, that the Clinton Administration had even asked, much less received, any assurance that Elian would be permitted to live with his father if he is returned to Cuba [see RPC's "Could the Answer Be . . . NO? Has Clinton Gotten Assurances that Elian Would Be with His Father and Not with Fidel? Clinton's Mouthpiece Won't Say," 4/27/00].
Given the total subordination of family life to the dictates of the Cuban communist regime and party, few people in the Cuban exile community, who have experienced communist family policy first-hand, believe Elian would be returned to his father in any meaningful sense. One who speaks with special authority is Fidel Castro's daughter, Alina Fernandez, who escaped in 1993 and now lives in Spain. She warns that Elian faces an army of psychiatrists and psychologists who will "brainwash" him of the taint of his American experience (for example, having been to Disney World), and that if he's lucky he'll spend his life as a revolutionary icon in a kind of "golden jail" already prepared for him ["Fox Hannity & Colmes," Fox News Network, 4/18/00]. Conversely, if his reprogramming does not go well, she warns, he may be hailed as a hero upon his return but later may simply "disappear somewhere" [Newsmax.com interview, 4/18/00].

Perhaps most disturbing is the extraordinary deference the Clinton Administration has afforded to Castro thus far in allowing Mr. Gonzalez and his forcibly "returned" son to be kept in what amounts to a little patch of totalitarian Cuba on American soil, and even allowing Castro's secret police to assault peaceful demonstrators with impunity [see "Castro's Thugs Beat Us Up -- in Washington," by Brigida and Jorge Benitez, Wall Street Journal, 2/25/00]. While Elian's handlers have found time to show him off to top-dollar Democratic Party contributors ["Elian Gets a Look at Georgetown Fat Cats: Hosts Bristle at Suggestions the Boy Was Displayed for Democratic Contributors," Washington Times, 5/9/00; "Elian & Dad Dine at Ritzy Estate," New York Post, 5/8/00], no access of the Miami family or of any independent observers has been permitted. Thus, it would be difficult to say with any degree of certainty that Elian has not already begun to be subjected to reprogramming in preparation for his asylum hearing in federal court scheduled for tomorrow, May 11. But that possibility is no more likely to trouble the consciences of Bill Clinton and Janet Reno than did the violent outrage they perpetrated in the early morning hours of Holy Saturday, April 22, 2000. In fact, the urgent need to ensure Elian's acceptable performance in his court appearance may be the best explanation of why they concluded the child had to be removed from his Miami family without delay with whatever force might be necessary and placed in the hands of Castro's agents.

To: luis gonzalez; aloha ronnie; gg188; mslady; rmdupree; tadams8591

Bump for Elizabet, Lazaro, Maryisleysis, Donato and Judicial Watch!

52 posted on 3/31/02 4:11 AM Hawaii-Aleutian by f.Christian

Should have been Judicial Watch and St. Jude---sorry!

Never forget, though it hurts like **** to remember. What do we know of Marisleysis, where is she now? I will never forget her looking into the cameras, accusing clinton and his minions. I thanked her then, and now, for speaking out for us all. I hope she is well, and keep her in my prayers. Does she know this? I hope so...

Never forget.