Freedom Forum Salutes Elian

Yahoo! News ^ | Feb. 8, 2002 | Anita Snow, Associated Press Writer

[Tickle Me Pank]

An absolute textbook operation, wasn't it? Of course it scared the sh*t out of Elian, but the family chose to have it done that way. They were warned, and chose not to heed. I would have gone in fully armed, too, after Maryslesis and others made the comments about having weapons, and that it would take force before they surrendered the child.

The INS' big mistakes were 1) - temporarily paroling Elian to his distant relatives in Miami to begin with, and 2) - not revoking the temporary parole the second that the Miami Gonzalez's 'applied' for asylum for Elian.

chimera:

For all the criticism of the Gonzales family, justifiable or not (not), at least I am able to see the moral difference between whatever they may have "lawyered", and the actions of the thuggish Clintonoids in ordering armed stormtroopers into a peaceful home in the middle of the night on the weekend of a holy week, and shoving an automatic weapon in the face of a six-year-old child.

Sure, why not? The CANF saw the child a a political football from day one, thus the lawyering up on Thanksgiving weekend, and the appearance of Elian's picture on protest posters in Seattle the very next week.

chimera:

Politicization? You don't really want to go there.

[Victoria Delsoul]

Sure will.

[chimera]

An absolute textbook operation, wasn't it?

Sure. So were Babi Yar, Treblinka, Auschwitz, and any other number of bloody and heinous operations. Don't go any deeper or you'll end up drowning in blood. But, then again, maybe you like that...?

Of course it scared the sh*t out of Elian, but the family chose to have it done that way. They were warned, and chose not to heed.

Right, just like the families of Anne Frank and a few million others were warned and chose not to heed. Might makes right, eh? Man, you're one cold-hearted monster, you know that? Are you sure you're not an ex-Clinton apparatchik?

I would have gone in fully armed, too, after Maryslesis and others made the comments about having weapons, and that it would take force before they surrendered the child.

A really credible threat, that (if it was ever made to begin with). But, hey, why stop with busting down doors and kidnapping family members at gunpoint? Why not just kill everybody there, to "teach them and those like them" a lesson? After all, you never know, someone may have whispered something to someone else who passed it on to their cousin who mentioned it to his friend on a streetcorner who blabbed to his neighbor who was an informant for the INS that maybe someone had a deadly weapon, say, a butter knife, in the kitchen, just ready to whip out and assualt one of the brave and noble thugs, er, I mean, agents, who stormed that fortified stronghold of anti-government resistance there in Little Havana. I mean, your mentors (Caligula, Hitler, Stalin, Clinton, et al.) paved the way on how to deal with "undesirables".

Sure, why not?

Well, you see, there's this inconvenient little problem, which is the recognition of the inherent right of the people to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures, specified in an inconvenient little document called the Bill of Rights. And there is this other little problem that most civilized, less bloodthirsty people have, called decency, morality, ethics. IOW, notions that seem foreign to you, as they are to most cold-hearted fiends. But, then again, if history teaches us anything, it's that there will always be butchers around who will do the bloody bidding of their masters, and get their jollies in the process by sticking guns in the faces of inncoent children and watching them scream in mortal fear.