At 6:56 PM -0400 4/24/00, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: >No matter what your position is, there are three points about which we >should all be concerned. However, since we have all grown so stupid and >comfortable, I doubt any of you will have the balls to say "Enough is >enough". Being factually wrong on your main points is a serious problem here: First, members of the Legislative Branch of Government do not have any special powers to enter military bases, crawl down into silos, board submarines, enter laboratories, or, indeed, even enter the offices of workers in other branches of government or even offices of others in their own branch. They can hold hearings, they can pass laws, but they cannot simply enter Los Alamos National Lab or the U.S.S. Chelsea or Andrews AFB. Furthermore, specific security practices are part of law, passed at some time by Congress itself. > >2) This was the first time in US history that such a raid has been conducted >on a private residence without any type of court order, warrant, etc., >whatsoever. Janet Reno should have taken her issue before an impartial >judicial panel and gotten a warrant. But instead she took it all into her >own hands. She and she alone decided who should have custody and moved on >it. You may agree that the father should have him right now, but the point >is that we have a procedure in law that was ignored. She knew you would >agree with her and would not mind her skipping the procedure. And most of >you applauded. If any of you still read the Constitution, you may want to >take a peak at Amendment IV before you applaud again. This was not the first time an unwarranted raid has occurred. Oh, and there _was_ a warrant, duly issued Friday night. You are thus doubly wrong. > >3) Even though the TV news has repeatedly told you otherwise, the Miami >relatives have not broken any laws whatsoever. There is no law written >anywhere on any books in which they were in violation. Nonsense. They were holding a child who belonged to his father. No special Act of Congress is needed to return a child in this situation to his father, no more so than if my son were being held by my neighbors. "But we think your son belongs with us. You will need to get Congress to pass a special law saying we are wrong. No government agency can come and take your son from us." Bizarre logic. Elian became a pawn in a power game between the Cubans in Miami and the Cubans in Havana. The law supports a surviving parent getting his child back, whether that parent is Cuban or Iraqi or Mumbojumarian. Claims that a 6-year-old child can seek political asylum because he fears persecution are absurd. If and when Elian goes back to Cuba he will likely be showered by parades, toys, etc. (Not that this changes the basic argument, but it's useful to remember.) If the whiners are really worried about a 6-year-old boy coming into America, why are they not lobbying to let in the tens of thousands of Cubans returned each year? How about the Chinese found in the holds of ships and returnedby the thousands to the PRC? Or how about the millions of illegal aliens in the U.S.? Why not apply the "Elian has a right to stay here" principle to these millions? (Personally, I'd get rid of all immigration laws. But also get rid of all transfer payments, unemployment benefits, welfare, subsidized medical care, subsidized schools, etc. Let all come who want to, but give them none of my money, none of my taxes, none of my labor. If a few million starve, there will then be fewer penniless immigrants arriving. Sounds like a normal feedback loop.) --Tim May -- ---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---- Timothy C. May | Crypto Anarchy: encryption, digital money, ComSec 3DES: 831-728-0152 | anonymous networks, digital pseudonyms, zero W.A.S.T.E.: Corralitos, CA | knowledge, reputations, information markets, "Cyphernomicon" | black markets, collapse of governments.
