Clinton DID send Elian back. The Justice Department raid was conducted because of the very real probability that Lazaro would have won in court.

Juan Gonzales' wishes were as irrelevant as yours or mine. Clinton wanted the boy returned to Cuba, and that's the only reason it happened. Had Clinton wanted the boy to remain in the US, he'd still be here.

A.) how do you know that he accepts what he says he accepts?

Well, I just assume that other people speak for themselves and you don't. Fancy that.

B.) you just made a giant case for children not being allowed to make their own decisions until they reach the age of majority.

No. I didn't make this case. I was born into a world governed this way for time without memory.

Did Clinton ask Elian what he wanted before he sent him back?

No. Clinton didn't send Elian back. Elian's father made the decision. If Elian's father had decided otherwise, Elian would still be here. A state decision overruling the father is what you're advocating here.

What? Now we're back to the age of majority?

We never left.

Okay. Of course, like all the other Cubans boarding rafts in the dead of night to float to Miami, he'll totally just be able to leave if he wanted.

I don't know how free he'll be, but I do know that thousands of Mexicans and other foreign nationals make similar trips every year, probably thousands every day in fact, and they aren't violating Cuban law. They're violating U.S. law.

You have no clue what it is to become a dissident in a country like Cuba.

I don't claim this knowledge and never have. You have no clue what it is to be Elian's father or grandmother, much less Elian himself.

Morons used to come to the Soviet Union, observe select locations under close observation and come back to the U.S. extolling the virtues of communism because they didn't see any of the horror that refuges described.

So? I've been a libertarian since before I could vote. I've never been to the Soviet Union or extolled its virtues.

They even called us refuges "disgruntled". You remind me of these people, Martin. Sadly. Very sadly.

Strange how I've never called you or anyone else "disgruntled" yet I remind you of these people. You don't have a shred of evidence for this claim either, but you do have a problem distinguishing your imagination from reality.

If I put a gun to your head and forced you to say that you believed you were the prettiest ballerina in the world, then we should all believe that you think that because you said it.

So someone could be putting a gun to your head right now, and you can't prove that no one is doing it; therefore, nothing you say is believable, and your personal autonomy is forfeit? Why don't you just write me the check for $500,000 now. Any protest that you don't owe it to me clearly can't be trusted.

But we have tons and tons of evidence that these regimes do just that.

You have tons of evidence, and I'm only asking you for a shred, but I can't even get that out of you.

So, because you don't know what these people really think and you're only going off what they stated publicly, your evidence is suspect and not worth very much.

No, I don't pretend to have any evidence disproving a gun to the grandmothers' and father's heads. I can't prove that George W. Bush wasn't on the phone with Osama bin Laden on 9/10 planning 9/11 either. I can't prove countless negatives. Disproving conspiracy theories is not my burden. I won't lose bit of sleep over it tonight.

Before you go off the deep end again, I don't know for sure either (you'll ignore this bit in your response, I'm sure) but I'm not willing to accept your evidence on its face because it would require me to ignore a mountain of evidence that families are routinely coerced in these situations.

I don't offer any evidence that Elian's father and grandmothers weren't coerced other than their own testimony. It's their words you deny here, not mine. You don't believe what people tell you about their own will. Everyone else is going off the deep end while you have them all figured out. That must be reassuring.

I repeat, in a proper world where we knew the exact familial relationship between Elian and his father, and that relationship was not obviously abusive or life threatening then I would agree that the father has rights regarding Elian that no state can rightfully trump.

No. Parents enjoy a presumption. It's not necessary for anyone to prove that Juan Gonzalez is not an abusive father. It's necessary for someone to prove that he is abusive to overcome the presumption. That's the law in my neck of the woods anyway.

We know that both of Elian's grandmothers sided with the father, including the mother of Elian's dead mother. The best his detractors can do is claim that the grandmothers acted under duress, that they flew to Miami and then to Washington with guns at their backs, though the detractors don't have a shred of evidence to support this conspiracy theory either.

Again for your seeming obtuseness, we do know some facts and the known facts all point to the very real probability that there was no, or very little, relationship there, …

O.K. What is this evidence? Juan Gonzalez contacted his uncle in Miami before Elian arrived, before the accident at sea was reported. Both grandmothers supported him. During the asylum petition, the 11th Circuit found that Juan Gonzalez "continued to have regular and significant contact with his son" after separating from Elian's mother.

… and the very real probability that Elian would have a more privileged life and more potential to develop that life here in the USA is extremely high.

He'd likely have been richer here, but the same is true of most children south of the border. Are you advocating open borders now? All the Mexicans and Columbians and Guatemalans and Salvadorans and Venezualans are welcome too? They just need to find adoptive parents in the U.S. regardless of their own parents wishes?

Having seen communism, and its affect on individual people as well as the whole body of people in all respects, up close and personal I can tell you without doubt I would refer be a ordinary privileged slave in the USA than a highly placed official slave in a communist regime.

That's your choice, and I don't propose to take it from you. You're the one suggesting that Elian Gonzalez should be here despite the expressed wishes of his father and both of his grandmothers, not to mention his own expressed wishes. I don't prefer your state-ments to theirs.

Okay, first of all, I don't roll out of bed for less than $500,000. Second, it'll take a lot more get me to both roll out of bed and take a trip to Cuba.

It's what they say. Their own testimony is my evidence.

If I put a gun to your head and forced you to say that you believed you were the prettiest ballerina in the world, then we should all believe that you think that because you said it. How do we know that there's a gun to the family's and Elian's head? We don't. But we have tons and tons of evidence that these regimes do just that. The probability is high. So, because you don't know what these people really think and you're only going off what they stated publicly, your evidence is suspect and not worth very much. Before you go off the deep end again, I don't know for sure either (you'll ignore this bit in your response, I'm sure) but I'm not willing to accept your evidence on its face because it would require me to ignore a mountain of evidence that families are routinely coerced in these situations.

but Elian himself declares allegiance to it for the moment….. "Slavery" is your hysterical description of a condition that Elian himself expressly accepts.

A.) how do you know that he accepts what he says he accepts?

B.) you just made a giant case for children not being allowed to make their own decisions until they reach the age of majority. Did Clinton ask Elian what he wanted before he sent him back?

When Elian reaches the age of majority and ceases to accept his life in Cuba and may not leave the country, you let me know.

What? Now we're back to the age of majority? Okay. Of course, like all the other Cubans boarding rafts in the dead of night to float to Miami, he'll totally just be able to leave if he wanted. You have no clue what it is to become a dissident in a country like Cuba. Morons used to come to the Soviet Union, observe select locations under close observation and come back to the U.S. extolling the virtues of communism because they didn't see any of the horror that refuges described. They even called us refuges "disgruntled". You remind me of these people, Martin. Sadly. Very sadly.

I'm going to rename this thread "The Tragedy of Martin" in honour of you. Imagine sad music playing in the background as I type this in my gym clothes. I will now have to work out an extra hour to build up enough endorphins to offset my disappointment in you. Thanks a lot.

Let's see. How do you know all that?

It's what they say. Their own testimony is my evidence. You claim that your testimony about what they "really" think is better evidence. Your whole argument is incredibly authoritarian. Other people don't know their own will. You know it.

No, Martin, you BELIEVE and we all know that's much better than KNOWING.

You don't answer a single, specific question about the subject, and you presume to lecture Elian's father and his closest family and Elian himself about Elian's life. Then you accuse me of pretending to KNOW. It's laughable.

Life as a slave to the state sucks worse than a life of freedom.

I don't see everything in terms of the state. I don't like his state, but Elian is not a slave as a matter of fact. He's subject to another state, and it's more feudalistic than I like, but Elian himself declares allegiance to it for the moment. If he and his family were subject to the United States instead, my position would be exactly the same, because politics is not my rationale.

Slavery is harmful. A parent who chooses slavery over freedom for his child is harmful. The choice his father made was harmful.

"Slavery" is your hysterical description of a condition that Elian himself expressly accepts.

I'll make you a wager. When Elian reaches the age of majority and ceases to accept his life in Cuba and may not leave the country, you let me know. I'll buy both of us tickets to Cuba. We'll ignore the law and go by way of Jamaica, and I'll march down a street in Havana carrying a sign reading "Free Elian Gonzalez". If I don't, I owe you $10,000. If I do, you repay me for both tickets. Deal?

Yeah. I notice you like to exempt yourself from burdens that you claim others should shoulder. Must be nice.

No, it's not what I think you shoulder. It's what you do shoulder. You're here, because your parents brought you here. I think it's great that they did it, and I'm happy that you're happy with the change, but I don't therefore want you entitled to make the same decision for other children over the objections of their parents.

It has been hilarious as usual. V.I. Lenin, Stalin, Castro, Chavez, etc. all relied on folks like you to survive. Of course, folks like you never understood that they were useful idiots who shilled for the state without realizing they were shilling for the state. If they did realize, they would cease to be useful idiots. That happened, so I have hope for you yet. Unfortunately, I'm deeply disappointed with you right now, Martin. I must now go and work off that deep disappointment at the gym. Ciao!

Well, if you say so. Because who would know more about me than you?

ME: It's about protecting a human being's right …

You: What's his middle name? How tall is he? What's his favorite food? Is he allergic to anything?

If I knew his middle name and that he had a crooked toenail on his middle toe on his left foot, then I could fight to protect his right to live in freedom. If, on the other hand, I don't know any of those things but know his case, then I have no right to stand in Castro's way as he comes to collect his property. Gotcha. If you are unjustly imprisoned, I would have no right to ask for your release because I don't know what kind of cookies you eat as a snack and I don't know anything about your allergies – except your allergy to logic (but I don't think you'll find that enough). Makes total sense.

Let's see. His father doesn't want your protection, and neither of his grandmothers want your protection, and he's now fourteen and doesn't want your protect…

Let's see. How do you know all that? That smells an awful lot like pretending to know all about the "real Elian" and all about his glorious life in Cuba to me, Martin. Pray tell, how do you happen to know all this?

It's not about my politics.

Of course, it's about your politics. It couldn't possibly be about anything else. Vague, political propositions are all you know about the case. Your words here clearly indicate as much.

It's about protecting a human being's right …

What's his middle name? How tall is he? What's his favorite food? Is he allergic to anything?

Let's see. His father doesn't want your protection, and neither of his grandmothers want your protection, and he's now fourteen and doesn't want your protect himself, and you hardly know a thing about him, but you speak for the "real" Elian, while Elian himself and everyone closest to him doesn't know what's good for him.

That's "liberty" as defined by statesmen alright.

Just because that human being hasn't reached the age of majority doesn't mean he is free to be condemned to slavery.

All children are subject to their parents before the age of majority, just as you were. Your political hysterics don't overcome Elian's fathers choice and his grandmothers' choices and his own choice. You'll need to get over that.

No, Martin, you BELIEVE and we all know that's much better than KNOWING.

No, parents have rights that yield only to very persuasive and powerful evidence of harm to their children. The burden of proof is yours.

Life as a slave to the state sucks worse than a life of freedom. Slavery is harmful. A parent who chooses slavery over freedom for his child is harmful. The choice his father made was harmful.

I have no similar burden.

Yeah. I notice you like to exempt yourself from burdens that you claim others should shoulder. Must be nice.

I'm having a hard time taking you seriously right now, Martin.

Who cares what you believe, Martin?

No one. Elian Gonzalez doesn't know that I exist either, and that's fine.

If our beliefs about what happened are irrelevant BS, so are yours.

No, parents have rights that yield only to very persuasive and powerful evidence of harm to their children. The burden of proof is yours. I have no similar burden. I don't pretend to know all that you must pretend to know about Elian's life in Cuba. I only know that you haven't met your burden.

Again, don't be a useful idiot, Martin. Put that copious IQ to work. It's not about my politics. It's about protecting a human being's right to freedom versus condemning him to a lifetime of slavery to the state. Just because that human being hasn't reached the age of majority doesn't mean he is free to be condemned to slavery.

I haven't suggested that he was promised anything.

No, you didn't. I did.

He became a member of the national assembly several years after the event as a matter of fact.

Um…exactly my point.

Who cares what you believe, Martin? Every one of your posts can be summed up thusly: "it doesn't matter what you believe, without iron-clad proof all you say is so much irrelevant bullshit." If our beliefs about what happened are irrelevant BS, so are yours.

It is sad to see you've escaped your aviary again.

You could, and did say much the same to me:

"You believe that your politics trumps the proper, familial relationship between Elian Gonzalez and his father.
Posted by: Martin Brock | Jun 17, 2008 6:16:25 PM"

But, instead of reading and understanding you much prefer the mulberry bush chase.

I repeat, in a proper world where we knew the exact familial relationship between Elian and his father, and that relationship was not obviously abusive or life threatening then I would agree that the father has rights regarding Elian that no state can rightfully trump.

If we knew nothing about Cuba, communism, Castro, Elian's relationship with his dad,
his dad's feelings toward Elian, and nothing about the USA; and, it was all a mystery, then I would still support the father's rights regarding the child over anything claimed by the state.

Again for your seeming obtuseness, we do know some facts and the known facts all point to the very real probability that there was no, or very little, relationship there, and the very real probability that Elian would have a more privileged life and more potential to develop that life here in the USA is extremely high.

Having seen communism, and its affect on individual people as well as the whole body of people in all respects, up close and personal I can tell you without doubt I would refer be a ordinary privileged slave in the USA than a highly placed official slave in a communist regime.

Now go chase yourself around the mulberry bush, you are in the USA and privileged to make a fool of yourself.

Again, you have no evidence of any coercive measures directed against Juan Gonzalez or Elian's other family in Cuba at the time.

Sure we do. We have countless stories from Cubans who escaped from those coercive measures. As well as the testimony of a personal friend of Janet Reno's who moderated the visit of Elian with his grandmothers:

When I agreed to provide a neutral meeting place at the Barry University president's house for 6-year-old Elian Gonzalez and his grandmothers, I expected to witness a meaningful visit. But I had no idea that what I saw would be so powerful that it would change my mind, persuading me that Elian should not be returned — at least for now — to his father in Cuba.

…. the delay of the grandmothers at the airport allowed Elian to spend an extra hour at the house before they arrived. I had a chance to see, firsthand, the strong bond between Elian and the Miami cousin who has taken care of him since his mother died in the same attempt to escape Cuba by boat that set him adrift.

His cousin is only a year younger than his mother was, and as he glanced at her for reassurance before the meeting and greeted her ecstatically afterward, it became clear to me that he has transferred his maternal love to her.

As I watched the grandmothers' Cuban escort keep close telephone contact with Havana during and after the visit, I came to feel that the Cuban government was attempting to exert control over these events. Even more troubling, I saw signs of anxiety in both the Miami relatives and the grandmothers: trembling, furtive looks, ice-cold hands.

I saw fear in Elian, too, and I became a wiser woman at that moment, wincing at my own naivete. I considered what it would mean for this boy suddenly to be ripped away from his surrogate mother, how this second trauma might scar him permanently. I saw and felt, at that moment, how wrong it would be to return Elian hastily to Cuba.

Also, the Cuban 'diplomat' who kept telling the Clinton Admin that Elian (and all Cuban children) was the property of Fidel Castro, somewhat undercuts your argument that Elian's father made a free choice, don't you think, Martin?

All these years I thought the middle-of-the-night raid was ordered by the Attorney General of the United States.

Yes, it was, and it was a travesty, but that's beside the point. If some statesman drops a nuclear weapon on a thief fleeing your house, I suppose that's an overreaction, but it's still your house.

Please point out exactly where I'm wrong about this?

You aren't wrong at all. Reno's not Elian's father either. I'd like to see her locked up for the storm troop stunt, but that's beside the point.

THIS case was resolved in a political manner. Your presumption that because I recognize that THIS was a political decision, that I believe that politicians are responsible for everything is nonsense.

The case was neck deep in politics. That's the problem with it.

You believe that your politics trumps the proper, familial relationship between Elian Gonzalez and his father.

Gee, Martin,

All these years I thought the middle-of-the-night raid was ordered by the Attorney General of the United States. I thought that that particular AG was a political appointment made by President Clinton, and as such that she was a member of the Clinton Administration. Please point out exactly where I'm wrong about this?

THIS case was resolved in a political manner. Your presumption that because I recognize that THIS was a political decision, that I believe that politicians are responsible for everything is nonsense.

Why should we believe that it was acting any differently in this case?

I don't believe it was. I believe that Juan Gonzalez wanted his son back in Cuba with his two grandmothers after the boy nearly drowned in the Atlantic along with his mother. If the father did consent to the trip, I suppose he might have wanted the boy back even more, having nearly killed him.

If you weren't viewing the man through your political prism, you might understand his motiviation similarly. I only need to believe that he's as human as I suppose you to be. Most people are. You aren't special.

And Castro's a tyrant, and Cuba is a stagnant, socialist monarchy too, all at the same time. I just don't elevate my political opposition to the Castro regime over my respect for a father's relationship with his son, because the latter is far more important to me. The politics is nothing by comparison.

Why oh why do you insist on playing the role of useful idiot, Martin?

You might as well call me a "capitalist lackey". Who cares?

You have no proof that he wasn't coerced.

More to the point, you have no proof that he was. My evidence that he wasn't are his own words. This evidence, however flawed, is more persuasive to me in this context than your words.

You didn't even know Juan Gonzalez' occupation. Without googling, what is his middle name? What is Elian's middle name? What was his mother's maiden name? What's his maternal grandmother's name? Where does he live? Who's his best friend, his best subject in school, his favorite movie? In his own words, why did he join the Cuban Communist Boy Scouts?

I've seen people sell out their children, their mothers, their siblings for far less than a seat on the National Assembly.

So what? Your vague, unsubstantiated insinuations and four bucks will buy me a gallon of gasoline.

So, you may be right. Elian's daddy may have been promised all manor of material incentives to bring the child home.

I haven't suggested that he was promised anything. He became a member of the national assembly several years after the event as a matter of fact. He's still a waiter in a restaurant. None of these facts shock me.

In that case, I don't think he was better qualified than I to decide where Elian lives because the very last thing he thought of is his child's welfare.

The boy came within a hair's breadth of drowning along with his mother, and your concern for his welfare is supposed to overwhelm me. Your concern is exclusively political. His mother made an agonizing choice, but Elian Gonzalez is nothing to you but a political icon. He might as well be a fictional character. Juan Gonzalez is his father. You are nothing to him. He doesn't know you exist, and he probably never will.

But, I also know that selling your children into prostitution and modern day versions of slavery is not unheard of in my home country.

It's not unheard of in the U.S. either. I'm familiar with a woman who prostituted her own preteenage daughter here. I know the daugher personally. She lives with the non-abusive stepfather who raised her after her mother bolted, or he lives with her. She's never known her natural father at all as far as I know.

Elian Gonzalez was a six year old boy with a fit father and two grandmothers who wanted him in Cuba. Your politics is utterly inconsequential by comparison.

I know you said that children are property to be disposed of as the parent wishes, so we may just have to disagree on that point.

No, I explained what I meant by "property". The word denotes a proper responsibility, a right respected within the bounds of propriety. Husbands and wives are also one another's property in this sense, taken "to have and to hold". This "property" has nothing to do with disposing of anything, and it has never been an unlimited right, but the presumption is that a parent cares more about his child than someone motiviated by politics, someone like you for example.