Truly a dark day in our history, but in par with the sordid and shameful Clinton/Reno legacy. It's hard to imagine Bush/Ashcroft betraying a little boy and his dead mother's hopes in such a w

That shortsighted act of betrayal cost the democrats Florida in 2000 and denied Gore the presidency. That alone makes Elian a true patriot, and he should be made an honorary citizen.

Funny how the article fails to mention his dad wanted Elian back with him.

Ali:

And the Poles loved Communism...

Well the article should at least address that point before haranguing US institutions.

As much fun as it is to condemn Clinton and Reno, as the article points out, returning Elian was the will of the majority. We have met the enemy and he is us.

Republicans, the party of family values, except when it's not.

Ali,

I think it is pretty safe to say that anybody reading this knows that fact, given that is was the ONLY, ONLY, ONLY veneer of legality that "afforded" the majority a "moral" fig leaf. Put it this way, had he not had a father in Cuba, this would have not been an issue.

I seem to remember tha the so-called father's name was added to the birth certificate years later, and that he'd shown no interest in the boy until he appeared on Miami television. So please, drop the attempt to pin Democratic Party Family Values on the Republicans. Or at least admit that your concern for ~family values~ only extends to playing "Gotcha"-- finding cases where others fail to live up to their self-imposed standards.

As for public opinion, after months of unrelenting press, television, and other media down to and including Jay Leno, repeating the Democrat/Clinton/Reno party line, what do you expect?

What Harry said.

It is great that emphasis Republicans place so much empahsis the primacy of the family.

What is amazing is how fast that worm turns.

If it had been Elian's father who drowned during the crossing, and his mom was the one who wanted him back, it would have happened post haste.

So to hypocrisy we can add double standards.

Jeff,

Had his dad died bringing him to freedom and his mom wanted to bring him back to Uncle Fidel's Happy Playground of Free Healthcare and Universal Literacy, I think every one of us "family values" types would have had the identical reaction: The boy stays here with his uncle in the land of freedom.

Well, we had to know Harry would prefer Communist dictatorship to foster parents.

Jeff:

Would you send a kid back to Saddam's Iraq?

I don't think Jeff's got a time machine.

Nor a clue about what totalitarianism is like, apparently.

I do know how furious I would be if a government tried to take my son.

You can put all the gloss on it you want, kidnapping is kidnapping.

I'll bet I've spent more time in a totalitarian country than you have.

Given the timing of the raid, in the spring of 2000; the location, South Florida; its effect of estranging many in the South Florida Cuban community from the Clinton-Gore adminstration and the ensuing closeness of the Florida vote seven months later, Elian Gonzalez's legacy may very well be George W. Bush's presidency.

Obviously, that doesn't do anything for Elian, at least until the actuary tables catch up with Fidel a few years down the road, but given what has happened in the world since April of 2000, it's not out of line to say the actions of Janet Reno's Justice Department may have had a profound, albeit uninentional, positive effect on the war on terrorism and the effort to make America safer.

Well Jeff,

then you can appreciate that Castro's government has already stolen the kids of that island from their parents. A quick look at how many children have denounced their parents to the neighborhood committees will show that.

Supporting returning Elian to his father, slave to Castro's government, is no different from supporting the Fugitive Slave Act in my opinion. Cuba is a slave island run by Castro.

Jeff:

No father not monstrously selfish would prefer that his son be with him in a dictatorship than be free in America

And Jeff, you're completely wrong. I for one, and everyone I know who opposed returning Elian to slavery would have felt the same no matter which parent died trying to get him to freedom.

Some of you would apparently believe the Stephen Fetchit routines of slaves protesting that they loved their master and were happy on the plantation. Funny how so many of them tried, and how many Cubans try, to escape.

We also know that many of you, were you convicted and sent to prison, would insist on taking your sons into prison with you. Is it "anti-family values" to oppose imprisoning a son just because the father is in jail and the mother dead?

Note, I'm not disagreeing with anyone about the nature of Cuba.

However, John, other than an accident of birth, Elian's father committed no crime to warrant depriving him of his son.

Do you really think that a tearful mother appearing on TV asking for her baby back wouldn't have made any difference? Human nature suggests strongly otherwise.

Your opinions are all well and good, but at the bottom line, those opinions don't make Elian your son.

Has anyone actually talked to the boy over the last couple years?

Someday, we will hear from Elian. But, as he was in the US for a short time, and was mercilessly paraded around, his memories are likely to be quite stilted. One doubts if he will look back fondly on the storm trooper fingering his automatic.

I am inclined to agree that he should have gone back to his father (a US court would have ruled similarly for almost any American child); however, Janet Reno should have knocked on the front door herself and served the order. The methods she chose were despicable and reminiscent of what happened in Texas. The left apparently loathes force, except when its social agendas are threatened (just look at Pete Stark). And the deaths/imprisonment of tens of thousands of Cubans don't even merit a blink.

Jeff:

He did commit a crime--demanding his son be returned to a totalitarian regime.

Jeff:

Aren't you troubled by the fact that sending him back was (in theory) a lifelong sentence? I might see your point if Cuba agreed he could choose at 18, but he can't now, can he. Custody orders are supposed to provide for care, not enslave a child for life.

OJ:
In your eyes, certainly. But you aren't his dad. And look as you might through the law, I doubt you will find a law that Elian's father broke.

For those who believe in the rule of law, that would seem to be an important consideration.

Jim:
You are right, the Clinton administration handled this with all the spinelessness one would expect.

Jeff:

A minor consideration compared to the Law.

"However, John, other than an accident of birth, Elian's father committed no crime to warrant depriving him of his son."-- Jeff Guinn

Yet you're willing to sentence Elian to life imprisonment and slavery based on that accident of birth.

So someone who is innocent and wrongly convicted of a crime should therefore have their son join them in prison, if they cannot be freed from jail? Or someone convicted of an crime which should not be illegal, under an unConstutitional law, should again have their child with them in prison? Does that make any sense? What kind of father would want that?

Then perhaps you believe that slaves would always want their children to be trapped in slavery alongside them? That families in concentration camps would want their children to remain there, rather than reach freedom. Perhaps that would be a better analogy.

Elian and his father may have committed no crime, but they are in a prison nonetheless. That happens, you know.

"And look as you might through the law, I doubt you will find a law that Elian's father broke."-- Jeff Guinn

Once again confirming my belief that those who favored returning Elian would also have favored returning slaves under the Fugitive Slave Act.

The Elian situation did more than anything else to help me understand how the Fugitive Slave Act was passed, and the mindset of those who failed to oppose slavery. The pro-slavery Northerners, the Compromise of 1850, and other things all make sense now. They were supported by men like Jeff Guinn.

John:
I see this a father's love for his son transcending political systems.

Jeff:

And the rest of us see it as you placing your own emotions above the best interests of your son.

Sorry guys, but living his life in Miami, surrounded by raving relatives who would have exploited him for the next few years doesn't sound like a good choice to me.

Presuming he was not going to be persecuted upon returning to his dad, that was the right choice. Get over it. Of course, if we discover otherwise in a few years, then shoot his dad.

Jeff/Jim

Have you ever heard of a child refugee from the Soviet bloc or Southeast Asia or Nazi Europe who complained because he wasn't sent back to his family?

Complained? I know of quite a few who returned.

A book I recommended to Orrin, Haynes's "Heroes Behind Barbed Wire," has examples of both.

It seems the height of emotionalism to write nearly 2 dozen posts blasting Clinton/Reno without mentioning that Bush II follows the same ritualistic policy -- set one foot on free soil and you're free; but if we intercept you on the water, you're dead meat.

Elian, poor tot, was caught between two groups, neither one of which gave a damn about him.

Harry, I suspect that many, probably most, members of both groups gave quite a bit of a damn about Elian, and wanted to do what was best for the child.

The ones who wanted to return him to bondage were sadly mistaken, though.

Harry:

Seriously, this was not about who gave a damn or who really got into the poor kid's little soul. John is right, we have no basis for condemning any of his family on the emotional commitment level, even if we do have a basis for deciding who was more credible. This was not a call for a six year old to make. In the end, people like Jeff voted for ten years of parental love and everybody else voted for 50 of adult freedom.

You are the scientist. You tell me who was more rational.

"Sorry guys, but living his life in Miami, surrounded by raving relatives who would have exploited him for the next few years doesn't sound like a good choice to me."

I'd say it's a damn sight better than condemned to live in Cuba.

Harry:

http://www.brothersjudd.com/blog/archives/007284.html

I presume most here are in favor of the rule of law. There is nothing in the law that would allow keeping Elian in the US against his father's wishes anything but kidnapping.

Additionally, most here favor family values over the nanny state. Those of you interposing yourselves between Elian and his father are playing the role of the nanny state.

Sometimes those considerations lead to conclusions you don't like.

That leads to two alternatives. Accept that fact, or put up with a whiff of hypocrisy.

Jeff:

No. Most here favor morality. You, with no morality, favor law.

Meanwhile, if having opposed sending jack-booted thugs to abduct a child and ship him to a totalitarian regime is nannyism--I'm a nanny.

Look - the kid's friends were in Cuba, his father was in Cuba, his life was in Cuba. And as long as they weren't going to imprison Elian (which even Castro wouldn't do), then he wasn't going to live in the Gulag, OK.

Do any of you remember the charade when his cousins gave a Potemkin press conference? You want him growing up with that?

So he doesn't see Mickey again? Big deal. He is with his living parent, who said he wanted him.

In a few years, Elian will speak. I suspect he will not rant against his 'lost' childhood. Had he grown up here, things would be different. But maybe not better.

jim:

Where would you draw the line? Suppose Otto Frank was captured and demnanded Annb be returned to him? Suppose Elian was gay--Castro is notorious for mistreating gays. Suppose he was a girl and was being returned to a culture with female circumsicion? Suppose he was Afghan and the Taliban demanded him back? Does fatherhood trump all else?

Last time I checked, Jews on the run from Germany were turned back; even Diane Sawyer did not ask Elian about his orientation; and refugees from Aghanistan were not sailing into Miami. The line is drawn where several successive American presidencies have drawn it - right on the sand.

Fatherhood trumps almost any state decision, because parentage does a heckuva lot better than any other -ism, as this blog is wont to point out.

This was an exceptional case, with all the attendant emotional fireworks: a boy lost at sea, a dead mother, politics extrodinaire, and the wackiness of Janet Reno thrown in. Would all you ranters have felt better if the father had retained Roy Black and won from the get-go? That is the American way, after all.

Take an advil and a deep breath - and then make plans to go see Elian when Castro dies or is hastened along.

Okay, as long as we're clear that you would turn back escaping Jewish children. There's no basis for agreement no matter how much we argue.

I have no particular position on Elian. I give just this much of a damn about him -- if I were responsible for him, I'd try to make whatever decision I had to make based on his interests and not some political program I was flogging.

If anybody in the Elian debate could have scored the political points they wanted to score by doing the exact opposite of what they did do, I'm persuaded that's what they'd have done.

I'm just pointing out that people who have the God's Truth about everything, when it gets down to cases, follow their own dictates. Just like me.

Your response is a non sequitor: Elian did not have a yellow star on his shirt and did not have the furnace in his future.

I would have opened the borders to any and all in 1939, but FDR could (would) never have. No one accepted Jewish refugees in the late 30s, which is all I was trying to say.

Perhaps Bush will do something about Castro in the next 4 years. Certainly the time has come. BTW, Taranto wrote about the child abuse Elian must have endured in listening to the jefe give a 2-hour speech to the elementary school. To have spared him that, I would have kept him here.

Harry:

You're consistently pro-Communist and think he should have been sent back.

I'm pro-family, but think Freedom more important.

OJ:
Those Jewish children you are talking about. Are their parents demanding their return? Without knowing that, it is hard to see how that is relevant here.

Yes, Hitler would have told us they were, just as Castro told us Elian's Dad was, despite all evidence to the contrary.

I didn't say he should have been sent back. I said I have no opinion about that.

But if you don't think he should have been sent back, then you're not pro-family.

Actually, I think Elian's dad himself had something to say on the matter. And I expect it was much different from the parents of the Jewish children.

Making your comparison not particularly apt.

Jeff:

You are a dupe.

Harry:

True. Freedom is more important than family. The bravest parents going were the European Jews who got their kids out.

OJ:
You know factually that Elian's father lied?

In your opinion, freedom is more important than family. Unfortunately, true freedom allows someone else the freedom to decide differently.

Jeff:

Yes, we know factually that his father was forced to lie and that he well aware of the mother's intent to flee Cuba with Elian. We also know that this is how totalitarian regimes always behave and that there are always Western dupes who think the regime has popular support. Remember all the Iraqis after Baghdad fell, finding reporters to tell them why they'd lied?

And if the mother had survived and the boy had drowned, we'd have nothing to talk about, eh?

Just another life wasted.

An interesting question: How much risk will you expose your child to on the chance that he'll live a better life somewhere else?

I don't have an answer to that one, either.

But this series confirms my belief that both sides were out to score political points and the welfare of little boys was not an issue for them.

Harry:

Most of our forebears risked just as much getting here. Luckily the Feds weren't there to turn them back.

I guess I missed those facts. What are they?