Bush coddles Castro, betrays liberty

[Velociryx]

You win the prize, Dom....and good shot, Sprayber!

-=Vel=-

[Dom Pedro II]

They're lucky the DOJ didn't have them slapped with charges.

I don't think they were lucky not to get slapped with charges... I don't think the DOJ would've done it... simply because the family would've climbed to the top of the tallest tree and started screaming bloody murder, and given the amount of sympathy they got, I think it would've been bad publicity for the DOJ. The public has never really been known for going with what may be legally correct (or intelligent).

[Sprayber]

Originally posted by Velociryx
But no takers on the inconsistency between going in with the ARMY to Iraq because we're so concerned about their long-suffering oppression, and yet, when no risk is involved (taking refugees seeking political asylum--on a rather inventive "boat"--in), we send them home?

I'd really like someone on the other side to take a crack at explaining that inconsistency away....(and good luck!)

-=Vel=-

You don't buy the saving the world for democracy line do you? If that were true, we would be invading half the planet. It has always been about priorites. Cuba is not a threat (or isn't preceived as one). If along the way we liberate some oppressed people while serving our own interests then so much the better. Right or wrong, its a simple matter of fact.

[Meldor]

Originally posted by Velociryx
Meldor, it’s not about finding an excuse for invading Cuba, nor is it about comparing Castro’s sins with those of other leaders, it’s about consistency, pure and simple. IF we believe the latest spin regarding the war in Iraq, then the new reason given for the war was our grave concern for the liberty of the Iraqi people. Per the Shrub’s new pet policy regarding the little d*ck-taters of the world, we went in guns blazing to liberate the Iraqis and end their long years of oppression….

AND YET

When a couple guys from an oppressive land much closer to home make a (rather inventive, actually) bid for freedom, what’s our response?

Send them home.

It’s two-faced. It’s shallow. And, it’s fairly typical of the current administration. Since the guys in the “truck-boat” don’t have anything we want, Fvck ‘em, right?

-=Vel=-

No, we treated the guys in the truck the same as we would have if they had come from any other country no matter the form of government that is in power.

We find Chinese (Communist), Phillipino (Democracy), Indonesian (undecided), and others on freighters bound for the US every day. We find Cubans, Haitians, Columbians, and thers on freighters, rafts, small boats every day. What do we do with all of them no matter where they come from? We return them to their country of origin. Period. That is about as consistant as you can get. If they have not touched US soil, they are not entitled to a hearing to determine the merit of their plight and if they should be granted asylum. If they are found in international waters, then it is a no brainer as the US is obligated to do with them as their government wants. That policy has just been extended right up to our shores. If they make it to US soil, they become eligible for a hearing to determine their status. Some are granted immediate political asylum no matter what (Cubans, Viet Namese, Communist Chinese, ect), others must prove their case.

To try and narrow this policy to a single country (Cuba) and then to try and add in the invasion of other countries for other reasons, is to be disengenous at the least. Show me where Castro or Cuba has done anything near to what Saddam has done, or that they have directly aided or abetted terrorist that have attacked the US (Under the current administration), and then I will except that your arguement has some basis.

[Velociryx]

I don't buy it for a second, Spray, but that's not the point. We didn't have to invade Cuba....all we had to do was let the boat make it to the USA. No risk to us, no cost in American lives....just....bein' consistent.

We could have done that and still maintained our priorities elsewhere. They were coming to US, after all.

-=Vel=-

[Velociryx]

Meldor, a couple of points:

1) Fleeing a land and seeking political asylum is not...IS NOT the same as immigration.

2) The current administration's policy toward the little tinpot dictators of the world is....shall we say....a good bit harsher than it has been in the past (two invasions so far, god-only-knows how many more planned).

3) The President has gone on television broadcast that were seen around the world and announced that the US was perfectly within her rights to do all of the above and more. Put all the dictators on notice, told China not to even try to compete militarily with the US, etc., etc.

Given these, the LEAST we could do is cut some innovative guys a break when they're fleeing from the kinds of oppression that Shrub & Co. claim to be fighting tooth and nail against.

To do less is disingenuous. Completely.

-=Vel=-

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Ned
Was she right to act without a court order while the matter was still pending before the courts?

The only courts competent to rule on the matter (the Federal courts) had already ruled against the Miami family. The state courts have no jurisdiction over immigration issues.

Was she right to invade a private resident with the military?

Given the hysteria in the Miami Cuban community, how exactly do you think it should have been handeld. Anything less than a military style operation (they was Federal Marshals, not the military) would likly have resulted in a riot with people getting killed.

Further, why was the US government taking the side of Fidel Castro and not the side of the boy in this affair?

They did take the side of the boy. The problem with you people is you made it about Castro, when it was always about Elian and his father. The law was absilutely clear, there was no grey area. As Elian's natural father and legal guardian, only he had any say whatesoever in where Elian should live. How would you feel if an uncle took your children away from you?

And let's not forget that two of Elian's male cousins in that house were known criminals, and that the uncle was a man of dubious character. You really believe he boy would be better off living with thugs in the US than his middle class father in Cuba?

[Sprayber]

What happens to a Hatian if he/she sets foot in this country illegally? Now what happens to a Cuban if he/she makes it to Miami? They are already being treated special. Hell why don't we just station the Navy off their coast and invite the whole island to come to America. I'm sure Hatians and Mexicans and Hondurans would be asking what in the hell is so special about Cubans.

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Sprayber
What happens to a Hatian if he/she sets foot in this country illegally? Now what happens to a Cuban if he/she makes it to Miami? They are already being treated special. Hell why don't we just station the Navy off their coast and invite the whole island to come to America. I'm sure Hatians and Mexicans and Hondurans would be asking what in the hell is so special about Cubans.

It's ludicrous hypocrisy in policy, especially since Haitians live in far more dire poverty than Cubans do.

[Sava]

Ned... this is a Bush bash too far for me...

[Dom Pedro II]

It's not a question of threat... its a question of A) perceived threat and B) public interest.


If Bush tomorrow said Castro was a bad man, the next boat full of refugees will be on shore and having somebody ghost write their autobiographies before the wave of media attention has time to dissipate. And it'd be all about these "brave, hopeful people... coming to the land of promise" blah blah bull****. TIME magazine would have the face of the child, smudged with dirt with the title reading Coming to America: One Child's Story. Jay Leno would have the captain of the Coast Guard vessel on and the dashing young man would go on and on about how he wanted to "do the right thing" and about how bad it is in Cuba...

[Velociryx]

It's not about who's poorer, Boris....it's about allowing people who are fleeing from oppressive regiemes that we're suddenly over-eager to "change" (Iraq) to come to this country and escape.

That would be in keeping with the present administration's policy.

Sending them home is not.

-=Vel=-

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Velociryx
But no takers on the inconsistency between going in with the ARMY to Iraq because we're so concerned about their long-suffering oppression, and yet, when no risk is involved (taking refugees seeking political asylum--on a rather inventive "boat"--in), we send them home?

Going in to Iraq with uor army had nothing to do with trying to releive the Iraqi people. It was, officially, about preventing Hussein from keeping his (non-existencet) weapons of mass destruction.

The policy against returning refugees found at sea is designed to save lives. If we let anyone found at sea into the US, that would only encourage more people to take to the sea in boats, rafts, whatever, that smiply aren't capable of making it. Many more people would die in the Florida Straights than do now. Is that want you want, more people to die you heartless bastard?

And since you're all happy too allow open immigration, I assume you'll argue for the US to open the borders to Mexico, China, and India, all of whom would be more than happy to send tens of millions of people here.

Just remember, many Mexicans die in the desert trying to get to the US. It's not as safe as swimming a river into Texas.

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Velociryx
It's not about who's poorer, Boris....it's about allowing people who are fleeing from oppressive regiemes that we're suddenly over-eager to "change" (Iraq) to come to this country and escape.

That would be in keeping with the present administration's policy.

Sending them home is not.

-=Vel=-

Only problem is that Cuban's coming here are vastly economic refugees, not political ones. Cuba's regime isn't nearly as repressive as, say, Saudi Arabia's. Why don't we allow incoming Saudi's instanct citizenship?

[Dom Pedro II]

I don't see how you can make a statement against hypocrisy in policy while defending Bush... THAT is inconsistency.