Court Administration
The Elian Gonzales Case

W   
ith the kid now safely out of the way (4-23-00), this matter will now be concluded along the lines of standard statist principles. Namely,

The Individual is the Property of the State

Although the enterprise will drag out for perhaps months ... the outcome is all but inevitable. This kid goes back to his father and Cuba Castro, the true owner of the given individual. Despite explicit statements in the Constitution and those implicit throughout the history of the United States to the contrary, this will occur with the full acknowledgement and complicity of American jurisprudence.

Why?

Let's gather some undeniable relevant facts to start off.

  • The kid doesn't know what he wants and cannot function intellectually on his own behalf.
  • If the mother was alive, the kid would not be sent back.
  • The reason that the kid was in the water in the first place was the mother's desire to escape from Castro's dictatorship.
  • When returned to Cuba, the kid will be the property of the state, i.e. Castro ... not his father.
  • Castro will take a special interest in the boy, i.e. he will be forced into the "unnatural" communist mold by whatever means deemed necessary by Castro.
  • The intent of the US Constitution is the antithesis of the Cuban one.
  • If the father was not genetically linked to the kid ... he could not claim him.
  • The reasons for Elian's parents separation, his relationship with his father, whether his father is a good parent or not, whether his Miami relatives are better for him and all such personal details are irrelevant at the level of national policy (Washington).
  • Castro will get a boost out of winning which will discourage dissent within Cuba since the formal position of the US will then be pro-Castro, i.e. dictatorship.
  • The problem here that the Supreme Court will be required to wrestle with, I have touched on before. It is the conflict between the spirit of the law and the letter of the law.

    In this particular instance it would be better to speak in terms of abstractions and concretes ... abstract meaning the most general principles involved and concrete being the specific case.

    It is the specific case which reveals inconsistency in the corpus of abstract rules upon which a culture or civilization is based. When such are found, the case is resolved by being sent up the chain of command to those responsible for interpreting the "corpus of abstractions" ... in our case ... the Preamble to the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence.

    However, in the Elian case, no theoretical inconsistency has been identified. The abstract principle which initiated the involvement of "the highest reaches of government" has been "They refused to obey the law", i.e. the federal interpretation of the letter of the law. The unstated premise for intervention is the familiar "If they are not forced to obey the law, our civilization will crumble.".

    This call for obedience is used as a mask to cover over the fact that a true inconsistency exists of a different nature ... requiring the full participation of the Supreme Court. Thus, force was used to effect compliance with the letter of the law while the real inconsistency (understood by all at least implicitly) was swept aside.

    This police action was performed unnecessarily for reasons of
    Ignorance ... those responsible (a female) are not qualified to hold a position of authority wherein force (the masculine prerogative) is the subject of that authority ... and/or
    Evil - the intent to move society further along the road toward a full police state.

    What inconsistency might that be?

    The inconsistency here (to be interpreted in the light of the former documents) is somewhat complex. It involves

  • The rights of the dead ... specifically the intent of the dead mother.
  • Whether the intentions of the dead are to be extended to the child.
  • Whether restoration of the child to the father is a defacto restoration of the child to Castro and therefore to enslavement.
  • The good of the child as he is now ... versus ... as he will be in the future.
  • Elian exists in a legal twilight zone unexplored by constitutional reflection. No matter what laws one may pass, they will not standup under intense examination of minutiae. Nor can we expect them to ... for to do so is to expect omniscience on the part of the legislature. This is the cause of and justification for the Supreme Court's existence.

    The proper handling of the case would have been to make it publicly known that no statute actually covers this situation and that the matter would have to be passed up the the highest court. Then ... expedite that recourse while leaving the boy in the hands of his Miami relatives.

    On the failure of the supreme court

    When the matter finally is laid on the doorstep of the Supreme Court they may pass on it ... simply abdicate responsibility. For it will be presented to them as "fait accompli" ... the boy is now in the hands of the father and would have to be wrested away from him by yet another act of violence.

    Note: This is why the Miami relatives would not give up the boy to Reno. They understood (at least implicitly) that giving him over to "La Castrata" would destroy any chance of a legal resolution in their favor, i.e. one consistent with genuine American foundational principles.
    It is therefore unlikely that the Court will rule in favor of Elian remaining in the custody of the United States. Rather, it is most probable that the court will decline to rule on the issue and the boy will be quietly (if possible) returned to his former slave status against the certain wishes of his mother.
    By taking the boy, Reno has taken upon herself the function of the Supreme Court ... (judge, jury, and executioner) by obviating the possibility of a legal resolution.
    In my opinion the boy should have been granted what he would undoubtedly have been granted had his mother lived ... resident alien status or political asylum. The father could be given the choice of living here or returning to Cuba. If he chose to stay here the local family court would rule on the ensuing custody battle.
    In a declining civilization such as ours, the courts are not prone to courageous decision making and will in general pay only lip service to the the ideals expressed in the early history of America. They tend now to be guided by the expediency of the moment and little else. By handing the boy over to Castro, the court will be in effect saying (even if by abstaining) that the tenet "the individual is the property of the state" is just another opinion ... thus invalidating the fundamental principle of the United States ... thus invalidating its soul.

    In fact, the court is unwilling (in general) to see the abstract nature of human beings. Given any dispute regarding children, genetic relationships are first considered ... not because the child is likely to be treated better by such people but rather because the court sees the individual as a piece of meat ... an object ... a possession, i.e. the property of the state. It does not perceive the abstract psychological nature of man and the fact that that is more important than any physical relationship. It would be a rare judge who did not confirm this view by his rendered decisions.

    On the military action itself

    It is a rare thing to see on TV ... the use of Gestapo tactics on unarmed civilians (on orders from high officials).

    Clinton should not escape blame here.
    He OK'd this raid prior to its execution.

    And the Miami Cubans knew it was coming ... yet no one acquired a gun to offer resistance. And this is probably a good thing for if any shot were fired from the crowd, the "gun monkeys" would have sprayed the crowd with a hail of lead sending dozens to the hospital or morgue. Reno escaped another Waco disaster by luck this time. And I do wish to stress the word luck.

    The bad judgement displayed by this woman continues to be awesome ... embarrassingly inappropriate ... and sickeningly un-American.

    Addendum 04-29-32:
    There is a military tactical error here involving the character of battle. If you wish to defeat an enemy it is important to bring overwhelming force to bear on the enemy. This was done. However, it is also important to control every other aspect of the confrontation. Ideally one bests the opponent in every facet of battle.
    If you do not know the enemies strength or his disposition toward battle, it is best to gradually turn up the "heat" (physical force) to test the opponent's resolve to fight. To fail in this is to court a Pyrrhic victory (Xerxes at Thermopylae or Santa Anna at the Alamo). In this raid any random person in the crowd who wished to do so could have picked off several of the swat team with an automatic weapon. Anyone on a local rooftop could have "headshot" a few goons and could easily have turned the episode into a fullscale Waco disaster. The success of the endeavor hinged on there NOT being ANY armed resistance. It could have easily been undone by a single strong willed character with a death wish.
    Hence, the operation was militarily ill-conceived. In most "lightning raids" the resistance of the enemy is expected. They are caught off guard and overwhelmed (neutralized, i.e. killed). If, in this case, resistance was certain or uncertain, the raid could-should not have been made because the expectation would have been some number of fatalities thus negating the supposed positive value of a successful raid.

    The possible gain was ... returning th boy to his father from a not-so-bad situation.

    The downside was ... the deaths of several people.

    The choice to go is militarily bizarre unless one sees the underlying motive of Reno, i.e. not to "save the children" but rather "to make them obey".

    To any statist, this motive is more important than any number of real or imaginary corpses. Just ask Castro.

    
    
    
    Next Page
    
    
    Google
     
    Web ebtx.com