From: Bill Lucy 

In article <39070082$1{at}w3.nls.net>, billy-m{at}pacbell.net says...
> For all of you folks hell-bent on swallowing Clinton propaganda swill about
> their action being motivated by "the rule of law", as
reported in today's
> WSJ Circuit Judge J.L. Edmondson issued the following:

As it is often, I don't understand your point, Bill. I read the ruling.
Frankly, I agree with the ruling. That in no way changes the custody issue.
Elian is still in the United States, albiet with his father.

It's surprising to me that the DOJ did not work to get a guardian ad litem
for Elian. That would have prevented the misinterpretation that Lazaro was
acting as "Friend of the Court" and not custodian for the child.
But I also think they did not understand the Miami family's desire to keep
this child illegally.

> "In issuing his further injunction, Judge Edmondson acted on the motion of
> lawyers speaking for Elian Gonzalez 'by and through' Lazaro Gonzalez. That
> is, the Miami family still speaks for the boy in the eyes of the 11th
> Circuit."

You should really read the actual ruling, rather than relying on a
newspaper account of it.

> "In yesterday's New York Times, Harvard's Laurence Tribe, a steadfast
> Clinton supporter throughout the impeachment proceedings, said the attorney
> general's action 'strikes at the heart of constitutional government and
> shakes the safeguards of liberty.'

I don't agree to the degree that Professor Tribe does, but I do feel that
the family acted properly against the government on this point, which is
only that Elian had the right to seek asylum.

> Sooo... it looks as though you Clinton/Castro apologists are on increasingly
> shaky ground.

No, they're not. The custody issue is pretty much settled. There is little
likelihood that the Miami family would ever get custody of this child.

--- BBBS/NT v4.01 Flag-5