From: "Tanj" 

They have tested this.  What do you imagine the last 2 weeks have demonstrated?

If you have been observing this and were in any doubt that the Miami group
had no intention of yielding the boy short of force, you simply have not
been paying attention.

"Bill Mattox"  wrote in message
news:3903ba7d$1{at}w3.nls.net...
> Nor was there evidence to the contrary. It would have been much safer --
and
> likely far less tramatic to the child -- had they first tested this.
>
> BTW, when Castro removes Elian from the custody of his father in order to
> have his will with him, will you also consider that to be kidnapping? (The
> process may already be in play insofar as Greg Craig gave a classically
> Clintonesque response to a direct query today asking if Cuban officials
are
> in the house with him, responding "I don't think... right now.").
>
> (Also, which court order are you referring? So far, none of the advocates
> for Clinton's raid are making this arguement.)
>
> "Richard Hong"  wrote in message
> news:3903b73f{at}w3.nls.net...
> > >> Why did they have to obtain him at all? The hearing is
in less than
two
> > weeks and the family has agreed to agree by any legitimate court orders.
> >
> > Bill,
> >
> > There is no evidence that they would regard any court order as
> "legitimate"
> > which didn't go in their favor.  They showed their bad faith by
> disregarding
> > the *existing* legitimate court order sustaining custody for the father.
> >
> > Why not wait two weeks?  Hell, then I guess anyone should be able to
> kidnap
> > a child as long as it's for less than two weeks?
> >
> > Rich
> >
> >
> >
>
>

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