1-) I live in Brazil.

2-) In fact, many Americans are well liked here. There is the habit among the middle classes of bashing the United States, but it´s more a discourse than anything else. I once saw an American(That spoke a perfect Portuguese) that was very well respected.

3-) Lula has the bad habit of exaggerating when he talks about his poor roots, but I don´t think that he hates the US.

4-) I find this episode outrageous, and I´m tired of our Judiciary. The Judiciary, that invents law, that´s the problem. The Chief Justice of the current Supreme Court would be under arrest in the US.

5-) Yes, if you make a search in Portuguese about Sean will see a majority of blog posts SUPPORTING David Goldman.

I swear you make me want to throw up. At least you acknowledge that you're mixing apples and oranges.

The kidnappers that the boy has been living with the last couple of years are very wealthy and connected. The Brazilian Supreme Court is practicing empathy as much as Dick Cheney practiced “compassionate conservatism” when he locked up the detainees in Gitmo (many of whom ARE innocent), threw away the key and instituted the return to the barbaric act of torture.

If you're so convinced that conservatives believe in following the law, then I need point you no further than the conservatives' trashing of the Constitution, domestic and international law to do what they wanted. And lied to the US public.

Sean's father, as far as I can tell, is loving and he deserves to be with his son, who was kidnapped from him. It doesn't matter if the kidnapping was done one day ago or ten years ago. You seem to use the passage of time as a reason why we should not obey the law and treaties. When in fact this case has been going on for years. Are you saying that is the solution to everything? That if the criminals obstruct and throw up roadblocks to justice that they will always win out if they just wait long enough?

There is irony on both sides…almost sounds like common ground to me.

Let me get this straight.

From my comment concerning the irony of the left complaining about an empathic Supreme Court bending established law (in the midst of the Sotomayor controversy),
your retort is to throw up Elian Gonzales?

How was Elian relevant to Supreme Court exercising “compassion” or “empathy” to arrive at a decision they wanted rather than the one outlined by settled law?

Yes, there were some Cuban American republicans who were upset with Janet Reno, her decision and her methods, but it has absolutely nothing to do with the salient point I was making.

Come on people, this shouldn’t be that hard.

Elian Gonzalez

There are even some theories that this was one of the reasons that Gore lost Florida in 2000.

Just to refresh:
- Elian kidnapped by his mother from Cuba (I'm not much of a Cuba fan, Elian's kidnapping is a fact, don't bother calling me a communist, leftist, whatever other label you'd like to throw around)
- Elian's mother dies, relatives in Florida want to keep him, his father wants him back in Cuba
- Clinton administration upholds the rule of law by ordering Elian returned to his father, which he was.
- Many conservatives in Miami furious that no exception was made in Elian's case.

So conservatives such as jwest claim that they'd want the rule of law enforced in this case but not for Elian…interesting.

Wow, when leftists miss a point, they miss it by a mile.

OK, let me walk you through this one. A Brazilian national marries a brutish American, they have a child and after trying to make the marriage work, the battered woman escapes with her child back to the loving arms of her family in Brazil. She meets a Brazilian man who naturally treats her and the child wonderfully. All is happy until she dies during childbirth.

Now, the evil American appears and wants “his” child back. Realistically, the boy has only known his Brazilian father and family. What crueler deed could be done to this child than to rip him from his loving family’s arms directly after the death of his mother, to send him with a man he does not know to a country he is a stranger in?

Here comes the point – Try not to miss it this time.

The scenario above may not be the true story, but it’s the perspective of the Brazilian Supreme Court. Compassion (empathy) on their part would demand that the best interests of the child would best be served by leaving the boy in his loving home and familiar surroundings.

The law, however, demands the boy go with his biological father.

Conservatives would argue that the law should be followed. Leftists would (and do in a number of cases) argue that the Justices should use empathy, ignore the law and rule the way their hearts tell them.

The irony is that now a flaming leftist (Dorian), who would argue night and day that activist judges on our Supreme Court are a good and necessary thing, is crying about how unjust a ruling like this is.

Get it?

Oh puhleeze. Sean is an American citizen who was kidnapped, taken to another country and is being kept away from his family- his father (as you know his mother is dead).

Please tell me what is compassionate (your word) in that.

Of course the Republicans who ran as “compassionate conservatives” during the 2000 election went on to torture people, imprison people without trial, trample the US Constitution, etc. So perhaps a better question would be, “How do you define compassionate?”

If you had children who were kidnapped, taken to another country and that other country would not return them to you, then I would hope that you, as a parent, would want your children back. But perhaps not.

However, civilized nations–and Brazil claims to be one—should be able to recognize, acknowledge and reciprocate to the fact that changes are being made, albeit slowly.

Moreover, kidnapping of an innocent child should not be compared to torture of enemy combatants.

Well, it doesn't appear that this is going to change anytime soon according to the latest USA Today/Gallup Poll:

By more than 2-1, those surveyed say Guantanamo shouldn't be closed. By more than 3-1, they oppose moving some of the accused terrorists housed there to prisons in their own states.

An activist Supreme Court ignores established law to issue a ruling that produces the outcome they want for compassionate reasons and leftists complain about it.

Am I the only one who finds this incredibly ironic?

“Brazil needs to define itself as either a nation of laws or a nation that harbors and protects child abductors,” said Bernard Aronson, a former United States assistant secretary of state for Latin America who is assisting Mr. Goldman.

I got a sick feeling in my stomach — not because what Aronson said is not absolutely correct and true, but because a statement like that, calling for another country to follow the rule of law, carries SO much less force today than it did eight years ago.

The ripples of harm caused to every aspect of our country's national interests because of the Bush administration's policies for the past eight years continue to spread out. It's going to be affecting us for decades upon decades to come.

It's truly horrifying.

I realize that we may not be dealing “from a position of strength” because of past actions by previous adminitsrations.

But perhaps, the present administration, or the future Brazilian administration might have better suceess.

I can’t understand what you are complaining about.

The Hague Abduction Convention is a living document. Apparently, the Supreme Court of Brazil has Justices who have a wealth of Latina experiences to draw on so that they can apply empathy to their decision.

Why follow the law when the desired outcome dictates something different?

Isn’t this type of decision exactly what the left is advocating for here?