Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/12/84; site mit-hermes.ARPA
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!allegra!mit-eddie!mit-hermes!jpexg
From: jpexg@mit-hermes.ARPA (John Purbrick)
Newsgroups: net.kids,net.legal,net.politics
Subject: Re: ACLU and Parent's Rights (in re Walter Polovchak)
Message-ID: <2496@mit-hermes.ARPA>
Date: Sat, 28-Sep-85 20:02:49 EDT
Article-I.D.: mit-herm.2496
Posted: Sat Sep 28 20:02:49 1985
Date-Received: Mon, 30-Sep-85 01:14:26 EDT
References: <11821@rochester.UUCP> <1679@umcp-cs.UUCP>
Organization: The MIT AI Lab, Cambridge, MA
Lines: 10
Xref: watmath net.kids:2112 net.legal:2401 net.politics:11248

I just read a predictable column by George Will on this case in the Sunday
paper. Yes, Walter Polovchak just turned 18, so the case has become moot:
an adult (except for consumption of alcohol) isn't going to be sent to
Russia. Will took delight in pointing out that the ACLU is on the opposite
side in a similar Maryland case, except that there it's Chile the kid
doesn't want to go back to. He claims that it's OK that justice isn't blind
in the Polovchak case (ie, the Polovchaks could have taken Walter elsewhere
against his will, but the USSR is different) because the USSR wouldn't let 
Walter leave again if he had wanted to after reaching adulthood, and hence
he has to be protected in advance. A valid viewpoint, I suppose, but the 
Russians would be crazy to keep Walter under those circumstances.