On Oct 2, 9:25 am, CL <flot...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> chuckers wrote:
> > It has been pointed out that even if Japan had signed the Hague
> > Convetion on child abduction, it may not have applied in this case.
> > Some layman's interpretation says that children were not taken from
> > their "habitual residence" but being returned to it as they have
> > spent most of their lives growing up in Japan.
>
> The Japanese counteroffensive has begun.  Page 38 of this morning's
> Asahi describes the case as the Japanese kids being safely returned to
> Japan and the American kidnapper following the mother back to try again.
>
> Also, the article says he's being charged with trafficking in children,
> which is the catch-all for hairball prosecutors without any other leg to
> stand on.  The lie has worked before, so they're going for it again.
>
> --
> CL

We don't get a paper anymore so I rely on the intrarweb thingy.  Is
the article
similar to this:

http://www.asahi.com/national/update/1002/TKY200910010490.html

I have read it a couple of time and it *seems* like a fairly well
balanced article.
Some of the other articles in some other papers, not so much.

At any rate, this is a HUGE can of worms and a lot of crappy things
were done on both sides.  "Won't someone think of the children?"