Good post, Christopher, as usual for you.
We agree on so much that we can distill our disagreement to only the Elian raid.
Obviously, I wasn't in on the intel used by DOJ or the tactics development by the hit team. But, from what I knew, and now am being told, there was a much better way for the raid to be handled, IMO. Imagine this scenario:
- A team of 15 or more agents in combat gear post themselves outside the house, making themselves very visible
- Two female uniformed agents (with vests under their everyday uniforms) knock on the door
- If they are not admitted to the house, inform the occupants that entry will be made by force
Given all that transpired up to the raid, I think it was pretty clear that the kid would have been handed over peacefully. Armed thugs in the crowd or not, the likelihood of anyone taking on those storm troopers is pretty slim. Was there a risk? Probably. But not an overwhelming risk; risk is part of their job. Cops making traffic stops also take a risk, and don't make such a big deal of it. These days, it seems that SWAT teams are used for everything from terrorist hostage rescues to issuing parking tickets. For sure, a SWAT team reduces risk for the law enforcement team, just as they did against unarmed Jews in Nazi Germany. There are times when such a show of force is needed, and times when it is not. I'm of the opinion that Janet Renal & Co. wanted to terrorize, and to demonstrate what happens to those who refuse to prostrate themselves before the royal government.
I seriously doubt that the family was breaking any law. Except the decree of Her Majesty Janet Renal, that is. The family had a housefull of lawyers with them, advising them. There were no arrests or even charges, except for that heinous felon, Elian.
The matter of The Kid's custody was a matter of capricious royal decisions, first one way, then another. Renal et al wouldn't dare allow the situation to go before a court of law, because the court might not accept her (and Klinton's) divine right to make the decrees she made.
The Warrant. First and foremost, NO WARRANT WAS REQUIRED. They went to a low level on-duty-for-the-weekend magistrate, at the last moment, almost as an afterthought, for the purpose of appearances. Sort of a "we'll have to tell the media something." The warrant, from what I've heard, would have been thrown out in any court where it was challenged. (I'm no lawyer, so this is just what I choose to believe). The flimsiness of the basis for the warrant is why, IMO, it took almost 24 hours for DOJ to bother to mention the existance of the warrant. [The other explanation for that delay would be even worse -- Her Majesty Renal wanted to let her critics run with the idea that there was no warrant, and then chop them off at the knees; that is to say, she wanted to exploit the situation for political purposes.] Again, from what I've read and heard, the warrant was based on hearsay and exaggerated claims, and the purpose (to arrest a child) was misstated to indicate Elian was an illegal alien when in fact no Cuban who has applied for asylum is an illegal, as determined by a judge of the National Government. But, what makes all this moot is that NO WARRANT IS NEEDED BY THE INS.
The photographer. Everybody who thinks the INS "allowed" that photographer to be in the house, raise your hands. My hand is being held high. (makes it hard to type, though <g>). An argument could be made that the photog. caught the storm troopers by surprise, and that he was in the house thanks to the quick thinking of the family to invite him in through a window. I disagee. I think his presence was much more sinister, in that the invaders wanted to demonstrate the insurmountable power of the government, and to make it clear to everybody that any resistance to the forces of the National Government is worse than futile, it is suicidal. IMO, that photo, in conjunction with the tape of the Waco fire, is exactly what the DOJ wants as their image. "Don't mess with us," it says, loud and clear.
But, opinions are only opinions. I found the gestapo-like raid a huge affront to my sense of values, and like Waco and Ruby Ridge, an inexcusable demonstration of the danger involved in disagreeing with our National Government.
jim |
