 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
April 27, 2000
|
ANOTHER POLICE VIEWI also talked to Joseph McNamara, the former police chief of San Jose who is now a fellow at the Hoover Institution at Stanford. He said the bottom line is that the U.S. government put Elian Gonzales’ life in jeopardy without any real justification. "There was no evidence that the family was a threat to the boy, or that the crowds of protestors constituted a threat. Any SWAT-type raid with heavy armament includes the high probability that something unexpected might happen," he said. "The only real danger to the boy came from the action of the government agents who were seizing him. Thank God nobody was hurt, but the potential was there." Mr. McNamara is fascinated by Attorney General Janet Reno’s explanation that she made the decision to use overwhelming force because the negotiations with the family weren’t going well. "Every hostage or hostage-like negotiation includes tense moments when one doubts the other side is operating in good faith and is tempted to kiss it off and go in with guns blazing," he told us. "But when the federal government trains local police in resolving stand-offs, they emphasize patience, keeping the negotiations active and understanding that time is on your side. They should check their own guidelines." WHOSE RULE OF LAW?Two other aspects are worth pondering. The feds began to talk about a forceful seizure of Elian after the 11th Circuit Court of Appeal ruled, in what was viewed as a mild reprimand of the government’s eagerness, that Elian should stay in the United States until the court heard his asylum case May 11, less than two weeks away. And the propensity of federal law enforcement agencies to use overwhelming, virtually military force as the first resort rather than as a backup was once again on display. Federal law enforcement agencies have come to resemble an occupying military force more than peace officers in a free republic. The 11th Circuit had ruled that Elian’s petition for asylum – even though it was obviously put forth under influence from his Miami family – deserved to be heard, and that Elian should stay in the country at least until the May 11 hearing and maybe until an actual decision is rendered. It seems obvious to me that the Clinton administration, which had already decided on getting the boy to his father for whatever reason, was concerned that it might actually lose in court. Could it be that various people figured that if Elian were given to his father his father might at least make him less certain about the idea of seeking asylum – maybe even talk him into dropping the idea – so the Clintonistas wouldn’t be put into the position of having a court reverse a decision they had already made? If so, what does this say about the administration’s vaunted respect for the rule of law as if its entire record in office weren’t testimony to its essential criminality? HOW UNUSUAL IS THIS ANYWAY?"The final irony," Joe McNamara told me, "is that Republicans in Congress, who have been urging the feds to beef up local police to conduct similar overbearing raids in drug cases every day, are shocked deeply shocked." Seeing the actual photographs of the jackbooted federal thug terrorizing a six-year-old boy shocked thousands of Americans – although if Tuesday polls are accurate the shock seems to be wearing off. But, as I detailed in the last chapter of my Ruby Ridge book, terrorizing innocent civilians with paramilitary tactics has become a way of life for all too many federal law enforcement agencies. This militarization of law enforcement is – or should be – an ongoing concern for Americans who desire to live in some semblance of freedom. It illustrates that the empire, in its days of decadence, has become not so much a police state as a military-police state. Agents of the Food and Drug Administration, for heaven’s sake, carry weapons and operate like paramilitary SWAT teams when raiding evil terrorists who give B-12 shots in a clinic. After years of militarization through training and example, the Posse Comitatus Act, which prohibits the military from doing civilian law enforcement (with the Drug War exception, of course) might as well be a dead letter across the board. Almost all local police agencies think and act like military entities these days. Whether predawn raids are carried out by actual military personnel matters very little. If anything, the actual military people might be more competent and less brutal. JANET’S REHABILITATION?One final rant for today. Janet Reno put on her usual "I just had no choice but I shed tears" show. How many more times will people buy it? Apparently, to judge by the fact that she is once again the toast of the Imperial City, at least one more time. Everybody is busy understanding her pain and admiring her ability not to shrink from ordering brutal acts in the name of maintenance of power (and being relieved that it went off smoothly for a change). It’s worth remembering that it was Waco that really earned Janet the admiration of the Imperial City establishment. Before that she was viewed as this odd duck from south Florida who didn’t really fit in. But she was willing to order an attack on those pesky cultists, then take "responsibility" for it in a way that didn’t cost her or anybody in authority anything real – no apologies, no resignations, no disciplinary measures, and blame heaped on the victims. That’s the kind of finessing of genuine accountability the establishment can admire. It tells you everything you need to know about the moral rot at the center of the empire.
Please Support Antiwar.comA contribution of $25 or more gets you a copy of Justin Raimondo's Into the Bosnian Quagmire: The Case Against US Intervention in the Balkans, a 60-page booklet packed with the kind of intellectual ammunition you need to fight the lies being put out by this administration and its allies in Congress. Send contributions to Antiwar.com or
Contribute Via our Secure Server |
