Elian

At least one Republican has some guts.

THE RAID IN MIAMI

Sen. Mack (R-FL), U.S. Senate, April 26, 2000

Mr. President, in the early morning hours of Holy Saturday, a

little piece of America died. America's shining beacon of freedom

faded in the Florida sky as many of us grieved over the

astounding actions of the United States Government. This

administration betrayed America's past and joined history's

inglorious list of governments that have chosen to use excessive

force against its own law-abiding citizens.

Our founding fathers believed in a Government of, for, and by,

the people, a Government designed to serve and benefit the

people, not to serve and benefit the needs of Government, and

certainly not to substitute brute force for the rule of law.

These are reminiscent of the tactics used by tyrants and despots.

The decisions by this administration that led to the events of

last Saturday will be remembered as a day of shame in our

American history.

My comments today are not directed toward the law enforcement

officers who carried out the operation; I understand they are

charged with a duty and must follow the directives of the

Attorney General and the President of the United States. My

comments today are not directed at the ultimate disposition of

Elian's residency or custody, and they are not intended to be

partisan or political, but they do go directly to the heart of

who we are as a Nation and what we expect of our Government.

As most people know, the Elian Gonzalez matter is pending in

Federal court. Just last Wednesday, the Eleventh Circuit Court of

Appeals ordered that Elian Gonzalez must remain in the United

States during the review of his Federal court case. The opinion

of the court suggests the INS and the Department of Justice were

wrong in not granting Elian an asylum hearing. In the final

footnote of the opinion, the court encouraged the parties to

avail themselves voluntarily of the Eleventh Circuit's mediation

services. The court believed that mediation was an appropriate

avenue to resolve this heart gripping situation.

The Attorney General did not listen to the court. She was

obsessed with reuniting Elian with his father at any cost.

Perhaps she would have been wise to listen to the words of Daniel

Webster: 'Liberty exists in proportion to wholesome restraint.'

Perhaps she should have listened to her own words: 'I'm trying to

work through an extraordinary human tragedy. And the importance

of working through it is that we do so in good faith, without

violence, without having to cause further disruption to the

little boy.' This statement was made nine days before the raid.

The night before the raid, mediation between the Department of

Justice, the Miami family and Juan Mogul Gonzalez had gone on

all night and into the wee hours of Saturday morning. Even as the

negotiations continued on the telephone with all parties, agents

of the administration dressed in fatigues and masks exploded into

the home of Lazro Gonzalez with machine guns drawn--and one

machine gun that was pointed dramatically in the face of a

screaming child.

The Government held all the power, and the Government used

intimidation to force a family, a loving caring family, into a

corner. Remember this is the family originally selected by the

Attorney General to care for Elian.

The administration offered ultimatums when fair mediation was

needed. This administration resorted to the power of a machine

gun to intimidate an American family. What possible benefit could

come from this act?

Tactics such as these deserve a full explanation.

Why would the Department of Justice stage a raid when mediator

Aaron Podhurst stated that a deal between the parties was

'minutes to an hour away'? Why would they be so impatient with a

solution so near? The Attorney General said that they had a

window during which to conduct the raid of Saturday through

Monday. Why could they not have waited for negotiations to play

out?

What credible information existed to suggest this level of force

needed to be used?

Another question that deserves fuller explanation speaks to the

impact of the raid on the boy. Wouldn't any psychologist or

psychiatrist who actually examined the child say this action

would further traumatize the boy? But sadly, the INS team of

experts never did examine the boy to make an informed evaluation.

How could such tactics possibly be in the best interests of a

child who has suffered so much? What right did this

administration have to add this trauma to the terrible loss Elian

has already suffered? And why did he have to suffer at the hands

of the people who are supposed to defend the rule of law, the

INS, the DOJ, and the President of the United States.

Let's think for a moment about the decision the father and the

Justice Department made in putting Elian's life at risk with the

plans for the predawn raid. I have never questioned the father's

love for the boy, but I cannot imagine any father would choose to

put his son's life at risk a second time. But it is not an

unloving father who put his son in harm's way-the father is as

much a victim as Elian in many ways. The father had a simple

choice: travel to a safe house in Miami and have Elian

voluntarily transferred into his custody or insist on remaining

in Washington and have the U.S. government seize his son in a

violent, dangerous raid. Just as it wasn't the father's decision

not to come to his boy's side for the first four months of this

ordeal, it was not his decision to remain in Washington, forcing

a raid at gunpoint. Castro would not allow the father to travel

then and he would not allow him to travel last weekend.

President Clinton promised my colleague Senator Graham that Elian

would not be seized in the middle of the night, and now we must

ask again, why did he promise one thing and yet do another?

Elian deserves access to all of his legal options, Elian deserves

an asylum hearing, and he deserves the protection of U.S. law.

Yet that is for another day. The use of force must be dealt with

today. Does the end justify the means? Will these means ever be

justified?

There have been accusations of playing politics with this issue.

But perhaps we ought to recognize what several of the Attorney

General's long-time supporters have said. The four mediators from

Miami that were involved in the negotiations with Janet Reno have

clearly challenged the administration's characterization of the

events of last Saturday. They said they were close to an

agreement and felt confident a peaceful solution could have been

reached.

We cannot simply sweep these issues away and dispense of them in

the name of politics. This is a long, sad story and I'm sure many

would wish it would simply fade away. But if we accept and

commend the actions of our government for acting hastily in

choosing excessive force over peaceful mediation, we have

traveled down a very troubling road. We dare not condone such use

of force to settle legal disputes. This strikes at the very heart

of the balance of power and the integrity of our judicial

process.

This child and no child should face the intimidation and trauma

of an automatic weapon in his face--especially when perpetrated

by the American government--a government that has always stood

for freedom and human rights throughout the world. As a father

and grandfather, I am heartbroken for the frightened, vulnerable

child in that photograph. My hope is that no other administration

official utter the words, 'I am proud of what we did' and instead

express regret and sorrow for the trauma and pain suffered by the

entire Gonzalez family.

What happened saddens me as an American, a father, and a Senator.

Mr. President, last Saturday morning, a little bit of America

died in that raid and I hope we never again dim the light of

freedom for those who look to us for hope. I yield the floor.

Published in the May. 1, 2000 issue of The Washington Weekly

Now Free Access to All Stories at http://www.federal.com