I hear what youre saying about BORTAC being used to seize Elian Gonzales.. However that was a very different situation/case.. a Cuban father wanted his son back, and the US Citizen Great Uncle wouldnt give him back.. The mother had essentially abducted him (the father had primary custody) and fled Cuba for the US.. Ultimately the US courts denied Gonzales and his mothers petition for asylum and he was ordered back to Cuba.. The courts and US Marshals service attempted to get the family to release the child to the point of negotiating with them for a couple of days, and the family refused...
Having law enforcement take the child back was really the only option left in the Gonzalez case.. the courts made a decision (albeit a very unpopular one).. the choice to use a tactical team from the border patrol was likely a bad one.. but at the same time Im not so sure that had a pair of US Marshals showed up in sports coats and slacks and demanded that Gonzalez be turned over, that it wouldnt have ended with a barricaded felon situation and a requirement for a "hostage rescue" operation to follow.. ultimately a tactical team of some sort was very likely going to get involved.. the only real question was whose team (BORTAC? USMS SLED? FBI HRT?) and when..
Im no fan of Janet Reno or pretty much anyone that was part of the Clinton administration.. but in this particular case, Im not sure what the better play or better decision would have been or could have been..
FWIW Elian Gonzalez has been incredibly successful in life.. he is an industrial engineer that married his high school sweetheart.. he is also a very rigid communist, a Castro loyalist, and is an elected member of the Cuban parliament.. He also very much blames the US for his mothers decision to abduct him and take him to the US.. he believes that US embargos and sanctions created an economy in Cuba that left her (and other Cubans) in despair, and that the US essentially sells the Cuban people a false bill of goods claiming their life would be better without Communism, then the truth is their life would be better without the US involving itself in Cuban politics..
Oh, you're not wrong. It's just that you left out a couple of salient points:
Federal law was that a Cuban emigre who was stopped "feet wet" went back to Cuba, but if they made it "feet dry", they were to stay in the US.
Of course, his mother made the determination (despite the custody issues) to leave Cuba. Tragically, his mother died while fleeing, so he made it feet dry, and she did not. Again, from a federal perspective, he was to stay in the US, and his family already in the US was ready to keep and support him (now where have I heard the arguments that children should not be "punished" for the illegal actions of their parents?). This made the dispute a Family Custody issue, and as we know, there are NO federal laws with respect to family custody, that issue is firmly controlled by the States. And, in this case, the State of Florida assigned custody to his Uncle, not his Father. The Administration contested that ruling, pulling it into Federal Jurisdiction. And of course, Federal law was clear. But there were diplomatic concerns.
Simple summary: Federal law said he could stay. One parent was deceased, the other not in this country, so State Law assigned custodial rights. Executive action, with "no controlling legal authority" (remember that line?) re-assigned custodial rights, and enforced that action at gunpoint.
No Kings, right? I mean, we don't trump (no pun intended) standing law based on Administration viewpoints, do we?
So the Federal court made the ruling that in this case they could trump the State court... which led to Federal Agents taking custody at gun point. I agree with you that simply showing up and asking nicely probably would have been unsuccessful (I mean, the family had a State court order on which to rely, didn't they?), but perhaps there was some negotiating that could have been done, first?
And we haven't even begun discussing using snipers to shoot through closed doors, or M-88s used to storm a compound when the alleged suspect could have simply been arrested in the open when he was in daily communication with an undercover agent.
My thesis is simply people are now "protesting" actions they supported when "their side" was doing it, and we've been tolerating these actions for years. And the examples of this have not yet been successfully memory holed, though the Information Operation has been in full swing.
Do you want to hear something really funny? Consider the State Governors who are insisting actions enforcing federal laws are "an unconstitutional action of a tyrant" while simultaneously ignoring the Supremecy clause of the Constitution AND failing to have any State Representative or Senator propose a bill changing the federal law that is being enforced.
