I'm repeating what I said on Elian2 (Hope that's allowed), because I'm just totally frustrated with they way the issue is being reported. Here are (to me) some very important points not being brought out in the media.

(1) A law enforcement agency is not required to "negotiate" with someone who is breaking the law. If they choose to do so tactically in some situation, fine, but to express outrage when they give up talking and make their move is ridiculous.

(2) Statements that there was no court order are also ridiculous. In addition to the several decisions that supported the INS'legal authority, there was a search warrant to seize the child, which happens to be a court order, which amounted to a finding that the child was being held illegally, and ordered officers to seize the child.

(3) An order specifically ordering L.Gonzalez to surrender the child would almost certainly have been ignored. L.G. would likely have simply gone to prison for contempt, and taken on the martyr role, while the family would still have the child for months on end.

(4) Never spoken by Reno or anyone else, but something I am *sure* was considered, (professional experience): There was certainly a growing risk that the Miami family was going to sneak the child out of the house and hide him, which would have totally thwarted the government and been disastrous. The family would have gone to jail, but they would have just soaked up the "martyr" business and kept this thing going for years.

(5) There is no issue about whether excessive force was used, because no force was used at all, except on Lazaro's door and on a few people who got shoved out of the way. This is well within what is permissible in executing a search warrant, and was clearly necessary. The minimal force used was absolutely lawful.

(6) Carping about officers being "armed" and guns being "drawn" is nonsensical. Law enforcement officers are always armed, and submachine guns have to be "drawn". Have you ever seen a submachine gun holster? You could ask whether SWAT uniforms, equipment, and tactics were overkill, but this is just a style point; it has no bearing on the legality or propriety of the raid. I am inclined to give the benefit of doubt to those who had to execute the raid.

Bottom Line: The raid was legal and nothing was done during the raid that was legally or logically objectionable. There is nothing to "investigate". There is nothing for "hearings" to "look into".