Published Monday, May 8, 2000, in the Miami Herald 

Serious Questions Remain

RENO SHOULD NAME INDEPENDENT INVESTIGATOR

The apparent decision by congressional leaders to abandon plans for public hearings into the forcible removal of Elian Gonzalez from his Little Havana home last month is at best half right.

The good news is that the nation will not be asked to endure the spectacle of committee hearings that have all the decorum of a lynching party. But this should not preclude a thorough investigation into the Clinton administration's handling of the entire matter, not just the raid.

This is not to question the end result -- the reunion of 6-year-old Elian with his father, Juan Miguel Gonzalez. The Herald on this page advocated reuniting Elian with his father once Gonzalez came to the United States. Nor do we doubt Attorney General Janet Reno's unswerving commitment to the law.

But the end may not justify the means and must not obscure larger concerns raised by this heartbreaking case. Among those is the frightening power of the Immigration and Naturalization Service to flout standard legal procedures under the authority of Draconian immigration law.

Who could conduct this review, if not the Congress? The answer lies with Ms. Reno herself. In the aftermath of the Waco disaster, when questions arose about the FBI, Ms. Reno wisely named former U.S. Sen. John Danforth to head an independent investigation. She should have the courage to pursue a similar solution in this case -- and Congress should support her in doing so. The events of April 22 and the trauma that they inflicted on this community -- and possibly that little boy -- cannot be undone. But an objective investigation is the best chance the nation has of putting to rest several questions that arose from it. Among them:

What pressure was Ms. Reno under that caused her to order the raid at a time when highly respected community leaders believed they were near ending the impasse peacefully?

Why did the INS insist on treating the Cuban child as if he had no legal rights here, though he had reached dry land and thus, theoretically, would be able to claim legal status under the Cuban Adjustment Act? Did the Cuban government threaten to abrogate the 1994 agreement and unleash a rafter exodus?

Did Ms. Reno appropriately decide to settle the custody question instead of consenting to it being settled in a Florida family court? Why did she choose to leave the issue to the INS, which is ill-equipped to deal with child-custody cases?

This list is longer. But until answers are received, many Americans will be left with the sense that while the law may have been served, justice wasn't.

Copyright 2000 the Miami Herald.
Republished here with the permission of the Miami Herald. No further republication or redistribution is permitted without the written approval of The Miami Herald.