Editorial. Contacto Magazine. April 23, 2000 (www.contactomagazine.com)
After the federal military assault against a Cuban family to take the boy Elian Gonzalez, whose case is still pending of appeal in a U.S. court, one of the most enthusiastic supporters of the action was the Cuban dictator Fidel Castro, who said this was the first truce between his regime and the
United States in 41 years.
Elian was recovered from the Florida Straits waters on Thanksgiving Day (Nov. 25) by the American fisherman Donato Dalrymple, and taken from Dalrymple's own arms by Feds on Easter (April 22), amid a long legal battle.
Those supporting the reunification between Elian and his father, Juan Miguel Gonzalez, say children belongs with their parents. Those supporting the idea that Elian may remain in the United States say Elian's mother, Elizabeth Brotons, left Cuba to bring the boy to a free country and her last
will must be honored. Elizabeth and 10 other Cubans died in the dangerous waters of the Florida Straits.
It is estimated that more than 55,000 Cubans have died crossing the straits to live in the United States, in different waves of refugees which have brought to America 125,000 people in 1980 and 30,000 in 1994.
But in the case of Elian, a U.S. Court must decide, not Attorney General Janet Reno.
On February 24, 1996, Castro's war planes downed two American civil, unarmed small planes killing three U.S. citizens and one U.S. resident. It happened on international waters, according to the United Nations.
At the time, the Clinton Adminstration did not take any military action against Fidel Castro. Last April 22, what each and every American watched on TV was a military action against a Cuban family in Little Havana, Miami, to violently take a 6-year-old boy, whose case is still pending of appeal
in Atlanta, Ga.
The hearing for that appeal process will take place on May 11. After the hearing, both the INS and the Gonzalez family, depending on the results, have
the right to take the case to the U.S. Supreme Court.
A bitter question arises from the case: Why did the President Bill Clinton not take any military action against Fidel Castro in 1996, and he did support this obvious military action with assault weapons against a poor, immigrant
family in Little Havana?
Other questions come out: Why is the Clinton's attorney Gregory Craig the attorney for the Cuban government and Juan Miguel Gonzalez now? Let's say for the Cuban government because Juan Miguel Gonzalez makes less than $30.00 (yes, thirty dollars) a month as an employee of the Cuban government.
Or is Mr.Craig working voluntarily? Who suggested Mr. Craig for this job and why?
President Clinton owes serious explanations to the American society in regards of these facts. Very serious explanations, not committing perjury as he did during the Lewinsky case.
President Clinton must explain whether there is any deal with the Cuban government in order to avoid that Fidel Castro launches a new exodus this spring, or may be another one in which Castro might be accepting Cuban refugees rioting in a U.S. correctional a few months ago in exchange for the
return of Elian Gonzalez, which will mean big victory for Castro against the United States.
It is curious that the riots by Cuban immates ceased when INS officials visited Cuba to interview Juan Miguel Gonzalez a few months ago.
Instead of preventing a Castro's promoted exodus, President Clinton must prevent more humiliations to the United States with his actions, first with his continuous personal scandals, then with his weakness after the downing of two American civil planes by Castro, and now with this shameful
military action against a family, whose case is in court.
CONTACTO Magazine © 2000 |