You can’t escape the disturbing photos. From their inception early Saturday morning, they inundated every conceivable corner of the media, beginning first with television, then traveling onto the Internet, and ending finally on the front pages of newspapers and magazines throughout the country and the world.
The images depict a frightened young boy, taken from his Miami relatives as the sun rose on another Florida morning. A squad of heavily armed federal agents, firing pepper spray and using a battering ram to get beyond gates surrounding the house where he stayed, entered the home to whisk young Elian away to meet his father. Hardly a positive image.
It is a picture, however, that does conjure heated emotions on both sides of the battle over Elian. On the one hand, protesters, outraged at the forceful siege, flung rocks at the van that carried the child from his family’s home. Mere hours later they held signs with the frightened boy’s image and questioned with captions and words the actions of the U.S. government.
But it is also a picture that tells a different tale, one that reiterates the efficacy of the U.S. Constitution. The other message accompanying the snapshot, though unwritten, reinforces the notion that our government can and will use force to uphold the law. The image of agents using arms and aggression to rescue Elian fortifies the fact that Attorney General Janet Reno and her team were, indeed, exercising and enforcing the full extent of U.S. law.
For five tiring months, Elian’s Miami relatives dodged this law, playing not by the rules but rather on public opinion. They relied on both the words of prominent Hispanics and the work of the media to build a case to keep the boy in their custody. As negotiations stalled with federal agents, the protests in front of their Miami home turned into a street circus and rumors mounted of defensive measures that protesters would take should the Feds use force to apprehend Elian.
Who, then, will argue that the early- morning invasion decreased the likelihood of injury to both federal agents and protesters? Who, then, can uphold that the agents did not need to arm themselves, for fear they could be “hurt,” as Elian’s cousin Marisleysis had warned? Who, then, will question that in the face of such circumstances, the government’s forceful raid was not a necessity?
Those brandishing Elian’s picture and shouting expletives on Saturday morning probably would. Those who declined to go to work this past Tuesday, in protest of the raid, might. And those who vilified Reno for her choice of actions would undoubtedly raise such questions.
There is only one answer: that all stories have two sides. In the case of last Saturday’s raid, it proves, rather, a tale of two images. While most people will certainly remember the picture of an alarmed Elian when they recall the occasion, what they will soon forget is that a mere few hours later, the young boy was photographed smiling in the arms of his father. Reunited at last with his dad, Elian showed signs of a promising future.
Thus, we must understand and defend the choices that Reno made to safely take Elian from the home of his Miami relatives. Braving harsh criticism that will no doubt follow for months to come, she and others used the force — and they did so justifiably.
