RENO'S JUSTICE DEPARTMENT SUES TO TERMINATE LOCAL CONTROL OF POLICE

Darlene Hutchinson, Publications Editor for the Law Enforcement Alliance of America (Shield, Winter-Spring 2000, p. 22), writes that "A legal battle is now being waged in U.S. District Court in Columbus, Ohio, pitting the legal weight and limitless financial resources of the U.S. Justice Department against that town's right to control its own police department."

JANET WANTS LOCAL COPS WHO DON'T OBEY CLINTON POLICIES TO RETURN FEDERAL GRANT MONEY

"At stake is no less than the fate of local agencies everywhere to control their own destinies versus an emerging pattern by the Clinton Justice Department aimed at federalizing municipal police departments, not to mention the states-rights concerns and the blurring division between the branches of government. ...

"[S]ince Columbus and the police union have decided not to sign the consent decree, the Department of Justice has filed a lawsuit against the city to recoup all federal grant money awarded over the years. Some would call this extortion.

"Bill Capretta, president of the Capitol City Lodge No. 90 of the Fraternal Order of Police in Columbus, says the lawsuit is the 'latest step in a Justice Department campaign to impose federal (law enforcement) standards on police departments nationwide.' ..."

FEDERAL MONEY ALWAYS HAS STRINGS ATTACHED

"Many have asked how the federal government could threaten to recoup grant money spent years ago by local administrators; what authority do they have to extort the local police? In fact, these powers were vested in DOJ by the 1994 Omnibus Crime Act.... Now in accordance with the authority derived from this act, the federal government has deemed the city of Columbus incapable of correcting such 'wrongdoing.'

"So, essentially, any department which has accepted any federal grant money, and whose actions could be construed as inappropriate by a DOJ official (often a White House appointee), and who won't give in when faced with a 'consent decree,' may have to pay back the millions of federal dollars accepted and spent over the years (which could include everything from COPS grants, to money from 'violence against women' legislation, to victims funding, training money, etc.)."

Family Research Council's Washington Update (4/28/00) reports that "Fidel Castro said that the U.S. agents 'did it well.' Referring to photographs from the operation, Castro said, 'You can see obviously that the people were well-trained.' However, like one true friend to another, amid all of his words of admiration, the master of these kinds of tactics was kind enough to offer Reno some advice for improvement. Castro suggested that U.S. officials erred by allowing photographs of the raid, noting that they should have foreseen that they would be used in 'a war of images.'

"Castro echoed Reno's explanation that U.S. officials used heavy weapons because there might be weapons in or near the house. On the other hand, commentator George Will observed that 40 percent of American households have guns, calling it noteworthy that federal agents managed to hit a house that didn't have any. Doing so would be much easier in Cuba. There gun ownership is illegal, allowing Castro to blather, 'We do it with unarmed people.'"

CASTRO'S DISARMED POPULACE MAKES INTIMIDATION EASIER

John Rice adds from Havana (Washington Times, 4/28/00, p. A14) that "Cuban President Fidel Castro says if his agents had raided a house to retrieve Elian Gonzalez, they would have gone in unarmed. ...