When the End Doesn’t Justify Anything : Alvarez Machain: Questions about the kidnaping were buried in drug allegations. And then came the dismissal.

To most observers, the case of Dr. Humberto Alvarez Machain is a monumental international blunder committed by our government. But for Mexicans and other Latinos, it is a grim reminder that the politics of imperialism still permeates relations between the United States and Mexico and that racial insensitivity may emerge from law enforcement institutions in the heat of battle.

The kidnaping of Alvarez Machain from his country by thugs hired by our government to smuggle him into the United States for trial for the murder of DEA agent Enrique Camarena is a shameful affair in modern international relations, particularly between the United States and Mexico. It was a gross violation of international law and treaties and a throwback to the politics of “Manifest Destiny,” the “Big Stick” and the “Monroe Doctrine.” It sent out the message that U.S. government officials still consider Latin America their back yard.

Unfortunately, trust in our government and anti-immigrant and anti-drug lord hysteria helped to justify the violation of the sovereignty of Mexico and the human rights of Alvarez Machain. The massive federal public-relations campaign around the case, coupled with the Supreme Court decision validating the government’s kidnaping of Alvarez Machain, buried the moral and legal objections of many people.

Many accepted the kidnaping and violation of Mexico’s international borders because they were sure Alvarez Machain was guilty. They justified the treatment of Alvarez Machain as necessary for our protection from drug traffic. And those who had gnawing doubts about the case did not protest. With few exceptions, mainly the American Civil Liberties Union, even those of us who understood the constitutional and international implications remained silent because the case involved drug traffic and the torture and murder of a federal agent.

But the stunning dismissal of the charges, the revelation that the United States really had no evidence to justify even taking the case to trial and that the prosecutors had evidence that may have exonerated Alvarez Machain, turned the trust, the silence and gnawing doubts into a feeling of betrayal.

Perhaps the sense of betrayal is a feeling of guilt. After all, the government acts in our name. And most of us turned a deaf ear to the suggestion that a terrible crime had been committed by our government against the people of a neighbor country.

Interestingly, the same thing happened in the Mexican-American community. Many of us fell victims to the hype. But the prosecutor’s decision after the dismissal to turn Alvarez Machain over to the Immigration and Naturalization Service for entering the United States “illegally” turned the sense of betrayal into outrage.

It may very well be that the government agents in charge of the case, stunned by the defeat, were just trying to buy a few hours to put together some legal strategy to prevent Alvarez Machain’s return to Mexico. But the act was at best an insensitive blunder. Many in our community saw the prosecutor’s reference to Alvarez Machain as an “illegal” as a final anti-Mexican insult. “Illegal,” like “wetback,” is a term most Mexicans consider racist. Unfortunately, most Anglo-Americans remain oblivious to this. Witness the debate between Los Angeles mayoral candidates Julian Nava and Tom Houston, in which Houston insists on referring to undocumented workers as “illegals” despite Nava’s protestation that it is dehumanizing.

To our community, the argument that Alvarez Machain was in the United States “illegally,” when in fact he was brought in forcibly by government agents, is not only ridiculous but also reminiscent of arguments used before to dehumanize victims of police misconduct. Not long ago, police officials still argued that undocumented persons could not claim violation of civil rights because they were not legally present in the United States and therefore had no rights to be violated.

Another disturbing aspect of this case is that this type of official action is only directed at Third-World countries. These are not circumstances for which the sovereignty of Britain or France would be violated.

Judge Edward Rafeedie’s courageous decision dismissing the case halted the violation of Alvarez Machain’s human rights. But the larger question remains. Will our government guarantee that it will not allow such acts to be repeated? The principles of fairness and justice demand this.

Our government should recognize that the sovereignty of Mexico was violated. But beyond that, President Clinton should issue policy, and Congress should enact legislation, to prohibit the kidnaping of citizens of other countries by government agents. These are the best guarantees against future violations of international law and racially insensitive acts by our law enforcement institutions.